Why does Macca hate F16s?

The F16 rule states there is a 6kg min tip weight, now I haven't measured a F16 compliant mast alloy or carbon, but would think that the alloy mast would have a tip weight around 9kg (tornado used to be 10kg tip weight min and they were tapered so pretty small up there plus all the masts I had were carrying around 500g lead)

So the real question is: would you like to take 3kg off the tip of your alloy mast? I sure as hell would!

Macca the statement above sort of puts you in the same frame as our current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, that of making statements without really thinking through what he is stating, for purely point scoring reasons.

You state openly that back yard builders are not capable of making good boats because they don't have the technical facilities to be able to do so. At the moment the backyard boys ( who probably make more F16's than AHPC )make boats to weight and the one company who has bought in production ( AHPC only buys in hulls from another company )knowledge, can't.

Now I put that down to one simple reason, profit margins. AHPC have gone down the route of outsourcing production because it has a higher profit margin, no different to probably 1000's of companies in the world. The downside is by using cheap labour and outsourcing you get less control of production methods.

Anyway I'm not sure why we are having this conversation when the Viper is doing so well in sales, AHPC must be getting pretty pissed by now as the F16 sailors will turn against them, particularly if they continue on with this weight issue. Guys get on with selling ( and hence converting sailors ) F16's to the masses.

my stick carries 3 kg to be compliant...

So you mast tip weight is 3kg before adding correctors?? that makes your mast weigh somewhere around 8-9kg total??? sounds very light...

Now you are the one that is having comprehension issues Wayne, I stated that its not possible for a home builder to build an all carbon boat to the same standard and weight savings that a professional can with the suitable equipment.

I have not at any stage said that a home builder can't build a good boat. I know they can and have seen it done many times, however they will not be able to build a boat that is as optimised as someone who has access to prepreg, nomex and a big angry autoclave... I have also seen boats built this way and I can tell you which one is a better product, lighter, stronger and all round better.

And for you to state that the quality control of the facilities where AHPC build their boats is not as good as a home/small builder clearly shows you have the Gordon Brown disease... I have personally visited both locations where AHPC build hulls and I can say that both companies build a top class product that rates up there with the very best in the world. I presume you haven't visited said factories??? No, didn't think so...

If I remember correctly, most of the F16s at global challenge weighed around 112 KG. My blade rigged for 2 up was 111 KG. That is not far from min weight. I don't think a weight reduction of 4 KG would result in, at least for me, a noticeable performance increase. It is not a logical argument to use the viper's weight of 130 KG as the standard weigh of an F16, then make a general comment that an F16 that weighs 23 KG less would be faster and much expensive. You can spend all you want on prepreg, using an autoclave, carbon mast, carbon beams, ect. On most F16s you can only loose 4-5 KGs before you start having to add it back. Some are at min weight already. So the idea that the class will self destruct when someone builds a min weight boat is ridiculous. Most boats are pretty close to min weight already.

Damn, I knew it!

Now, should we send in the marines to rescue you or Mousad?

So when are you going to put up some of your own money and buy an F16? OR, if you want to have the Super F16, have Marstrom build you a carbon F16 5kg below wt. so you can add weights??

If I recall correctly the AHCP stick was measured as baseline for the rules.. I cant recall tho if the tip weight is the AHCP mast.. But I recall it being very close..

"And I just want to clear something up here: I am not being paid by any manufacturer. Currently I have no contracts with any catamaran manufacturer."

The one key word here is "Currently". So, who are you -trying- to get hired by? If you were to get the F16 mn. wt. raised, do you get a free ride? You should talk Marstrom into building you the $30K Wonder F16, that'll show us how stupid we all are...


WOUTER! Get back in here and straighten Macca out!

hint try SE 70 from SP only needs a 75 degree cure with a post cureno autoclave.. less mess and if you have ever seen me build anything believe me that is a GOOD thing!!

nahh send in the marines to rescue mousad .. but you may need the SAS to rescue the marines!!

<**** comments here around, about cfrp (carbon) as the wonder weapon to save weight. There are many other possibilities to reduce weight without impact on structural integrity.
In my business with save around 10% weight per 20 years (not only better materials, but also better engineering, processes, etc.) and I think there are similar figures for other industries. Small boat industry resists this trend.
I wonder why a Torando could weight 160kg in timber and alu 30 years ago, and why a F16 now should weight 140kg, which is shorter, less wide, has less sail area and is build for lower crew weight.
In my opinion, that is because most classes are either OD, or Formula with is very friendly to the manufacturer (yet that are/can be quite nice boats). The formula 16 is a bit different, because it is more customer friendly (less weight) and this might be the reason, why there is this constant attacking by manufacturer (well by some persons who are paid by...)

Cheers,

Klaus

Macca, never have I said that AHPC makes a poor product, from the one I have seen in the flesh, the cosmetic finish and layout is very good. From reading in the press, it is a fast well made boat and in my view caters for the 2 up light weight market. Great market strategy and will sell plenty of boats. Good on them and long may they sell plenty. Incidently does anybody know of what the latest Viper hull number is, some of you have recieved one of the later ones in Europe recently.

As to visiting their two production facilities, sorry no. The only composite factory I have visited was a top glider manufacturer where the layup men are given a computer calculated amount of foam, glass and epoxy and told to build x component. Nothing left over, nothing wasted and no excess weight. Not sure whether the boat builders do the same.

Macca you really need to talk to AHPC as doing what you are doing in having constant pop shots at the F16 class using the Viper as the case in point, is building up a head of steam against the Viper, In the long term it will not do AHPC much good as far as sales go. Its much better to be a part of a larger market than to try and establish a niche market for your product. Perhaps contact Gregg and Brett and discuss a joint strategy for furthering their long term company aims.

Our "friend" is just another in a long line of detractors who see the F16 as a threat to their own favorite platform.

Engaging him just encourages him.

Stop talking to him.

Lightweight for the F16's, or catsailing as a whole? From putting 365#'s on my own Viper, it handles it quite well.

To go back to the original question.... I have not read any emotions in Macca's (Andrew's) comments (towards the F16 as a class) thus far. They all appear quite sensible, coming from someone who has vast experience in sailing cats and whatever comes with it.

I have been following this forum for about two years now, and frankly, the emotive and insinuating comments I have read have come from so called 'hard core' F16 forum clubbers, and you guys do not make joining your fleet a very appealing proposition (you may actually be quite different in real life....). The example of starting a discussion with this title is just telling....

I AM very interested in buying a F16 (-like) cat and sail it with my wife and kids, including racing. I have been sailing the Cap for three years and love (the quality of) the product. Now that AHPC appears to have established a serieus dealership in Europe, I think it's about time to trade in my Cap (if that's an option).

Oh, and that does not mean I have given up on F18 sailing (before we get that discussion started again).

I am surely stepping on a few toes here, such is life. But I thought it would be useful for some of you to get some 'outside' feedback to the ranting that seems to go on and on here on this forum.

____________
Ad

Heavyweight big boys has gotta be the F20, midweight to big boys F18, lightweight duo ( man and women or dad and rugrat ) F16, solo dad ( when he doesn't have a crew ) F16 and don't forget the A class for the techies, that would be my interpretation of things.

Are they that much quicker?

I've talked to one of the top Tornado sailors in the US about this subject, and they have said that that's not true.

When the carbon masts were starting to be used there was a certain Tornado team looking for a carbon mast, but couldn't get it in time for the regatta. And this was a Tornado regatta, not some regular mixed fleet regatta so there was going to be really good sailors there.

Guess what, the team that was looking for the Carbon mast kicked everybody's butt in varying conditions at that regatta with an ALLOY mast.

Here is another example...

At the last Global Challenge, there was a Viper that had a carbon mast...Guess what, they didn't get in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th place...Well, I can't remember if they got 4th, but they weren't in the top 3.


I'm tired of this debate about if a Carbon mast is better than the Alloy mast, there have been plenty of instances where that is NOT true.

The only thing carbon does significantly better, is save weight...That's it...nothing else...Maybe stiffer.





Mike

From Mamaloe above (4 posts total):

...from so called 'hard core' F16 forum clubbers...

Hey Mamaloe, WE 'hard core' clubbers are the ones who have invested OUR time and OUR money to build the F16 class, only to have some butt like Macca come along and start throwing monkey poo all over the board, and he's never even sailed one at any regatta I've seen.

So, given that you and Macca are guests here, at our party, and neither one of you have invested a single cent to the F16 class, why don't you both just stay on the F18 where you are a member?

Until you buy an F16 (with your -own- money, Macca) you really have no reason, or vote, to bitch. You don't like our rules? Stay on the F18!

Timbo,

You do make it very tempting to join the class, with your attitude I think you should be an official ambassador.

Ok Mike,

If the Carbon mast is no quicker, why allow it?? the cost for a Carbon mast is many times greater than the Alloy ones so why open the door to such outrageous expenses when your class is pitched at non professionals?

And if the reason is that some of the founding boats had carbon masts then thats fine, grandfather those boats/masts and then for the future restrict it to Alloy and keep the cost of entry down to a reasonable level, therefore further enhancing the F16's growth.

Talking to Greg on the weekend. From memory, they had boat 78 and 79 in the factory ready to ship. (could have been 88 and 89???)

I do have to say, the rest of the sailing world spend time removing grams from their boats and you guys don't think 5kg will make much difference. Either they are crazy, or you are kidding yourself.

Why does the F16 class have a min weight if weight does not make much difference. Why not let someone sail an F16 under 100 kg.

If most boats weighed in at 111 to 112, why not set the min weight at 115 and bring those boats up to weight with a bit of lead. Then the heavier moats will be a little closer in weight. The Taipan 4.9 class recognised few boats were being produced under weight, so lifted the min to an achievable target...... it really is not a bad thing.

Carbon mast T is quicker, not only because of the reduced weight but much reduced pitching. This is where the biggest gain came from.

what a lot of bullcrap argument.. very slippery slope!!

lets take that to the extremes.. if a ply boat is as quick why allow foam/glass the grandfather all composite boats and ban all new versions. If a sisal rope boat is no quicker then ban all non-sisal ropes.. .. hell a step further.. if NSW has a speed limit we should ban any car capable of more than that limit.. That line of thinking isn't critically thought out..

would you care to define reasonable level? maybe we should define profit margins inside the class?

Excellent point Stewart,

You need to choose a suitable level of technology and cost, by default the level at the moment is being dictated by the largest selling boat that complies with the class rules. It is an epoxy foam/glass boat with alloy beams and mast. That is working out fine and the class is growing well by attracting new members, Why put that at risk by allowing such freedoms in the rule that permit somebody to build a boat that is quicker than the benchmark class boat and more expensive. I would be pissed off as a current boat owner if someone came to the intergalactics you guys have with a boat that cost twice mine and I was spanked by someone spending $$ rather than wanting to compete in fair and fun racing. Tell me how the class gains from such a situation?

You want a strong class? you need good racing. To get that you need the boats to be as equal as possible, having such wide freedoms in the rule prevents that from happening unless everyone buys/builds boats to the top level available within the rule.

+1

I don't see the point of discussing that here again. Submit a proposal to the GC, get a vote going to amend the rules.

There is a process to change the rules, and it is not who shout the loudest or the most often.

Its a discussion forum, hence the discussion...

and correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't start this thread..

Just a sugestion (and a reasonable one at that), do what you want, it is your class.

I may come to play soon. Possibly next season.

From Macca above: "I would be pissed off as a current boat owner if someone came to the intergalactics you guys have with a boat that cost twice mine and I was spanked by someone spending $$ rather than wanting to compete in fair and fun racing. Tell me how the class gains from such a situation?"

Macca, I don't see this as a realistic threat or a reason to carry weight by bringing the rule up to the heaviest boats. What I do see as a threat to the class is Professional cat racers, non-owners, showing up with free, new, factory boats, brand new sails, brand new everything, and racing against guys who have to work for a living and pay for their own boats.

Perhaps instead of having to show a measurement certificate at the Intergalactics, we should require a Bill of Sale?

How about we go with what some of the mono classes have done and implement an "Owner Driver" rule? Then you wouldn't have to worry about it, would you? You could stay on your free F18 and leave us Clubber hacks alone, right?

Also from Macca's post above: "That is working out fine and the class is growing well by attracting new members..."

Wow, how can that be? What? With our open rules, NOBODY should be buying new -heavy- boats, right? Nobody! What are these idiots thinking?? Don't they know their very lives are at risk if we don't raise the min. wt. to what ever MACCA thinks would work best for him?

Macca, why don't you go over to the A class forum and tell them they could build cheaper boats and grow their class if they would just raise their min. wt too?! What fools they are!

Like I said Timbo, You have my vote as class ambassador.

I'm sorry Andrew, but in my world you don't get to vote, because you have not written a $16,000 check for a boat.

This class is made up of guys who are not professionals, guys who have spent their own money, buying thier own boats and maintaining them. You want a vote? Write the check.

I just heard the A cat guys begging to have you go straighten them out, what are you still doing here? They NEED your valuable input!

I don't follow this. Here in the States what is probably the most widely participated form of racing is motocross. Bikes by different manufactures all fit in a seperate classes in what is basically a formula class, yet all the bikes of that class are very different. Even the same model year to year. I don't remember the rules, but they are not that tight, and are pretty basic. Some are better in certain sections, (call it conditions), than others. That difference in performance can be used to ones advantage, but its always at a cost of something else somewhere else on the track. It should never be strictly sailor vs. sailor. The boat side of things constantly improving forces competitiveness between manufacturers, both in price and quality.


BTW I raced MX for years, never once did I have to have my machine measured. To be fair I do know of guys who had to have bikes torn down because they were whoopin' butt, and displacement of the engine was checked to see if they were cheating. A protest of sorts, but if it was found to be legal, the protestor was liable for paying for the new gaskets.

Again I dont believe the argument.
The original group decided the "box". There was a lot of discussion that went into the material rules.. this is the default..

ok.. with your logic lets get Greg to post his full biz model and profit margins so the other builders can be brought up to speed..
Are you or Greg going to pay Stealth to change their tooling?

You going to pay me to use another method in personal manufacturing? I use the method I use because I find it time effective. So if I go to the methods Greg uses.. I am guessing will add 40 hours to my build.. Want me to work out the bill? I hear Bingle's Aston is for for sale.. Could be the deposit..

Im still waiting on you to tell me the "ultimate" F16 specs including mast..

Macca:

What do you get if Nacra feels comfortable entering the F16 field? Most likely that would not happend until the F16 is global which means being 104 compliant to get the French market. To be 104 compliant means an AHPC weight boat.....Hmmmm.

Nacra would save a lot of time entering the market by acquiring a quality builder like AHPC.

The F16 concept has 2 primary selling points – Light weight and versatility. The heavier small boat concept has been run with very limited success by the big players for a while now.
Where in your twisted logic does having to strap lead to a boat make any racing scenario fairer or better? In a perfect word everything would be equal and then we would not have to race because we would all finish first. If weight is that all important, then all the crews should be the same weight too. And since leverage is tantamount to weight we need to have correctors for height as well. The purchase on the sails needs to adjusted for strength too as then we can all sheet the same. Where do you stop?
AHPC has elected to sell a product laminated overseas and use F18 components. That is their economically driven choice. People have also chosen to purchase the heavier Viper, knowing this full well. To buy into something and then come back and protest the class concept as being somehow flawed after the fact is just wrong in my opinion. This is like buying a cheap house next to an airport and then protesting to have it shut down because you do not like the noise. It may be allowed legally, but that does not make it right.
Macca you take this even a step further as you do not even have an interest in the class from an ownership perspective. You may have a racing background, but many of your other posts definitely lack some basis. The substance, tone (and length) becomes more and more like Wouter each week.


Matt

I smell the makings of a Pay Per View Cage Match here.

Wouter Vs. Jacka! Two men enter, one man leaves!

Thunder dome!

My money's on Wouter, at least he's got some skin in the game...

For the record, I would not support height correctors as suggested in Matt's post above. Believe me, I've tried them all and I found them ineffective.

Seriously - the F16 Class rules are set. The Class may modify them over time but I can almost guarantee that those changes won't begin with non-members' efforts. This platform weight discussion has run it's course... again. Macca, I had the same concerns you do, but I handled the discussion very differently in direct correspondence rather than here on the open forum. The discussion was good and responses were consistent, but came in a very different tone than you're enjoying.

To answer the question first posed in this thread, I believe there is no ill will - Macs simply feels a frustration with a situation in which he has formed a strong opinion.

Timbo, you seem confused. We are not voting here. It's a discussion forum and hence were having a discussion. Nowhere does it state that I have to own a F16 to take part in this discussion.

As a side note, I am a fully paid up member of the F16 class association, So if we were having a vote, I would have a legitimate say.

Karl,

from the interweb:-

"FIM Motocross World Championship


FIM Motocross World Championship
Main article: FIM Motocross World Championship
The Grand Prix (or Motocross World Championship) is predominantly held in Europe with some "flyaway" rounds, recently in Chile, South Africa and Japan, but over its history it has visited numerous countries including; Indonesia, Australia and countries on both American continents. There are three classes: MX1, MX2 and MX3 (analogous to "450cc" and "250cc", and "open", respectively). Race day consists of two moto's with a duration of 35 minutes plus two laps, while the series is longer, generally incorporating over 16 rounds.
[edit]AMA Motocross Championship
Main article: AMA Motocross Championship
The AMA Motocross Championship (the "outdoor series") season begins in early May and continues until mid-September, and consists of twelve rounds at twelve major tracks all over the continental United States. There are two classes:[9] the 250 Motocross Class for 0–125 cc 2-stroke or 150–250 cc 4-stroke machines; and the 450 Motocross Class for 150–250 cc 2-stroke or 251–450 cc 4-stroke machines. Each round has two motos of thirty minutes plus two laps."

Seems they have a set of rules designed to make the racing withing each class as equal as possible.

Kris, I have stated this now 4 times in this thread: I am not being paid by any manufacturer and have no contract with any manufacturer!!

Matt,

My "twisted logic" is the same logic that applies to all Olympic and international classes (not all SMOD because they are meant to be equal from factory..) All classes have a system to ensure the boats are as equal as possible so that the results on the water come down to sailors ability and not their ability to spend...

And to imply that AHPC have made a compromise by having their boats made in an offshore facility is just straight out wrong.

Matt,

I think you'll find ive been bitching about this situation for a lot longer than ived owned an F16. At the time you told me to buy a boat and then you'll listen. Didn't seem to work. Why should Macca then?

Im sure Macca doesnt hate F16s at all. I think he really likes the concept.

You guys need to be more flexible. It is a situation of addapt or perish for the f16 class.

I see classes for displacement in that, and nothing more. So if I show up with a old machine you think I'm gonna be competitive? I think not. Yamaha started this year putting the engine in backwards to get the weight more centralized in the chassis of their YZ450F, will it be the new standard? Who knows at this point, but I'd say probably. Cannondale tried it years ago, and it eventually bankrupted the company because they couldn't get the fuel injection figured out.

Its radical design changes like that, or curved boards that get me excited. A Hobie 16 makes want to choke myself. The equipment rules should be short enough that they can be written on the back of a business card. There should be certain boats that run the gambit with new designs that absolutely obsolete the older designs in a few years.

A few millenia of sailing and this is all the further we've made it?

And as far as the arms race? BS? Its racing, get out your check book and do it up. This has to be one of the cheapest forms out there, if Marstrom came out with a 200lb boat that fit in the rest of the F16 rules I'd order one up in no time, $30k or not. You can dump all the money into it you like, but it does come down to tiller time anyway. Am I likely to be the next world champion of anything because I have the best boat? No! But you can't throw the best on a piece of crap and expect them to do well either.

You know guys....we keep having this "discussion" over and over. I can tell you as a 5' 10", 115lb female with a 135lb skipper....I think the weight is perfect! The rules are set for now..all the F16's, no matter the weight, are very competitive against each other. The F16 fills a gap in the racing world and does a fine job at it. Sailing is meant to be fun and enjoyable. Not to sit around arguing over a few kilo's. Obviously we all have been cooped up inside too long and need to get back on the water. Get on a boat and fly!!!

This topic has been rehashed time and time again… over a number of different threads with macca at the root of its chaos. It has never really been about a discussion on F16 minimum weight...It has been about one individual provoking as much aggravation as possible in who ever will run up to the F16 fence...It is like watching a 13 year old juvenile delinquent drags a stick down a junk yard fence aggravating the watch dogs into a frenzy....ending with him walking away with a sadistic smile knowing he accomplishing his goal, destroying the peace. How many times do you have to take the bait before you learn the game?
Some of you must be addicted to the confrontation as you are now actively seeking him out to torment you. What's up with that?

+1

They miss me when i'm not here?

That is the -vote- I was refering to, Jacka, you brought it up. But you did bring up a good point, simply paying a $25 fee, in my opinion, should NOT give anyone the "right" to vote on any class's rules. So I'm thinking maybe I should put forth a motion to the GC, that if you don't actually -own- a F16, for only $25 you can be an "associate member" but with no voting rights.

I think only actual boat -owners- should be allowed a vote. Otherwise it would be very cheap and easy for a producer to enroll his employees, at only $25 each, and throw a vote to favor that producer's products, yes?

I don't think it's me who's confused here Jacka...Get a job, buy a boat, then you can vote.

Timbo, Since you have degenerated to the juvenile level of name calling, this will be my last response to you:

I have a job that I enjoy very much, perhaps you are jealous??

I own several boats, just not an F16 at the moment, but you do make a compelling argument to invest in such a welcoming class..

You are the one who started flining the poo at the F16's.

And yeah, you nailed it, just like always Ace.

I am jealous, I really wish I were you, but only if you had to be me for a week.

Just go and buy moths. No minimum weight to worry about and they go faster.

First off Sorry no desire to offend or detract from the accomplishments and innovations produced by AHPC. I truly believe that their contribution has been understated! The Taipan should be inducted into the hall of fame.

Yes and I suspect I'm not the only one disappointed in the direction AHPC has taken. Some view it as a sell out and don't see any significant savings (at retail level anyway) to warrant moving production overseas. Of course I understand why you say the VIPER is such a better F16 than the Tiapan. No argument but it's also a hell of a lot heavier! Which is exactly my point. With exception to the Taipan (are they still in production??) they do not "manufacture" light weight boats. That is due only to "love of the sport" no doubt.

As for a all Carbon Viper, other then Mecca I don't believe anyone would be stupid enough to build one. Mecca on the other hand has proven his credibility by dropping at least 30K into modifying a Taipan 5.7 (the hulls apparently produced from the same molds that were destroyed by AHPC to make room for the heavier (much faster) Capricorn). And now he wants to raise the weights of the F16 class?? Yeah OK Mecca whatever you say...

I'm sorry you feel this way. You would be paying more for your boat and waiting longer for it if production was still here in Aus. We where proactive enough to shift our operations before this became a major concern to our customers.

We still produce the Taipan.

I think you will find that the hulls of the Viper and Taipan are around the same weight per Sqm, Its just that the surface area of the Viper is much larger and as such the hull weight is higher.

The platform is much stiffer = faster boat, via the use of larger section beams. If you used the Taipan beams on the Viper you would have a very soft boat torsionally. Even the rear beam on the Taipan was too small even before you loaded it up with a kite etc. I think the rear beam from the Taipan was originally paper tiger beam!

As a previous owner of a Taipan, I have a soft spot for the boat and recently I sailed one in Singapore set up in F16 guise. I then jumped on a Viper and was amazed at how much progression has been made between the two boats. The Taipan is a great little boat, but its just that: a little boat. The Viper is very well suited to the task of carrying the crew weight and a kite.

I have never said that I would buy a carbon Viper, Karl has stated in this thread that if someone made an all carbon F16 even it cost 30k he would buy one today. There's an opportunity for one of you class builders! Customer waiting with cash in hand!

Buccaneer, I am not sure how you accessed my spreadsheet with all my Taipan 5.7 build expenses itemised, but you must have the wrong copy because it cost a mere fraction of what you claim. I am happy to state that the Hulls, foils and mast (carbon) all cost less than $2,500 AUD delivered to my house. You can work out the rest pretty easy:- set of sails from industry friend, some carbon tubes from sponsor, trampoline from same friend who build sails and some assorted fittings compiled from more than a decade of Tornado sailing.

Not so expensive really. Even the trailer, full tilting with sailbox was purchased for $500 AUD.

So, not sure where the 30k went....

The bonus is that I have a great fun boat to play on whenever I get a break in my schedule and Greg (co-owner) and I would have to say that we have enjoyed that project as much off the water (in the build and modification stages)as we have actually sailing it.

I saw a new Taipan 4.9 with its owner at Port Melb on the weekend. Bloody good looking boat. Still a lot of very keen 4.9 sailors around. Hard to find a second hand boat unless people are upgrading.

Now that is funny. You have been caught with the stick Macca :-P

Just a neutral observation, from a non-F16 sailor.
I think Macca has presented a valid viewpoint, this does not mean you must agree with him.
The way I see it, the overweight Viper (by 23kg?) seems to be right up there with the other designs, first three places at a recent event? Either weight is of no importance in sailing, which I doubt, or the Viper`s hull shape and configuration has allowed it to sail beyond it`s on-paper capability (would be interesting to calculate it`s SCHRS number on it`s own weight - Blades etc should give it time). A logical outlook on this (if one exists among class members) is that they got the design right and at this point have a superior design to anything they are competing with, but the extra weight they carry makes them seem to be not as superior as they really are.
I take it AHPC have geared the manufacturing technique to allow the boat to be cost effective so it will sell. Where they build it is of no importance, they COULD change the layup and build an all-carbon autoclaved boat with the best carbon mast available, and triple the price, which would lower their customer base. I suspect if they did this and came in at 100kg, and added lead where it fits best, they would be much faster than they already are. I wonder if then all the F16 members would hold onto their opinions so steadfastly. I`m also quite amazed at some folks outlook - that they are "disappointed" at the route AHPC went with the Viper. If a manufacturer wants to build a COMPLIANT boat that has more weight by choice, and is equally fast as the lightest boats, it is their choice. Whether you buy one or not is yours. The only thing I think you could be disappointed about is that some of your preconceived ideas may be wrong, ie that it SHOULD be slower than your boat.
I`m not suggesting you listen to Macca and raise the minimum weight, but I think a more open-minded outlook might be required. Based on his persistence with regard to the matter I can only believe he has a vested interest in getting the class rules amended to favour the boat he will soon be sailing..

We have two AHCP Taipans at my club less than 12 months old. Afaik they are both a couple of kg's under. AHPC have been building their hulls and foils off shore for quite a while now.



I think the problem with F16 is one day it will be the ultimate victim of it's own success. As the class grows and the prestige of winning a worlds grows, eventually somebody will pour enough money into a boat that will blow every other design out of the water.

The great thing is that the class has the opportunity to minimize this risk now. Putting in some simple controls and grandfathering existing designs will go a long way to prevent such a situation arising and should take action quickly.

This class has some magnificent strengths compared to it's primary competitors but to not recognize their own strengths and learning from them is a recipe for disaster.

Cheers,

Michael

The thread subject is taking a crack at the guy - why do so many find it a surprise he defends himself???

Michael

So is Carbon expensive or not; you KEEP stating that carbon drives up the cost of boats and then state you got Carbon stuff including a MAST (that you constantly state is expensive) for Aus 2500....



So is Carbon expensive or not?

Expensive if you pay retail. Luckily I have long and commercially viable relationships with many suppliers and as such I was able to leverage those relationships to build my fun boat for a very low cost.

I don't think its even possible to debate whether Carbon is more expensive than alloy. A 5 year old can look at the price lists and give you the correct answer.

I think you have hit the nail..

With the Vipers speed I would suggest the speed has no small tribute to the crews.

one of the strengths and reasons the class was founded was the light weight..

Whenever any manufacturer brings in a bunch of Pro sailors and gives them a new, free ride, the Pro's always win, that's why they are Pros.

The Pro's however do not spend money or time developing the class, they are on to the 'next big thing' which right now, in the cat world, I guess, is the F16's.

Some of the monohull classes have figured out this is not necessarily a good thing for overall class development, it just pissses off the real class members who have devoted a lot of time and money to the class, only to get butt-whipped by some pro on a free new boat, which is why some classes have gone to "Owner Driver" rules. It might be time to consider doing the same in our class.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-pro. Everything I know about cat racing I've picked up from "pro's" at one regatta or another, and I always like it when they show up and teach us how to go faster.

What bothers me is when a "Pro" shows up and tells a class what their rules should be, with zero time or money invested in the class, and then all the real owners have to...carry weight?? YGTBSM!

You don't see any of the other Pro's who have raced the F16's on here telling us how to run our class, do you?

Makes me wonder what the real motivation is for Macca and who he's really working for. Or is he looking for "work" ie. a free ride, he wants to be the "F16 World Champion" (BFD) but he's worried some 10kg. -lighter- F16 is going to stomp him on his factory sponsored free Viper or Hobie or Nacra F16?

Macca, the class rules are set, you can play by our rules or go away and sail something else, our loss...?

I agree with one of the Pros who, when asked about the weight issue after the GC, said, "It's a development class, let it develop." Raising the weight doesn't encourage better building for a lighter boat, it only dumbs it down. Cheaper? Perhaps, but "better"?

I haven't looked. How are the ordinary mortals doing in the Taipn v Blade v Falcon v Viper challenge? Any meaningful trends starting to show up? Is there enough data to draw any meaningful assumptions?

WOUT! Where are you buddy?

Wow! This thread is turning into an epic.

Andrew, from the brief chat that we had at Carnac, I discern you to be basically a nice guy who likes his sailing. You also (occasionally) seem to make a valid point or two. As you've pointed out, this forum is a discussion board and some of the discussion in this thread is genuinely interesting - I won't go into what the rest of it is - so discuss away but please don't expect the class rules to change in favour of any particular builder anytime soon.

"Expensive if you pay retail. Luckily I have long and commercially viable relationships with many suppliers and as such I was able to leverage those relationships to build my fun boat for a very low cost."

So what you are selling in this story is by virtue of your “charismatic personality” you have major carbon fiber manufactures giving you better prices for carbon cloth for your boat than they are willing to give a viable boat manufacture with global sales capability?...What boat manufacture buys materials for retail? And why do you always have to go to the most expensive and extreme building technique for your examples? Autoclave and pre-preg.
What about John Lindahl building three A Cats...LR2 and LR3, their third boat weighing in at 15 lbs underweight with just hand layup carbon cloth, not even vacuum bagged, let alone pre-preg...His son sailed it to the top of a competitive A-class fleet in Florida a few months ago.

Your tactics are typical of our world today in that facts mean nothing to you...You play on the concept that if you consistently tell the same exaggerated falsehoods over and over again, after a while you will get weak minded people to believe it. The sad part of it all is how effective that technique is on the large population of those who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.

The F16 class appears to be doing fine with quite a bit of growth Worldwide. AHPC while they have an active marketing program and are placing the best teams on their boats as part of that plan, are not the only players. Matt M, while he is separated from Vectorworks, with the combination of Blades and Falcons is up around 70+ boat last I heard. FCA, Stealth etc are out there and a number of new models are being introduced and are being or going to be built here shortly.

1 kilo of carbon weighs the same as 1 kilo of glass. All the advanced processes and materials in the world will not build an F16 less than 107 kg (2 up) as that is the class min. Carbon sticks are in service and with the min tip weight have not proven to be any game changer. This fear of an unlimited million dollar craft destroying the class is a bit far fetched.

In the case of macca, this is either the pathetic fence banging exercise, or he has motivation for a purpose, whether friendship or for financial gain to continually bring up the same rehashed subject.
AHPC has elected, for their own reasons, to build a boat that is heavy. At this time both the class and the Viper are gaining from each other. AHPC though is also pushing the 104 for their boat along with the F16. The Viper is being promoted and provided to the best teams as part of their marketing plan. B2, Robbie Daniels, etc. The other brands are being raced (if raced at all) by weekenders and there is not any program out there promoting any of the other models per say.

If 104 gets is act organized and takes off then the Viper may fit in. If 104 continues to flounder and F16 takes off as a racing class eventually better teams will be riding other makes and maybe macca’s continued harping about saving the class from some imaginary event is really about saving the Viper from obsolescence?

"The other brands are being raced (if raced at all) by weekenders and there is not any program out there promoting any of the other models per say."

A number of the weekenders have begun attending coaching camps and I plan to join them. As time and money are limited I will begin dropping the older, familiar regattas in favor of those that have coaching opportunities associated with them.

I agree with Mini, so maybe we need a "Pro" division and a "weekender" division, or a Pro-Am regatta, like in golf?

Thats it timbo. Bust the class up into smaller and smaller divisions until you win something. Forget about trying to learn something from people like Macca. NOT!

We get some sensible veiwpoints from some unbiased outsiders but just ignore them and then its straight back into Macca and Viper bashing from the same clowns. Pathetic.

Nobody's Viper bashing, the Viper is a great boat, that's not the issue.

And I was not serious about a Pro division, but it sure seems like the F18's racing in Europe have become just that, at least all the top spots, that's what I'm trying to avoid here.

Macca isn't trying to teach anything, but there are others who are. And I will be spending time and money learning from them.

I was surprised that the well put, logical and balanced posts by Steve and Tigermike (he must be working for hobie.. ) were simply ignored, But then I remembered that this whole thread was started to bash me, so its only fair that logical arguments are passed over in favour of Macca bashing.

Timbo.... who are these pros on free boats you keep talking about? There has only been once time, to my knowledge, that a pro has been given a boat.

But I see your point, sailing on the same course and having pros and Olympians in your class is not good for it at all. Bigger all the sponsorship and coverage that comes with it.

Hi John,

I have no expectations of the class changing the rules based on the discussion here.

This whole thread started after I defended Wouter (of all people!) regarding his reasonable expectation to have his measurement certificate completed.

Since then its been a full on bash-a-thon aimed at me and my crazy, "twisted logic" ideas that all aim to ensure longevity, commercial viability and good fair racing.

[quote=]So, not sure where the 30k went.... [/quote]

Well you spent between 5 & 6 K on the steering.!

Brett, when it comes to changing class rules, I think the boat -owners- should be the only ones voting.

What do the rules say about who gets to vote?

That is being researched right now, to see if it is "members" or "Owners"

More like $2,682 AUD. Just checked the spreadsheet And before any smartie asks, That is for two complete rudders including stocks.

guys, all i can say is thanks for the very entertaining 2 and a half hours at work i have spent reading this thread!! hahahahahaah
havent had this much fun since i watched my boss try and climb over an electric fence into a paddock of goats, not only getting zapped but getting strung up on the barbed wire while being butted in the butt by a goat with one broken sharp horn!!!!
i do not sail F16 but previous boat was a mossie, could be F16 but now sailing a stingray. not the most technilogically adavnced boat, but value for money.
if people want to spend $15-30K on a boat good on them! it leaves those of us with not so huge budgets, to own the not as popular classes for a fraction of the cost!!!

Macca's assertion that "money" will buy a faster boat in a "formula class is completely misleading and incorrect. It doesn't matter how much carbon, Kevlar, and money you plough into a formula boat when the current boats are at the limits of the "box rule" IE they are at their minimum weight, max' sail area etc and by using any other material doesn't give any advantage, it just costs more with no returns. The only changes that can effect performance are with an "improved" hull and/or sail shape which can occur just as easily with the "lower cost" materials as with more exotic ones. So the "money buys championships" argument by Macca is just a nonsense.

Darryl, you have just made a very good case for banning the use of exotic materials.

You think they make no difference to performance? So why have them if all they do is increase costs and reduce customer base?

If there's a market for it, it will be filled. If not, then, well.....

Thats the point Darryl. None of the current boats are on minimum weight. Except for a few tiapans and the mythical Aussie blade. From what i can gather measurement certificates don't exist. And if they did no ones allowed to look at them.

If exotics give no returns then why did you build an all carbon f14?

I bet Darryl could build a f16 to weight and not too expensive either. is it a project you have considered Darryl?

We already do build a Blade to minimum weight and at the same price (retail) as quoted by Marcus. We also use a large percentage of carbon and Kevlar (one – soon to be two - with a carbon mast as well as the standard carbon rudders and centre boards - not primarily for weight saving - but for strength and longevity of the boat, in fact the material cost difference between carbon, Kevlar and “standard” fibre glass is not a great percentage of the overall costs of the boat, the main costs are in build time (labour) and Macca, to the contrary, my "argument” is solid for the allowance of the use of ANY materials that an owner desires with no detriment to the "class/formula". Why should anything be banned when it/they have no detrimental effects to the class? If you start banning simply for the sake of banning for some “airy fairy, perceived, maybe” scenario it opens the floodgates and you are treading a very slippery slope. Your “argument” is not based on any fact within the class. If and when the things that you pose should happen, surely then is the time to take the required action, to do as you say now would only damage the growth of the class and I assume that is not the reason for your posturising?

We built an all carbon F14 Aldo basically because we wanted to and we could! It also solved a "supply" problem with cost for small quantities of aluminium for beams and masts for what we originally considered an experimental design. Prior to the all carbon F14 we built a standard "one off" FRP 14' (but without spinnaker) with Aluminium beams and mast - the aluminium was the last of very old stock that we had in house. The weight difference between the carbon F14 and the FRP 14 was only14Kg's

ASSUME = butt out of U & Me.

Cat rigged blade with carbon in the foils weighed 105kgs & you will wintess this for your self at the nationals next month.




Where did that rubbish come from.? Have you asked.?

[/quote]

I was actually quoting figures you told me when you first recieved them. I have a good memory for this sort of stuff.

BY your argument Macca we should ban all blocks, pulleys, sheet lines and fittings that have been made after 1975 because they are all lighter, more efficient, COST more, and are predominately made from "exotic" materials, and anyone who can afford to use them will gain an advantage by spending more money?
Does this sound in any way similar to your argument?
Sometimes today’s exotic materials (which become tomorrows standards) create resistance from "traditionalists" simply through their stagnation in the past, it was only a relatively short time ago that your same views were argued vehemently between sailers who wanted to convert their classes from wood to fibreglass and those who said it would kill their classes and sailing as a whole. History tells us who was right and who was wrong with that one.

I've asked quite a bit. But for the record let's see them.

I'd like a measurement certificate please.

So the difference between the old school boat and the carbon wonder f14 is around 18%. I hope you can see the irony in your figures.

On a semi related side note...

Darryl and Marcus. I'm now working with a local (Melbourne) company who are expanding into the marine market and have a line of 100gsm Carbon uni. as cloth or pre-preg. Let me know if you're interested.

Platform stiffness???? Seems to get forgotten here very quickly.

You can build an F16 down to weight using lead, but she ain't going to be stiff.

Carbon means you can produce a stiffer platform for the weight that has been set out in the rules. Or increase the hull volume and still meet min weight.

Indeed the class is. My point is that the executive committee that leads the class should be looking at not only F16's strengths but also where threats could come from. Whilst I'm sure you don't mean it that way, there does seem to be a bit of a "head in the sand" approach to potential threats and to just dismiss them out of hand because "we're doing fine" now will be doing the class a massive dis-service.



Possibly however I do believe this thread was started by somebody else asking a specific question of him.

Tiger Mike

ps. Other than paying an extraordinary amount of money to Hobie-cat in buying my Tiger I have no connection to any manufacturer. My sailing expertise extends no more than a weekend hack that might give the good guys a run for their money if I'm having an extraordinarily good day

beams still need to be bolted!! There will always be movement due to this no matter how you build the beams or from what material..

http://www.formula16.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170

tell me why did you buy a Viper? (Im not going to put down the Viper as a boat/design)


The F14 doesn't have a min weight.. (unless Im mistaken)..
The question is then would a carbon F14 with 14 kg of lead be any faster than a glass F14 or a paper F14 at the same weight.

Darryl,

Instead of hypothesizing about buying blocks made in 1975, How about we keep it simple:-

1. Does building a F16 with carbon hulls, Beams, mast, pole and boom cost more than building one out of glass and alloy?

2. Will there be any performance gain in building a F16 with carbon hulls, beams, mast etc over the glass and alloy version?

Stewart,

Marstrom has beam bolts on his A Class and there is no discernible difference in platform stiffness between his boat and a fully glued A Class.

Why is this so? Because the hull to beam joint is very, very good and the hull is very stiff around the beam landing, plus the beam is super stiff with no free play in the beam bolt holes etc.

This is all aided in no small way by the high quality construction...

Who have you asked? The curent Aus committee members.? On the formula16.net website forum.?



The certificated is available on the formula16.net website - surely you can do that?

Yawn...........bugger..... run out of pocorn & this soap operah is getting boring.

To top it off this wannabe pro sailor macca has resorted to asking really dumb questions about a class he clearly knows nothing about.

So I am hoping you will start asking the A-class guys similar really dumb questions soon.?

Hah

Well, I have a copy of the Rules for the F16, have owned a class founding boat (Taipan 4.9), Sailed the Blade, Taipan in F16 guise and raced the Viper. So I think I know a couple of things about the class.

Yes, the Questions are simple and to the point, thats in in effort to get a straight answer from Darryl. Rather than the blocks from 1975 dribble he has been sprouting.

And, One day I hope to be a real pro sailor....

So you get an answer - I suspect it will come with paragraphs of info from Darryl.......what then.?

Keep the dribble flowing? I not sure if you have noticed but all this time wasting is not getting you or the company you are representing any head way.

You have beat your chest several times now on differnt occaisons & have gotten nowhere.

Give it a rest.

I will be in Gosford on Sunday - you be around for a chat.?

By all accounts you are a very experienced racer. By your comments you have an extremely limited grasp of composites.

Marstrom produces both bolted and glued beam set ups. The bolting is popular due to being able to more easily ship the boats. Glued beams do not necessarlily provide additional platform stiffness over a properly done bolting system but it saves, on an A, about 1 kg of weight per hull as you do not have to add spot reinforcing for the bolt point loads.

Right now an Ashby A is almost 30K in the US. These are not even carbon but Kevlar. There is an all carbon Falcon that was purchased by a guy for a lot less than that, and the F16 has quite abit more complexity, loads and kit than an A class. The point being the ultimate costs of a boat do not vary all that much with the materials.

To answer you other question, yes it is more but not that is not the only factor. If there were no box limits, then creating an faster better craft with exotics is possible. Making one appreciably better than one made with what is standard materials available today is not. If someone is going to come to the water in a "million dollar" class killer design, it is going to be because they spent that money on rig development, not carbon.

I fail to see any logic behind banning any material based on arguments I have read here.

And just because there are a few class members who feel strongly about defending the class rules as they are a good part of the reason they got into the class in the first place. Light weight and the ability to have some development are aprt of what is attractive to the guys who set up the rules and a lot of the guys attracted to the class.

The F18 rules were supposedly written to encompas as many 18 foot production existing designs as possible at the time and keep them. This is F16 and and because they do things different than the F18 does not mean that they have their head in the sand.

macca, don't guess but measure !

Alu tip weight superwing is 7.8 to 8.2 kg (depending on fitting out like heavy spreader arms etc)
Carbon F16 mast tipweight (per rule) 6.0 kg

Wouter

Macca says a heavier F16 will be better because :
-added weight means MORE volume thus better behaviour
-added weight means STIFFER platform

I have attached an image:
-orange hull displaces 68.68kg, has a surface area of 6.79sqm and a volume of .589cum
-lavander hull displaces 53.22kg, has a surface area of 6.60sqm and a volume of .548cum

As a result the heavier hull has 3% more surface area that should account for the added hull weight.
Assuming the extra 0,19sqm of surface of the heavier hull is made of an 8mm 90kg/cum foam core and lets say 400gsm of glass either side - the extra added weight should be 288grams, per hull.
The extra added volume/displacement will only account for 19-25square centimeters of more laminate compared to another F16 like the Blade or Falcon or whatever.
Assuming the extra 20kg are good for providing more stiffness we should see a deflection test, just like the one I remember Wouter posted some time ago, unless we see that test, the supposed more stiffness of a heavier boat is just BS.
The other F16 closer or at class weight are lighter NOT because they have less volume or less stiffness, but because they are better engineered and better built. The numbers are clear, so please Macca , don't use the more volume argument again, or the more surface area of the hull of the VIPER as an example.
UNLESS you or AHPC can provide clear evidence that the VIPER IS stiffer than other F16's built to class weight or close to class weight your arguements are totally unsubstantiated and thus the VIPER is just an overweight F16 that performs very well, just like the other F16's out there, and it's being overweight just because the builder chose heavier components for better profit margins, that only demonstrates the weight is NOT important in racing, but VERY important for ppl hauling their boats up and down.

Currently the big picture is : the F16 class boats (either DIY) or production , all perform very close to each other, since there are DIY options and production ones, cost should not detour sailors if they want a boat that performs well in the class.
Bigger volume=heavier boat by 20kg is just smelly BS
Heavier boat=much stiffer by ??? amount - please provide proof.
Exotics=detouring sailors low on cash - BS, other F16 perform just as well.

For a while I thought it to be smart to stay out of the discussion. God knows, I've provide for enough fireworks already lately !

The issue as I see it (also when I formulate the class rules together with input from very knowlegdeable people like Scott Anderson, Greg Goodall, Phill Brander and others) is like this.

Eventually there will always be some moron who will spend a fortune on a F16. That is in itself not important. Important is whether he will be noticeably and significantly faster then all other makes thus forcing the other competitors to spend similar amounts of money to remain competitive.

Currently, many of us can buy a minimum weight (2nd or 3rd) generation F16 with a carbon mast for no more then a modern alu masted F18. This will IN THEORY be the fastest boat available under current state of technology. One can spend another 10.000 bucks on diamond inlays or whatever but that will not make any meaningful difference in racing.

The class assumed that potential customers will themselves make a meaningful balancing between costs and returns and this balance does not favour an all-carbon/whatever boat as that is simply too expensive for the performance you get in return. That is also why the M20's never really caught on. To many times the much cheaper F18's were snapping at their tales. Therefor I see the market as self regulating in this respect.

If I were to buy a new boat and indeed the choice would be between a 25.000 F16 that is 1 minute per hour faster or a 15.000 F16 with alu stuff then I will surely choose for the cheaper alu version. 10.000 for a minute difference is of no consequence to me personally when I'm already say 5 to 10 min slower then Macca anyway. In the way of sailing enjoyment the 1 min difference per hour is lost on me anyway. So I never envision an arms race to develop under the current rules and that is why the overweight Viper is selling well. Other people don't see a small difference like that as meaningful or they would have bought F16's that were 25 kg lighter.

Remember by far most of us are weekend warriors and that is the way the F16 is intended.

From an engineering perspective I feel that the performance dependence is very flat under the F16 rules. There is no magical trick to make one build really faster then another. The limits are also more aerodynamic then static and that is why the 130 kg Viper (with an excellent rig) is so competitive. Large breakthroughs in performance require significant improvements in the aerodynamic efficiecies of the rig which are not easy to achieve. Look at the wingmast experience in the A-cat class. In theory it must have been a killer wapon but it wasn't.


I feel we are all scared of nothing. AHPC made a business decision to produce a significantly heavier boat and Greg himself told me that the main reason was that he felt that weight wasn't nearly such an important factor as it was many years ago. The introduction of the spinnaker and powerful/efficient rigs caused that. Other then that they wished to use several components of the F18 design which are arguably overdimensioned and overweight for an F16. My own homebuild is just over 120 kg and therefor AHPC could have easily build the Viper at 120 kg as they are many many times more skilled in building boats. They simply choose not to do so.

But this is all okay as the real point is to be found in exciting sailing and the basic F16 package (whether at 107 ot 130 kg) is a guarantee for that.

Wouter

Wow. I can't believe I'm doing this: +1 Wouter!

A nice constructed argument with no personal attacks that should close this discussion. Winner!

[Now, where is my pop-corn?]

+2 for Wout! You da man!

Now, don't you feel much better by putting forwrd a reasoned argument with no attacks on any one individual? Of course, it's an argument that you have placed on this forum before and events over the last several years have proved the concept that the founding group envisaged - for that you must all be strongly congratulated. It is sad though that you should have to be repeating yourself ad nauseam to the 'non-believers'.
Thanks for taking the trouble to put fingers to keys for this thread!
+1

I can now "weigh-in" as a reasoned argument has been stated.

+1,000

I have weighted one AHPC superwing tip weight to be over 10 kg's, fully fitted by Catamaranparts. After that broke last summer I bought a T carbon mast, cut it to 8.5 m length and measured 6 kg's tip weight. Over all weight saving of fully fitted mast was 7.8 kg's. Of course I admit that my superwing was fatter than what you measured, but I also guess that since T mast is designed for bigger loads the F16 optimized mast would weight less, any Stealth owner willing to give some numbers? Also the other superwing mast weighted in Finland was only 300 g lighter than my mast, so that wasn't some random case.

Btw, before someone notices, that mast makes my boat not to be F16 compliant anymore since mast base is over 7.5 cm's from beam braking the box rule 1.4.1, so this might make me not worthy of responding here .

Valtteri

Valtteri,

This is one reason why I don't believe that you were shipped a superwing mast; or at least not one that came from the AHPC extrusion die (maybe it is a copy by another builder ?).

To this day I don't feel right about the situation with regard to the Finnish fleet, I think it was handled very badly, but sadly solving it is outside of my sphere of influence.

I can give you Stealth owner numbers. Their (newer) carbon masts can have tipweights as low as 5.5 kg and therefore have to carry tipweights for official racing. This was indeed done during the GC2007 event.

The 6.0 kg tipweight rule was discussed with some carbon mast builders and they felt it was a good measure to produce a commericially attractive robust mast that would stand up to abuse without being overweight. They said less was possible, but not really necessary.

Overall, this value has proven to be a good compromise.

I also know the superwing masts fitout has been further developped (for example higher hound fitting) and is now better suited to the F16's in the way of flexing. This development was accompanied by further sail development. I feel that if you take a modern superwing rig (like the AHPC Viper) and one of the first F16 rigs (like the Taipan F16's or early Blades) that you will notice some difference as well. The mast/sail combo's have been better tuned to F16 sailing now. I for one will never underestimate the alu superwing mast + sail combo. It is one of the best setups.

But that is of no interest to you Valtteri, however I'm very happy that you have found a suitable replacement (and feel it is a real pitty you had to correct the situation on your own). Personally, I couldn't care less about your mast base height (unless it is 0.50 mtr tall !) and I for one will never protest you on it. Neither will I ever be childish and consider you anything but worthy to comment on this forum or anything other related to F16's.

I stand by the inclusiveness clause that the F16 class was founded upon. That means including Macca, you and also persons like myself. I know several others (if not many) members of this class feel the same way.

So I say come join the fun and ignore the water lawers !

We are not racing for sheepstations as the Aussies say !

Regards,

Wouter

Macca,




If the carbon mast is no quicker, why DISallow it ?

Are we really claiming here that the customers don't know what is going on.

We don't allow diamond inlays in the hulls either; if someone wants to spend money on that then why prevent it ? The F16 class rules are engineered to allow for fair racing between boats of different makes while allowing maximal personal freedom, not to prevent some person from wasting money on unnecessary things.

Isn't it time we start treating catamaran buyers like capable adults, you know, WITH a brain of their own ?

Wouter

But I will say this for Macca.

I'm not in the slightest afraid of him or what effects his postings may have on the class. In fact, I feel his contributions are valuable (as long as he posts accurate data). Afterall, it is actually the wolfpack that keeps the heards of grazers healthy by picking off the weak and the sick. Thus keeping the herd strong and more able to fend off any further attacks

I'm also not scared about any "bad image" the class may get from these discussions. In fact, I believe the class will look better when such discussions are handled well. It is also a way to show that the class is stable and confident in her product. It is also a way to show potential customers that these issues have been considered in the class and why the class feels that they have been addressed adequately.

Sure, the process is repeatitive but so is the process of attracting new class members/customers. Many new enthousiasts will not read any postings from 18 months ago. Anybody not willing to explain the class stances repeatedly is not fit for the role of promotor !

I feel it is very wise to get into a discussion with Macca on this forum and explain the case from the perspective of the class and thus convince potential new members of the viability of the class or indeed inform them properly of all issues before they pull the lever on 15.000 bucks. We must not be afraid to loose a few customers if indeed they are looking more for a strickt OD class then a formula class. I rather have them change their mind before they buy then afterwards as the latter is arguably worse promo in the end.

Being secret or ignoring issues that are being raised is actually the worse approach that anyone (or any class) can take. Often this creates the feeling that there is some truth to the accusations. Afterall, if there wasn't then why would the issue be ignored or made secret ? This is negative spiral that should be avoided at all times.

This is also why I strongly believe that both class members and non-members have equal rights on forums like this. Both can bring excellent new points to the table and no class has ever been grown by preaching to the choir.

Therefore I say, lets keep Macca on board and engage him on those points that we see differently or that are verifiably inaccurate. In the end, the interested parties (who are not class members), will respect us for it and most likely consider us more seriously as their next hobby.

With regards to Macca personally, I think he is a very skilled sailor and passionate about sailing catamarans. I also think he reasons from a different viewpoint then us (or the F16 class) and that is where most of the disagreements come from. Doesn't mean that he is dishonest or wrong or that we are; We just disagree. However none of this is important as the world is full of people who think differently about things and there are more then enough people of each opinion to support either stance (class).

In concrete terms. There are enough people interested in an arms race to support and grow the A-cat class. There are enough people who feel that only identical boats can be raced fairly to support the Hobie 16 class. By the same reasoning there are also enough people to support the F18 class and indeed the F16 class in the way these are setup now. That is where Macca and I disagree personally. I see the F16 class as the class for sailors who are more into recreational racing or versatility (=parents) and don't worry much about a carbon this or aluminium that. For truly serious hard core racers we have the F18 class with its tighter controls or the A-cat class for the truly hardcore tinkers (arms racers). The F16 class, as currently setup, is best as a feeder class to either. We take in the enthousiasts that want to make the next step in catamaran sailing and racing (up from whatever old secondhander they bought a few years before) and send off all those crews to the F18's and A-cats that have been infected by the racing virus or development virus and are looking for the pinnacle in that way of enjoying a sport.

This role will suit the F16's very well and provide for enough turn-over to support and grow this class; irrespectively whether the boat sailed has an aluminium or carbon mast.

With kind regards,

Wouter

Yo. Sorry for not chiming in since starting this shitfan, but I wanted to see how this played out. Here is what I got out of the thread (I have a bad case of ADD ro ADDHD or whatever):

1. Macca likes F16
2. Macca is worried the F16 will eat its own and a class killer is coming out, by someone with more money than sense
3. Macca bases this on that the Viper is the best F16 and the Viper is a little obese per class rules

My field work says:

1. Macca is right to like F16
2. Macca is right to like the Viper as a F16 in today's environment
3. Macca is right to applaud AHPC support worldwide

BUT, I think the F16 community likes the idea of lighter boats and I personally do not think Viper's are inherently faster than any other F16 design across all conditions.

The reason the Vipers are doing well are two fold: sail plan and sailors.

First, the Viper sail plan is awesome (Goodall will tell you the sail plan is 80% of the battle, hull shape comes next). They have done their home work and their sails are very nice - especially against first and second generation F16 sail shapes).

Second, at all (US based) big regattas Vipers have been sailed by sailors of well reknown (Goodall, Casey, Daniels) - of course they are going to win. It is the sailor, not the nut that wins the races.

The Viper is the flavor of the day for F16 - but other new designs are going to challenge them (Rapter, Falcon, etc.) - especially when sails get dialed in....

Just ask the Vipers abt the Blade that beat them by over an hour at RTI this past year (Blade + Goodall sails). I've seen all F16s excel depending on the saillors on board.

It still seems to be the sailors that make the difference. I have owned a 1st generation Blade and a 2009 Viper. My Viper was faster than my Blade, in my mind wholely attributed to sail shape and foil design (my Blade had the old school low aspect boards).

I do not think the 135kg F16 is the future ...

Btw, Macca - I appreciate your candor on the class and I hope your foreshadowing doesn't become the reality.

I'll be rooting for you on the F18/V40/AC circuit. If you need crew - just call!

t

I find it hard to commit a huge amount of cash to buying the leading design when it is nearly 30kg over the minimum and can be easily superceded by a replica made at min weight. It is a big risk when you go to resell the boats. For a Formula or a Box rule class you expect evolutionary steps that have incremental advances. Slightly better sail shape on the 2010 version compared to the 2009 version for example, rather than "revolutionary" changes that you can hardly replicate on your now "out-dated" design. This is the big risk in the class at the moment that I see.

But as a sidenote I do sail a development class, ie moth, which has these risks. No min weight, only 6 rules to talk of, fully open development. I chose this risk and was fully aware of this before making this decision and everyone in the class is aware of these risks. But I don't see a formula class having these risks in the concept of the rules.

Valterri was supplied one superwing (AHPC) mast and by mistake a wrong section but close to the superwing section.
A rigged superwing section without the standing rigging but for the rest everything attached is close to 10kg tipweight, a bare section can have around 6 kg tipweight

I would like to add the following data to the public record.

My own AHPC superwing mast was shipped from Australia (AHPC stock) and was measured (fully fitted after 3 years of use) by the class Chief measurer to be 8.9 kg WITH THE SIDESTAYS AND FORESTAY still attached. These were/are 4 mm thick stainless steel 1x19 wires and weight 1.7 kg together. Therefore these add (0.5*6.0/8.5)*1.7 = 0.6 kg to the tipweight measurement.

As a result my superwing mast has a tipweight of 8.3 kg (although my measurement form says 7.9 kg) and I'm using the heavy (suited to all boats) proctor spreader arms and heavy 1x19 diamond wires (not the lighter diaform wires as is typical on Taipans and newer F16's). I'm also NOT using the lighter T-terminals on my mast but the heavier plates and forks combinations. Basically, due to concerns of costs and robustness (I have the prototype F16) I have a fully sealed and heavy F16 mast. For example the diamond wires end plates are of the Nacra F18 design and I have also turnbuckles in both my diamond wires (not a single turn buckle or even the lighter threaded terminal plus nuts setup). I also have foam seals inside my mast above the internal downhaul system.

The boat by Frank (Vectorworks Blade) was weighted together with my own and his tipweight was measured at 7.8 kg if my memory serves me well. My mast is from 2000 and Franks from 2005. I do believe that the last mast is from another batch altogether as I know AHPC (and VWM etc) have ordered a new batch in the mean time.

These measurements I witnessed myself and I would not consider either of these to be close to 10 kg tipweight. I remember you being present too. I have received tipweight measurements by other owners and their data confirms the situation described above. The only exception here are the masts shipped to Valtteri.

Hans, if indeed your statements are correct then I'm simply claiming here that the data I hold all appear to be significantly lower then the claim that "a fully fitted F16 superwing mast is close to 10 kg in tipweight". Nothing more, nothing less.

I just wish to add the above data to the public record as proof that low tipweights with the alu superwing masts are indeed possible; even when build up using standard inexpensive components (I couldn't get the right diaform wires or lightweight spreaders) by an amateur like myself.


With kind regards,

Wouter

Wouter,
Can you then explain to me according the photo´s attached how it is possible to have a standard fitted out alloy mast with the ( AHPC ) superwing section is already 8.0 kg and there is not yet attached the complete spinaker halyard ( incl the blocks )and the diamond arms and i am not talking about the standing rigging, which is normally not taken in the calculation.

This just done 10 minutes ago

Hans

As good neutral source I can tell you that these discussions (I think I´ve read fully all threads regarding F16 weight) are just the best promotion the class can have (after removing all personal attacks).
Macca is giving his Pro sailor view on the class, so don´t feel attacked, he always promote interesting discussions that benefit your class.

Too many times I just don´t sail and miss perfect conditions because of the hassle to rig and launch my F18 through the ramp on my own when no crew is available.
So a peformance light boat like the F16 is for sure an appeal for many Worldwide.

For sure you have Macca´s described risks in the future and you should take account on those.
But the intention of this class in my view right now is not becoming more popular than the all mighty F18, you just want a light boat to sail and with the creation of a class/rules provide a platform to race.

Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Martin

Hans (and all other interested parties),

For some reason your attachment won't show itself on my PC. I also seem unable to grap it. If anybody can then please send a copy to me using my mail account wouterhijink(at)hotmail.com

I'm sure that the attached picture shows a scale with a mast tip layed on it. Most likely the scale is pointing to some high value and as such is intended to proof your case. I accept that much.

What I don't really understand is your question. I mean how can I explain something from just such a picture; for all I know you may have used some other mast or are using an alu top fitting to seal the mast (just as with Hobies / Prindles back in the day). In short it is impossible for me to explain something that I'm not part off or haven't investigated myself.

Having said this; the weighting of my own alu F16 mast and that of Frank was done in the presence of Frank, Pieter Saarberg (chief F16 measurer), you (class chairman) and myself. We have all seen my mast and can confirm that everything needed for sailing, including the sidestays, forestays, halyard and any thing else, were still attached. By that time I had been using that mast for three years and had just picked the boat (and franks) of the beach an hour before. Later that day I just connected the stays to the hulls and raised the mast. Spi halyard systems etc all went down and up with it.

We all know the scales showed a tipweight of 8.9 kg. Later Pieter noticed that the stayes were still attached and deducted 1 kg from that number and wrote down 7.9 kg on my measurement form. Franks mast was weighted without the side- and forestays and was (from memory) found to be lighter then my mast (7.8 kg).

Therefore I put my own mast and its certified tip measurement, performed in front of 4 witnesses, against your foto "of 10 minutes ago" (same with regard to Franks mast).


Now I would love to find out why the "old" masts are coming in so much lighter. If anything we can correct the situation to all our advantage when we know the cause. Afterall, my mast (and that of others like Frank and indeed Phill) show that a 8 kg tip weight alu F16 mast is possible and strong enough to survive regular F16 sailing.

It will be smart to try to reproduce the "old" masts.

Maybe the dies have worn out; that is a 1000 bucks fix (making a new die)

Maybe new dies have been made but the guy doing the milling made an error and set the machine to 1.8 mm wallthickness instead of 1.6 mm (that will add 1.9 kg to the bare mast section).

Maybe the company doing the extrusions has changed the extrusion speeds without notifying us, thus resulting in more expansion of the crossection then was intended when the die was made ?

There are a number of reasons why things may have gone wrong, but we know that truly lightweight F16 alu masts are possible as several of us actually have them. Either that or Pieters scales are totally undependable.

I say lets get to the bottom of this and try to sort this out.

I know we're are not on the best of terms recently, but you will find me a willing ally in this respect.

Wouter

photos sent

Thank you stewart for sending me the pics.

Hans, your mast isn't so far off the mark is it ?

I see it is fully fitted out with exception of the spi-halyard (4 mm dyneema 15 mtr long section along the mast = 180 grams), (heavy) spreaders ( <1.5 kg ?) and the diamond wires (3 mm dieform together 12 mtr long = 650 grams).

These items add to the tip weight by the following amounts

Spi halyard (7.5/2 * 1/8.5) * 0.180 kg = 0.080 kg
Spreaders (3.0 / 8.5 ) * <1.5 = <0.530 kg
Diamond wires (3.0/8.5 ) * 0.650 = 0.230 kg

total add <0.84 kg to your measured tipweight of 8.0 kg making it overall <8.84 kg

Still more then my own mast but not too bad.

Valtteri was reporting tipweights beyond 10 kg.

Opting for lightweight carbon spreaders (like Phill has done) will shave off 0.350 kg from the tipweight and thus end up at 8.5 kg tipweight. I can envision that the added 0,9 kg relative to my own fitted mast is caused by the die widening (going from 1.6 mm wallthickness to 1.7 mm). Also note that my own mast section is heavier then Phills which is even older then mine.

If the same original die is still used then a couple of hundred masts have been made by it already. VWM/Falcon have used about 80 of them and AHPC about 400 (325 Taipans mast+ 80 Vipers); smaller batches went to Dynautic and Formula catamarans (Aussie Blade) and some 15% is disguarded or used as beams because they are not straight. I can easily believe that over 600 Superwing masts have been made over the years. Maybe that can account for 0.1 mm wear on the die ? (0.1 mm is the same as the thickness of a regular 80 grams A4 sheet of paper.)

Wouter

Ohh Hans,

I'm sure hope that you didn't include that metal tube visible underneath the tip of the mast into tip weight measurement !

Wouter

Hans's figures are correct and in line what I've heard from various sources. Adding diamond wires etc to measure fully fitted mast and accept the fact that there is for example +/-1 kg difference between tubes from the baseline then you might get tip weights around 10 kg's with heavy section like in my case. I'm not sure how much pitching this addtional weight would cause but at least if you need to turn the mast pointing to the sky the difference is quite huge at least for uni sailors.

I believe there is no reason to save weight in hulls since just putting carbon mast to most of the current platforms would mean that they need to carry some additional weight. All this has nothing to do with the topic, so sorry for hijack .

I find it hard to accept the situation where superwing mast tipweights can range from 7.8 kg to over 10 kg (your claim Valtteri) when fully fitted. That would imply that one particular ready to sail superwing mast may be just short of 5 kg heavier then another with all of them coming from the same die.

That is a huge variation in extrusion weights (30%).

The default weight of a 8.575 mtr long F16 superwing is theoretically 14.5 kg. Even with a 10% up or down variation in crossections the range of tipweights should be running from 7.4 kg to 8.8 kg with its center at 8.1 kg.

My mast at 8.3 kg, Hans's mast at 8.8 kg and Frank's mast at 7.8 kg are all in that range. Yours at 10+ kg is well out of the range.

But I think the best lesson here is to check the masts before shipping them out. Even if that particular superwing mast was so heavy that it had to result in a 10+kg tipweight then that section should have been scrapped and replaced by a lighter one. This is no great expense. Afterall, the variations are random and therefore all weights from light to heavy will be in a single batch.

I'm not allowed to disclose the costs per mast but rest assured that 33% of a batch can easily be disguarded without significant cost increases per mast. An expense that I'm sure we are all more then willing to pay for a (worse case) 1.5 kg tipweight reduction.

Therefore any F16 builder will be smart to measure all masts and simply scrap the heavy 33% of a given batch. There is no need to use the heavy outliers.

This should result in tip weights below 8.6 kg when fully rigged. Even less when using lightweight spreader arms instead of the (heavy) proctor arms.

Wouter

I remember that Scarecrow disclosed some extrusion price information recently and using his data suggests that one can have 34 superwing masts made from a single 500 kg batch costing about the same as 2 carbon masts.

Even when cherry picking the lightest (and straight) 50% of that batch and scrapping the rest will see a builder end up with 17 (light tipweight alu) masts at the cost associated with only 2 carbon masts.

Thus making the alu masts about 8.5 times cheaper then a carbon mast. Falcon marine states 3800 USD for a carbon mast upgrade. Divide that by respectively 17 and 8.5, compare the results and ... ... well I'm not allowed to continue here. But a careful reader can now draw his own conclusions.

Wouter

Wouter, You are making a very good argument to limit masts to Alloy...

As I have said previously,and you have just confirmed, the Carbon mast adds a huge amount of cost over the Alloy option and as you all keep telling me there is no advantage in using Carbon so why add cost for no gain?

And if there is a gain, how can you expect boats to compete equally?

As you well know Macca, there are some manufacturers who charge way over the odds for a Ali mast, I think the N20 owners were having a right old whinge about the fact they could buy a carbon mast cheaper from an outside source ( I think it was Marstrom ) than the Ali unit from the manufacturer.

That excess price comes simply from having only one class supplier which we could easily end up with if we ban carbon masts. Composites are a great low volume production method and if we take the first 10 masts as the cost of production then I would say the Composite masts would be a cheaper cost per unit. The problem with Ali extrusion are the initial numbers required to make the die and production viable.

We could also end up with the mast supplier refusing to do business with a new manufacturer, leaving the newbie no alternative but to set up a batch of masts to service his annual production of 10 boats a year. I somehow don't think we would have many new manufacturers starting production anytime soon.

Wayne, if you read Wouters post and calcs its pretty easy to see that any carbon mast is a lot more expensive than any alloy mast.

The rest of the issues are all related to the retailing of each mast and have nothing to do with the production costs.

How would you end up with only one alloy mast supplier?? it's cheaper to tool up for a run of 40 alloy masts then it is to tool and produce one carbon mast! So the cost to entry into alloy mast production is so low that it ensures competitive pricing...

Andrew,

The rub with a bunch in this group seems to stem from this comment. You seem to be proposing a state where everything (or most things) are restricted and not open to use, trial etc. as is the case with the F18, Tornado etc – classes that you have come from.

An attraction to the class for a lot of the owners is that it allows for a certain freedom in experimentation. IF the item in question does not stand to fundamentally change the class equilibrium, why ban it? If somebody wants to have an all carbon machine (even though they will gain no appreciable advantage) why should they not be able to have one.

On the mast issue, you and Wouter are failing to recognize what all the costs are involved in them. Aluminum is soft and damages easily and is not reapirable, so a relatively high percentage of the sections are scrapped way before you could start looking at only using ones of the min weight. They have to be run in mill quantities, so 30+ masts, even at a low price per unit are very expensive to purchase, ship and stock, for whatever period of time it takes to use them up. Small builders are not going to want to inventory mill quantities of aluminum extrusions(There is more than just the mast too). Shipping individual extrusions is ridiculously expensive (not to mention the shipper ruins them half the time when shipped alone) The cost with shipping of aluminum becomes much closer to the total cost of a carbon mast depending on locations. You cannot build your own Aluminum extrusion, but it is possible to build your own carbon mast if you wished. The list goes on further if you wish.

Again though, with the tip weight rule an appreciably faster boat has yet to show. If it does not matter there are many reason to keep it for the good of the class, and other than fear or impression, there is no real reason to ban it.

Matt

I think an alloy mast on a beach cat will always outlast the competitive lifespan of the platform, this damage you speak of would also apply to a carbon mast, if you abuse something then its gets damaged no matter what the material. A suitable treated alloy mast will last as long as a carbon mast at a mere fraction of the outlay both for the builder and owner. I haven't noted any great number of broken alloy masts in the class that would justify going to carbon, so again it seems to just increase costs and as you have stated yet again, there is no performance gain... (I sure as hell would like to take 4kg off the tip of my rig!)

How about you factor in the cost of all the tooling to build a carbon mast including moulds and oven long enough etc?

Wouter,

Ofcourse the metal part is not taken in account, this would add almost 2 kilo's to the 8.0 kg.
The diamond wires are not dyform but just 1x19 wires almost 4 mm thick and the end cap is alloy but is adding 50 grams maximum to the weight, if it will reach 50 grams but i do not that excatly because i am not going to take it of , so i have to fix the mast.
As told we supplied Valterri a wrong section and i did a check on this section and this mast is very close to the superwing section but has more wall thickness so when this mast is weighted then it could be that the tipweight is higher. Logic ofcourse.
I do not know where the difference with your figures are coming from but you seems to be one of the people who has a light alloy section. Lucky you.

Hans

I wish to add a few points to this discussion.


To Matt,




I was actually the one who secured the Superwing deal with AHPC for all F16 builders. I was also directly involved in the first production batch that was shipped to multiple parties and imported a batch of 10 masts to Dynautic in NL. In addition I ordered and shipped my own mast from Aus to NL for 800 bucks (a number I can quote) where a carbon mast (build locally) would have costed me 3500 bucks (both costs in Guilders not Euro). I was also involved with the specialized F16 beams that now also are fitted to the Falcon F16 (next to the Aussie Blade). Of course I've build up my own mast from bare parts as I wanted full control over how it was fitted out. I too know a thing or two about producing/shipping/pricing/fitting out these items.

That is not to say that I'm always right, God forbid, but I do feel justified to be taken seriously.

Of course, alu masts do cost money as all things related to boat building. That kind of argument is not valuable. Shipping them is hard and yes transporters seem intent on destroying as much as they possibly can, but that is the same for carbon masts. It is also true that extrusion batches contain a sizeable number of crooked masts. My argument here is that the basic process of extrusion is so inexpensive that very large percentages of masts can simply be disguarded without resulting in unacceptable price rises of the completed product. Of course, this does mean charging more, but I for one will easily decide for say a 500 bucks additional charge if that means I can get a tipweight that is truly close to the statistical average (8.1 kg).

If I'm like that then I'm sure other customers feel similarly, if not all.

Why not introduce a system that we all know from electronics and other retail products. The "A" and the "B" branding of a product coming of the same production line ?

Customers not worried at all about tipweights can get a F16 for the standard pricing using one of the "heavier masts" (and get more robustness as the heavier mast will also be stronger)

Customers wanting a low (alu) tipweight pay a little bit more and get a carefully selected low tipweight alu mast. Running a batch of 30+ masts through a simple "bare section tipweight" measurement is not that hard is it ?

Customers looking for the pinneacle of F16 racing can buy the carbon mast and pay lots more. (but still the same as for a alu masted modern F18)


If indeed we have such a great swing in bare section tipweights then accept that publically and lay the choice to go with which one with the customer. I feel strongly that that is the F16 way of doing things.




To Macca,

Fair racing is secured when all participants have reasonable access to equally competitive boats. That is not to say that ALL BOATS BUILD OR SOLD MUST be equally competitive.

If a given customer (like myself) prefers to spend less or build his own boat and accepts being overweight or whatever, then that is the personal choice of the owner. This is fair to anyone else. If this owner decides to be fully competitive then a viable boat is available to him for the cost equal (or less) then a modern F18. I feel that qualifies as "reasonable access to equally competitive boat"

I feel no need to regulate on F16 boats more tightly then that. The mythical 30.000 Euro F16 that blows all other out of the water is just that : mythical !

I'm sure a 30.000 F16 can be ordered and build but it won't be significantly faster then the cheaper boats. That is all the class rules have to do. Everything else is best left to the intellectual capabilities of the owners/customers.


I do agree that it is cheaper to tool up (produce and ship) for a 40 mast batch of alu masts then to tool up for even 1 single carbon mast (in a commerical sense). Or at least the pricing I'm aware of suggests as much. Hell, throw out 75% of the alu batch and you are still several times cheaper.

Matt is however right that homebuilders and some in-house mast builders can produce carbon masts for a very attractive price that makes the price advantages normally associated to aluminium too small to matter. For example, Stealth marine already has the tooling and the cost for each additional mast made is very low because it is done in-house. The finish guys are handy and shipping anything to Finland is expensive/risky. They to prefer to make their own carbon masts. Why should we disallow them this (better) option if the difference between alu and carbon is limited due to the tipweight rule ?

In my opinion it is better to guarantee the most inexpensive option for ALL then just for those who life in certain area's where international shipping is cheap (like myself). Allowing maximal freedom in choice of materials is a key feature in this respect. Afterall, the carbon masted Stealth F16 is still the least expensive F16 on the market today. Why should we ruin that ?

Wouter

I was at the UK Single handed Dart Championships last September and met Brian Phipps. Brian is the sole importer of Dart 18's which are now made in South Africa. If people haven't heard of a Dart 18 they are a single manufacturer one design beach cat. However, what I found to be very interesting is that there can be a difference of up to 6 kilograms between Alloy masts. The lightest masts being 18kgs and are kept back for the more discerning racer whilst the heavier masts are sold onto the non racers and people who aren't seen on the TT Circuit.
So if a very successful Cat SMOD Class can accept a 6kg discrepancy in mast weight what's the problem.

Well indeed, that will add weight.

My own diamonds are 3 mm 1x19 and seem to work well. Phill useds the old imperial 1/8 inch 1x19 wires (3.18 mm). I know that AHPC themselves use 3 mm dyform on their Taipans (and most likely on their Viper) and I seem to remember that Falcon/VWM does so too but I have to check that. Matt, can you confirm ? Hans, didn't you use 2.5 mm dyform on your own F16 mast ?

4 mm 1x19 is used on F18's and seems a bit like overkill for an F16 in my opinion.

12 mtr of 4 mm 1x19 will weight in at 178% of 12 mtr of 3 mm 1x19; thus translating into a difference of 0.400 kg. (a 0.150 kg contribution to the tipweight)





Lets have this confession become part of the public record.

I'm sure that you now store this non-superwing section well apart from the superwings.





Well, I didn't think so when I learned my tipweight. For it is heavier then both Frank's and Phill's masts. My tipweight of 8.3 kg is in fact above the (theoretical) average, so I have one of the heavier masts as well.

However, I do blame myself for that partly. I used the heavy proctor spreader arms where I should have used a much lighter fixed length laminated set like Stealth Marine uses. Just have three knotches in the wing tips to allow for some rake adjustment and forget about being able to adjust the spreader length (I never used that feature anyway). I also have a heavy closed cell foam seal that is 8 cm tall in the top of my mast and use both a 4 mm spi halyard as a 4 mm mainsail halyard. AHPC uses push up mainsail that require no halyard or top pully fitting at all. I may switch over to that system next time.

Interestingly enough I do have the lightest spinnaker bail setup possible. My uphaul line simply has a loop at its top end and that is thrown over the top of the mast and rests on the mainsailhook fitting. I have never replaced that line and it doesn't seem to wear down under use. The line used is 3 mm dyneema (1 mtr in total incl. the bail itself) and supports a Ronstan RF20100 microblock. These are respectively 7 grams and 20 grams; making my spi bail setup (ex halyard) only 27 grams ! But the best part is that no holes are made in the top of my mast ! The mainsail hook has rivets in the sail track and one that goes directly into the foam block that seals the top. My hound fitting (2.5 mtr down) is the first element that may compromise the seal of my mast. I used this setup as I was lazy and hadn't found a better alternative at the time. Now after several years of use I feel pretty happy with this solution.

But anyway that is beside the topic of tipweights at this time.


More importantly are the following three (possible) conclusions and solutions :


- A - If the die has been consistantly producing heavier masts over the time then making a new die is an inexpensive solution. (Start all over with light masts that increasingly growing heavier with more masts produced). The cost of such a new die will be spread out over what; 100 masts ? Or 50 bucks or less per mast in additional cost ?

- B - If the extrusion process has a very large (random) variation in produced mast weights then selectively picking the best masts is a viable option for what can be considered a reasonable increase in costs (a few hundred bucks at most). Putting the choice to the customer can then still allow for the medium weight masts to be sold and thus reduce the number of masts that are disguarded. It will also prevent any bitching afterwards by disgruntled customers as they know what they will get when they sign the contract.

- C - It is smart to precheck any mast before shipping them out to any far off place. Recognize and correct any 10+kg tipweight issue before the situation becomes irreversible. Best is to precheck each mast blank before fitting it out. But this is of course common sense.


With kind regards,

Wouter

Thread hijack...... Are you permitted to have synthetic rigging on an F16?

Quick answer - Yes

(bare with me guys, this is my day off and I feel like writing up posts. )


This post is intended to glarify things by a simple example.

But first a short introduction

I know this is the way industries like consumer electronics do things (TV’s for example). In the past there used to be only three production lines for television tubes (now we all have flat screens), but we easily had 30 TV brands from which we could choose. Even if we bought a Aristona TV set; at its core was still a Zenith, Sony or Phillips tube. These three companies together controlled 100% of the world market and simply selected the best tubes for their own high flying brandnames and then sold the lesser tubes (various grades) to other companies or created a separate brandname to act as an (undercover) outlet for the tubes that were disguarded for their own high quality brandnames. In fact this is a profitable business model and it is copied by many other industries.

Say we have a single production line were quality control is either limited to say a 30% variation or further improvements in quality control are too expensive to be economically viable. Similar situation are fact quite common. Say each product costs 240 Euro’s to produce and ship (uncorrelated to the quality variation) and the variation among all products is random. Lets assume that the distribution of the variation is uniform; this means that each individual grade occurs about as many times in a single batch. In short, there is no dominance by a single grade or a group of grades. This assumption is made to simplify the example, but the principle explained is still valid for more complex distributions. Lets also assume that each product grade (five in total) is expressed as a weight. These being respectively 7.5 kg or lighter, 7.5 to 8.0 kg, 8.0 to 8.5 kg, 8.5 to 9.0 kg and 9.0 kg or higher. Of course these values are chosen completely arbitrarily !

Summarizing :

240 Euro’s per item fabrication/shipping costs

Five qualities groups

< 7.5 kg
7.5 to 8.0 kg
8.0 to 8.5 kg
8.5 to 9.0 kg
> 9.0 kg

A company like Phillips, Sony or Zenith would then first disguard the true outliers on both sides as these are just to far away from the norm (quality wise) to even be sold to adventurous price-stunters. Some margin of dependability and respectabilty must be maintained; although it is rumoured that Africa is awash with such products. Therefore 40% of the production is disguarded immediately. Leaving 60% of the production to be sold as products of acceptable but varying grades.

The unit cost per approved product has to be raised to compensate for the money lost on disguarded products, thus resulting in a unit cost that is now 400 Euro’s per (approved) item. Now this batch of varying grades is subdivided into quality groups.

The first much sought after group of 7.5 to 8.0 kg weights is given a price tag equal to 3 times 400 Euro’s.
The medium quality group of 8.0 to 8.5 kg weights is then given a price tag of 2 times the 400 Euro’s
The third quality group is of 8.5 to 9.0 kg weights is then given a price tage of a single unit of 400 Euro’s

Now lets assume there is also a handcraft department that makes custom-order-all-carbon products of 6.0 kg weight at a price tag of 3400 Euro’s. The brochure of the company to the customer or business partner will now look like this.

Standard price for a 8.5 to 9.0 kg grade product (= 400 bucks)
+ 400 Euro’s for a 8.0 to 8.5 kg grade product upgrade
+ 800 Euro’s for a 7.5 kg to 8.0 kg grade product upgrade (= top of the production line)
+ 3000 Euro’s for a 6.0 kg hand build carbon product upgrade

The customer can now decide what he feels is the right balance between quality grade and costs for him. Of course the distribution of pricing is such that even when all customers choose to pay for the (top of the line when not hand build) 7.5 to 8.0 kg group that the supplier will never loose any money. Afterall, each customer in that group effectively pays for the other 4 lower graded and disguarded masts as well. These can now be sold as scrap aluminium or be sold under their market price without any loss of investment. When done right the producer can earn even more money that way. The combined earnings (after profits) can then be spend on a new batch of products with the same quality distribution.

If for some reason all customers decide that the standard grade product (8.5 to 9.0 kg) is expensive enough for them then the supplier can always unload the higher grades into that pool without any complaints by the customers. Who will refuse a free of charge upgrade ? A smart company will them make lots of hoopla about how they present a special offer for the next 3 months where they waver the upgrade price if you buy a product now. Thus get some promotional value from their surplus of high quality products (without losing any money on the deal !)

If by expectation the bulk of customers decide for the mid range product (8.0 to 8.5 kg) then the supplier is guaranteed the highest profit margins of all options. For he can sell 67 % of the entire approved batch against double the single unit price and ALSO have some special offer free-of-charge upgrades promo actions. Thus netting him 30% higher profits with additional promo then when all customers decide for either exclusively the top category product or the lowest catagory product.

That is indeed how many companies operate these days.

So why not the F16 class ?


Regards,

Wouter

Thanks, quick answer is all I need.

Macca,

No argument on the life cycle at all. The aluminum masts are very good and have a very large wind range window. The sail generates the power and with the exception of the Stealth having a different section shape the other carbon masts out there are all a nearly identical profile to the superwing aluminum one. In our working with carbon, besides changing the cut to match the mast, getting a mast with a full range has been an issue.

The aluminum masts are very easily scratched and dented in handling and shipping. They are not repairable and it makes for a lot of scrap extrusions as it may be cosmetic but you cannot sell a new boat with a bunch of scratches and or small dings. The carbon masts we have sourced are significantly more robust, and carbon is repairable in the worse case.

Again this is a philosophical debate of banning or not. You seem to propose as it is more expensive, it should be banned. The class premise is that if it does make a material difference, cost or not, why ban it? Carbon has an “exotic” reputation as expensive aerospace grade materials. With the expense to performance gain argument we could ban many things to make the boats less costly. Epoxy is 2 times more expensive than a good vinylester resin, but in practice it is nearly impossible to discern differences between the 2 in production parts. Daryls example of going back to the 70’s grade hardware is also applicable. A block is a block but we spend a lot more on the new Carbo and Orbit series stuff than using the still available GP series stuff, for what gain? We could ban all new models, because designing and tooling up a new boat is expensive and that cost has to be recovered by the builders somehow. The list is endless and it is a bit of a witch hunt to be on the war path against carbon (or any particular material for that matter) in my opinion.



In my garage if I wanted to build a 1 off mast, I could tool up and do this for very little money. We build temporary ovens and 1 off molds (there are a variety of low temp cure epoxies) for projects all the time. A small amount of wood, screws, bondo and a lot of elbow grease and it can be accomplished for very little to no money. Scrap water pipe from a construction site down the street was used just recently to build a quick oven for some hydrofoils. I have used temporary tents made from wood and visqueen to cure carbon epoxy parts as large as 135 foot. If I am building these in my shop on a production basis, I would spend a bit more money to get a real tool and I have to count my labor hours. We have looked at it and it is almost the same cost to get a production mold as a new die made at an extruder for aluminum. A more permanent oven is still pretty inexpensive. Marstrom, Bim and Hall are the only ones making autoclave masts. Fiberfoam, the most popular A class mast, as well as a lot of others are just bagged laminates. Once an extruder sets up his run, they have almost no labor per mast. This is more of a factor in the cost difference than the raw material price and the reason carbon masts will always be expensive. No real reason to ban it though.

Sorry for the Wouter length post.

Matt, that was only a 1/2 Wouter, see Real Wouter post above!

Now log off and get back to work, I want my Carbon Mast done NOW! Then you can get to work on my Carbon hulls and beams...check's in the mail, honest, would I lie to you?

:^)

(Wouter, that was just a joke, I actually like your posts as they go into great detail...when I have time to read them!)

Sorry but your slippery sloping again..

If cost is the motive,.

then a case could be made for banning any professional or semi-pro sailors in the class as they are expensive and thus with your reasoning should be made illegal..

I understand.

But sadly the sound-bite generation is dominating.

I too know that most prefer that complex issues are boiled down to one single funny punch line, but real life was never like that, right ?

Therefore I won't insult the issues at hand by pretending that they can be covered fully by a mere few sentences.

Wouter

One could make an mast autoclave from steel piping. Not sure what the cost is now but should be around $1000 for a 40 foot section in structural pressure steel 0.4' in wall thickness.. Flanges each end will give a seal to a few atms.. make the mold to slid inside .. a long heating element small fan .. compressor and a few hours work by a boiler maker. just dont ask me to pick it up!

After some searching I have found the original statements by Scarecrow.

Link : http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=203938




From other endeavours I can tell that making a new die can cost in the order of 1000-2000 Aus$

Shipping (as one single batch) dependents on distance and whether you are close to a busy shipping route. In my experience the shipping costs were not higher per item then the extrusion+die costs.

High school arithmatic can now be applied to calculate the cost for each <15.0 kg mast or <10 kg set of beams when various percentages are disguarded because of dents, scratches, crookedness or other undesireable features (high tipweights).

These are indicative numbers only as indeed finding an extruder willing to produce 1.6 mm wallthickness can be challenging. However, from 2 mm onward even Chinese companies are willing to stand by their product. Hence one reason why most beams have 2 mm walls !

Happy calculating everybody !

Wouter

P.S. What an effort must be made to not run afoul of past agreements !

then you have to anneal to the correct hardness. How many companies are prepared to guarantee the correct hardness of the ally? 1 or 2 worldwide perhaps

If there are only 1 or 2 of them that can then I know both of them. I think most extruders can anneal to the right grades. Aluminium is pretty soft without any heat treatment after extrusion. Any serious application of aluminium requires T5 or T6 annealing.

I know 6005-T5 was succesfully handled by a Chinese extruder (albeit with a minimum of 2 mm wallthickness)

http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=2807

Wouter

Go back to the Chinese company and ask for straight true 1.5mm T6 extrusions.. See what they say..

For those jobs we have a certain US based extruder (he does the superwing masts; 1.6 mm walls)

Besides T6 doesn't exist for 6005 aluminium; its equivalent for that grade is the T5.

Wouter

That is all well and good.. BUT AHCP has the rights to their work and designs (as it should be).. So they and only they have a say in how the superwing is produced..

They have, but at the start of the class we (as the F16 class) made an agreement with AHPC that other builders could use the superwing mast for their own F16 products. Given a few guidelines and provisions but no limitations !

I still have that in writing in my archive.

This is one of the best deals we have made in the F16 class. In turn, it is also very advantageous to AHPC. Basically, the superwing mast is now the standard mast for all F16's using alu there, thus making all boats highly similar in that important area. It also means that Goodall can supply quality sails for all alu masted F16's (the vast majority) while using the experience gained with the Vipers.

A win-win situation if there ever was one.

Wouter

you miss the point.. AHCP makes the decision to make new superwing molds not the F16 class or individuals... So if the mold is wearing they and they alone choose to make a new one.. Or they may decided to keep using the old.. Making an F16 ally mast mold and using their section and or extruder would be a breach of faith..

Well, contact with Greg is good and I'm sure that he will not have any objection to getting lighter masts from a new die himself.

I see no reason why the F16 builders can not come together over this and share the burden as well as the benefits.

The costs for a new die are really not that high especially when shared over the 4 builders that currently use the superwing (AHPC, Falcon Marine, Formula Catamarans and Catamaran Parts ; respectively Viper F16, Falcon F16, Blade F16 and Raptor F16).

500 bob a party will go a long way, I'm sure.


If anything we should give this a try, don't you think ? (assuming a worn out die is the cause)

Wouter

sure you can try.. Well Greg can ask if he so wishes.

The point may be then the mold will then be all 4 builders not Greg's/AHPC alone. I'm not going to work out that contractual arrangement!!

Very interesting and amusing thread.... Better than any soapy on the TV...

As I understand it, Macca has a marketing degree, has been working in the sailing industry for a number of years, and yet most of you think his opinions are considered crap and attack him personally!! I do not know Macca personally, but surely the F16 association cannot be SO precious that they attack people who may be giving them some wise advice.

And by the way.... It is A H P C..... not APHC or AHCP or any other mixture of letters.

A = Australian
H = High
P = Performance
C = Catamarans

after 18 hours awake my crapo typing slips more and more and more typos slip in..

As for advice.. I have well meaning advice from qualified experienced people that was completely wrong. The reasons behind the current rules do not seem to be understood

We wouldn't be interested in a lighter die, we already have a dozen light masts at the factory. Old a cat sections. A tiny bit smaller but about 3kg lighter.

We are happy to clear these to anyone, anywhere in the world.

Macca has a marketing degree???

And no-one else of a different opinion has ?

Wouter

At least you are getting near the point. Most of us consider his advice UNwise.

I am a weekend sailor, albeit, not a very good one. I bought my Blade because it was the LIGHTEST , fastest, spinnaker boat I could buy and by class rule, could race it single handed. I do not wish to lug more weight through the sand or even tow it behind my car.

The vast majority of us want to keep the boats as light as possible. Macca is in the minority, his arguments are not persuasive but he persists in beating this dead horse in the faint hope it will come back to life. From where I stand, he has demonstrated far greater skills at sailing than marketing.

Macca has a big degree of frustration with this group!

But I think I have worked it out: The F16 class isn't about sailing at all... Its about creating a mystical world where all sorts of different boats that comply in some way to a very broad rule can start a race on the one start line and then the results can be attributed to a variety of different factors but none of which are allowed to be that the boats are not equal.

You live in a world where carbon masts and alloy masts can compete on equal terms, where boats 25kg apart are equal and one where single handed and double handed boats perform the same. Where the production costs to build a boat to fully utilise the freedoms offered in the rule would extend well above that of an A Class.

In short you are dreaming! Whilst you do this, the rest of us will get out there and go sailing (its a sport, on the water and we all compete on equal terms, try it some day!)

The results are attributable to a single factor, skill! My lighter weight Blade does not allow me to beat Robbie Daniel on his "heavy" Viper.

There does seem to be an advantage to sailing 1-up in around 6-8 knots; that advantage seems to disappear when the wind is up to 10 knots. Other than that, the F16 box rule, as it stands today, provides very close competition for a variety of boats.

The rule does what it was intended to do. F16 is not smod!

In short you are dreaming! Whilst you do this, the rest of us will get out there and go sailing (its a sport, on the water and we all compete on equal terms, try it some day!)

What "equal terms" are you talking about Macca? Are you now going to get a real job in marketing, and sit in some cubicle for 5 days a week, then hook up YOUR boat, the one you paid $16,000+ for, then take it to the water to race against the rest of us weekend clubber hacks? Are you going to become one of us?

OR, are you going to spend several days racing someone else's boats, (VX40's, etc.) then have a brand new F16 or F18 or...? ride delivered to the regatta, jump on that brand new boat, with the latest equipment and sails, and race against us weekend clubber hacks, kick all of our butts, and claim the class needs to raise the minimum wt. because
-THAT's- what made you so much faster?

It's the sailor that wins the races. The small difference in total wt. really has very little to do with it, hell my wt. varies by about the same amount as all these boats depending on how much pizza and beer I had last night, and when I took my last dump!

BTW, I recommend you take the dump -before- you put on the drysuit...

I hate when . . .nevermind.

And the A-class, F18 class and other formula based sport classes in sailing like the Promo's and Class-5's landyachts are different in this respect ?

I mean, I can still enter a F18 worlds with a 1997 Nacra inter18 fitted with dacron sails or a pinhead Hobie Tiger and I don't see you argue that those boats are perfectly equal in performance to the say the C2, wildcat or infusion.

The fact that these boats comply to the class rules (F18 in this case) doesn't mean that they are guaranteed to be equal to all other makes, both old and new. That is not the way formula rule work.

The formula class rules only provide a cap (upper boundary) to the best performance that can be had and indeed experience and succes in both the F18 class, A-cat class and now the F16 class proof that this is beyond any doubt a realistic concept. The F18 class may needs more rules then the F16 class to achieve that, whereas the A-cat class gets by with less rules then the F16 class. Both are currently more expensive with regard to new boats then the F16 class. Having said that, all three setups have been proven to work well and do indeed provide lots of sailing enjoyment to large groups of sailors.

Against these facts the opinions of a single sailor (with or without a marketing degree) are judged to be irrelevant.

You can preach that the sky is falling till you are blue in the face, but you won't be believed until your predictions are supported by facts (not by repeated claims).

I'm sorry Macca, that is just the way it is.

Wouter

well frustration goes both ways mate..
Maybe you should only sail a mythical SMOD which has absolute quality control. Evel AHPC or Bethwaite cant guarantee their rigs are exactly the same when they leave the factory.. Never the less its what you expect

what you are really saying is..
make weight equal to Vipers.. Because its what you think is acceptable.. Which would mean our rating will have to change.

ban all carbon .. So ban stealths or grandfather them as is.. then what if Pearce at Stealth marine wants to update the design?
Make all other designs carry weight..
split class into those who wish to solo and those who sail two up. Because obviously one will naturally be quicker. You suggesting two starts?

I give you some dues Macca, for a person who has no real affiliation to a class, doesn't own a class legal boat, doesn't even sail in class regattas, you can still bang on and on and on about the one subject, year after year, getting absolutely no where and then you come up with the statement above.

Gosh that really is news to all of us, ever thought what the majority of class members think of your efforts so far ?

I'm a cabinetmaker. Been doing it quite a while. Even own my own company. When I go on a woodworking forum made up of mostly hobbiest's, they all seem like a pack of idiots. Is this a similar case? Are we a pack of idiots to you?

Careful now, slippery slope.

Hey! This is serious stuff! No sense of humor allowed.

I take offense to that statement, and so does Mr. IKEA.

I have never stated that SMOD is the answer, you just need a set of rules that promote fair racing between boats that are as equal as possible. The current situation does not allow for that.




Lets examine that for a moment: The Viper is the best performing boat at the moment, yet its heavier... Now if you run the Viper on Texel rating it comes in at 104, so all the other F16's built to the min weight have to give 3 points to the Viper? and they are behind it on the water anyhow!!



Just ban Carbon in hulls,masts, beams, booms, poles etc. You still need it in the foils. Grandfathering the boats already built is a suitable way to keep those owners engaged and I am sure that the builders that currently offer Carbon masts etc will be ok with it.. their margins will only increase...

Macca....

A = Australian
H = Heavy
P = Performance
C = Catamarans

Sorry could not resist...

A = Asia
H = Heavy
P = Performance
C = Catamarans

Sorry, one quick final edit, hehe. Especially since they don't build the boats in Australia anymore...

The HULLS are made in Asia, The Masts are made in US.... Some of the fittings are made in UK, and some others in Italy.....

and of course, the sails, rigging, other fittings, fitout etc etc are done in Australia.

Maybe they should call themselves IHPC.... I = International

So if I want to build a boat I cant..

AHPC made a decision to build the boat they did.. No one forced them.. No one gave a blanket ruling saying you must do.. They chose so now you make others jump to their business decisions.. Again I suggest you get AHPC to disclose all business planning, hull profile details so the other builders can duplicate their business model exactly.. not 99% 100%..

Now if AHPC does they are stupid and I dont think Greg is..

So they leaves the F16 as a class in a choice.. become 104 where a 19 footer is equal to a 15 footer or remain as formula class inside a semi open box rule..

this should stop right now..

You have made some excellent points above and the statement that the class is targeted at "weekend warriors" is very important.

For me the weekend warrior is the perfect market (I consider myself one). With this in mind surely the rule set should reflect and encourage boats that support their audience?

To me as an interested observer from the peanut gallery, the class is trying to serve 2 masters. It is trying to be a virtual anything goes development class that is viewed at the forefront of technology and sell that concept to the average guy who wants to go for a yacht on Saturday with the family. Putting my marketing hat on, that will be a very hard ask in the longer term. As a boat buyer, the underlying perception (right or wrong) with "High Tech", Carbon masts/beams and the like = "EXPENSIVE" which could turn an otherwise sure sale into one that got away.

I understand your point about self regulation in your point about M20's however the pessimist in me says these materials when used as part of a boat design that is soundly designed and fully developed (ie somebody spends a lot of money on it) will clean up. Right now I don't think (with all due respect) the prestige is high enough in winning a F16 Global Challenge to warrant such an investment. Over time as the class builds and winning such an event means something significant (in a broader sense) it is inevitable that someone(s) will invest the money. Then there is a problem as the class becomes out of reach of it's "weekend warrior" roots and becomes the latest gun class for a few years or so till the next one comes along.

I think it should be considered by the executive committee at the very least.

Tiger Mike

I just wish to add that the F16 class acts (is intended to act) as a feeder to both the F18 class and the A-cat class.

We are halfway between a very tightly controlled (overweight) formula class and a rather loosely controlled (flyweight) development formula class.

Over time the F18 class increasingly allowed for the use of carbon in their components; otherwise the high aspect daggerboards could not be made stiff enough. The F16 class simply avoided that by not regulating on any material choices at all. When we wrote the class rules, we already saw the writing on the wall. Same with the decision to not copy the weight equalisation system of he F18's (two different size jibs and spinnakers). Rather be right straight away then have to increasingly open up the class rules by repeated votes.

But if a customer is not willing to lay down 19800 USD (18.000 Euro with taxes) for a lightweight carbon masted Falcon F16 but is willing to pay 19.815 Euro with taxes for an heavy alu masted Hobie Wildcat F18 then I guess the F16 class is just not the right class for him.

As we are saying over and over again. F16's still have considerable leeway with it comes down to purchase costs even when fitted with carbon upgrades (about 2000 Euro leeway). At some point we also have to accept that catamaran sailing is not an inexpensive sport and the average joe will never take to it. In short, the pricing of F16's is right for the target groups.

Hell, even the most basic Hobie 16 costs 10.585 Euro's already (more with various upgrades like coloured sails). A bare Strict One-Design like the (140 kg) FX-one is already 14.000 Euro without a jib kit, spi kit, selftacker kit, carbon rudder upgrades, Pentex sails upgrade, etc. I figure an alu masted (105 kg) Falcon can be had for as little as 12.500 Euro when the same stuff is removed (fully fitted for 2-up = 15.000 Euro/111 kg). Other F16 makes like the Stealth are even cheaper !


http://www.falconmarinellc.com/falcon_pricing_2009.pdf

http://www.proust-sailing.com/hobie-polyester-55/


Really people, the facts are staring us in the face and really do show a very positive outlook for the F16's as it is setup now. If there is one thing I learned while racing catamarans then it must be :

"When you are ahead, stop fiddling about with the trim"

Wouter

Ha Ha HA Ha Ha Ha Ha........Love your work Mr Bucaneer.

10 out of 10.


Ah........Ha HA HA Ha AH Ah Aha ahha aha ah uuughhhh.......got sticthes now from laughing so hard.

Ahhhh.....now I cant breath......ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... your the man.....you guys crack me up.

Lets get one thing perfectly straight.

The Vipers did very well at the last Global Challenge (2009), but were beaten at earlier GC's even when sailed by the likes of Greg himself. For example both the VWM Blade and Aussie Blade finished ahead in 2007 and regular weekend crews are properly mixed up with non-viper weekend crews in other events.

Winning one single F16 event when having participated in all GC's over the last 3 years is not enough basis to warrant the claim that the Viper is the best performing boat at the moment. Both the Stealth design and Blade won earlier versions of the event and can rightfully lay identical claims to that title.

Also the F16's are rated under Texel as 102 (when in 2-up mode as indeed the 104 Viper is); the difference is therefor only 2 points ! OR if you will 72 seconds per hour of bouy racing.

The 101 rating belongs to a 1-up F16's ONLY; as indeed the 1-up Viper will be rated faster then the 104 2-up Viper.


Be smart Macca and do some research before you spout off inaccuracies and plain non-sense on the public airwaves.

Wouter

Only because you are comparing top sailors equiped with 20 years of rig development from the Tiapan era to club sailors on new designs.

The Viper is the quickest boat, here is a prediction for you all: The Viper will win its class at Carnac, Texel, the F16 thingy at lake Como and the intergalactic thing if it happens.

Why am I so sure? Because it is a faster boat..!!

And Wouter, I have not stated a falsehood: in F16 class racing you all run the boats off the same handicap, yet in Texel rating its done differently. So a one up F16 V's a 2 up Viper has a 3 point advantage.

Regardless of history Its still quicker now..

*laughing* yep the Viper should win.. Why? because the Vipers will have the B2 "top gun" teams on them!!
If they don't beat the Blade/Falcons/Stealths then "B2" should be hung drawn and quartered by Greg for incompetency and stupidity.

I'm confident those two aren't incompetent and stupid!! After all they did beat you on the Ts on a regular basis.. So they will have a good combo sailing on "their team"..

So lets put the competition into perspective..
The first group of say 4 "club only" racers.. Using a non superwing/Goodall sail rig.. This should sort out the "faster" hull discussion..

Macca,

Are you trying to be stupid or what ?

If you can't even look up the CORRECT Texel ratings or perform secondary grade arithmatic (104 - 102 = a 2 point difference) then you are only making a fool of yourself and dragging other well intending and unrelated parties like the AHPC company and Viper design down with it.

Also I didn't know we had arranged for a F16 class at Carnac this year and the fact that Brouwer is an Olympic medalist whereas people such as I are just, well, weekend warriors has absolutely nothing to do with us losing a direct comparison.

Afterall we also know the Tiger is a much better design then whatever F18 you are/were sailing as the Tigers have always beaten you over the years, right ? Right !

But you are correct about the following :



Indeed, you have stated MANY FALSEHOODS.

Good day to you,

Wouter

Andrew,

Carolijn Brouwer(who will be sailing the Viper at the events you mention) (Olympic campaigner) should indeed win all the events you mention. Even better, she shouldn't even loose one single race, with here skills compared to the other teams. Don't understand me wrong, I'm happy to have her and the other pro Viper sailors on board as they are the ones you learn the most from and they are the ones with the abilities to sail the F16 in the picture.

Well I didn't tell anything new here, but it fits perfectly within this entire thread as I haven't read anything new in the last 25 pages....

Buy a Falcon! The fastest F16 in Belgium > check the race results!

If some of you muppets put as much effort into sailing as you do dribbiling ****, you might be able to take a few races off carolijn. When is this we only got beaten because we can't sail **** gunna stop!

Good point Aido. Matty Homan was able to do it in the NSW Taipan States a few weeks ago. 1st Matt Homan with Red Dog crew, 2nd Slater with Bundock crew, third Brouwer with Peachy crew. No photos but I was on the same course in the A States.

******** to say that it is only the Viper that makes her fast!

I can't wait to sail Carnac and the Europeans as I really want to see how fast she is on the Viper and I hope there will be as much F16 as possible, whatever the brand.

Enjoy this thread.

The Raptor will also be at Carnac, so another F16 model will be there.

I'm glad you don't expect to much.. So if the Viper wins its the sailors & if the Viper loses its the boat.. sounds fair?. We should take it as a complement but you cant have it both ways.. I hope we will win some and I'm sure we will loose some.

Maybe you should ask the question why we have chosen the Viper? could we have chosen any F16?

I would like to see this forum promote F16 as at the moment it does not. There are a lot of good ideas on this forum but they get shut down due to personalities.

Questions:
Why has F16 not boomed in Europe?
Why has F18? I don't believe they compete against each other for sailors but should complement each other.

The F16 class will eventually come under pressure to become a bit more professional and now is the time to decide its direction for the future before it it happens.
Do you want manufactures involved?
Do you want full development?
Do you want to limit costs?
Who makes these decisions?

Looking forward to constructive brain storming..

Bundy (in Europe now)
www.2bsailing.eu

Wouter,

one up f16 rating = 101
two up viper rating = 104

my simple mathematic skills give me a 3 point difference... Correct me if I have made a miscalculation.

Because the European F16 manufacturers are confidential and do not manufacture enough boats. If you want a Stealth, you will wait for it for a god 5-6 months for example. Imports have been scarce because of costs of importing a small number of boats.

I'm thrilled AHPC decided to push the Viper in Europe, Francis success in France last year shows that there is a market and that with a minimum of marketing boats could sell.


Please define "professional"?

Yes to get the big manufacturers involved. The more the merrier.

Yes to full development. Whoever is paying for it will pull the class forward. Yes it will make my sails, mast and everything obsolete. But guess what: they already are

Cost limitation will autoregulate due to the class rules. You can't build a boat lighter than the rule, or longer, or with foils. If someone is crazy enough to build a all carbon monster, with sails in unobtanium, heck that's fine with me. But if it measure, the performance gain will be minuscule compared to the performance gain of putting a Bundy on it rather than me

Those kind of decisions are made by the class members, by voting on the rules. I think the rules as they are are fine, I see no reason to change them. Some of it needs a little clarification, or a slight rewrite. But any change to any box rule parameter would be a mistake in my opinion.

Now AHPC has also a decision to make as well: Do they really want to push a F16 class or do they one to push some sort of one design Viper/104 kind of beast?

Macca,

Why don't you use the SCHRS ratings system ?

The rating differences between singlehanded boats (1-up) and doublehanded boats (2-up) is even larger there !

(see my other posts for a more detailed reply to your repeated inaccuracies)

Wouter

[quote=Bundy. . .
The F16 class will eventually come under pressure to become a bit more professional and now is the time to decide its direction for the future before it it happens.
Do you want manufactures involved?
Do you want full development?
Do you want to limit costs?
Who makes these decisions?

Looking forward to constructive brain storming..

Bundy (in Europe now)
www.2bsailing.eu


[/quote]


I disagree on one point. The class is already under pressure to become more professional!

I can't speak to Europe but in the U.S. we are training measurer's and working towards certification of our fleet. A small group of us were at a seminar yesterday with an ISAF certified measurer. Our immediate aim is to certify boats for the upcoming Nationals in April. As we are starting from scratch, I expect this first exercise to have some rough edges, but we will do the best we can with the people and experience available.

This effort is absolutely in response to the criticism from other sailors, inside and outside the class, that we aren't serious minded. We are serious and intend to demonstrate the point.

In answer to the remainder of your post: I think having manufacturers involved is essential to strike some sort of balance among the other factors you've mentioned and I favor a strong class association as the final decision maker.

Imo, it would be of little value to produce a cutting edge product that no one could afford, for sale to the general public. However, it might be worth noting that auto racing permits and encourages factory prototypes. That might apply to our situation. As a "factory prototype" I'd say (just about)anything goes.

I have to add that I don't think we can have this discussion on an open forum and would very much like to see it (the discussion) restricted to boat owners.

No that doesn't sound fair indeed and that is actually a very good point. Especially when the names are reversed.

When (amateur husband/wife) team McDonald made an impression in the last day of the GC2009 (two 2nd's and a 1st place) then it was because of the lighter winds and when they did less so in the earlier days it was because the Viper is a better design alround (not because team McD. scored 5 dns's due to part issues as they also scored several 4th, 5th and 6th places in the rough stuff).

This sword cuts both way apparently.

I for one see as good as all the F16 members (and the class) argue that under the formula rules (be it F18 or F16) it is ALWAYS the crew that makes the real difference. Whether the result is good or bad. Also no-one here really believes that 20 kg is enough of a factor to differentiate between (weekend warrior) crews when compared to the much larger differences caused by varying crew skills (many minutes per race) and indeed crew weights. Rating systems like Texel seem to agree as they rate the heavier designs (incl. my own homebuild) only about a minute slower per hour. Largely irrelevant when the fleet also needs 10-15 minutes to finish over a course of 60 min. duration. Interestingly enough, beafy Viper CREWS did very well at the GC2009 too. If a 40+ kg difference between Viper crews is of no large consequence then why should a much smaller weight difference (20 kg) between different F16 boats be ?

I actually find that a few well known posters (several of them not even F16 owners/sailors) repeatedly go against this realistic and well balanced stance and argue in favour of the Viper design when its CREWS win and against the other makes when THEIR crews loose. Opposite results are regulary ignored or explained away (GC2009, GC2007 and GC2008 come to mind) and indeed conflicts between their own arguments (inconsistantcy) are left unexamined.

I also find that neither AHPC, Daniel, Brett or anyone else officially linked to the Viper F16 design is party to that. Yet, I also don't see them actively combatting such distractions either.

I fear this does allow for the larger public to throw the official parties on the same heap as the distractors; which is unfair too, but also understandable. Afterall, cui bono ?

A sad situation that I feel is best correct by all involved.

The F16 class has a bright future whereas alternatives are indeed struggling (F104, FX-one, iCat, Inter 17, M18, Javelin 16, etc). We either all make this work or hope that a better alternative somehow establishes itself after we have allowed the truly viable F16 class to be killed off for no good reason. I seriously doubt whether the latter option has any merit. I was closely involved in the creation and initial growth of the F16 class and understand how hard it is to get something like this off the ground. There may well not be an (better) alternative for many decades to come.

Therefor I invite every (official) party to make a stand in favour of the F16 class as indeed mr. Bundock does in his posting.

Wouter

Darren,

In this seperate post I wish to give some of my view to the points you raise.



>>>Why has F16 not boomed in Europe?

Answer : Supply side and promotion issues.

I have always found that interest in buying these boats has always been around. I was involved in succesfully forming buying groups but issues in the supply side have often prevented sales from being finalized. I also found that demo rides were the best way to "seal the deals" but I stopped giving those about 3 years ago and no-one made an effort to reinstate that promo-activity. Best is to give demo rides with a skilled F16 skippers onboard to put the boat through its paces. The finish the program off, we need a visible support structure that customers trust and value. I refer to the history of Capricorn sales for details in this respect. Maybe the question :"Why was the Capricorn F18 boom halted" can be very entlighting. The F16 class didn't have such issues in the USA and the results are obvious.


>>>Why has F18?

Answer, why did it take the F18's so long before establishing viable fleets in say the USA ? Different times, different area's, different opportunities. A good number of developments (both good and bad) come down on luck. F18's also had early support by large builders in EU (but not USA), F16 does not mostly because we are indeed a customer driven class. We created it partly because we, the founders/sailors/buyers, felt that 150+ kg singlehanders composed of scrapped F18 parts were not attractive and the large builders were not about to provide the right boats for the target groups like singlehanders, light to medium crews, mixed crews etc. In short, the foundation on which both classes were founded is different. F18 was more a builders oriented class, created by builders (Mattia, Alado, etc) and actively pushed by it. F16 class was more of a correction of a skewed multihull scene and creating ourselves what the builders wouldn't not create for us.


>>I don't believe they compete against each other for sailors but should complement each other.

Yes, that was always the intention of the F16 class ever since the founding (among other things). The F16 class was actively engineered to fill in the remaining gaps, consolidate the catamaran scene around a few classes catering to all possible desires and act as a growth path to higher flying classes like the F18's, A-cats and any olympic class. Personally, I feel that truly entry level multi classes are still missing at this time. The SL16 class is mostly a French affair (nacra 500 would have been a better choice from an international perspective) and we still miss a laser-1 equivalent as the F12 class has not really provided that yet. See also the schematic that is attached to this posting.


>>>The F16 class will eventually come under pressure to become a bit more professional and now is the time to decide its direction for the future before it it happens.


I dare say that such considerations were already made at the very beginning. Several builders were consulted and indeed bought into that vision and truly believe in it. I name Formula Catamarans (Aus), Stealth Marine (EU), Catamaranparts (EU) and Falcon Marine (USA). Rumour has it that more are seriously considering it. AHPC was also consulted and did sell fully optimized boats to F16 customers at one time (Taipan F16's, modified at the factory). As such the class has a future for there are people like myself hwho will seriously consider boats made by these builders. I'm spoiled for life now since I've owned a F16 ! Not a weekend goes by that I don't thank the lord for my truly lightweight versatile boat. Often because other crews (of heavier) boats ask me to help them handle their boats from the parking to the waterline. I'm one of the very few that actually walks up his boat on the sandy incline; others use the electric winch.

The choice for these specific (lightweight) F16 specifications was inspired by professionalism. It aims at getting truly well made boats available from builders and the balance between the specs make it them very attractive buys. As such customers are much more willing to part with lots of money. All beach cats are expensive, that is a given, so it is much better to have a setup that speaks to the imagination of the customer. It just occured to me that maybe not so much the class but the builders/agents must expect to come under pressure to become a bit more "professional". Gone are the times where a 150 kg singlehander can be advertized as being state of the art.



>>>Do you want manufactures involved?

Yes, but on our terms !

The F16 class has a mission statement, if you will, and it doesn't want to end up back at 150+ kg boats composed of scrapped F18 parts and still cost 17500 Euro's.


>>>Do you want full development?

No, but we do want controlled development. Not evolving is equal to dying slowly. Heaps of multihull examples can be found for that.


>>>Do you want to limit costs?

Not really. We either want very well and purposed engineered boats for reasonable costs (say F18 costs or less) OR we want truly inexpensive boats (< 12.5000 Euro's) that are still sufficiently well behaved.

What we don't want is the worst of both worlds by giving up the best of both worlds as the F16 class currently appears to deliver. Afterall, I can buy a 15.000/112 kg Falcon F16 that has been specially developped for versatile 1-up/2-up sailing. A 40 kg less then the big builder alternatives and also 3000 Euro's cheaper.

Better still would be to work up such a market as the F16 class that customers are willing to pay more for these boats and thus allow the builders to earn more for their "professionalism". That would result in the ideal situation. Better boats with better earnings. Everybody will be more happy then. More happy then even with "less" better boats and more earnings.


>>>Who makes these decisions?

The class members do, but also to some extend the class founders. The latter do not have any special votes or whatever, but they did create the class with a clear vision that is now encoded in the F16 class rules. If they wanted to be part of the "old way of doing things" (heavy, expensive, mediocre and stagnant) then they would have bought into one of the existing classes that were around at the time (2001).

Transforming this vision into "the old way" by repeated votes and lobbying will not do any good. It will only make the class schizofrenic as it will try to act differently then what it truly is at its core. No one will benefit from that. Not the builders (who will first destroy a class and market in order to save it) and also not the boat owners (as they will resent them for it after knowingly buying into the old vision). Lets not forget that many of us have spend large sums of money to be part of this F16 class. It is not only the builders and agents with a sizeable stakes in how things are progressed. No-one wants to be grandfathered out of the class after having spend 15.000 bucks and often also lots of spare time as a volunteer.


I hope my statements are helpful in some way,

With kind regards,

Wouter

Firstly welcome to the class and this forum....

I actually postulated a way to "measure" hull speed alone.. Discounting good and bad crews.. Nothing more or less..

Do expect a lot from you and you teams!! you are both extremely talented sailors around the peaks of your skills.. I also expect others to pick up in response to a good team emerging.

Im sure there are reasons you chose the Viper.. AHPC builds a good platform.. I dont know if you spoke to all the manufacturers who currently build F16s or who have F16s on the boards.. Im sure though its a private business decision (as it should be)..

congrats and all the best with the design..

Totally driven by the $$$ is my educated guess.



Because pushy smart butt like macca with backing from the large manufatcurer ( its no secret who it is)constantly picks at the edge of the current class rules to suit his employers wishes........not the sailors.

I have said it many times before, but once more for the dummies: I am not employed by any manufacturer currently.

Who's Backing Macca??

I don't think Macca needs anyone's backing - He is apparently quite capable of backing himself into a corner from which it seems, he has no retreat. And like all things cornered, he will use any and every means that springs to his mind, trying to extricate himself from “a sticky situation”. Still if Macca’s “opinions” are really his own, I respect that, as long as he respects my rights to disagree with them.

I believe Macca when he says that he is not "employed" by a manufacturer. But that doesn't stop him from acting on behalf of a manufacturer as a paid "consultant" on a contract basis. I employ quite a few people in my company, but that are all contractors. Saves me paying holiday leave, sick leave and super.

Clayton - Stop these ridiculous insinuating statements. The F16 association does not need this kind of garbage. If you REALLY know WHO is paying him… Just say so, otherwise SHUT UP.

It is comments like this that will damage relationships between this class and ALL manufacturers. If you want their support, then stop treating them with such disrespect.

Sh!t, 3/4's of the reason I bought a F16 was so I could join the infighting.

I am sure the F16 sailor's (from here) veiws are a lot different than that of sailors from the F18, A Class and Tornado class for example. Perhaps this discussion should be on the open forum where there will be less bias and should I say it..... A more experienced view.

And for all those who say you can not build a lighter boat because the class restricts the min weight..... you are correct. But you can sure as hell build a stiffer one with more volume. And to think it would not cost more than an A class and not be a quicker product is sticking your head in the sand.

Right, the more you are screaming that the sky is falling the more you'll get the same reply.

The facts simply contradict your convictions.

All prices are incl. EU taxes.


High hull volume, stiff platform ?

Viper F16 (with alu mast); 15.950 Euro's (and 23 kg over min. weight)

Source : http://www.lindstaedt.com/viper_f16.html


High hull volume, stiff platform AND minimum weight ?

Stealth F16 (with carbon mast stand.) : 15.000 Euro's
Falcon F16 (+ carbon mast upgrade): 18500 Euro's (15.000 with an alu mast and 5 kg over min. weight)
Aussie Blade F16 (+ carbon mast upgrade) : 17.150 Euro's (15.600 with an alu mast and very close to min. weight)

Source : Last quote I know off (Stealth Marine website is currently offline)
Source : http://www.falconmarinellc.com/falcon_pricing_2009.pdf
Source : http://www.formulacatamarans.com/pricing.html

The pricing for the Raptor F16 is not known to me yet



I seem to remember that basic A-class cats start at 17.500 Euro's in the EU market.

"Hot" A-classes like the Geltek flyer 2 are costing significantly more.

Modern F18's are :

Hobie Wildcat 19.815 Euro's.
Nacra Infusion 18.250 Euro's (add 1000 Euro's for race package = standard on F16's !)
Wasn't the Cap F18 18.500 Euro's a few years back ?
I wonder what the C2 F18 will be sold for ?
Even the outdated Tiger F18 is still 16.750 Euro in basic setup (race package costs 2500 bucks extra) Together no less then 19.250 Euro's !

Interesting detail is that the race package on the Tiger and Infusion actually contains the snuffer setup etc; pretty much essentials when it comes to racing; also contains carbon fibre boards etc. All of these things come standard on F16's !

I dare say that any modern F18 is between 19.000 and 20.500 Euro's on the EU market (incl. taxes) and for that you get daggerboards that weight 3 kg a piece (1.8 kg on a F16) !

In fact it seems that the F18's are more expensive then the A's and it doesn't seem to hold the F18 class back much at all !

This also disproofs the "believe" that one can actually force inexpensive boats by tightly regulating the class and using only cheap and heavy materials/components.

Source : http://www.proust-sailing.com/hobie-polyester-55/
Source : http://www.lindstaedt.com/nacra_f18_infusion.html
Source : http://www.proust-sailing.com/polyester-55/495-hobie-tiger.html


So, I don't see the problem at all really.

In fact, we have actually PROVEN that our vision is the right one.

F16's, superior boats for less money !

Wouter

Is that actually translating into sales of boats? Wildcat is EUR3,865 more than a Viper, but on the front page of Sailing Anarchy today is the following:

The F-18 catamaran class continues its wicked ways, with new boat and sail designs popping up everywhere, and consistently big fleets popping up seemingly everywhere. From the SA-Europe desk of John Casey comes this short report:

Last week was a special one at Hobie Cat Holland. 15 new Wildcats came in just in time for the sailing season to start, and more are on the way. Almost all of the trade-ins were sold as well. The racing F18 fleet in the Netherlands should grow by heaps this year. We’ll see, as last year there were a steady 50 cats on the line for every regatta. A Dragoon and more Hobie 16s came in as well. My sports trainer and best friend, Rob Topper, always told me, “Never worry about how much you spend on the sport you love.”

Moths are one helluva expensive boat at USD21,500, but they can't build them quick enough with a waiting list of at least 3 months and orders coming from around the globe.

I am not seeing the these type of numbers being reported in the F16 class. This is probably where the discussion point should be.

Not selling me Wouter.

An A class is very little boat for what you pay for. Forget the length, think about what is on an A. 1 sail, very little fittings and ropes, no spinnaker equiptment.....

An F16 is very simular to an F18 in this regards and also require a boat of MUCH greater volume and strenght than an A.

Forget the F16s mentioned above, I keep seeing close to min weight and 5gk over. It is not min weight. Boats should be built a few kg lighter than min and brought up to weight with correctors. Yes, you can add carbon masts and beams but the price keeps going up. Add more volume in the hulls, use more carbon in the hulls, nomex, autoclave...... Then you will get a much stiffer, quicker boat that is at min.

I find it amusing that people like Macca, Brett, Greg and Bundy come on here with a hell of a lot more industry experience then anyone else here and are told they are wrong. Your head is that buried in the sand you can not hear good advice from those who would know.

With the Viper drive in Europe about to start, you will see the F16 grow into a more serious class and loose rules WILL be exploited. Your vision has proven nothing other than getting a class off the ground. Keeping it going in the right direction will be another story.

So obviously YOU are comfortable with manufacturers & their representatives dishing up garbage & incinuations and dont appreciate f16 sailors standing up to them.

Could this mean you are also associatied with a manufacturer.? AHPC?





Disrespect....hmmm....no dissappointment is more the issue. This individual claims no current backing by a manufacturer, (he is obviously curently is Aussie land), but when macca fly's back to Europe he assemblems boats for Narca, assists in the delivery of the same boats, provides customer support & gets to go racing onthe same product.

So which is the better of two evils here........disrespect or dishonesty.

The F16 class has a set of rules - if you dont like them dont play

Actually, I feel you have a point there !

In my opinion, making the F16's heavier or more restricted is not a solution for that problem (as these are not in any way related to the real problems).

Doing more promo, improving the dealorships and support network and getting out there with well skilled crews that show what these boats can do will be alot more effective.

Wouter

Im sure an A class skipper has different views.. Then Im sure a C class skipper has as well or even an ORMA skipper as well as maxi-mono hull.. I have views on their classes.. But Im not going to go into their forums just to stir.
But if you wish to go into the open forum and ask "Is the Tornado or F18 too heavy or the A class too light".. please feel free..

Fact is you and macca were invited to give input when the class was being developed. Fact is you didn't.

Actually, we're saying that you and Macca are wrong.

Don't drag other persons like Greg, Brett and Darren in the mix because you can't hold the line on your own. It's a sign of weakness and dishonourable.

I've found the other persons alot more nuanced in their opinions.

Other then that I think Clayton said it best :"The F16 class has a set of rules - if you dont like them dont play"

Wouter

Sorry Stuart, I was never invited to give any input when the class was being developed and I doupt Macca was also. I am also sure the other class's you mentioned above would also share simular views on the subjects we raised. They have elected to be very development driven class's and accept the costs assosiated with it. The F16 class wants to be a formula class, very open to development but does not accept this would drive the boats up dramatically in price if the class becomes competitive enough and stakes high enough to warrant.

so the goal is to make an ultimate F16.. needing 5 kg correctors.

ps you dont need an autoclave with nomex.. That is so 1980s.. get with the program boy!!

Lets all (Including Wouter) STFU and go sailing. Opps; I can't as I'm damaged; I'm going skiing.

See ya later.

sorry mate.. but you, macca, in fact the world was.. go back into our archives!!

It was an open discussion.. anyone who wanted could voice their opinion.. you macca didnt.. sorry..

Wouter, would you care to comment on this interview with Greg Goodall. Echoing exactly the same points. I guess he is wrong too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFzZ9D4WAD8

swap my trudging thru mud with mozzies, carrying nasty buggies, and dodging high speed lead projectiles for your skiing trip!!

That is a strawman argument Stephen. First you postulate that we don't and then you blame us for it.

I see in fact that the F16 sailors embrace "controlled development" under the given rules (think 1.8 kg daggers instead of 3.0 gk daggers) and to our surprise it has not raised costs beyond the F18's or A's yet. We're also now at the 3rd generation of F16's and I see no (public) fits by owners of 1st generation boats. We all seem to be very content with what we got here. Older boats get sold on and grow the class while the more serious sailors are on new designs.

The guys throwing annual fits at every start of a new EU season (souring the market ?) are not F16 boat owners at all.


In fact, it is actually you and macca who don't accept any development in the F16 class and the costs that may or may not be associated with that. We are willing to take the risk, you are not. So make up your mind and get involved (and accept the situation as it is) or stay out of the class (and let us be).

Wouter

The F16 class was not on my radar back then as was many other classes. I never saw these threads, they were never brought to my attention, so no I was not invited.

I will be taking the risk soon. And I am defending people who have been told they are wrong (both on and off line). I did not start the $hit fight but have every right to defend and agree with someone else's comments. It is a discussuion forum isn't it?????

Okay, I'll bite.

I can buy a (wide-bodied) Falcon F16 at 112 kg (or lighter) for less money then I can buy a Viper F16 at 130 kg. Therefore I see no sound foundation for Greg's claim that more hull volume must increase boatweight beyond a few kg or that lightweight boats increase the costs to unacceptable levels. In fact, in the past I worked with him to sell a container of Taipan F16's to EU. ; that refers to factory modified Taipan 4.9's to full F16 specs INCL. min weight. The price quotes then were not out of line with what is being asked for regular F16's now. So I know AHPC can build affordable min. weight F16's. I also know that they simply decided not to do so. Greg feels the Viper F16 is a competitive boat even with the added weight and I agree with him. Greg was consulted on the carbon beams issue and a compromise satisfactory to all (incl. Greg) was reached in 2002/2003. The F16 class stands by that compromise (as should the other parties). Disallowing carbon masts would force a builder of the first hour plus many class members out of the class and give AHPC a monopoly on F16 masts (at least initially); neither of which is acceptable politically. Greg knows this.

In defense of Greg; he has always taken me seriously and never communicated with me in the way you and Macca seem to think is appropriet. As far as I can tell the Viper F16 design receives much benefit from the F16 class as indeed the other way around.

Wouter

Can't these people defend themselves ?

Do they need a champion like you for their cause ?

Nor I did start this %^$@-fight, neither the F16 class members. Who are you accusing of wrong doing here ?

But indeed, feel free to agree and disagree with people and discuss the issues on the forum. I nor others have banned you from this forum; we stand by our initial vision and that is to counteract arguments with arguments. Neither we are required to agree with you.

However, there is one rule of common sense. It won't do much good by disagreeing with FACTS.

You may believe the use of carbon makes F16's very expensive, but when compared to other designs in the market (typically not using as much of the stuff) then the costs of F16's (even carbon ones) is not bearing this out.

Arguing that future boats that use the same materials and approaches will be much more expensive then the fully upgraded versions now is a little unhinged. Typically, technological advances grow cheaper over time.

Exactly the point that Matt McDonald of Falcon Marine is making in his interview. Are you in fact arguing that he is wrong ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRR1zCnd0uc&feature=related


I feel that at that in such a situation the other posters are justified in telling you to recognize the facts and move on.

Having said all this, if you do decide for a F16 then I'm sure we all here are happy to welcome you and wish you the best of sailing enjoyment. Disagreeing passionately does not equate to disrepecting eachother.

Wouter

the class was advertised.. questions openly asked.. anyone at that time could have helped write the rules..

Ok so it wasn't on your horizons well... *shrugs*..

Hey, What "new materials" is Matt referring to in his interview? apparently will get the boats down to minimum weight, so I would love to know what these new materials are...

The Diamond inlays that Wouter goes on about? or maybe the unobtanium is the answer?

Talk about ^%$#-fights !

I remember those days and we all did have some passionate debates back then as well.

But the F16 class rules are better for it !

At every single step, each and any feature had to be justified on verifiable merits in front of a (public) panel of peer-reviewers. Membership in that "panel" was completely open. Anyone who wanted in, got in and all debates were held out in the open here on the catsailor forum.

What time it was !

Harsh sometimes, but also very exiting.

Wouter

unobtainium is unobtainable.. Something about large blue men in leather G strings.. Your from Sydney you should know these things!!

I can't wait for Phil to get his Razor on the water. I'm predicting a little "tech shock"!

I have to agree with HJS on this one. It is pretty disrespectful to all manufactures to throw around accusations without any support or even naming them and allowing them to defend themselves. Manufactures do what we do because we love it.

If you assume we would "employ" people to bang the drum on online forum just in aid of our cause you are absolutely wrong. That is destructive to our brand and, more importantly, the class we belong to. If we have concerns with the rules or anything regarding the running of an association we go directly to that association.

As the F16 class becomes more prestigious, we do have the serious concern of a cost blow out. We have raised this with the association and they simply do not share this concern. We are satisfied that they have weighed up the facts and made their decision accordingly. Once again, we do not have the same opinion on this issue but just as clayton said "The F16 class has a set of rules - if you dont like them dont play"... we choose to play!!!

At the risk of starting another sh!t storm I think the "constructive conversation" here is really good. I don't think there is any need for the shooting down of ideas simply due to the persons putting them forward. I like it when people have differing opinions, it gives us all an opportunity to learn.

We chose to play also & relish the challenge.

OK,
Let’s start with the simple things. Epoxy resin is twice as expensive but has not appreciable advantages over a good vinylester resin, buy your logic we should ban it to control costs?

We can build with Rohacel core and still have better structural properties at almost half the weight of the Divinicell style core being used by the big builders. We have nano filled resin systems. My neighbor has a surf board at 1/3 less weight than a standard glass board and he can drop it onto the pavement from his van roof and it will not ding or dent. Think what you could do to your hull weight not having to have extra laminate just to withstand heels, knees, trailers and the beach?

This is just 2 very quick examples of things that anyone could go use today if you wish. Any added expense or processing issues in all likelihood will be resolved within a few years time. And in that time who can predict how many other new technologies may come along. You find carbon fiber now in everything from shoes to rocket ships (most of it is stricktly for marketing bling) but I would say it is pretty common and available technology today. Why if people can build better boats as new technologies are introduced should we as a class restrict ourselves to the dark ages? If you want that there is already a class for you.

If you are actually interested in doing something positive for the F16 class, please stick to the topics you know something about. I am sure everyone would be significantly better off learning and discussing how to sail better and faster.

Matt, I was asking a question..

But you should never miss an opportunity to have a shot at me..

Back to your post though:- So you are saying that the class should allow everything because one day it might become cheaper than the current standards? I think you would be better to leave the material experiment stuff to the guys with big budgets like the AC teams, big boat builders and industry specific researchers. Then take advantage of the developed technology. Unless the F16 is prepared to become a guinea pig class for boat fiddlers at the expense of quality fleets and racing?

If Carbon was in any way cheaper than glass or alloy then I would see no issue with it, however in the real world it is more expensive to build a boat, masts etc out of carbon. (unless you are going to tell me that you can build a boat in carbon for the same price as a glass boat?)

All becoming handbags at dawn. Who swings first?

Actually we already leave serious materials stuff to the AC guy/girls this then trickles to the Cs and A girls/boys. In my day it was the 18teens.. There has been no real new technology in hulls since the 80s apart from low temp epoxies.. Mainly just costs have decreased hugely.. Where new technology has come into the sport is in sail material, sail design and ropes..

But all this was discussed when the rules were written..

I want the Hermes!!

I didn't want to announce this yet but it seems it's time, as you will find out next week anyway when you trip over it.

I've been secretly working with some guys out at the Lockheed Skunk Works, they are building me a minimum wt. F16 out of all the lastest aerospace fibers. As an added bonus, it's invisible. That's right, you can't see it, or the sails, which will make it a bitch to measure.

I'm taking the "Stealth" thing to a whole new level. When you see me go by you, it'll look like I'm kite sailing, but no kite, or board. In reality I'll be on my invisible Skunk Works boat, the SW F16! I think I'll call it "The Little Stinker". Hey, what's that smell? That's me baby! Bowin' by you so fast I need to change my underware!

And when you are walking up the beach, do NOT trip over the hulls. Sure, it will look like my empty set of beach wheels, but in fact it will be my new boat! Stay away, far away. I wish I could tell you more about it, but then I'd have to kill you.

Now, here's the best part. After I pay these Lockheed guys $1.2 Million to build my Little Stinker, I can win the...what?

The F16 N/A's?

The GC?

So what? What does that get me? Is there a cash prize? Can I get Lockheed to sponsor me? Maybe they'll make me a dealer? I'll bet as soon as I win the N/A's the orders will be flowing! Maybe I can quit my day job and just Sail for a living! Whoo Hoo, look at me now baby!

Anyone who thinks they are going to spend a bunch of money to build up the -ultimate- F16 and then beat some of the better sailors in this class, is smoking crack...or should be. And why would they do that? What is the big "Payoff"? Same goes for changing the rules, why would you want to do that unless there is some monetary reward?

So you are the F16 Galactic Champion. So what? Who cares? Anyone?

We don't even have a cat in the Olympics anymore, so who cares what you won, once, on your super cat? I really don't see that as a credible threat to the class.

All the Unobtainium in the world won't make up for a bad start, a blown tack, or a slow douse. Concentrate on sailing, let the tweakers tweak to their heart's content, and let's see what works. Some day maybe carbon will be cheaper and we can all get new masts and beams. Until then, the F16 rules are as they are for a reason. The best sailors are still going to win most of the races, no matter what they are on. A few kilo's one way or the other won't change that.

Let it go.

And don't back up, that could be my new boat right behind you...

Birkin or Kelly? Somebody knows his handbags!

Don't stop this discussion now - it's my daily cheap entertainment!

A couple of comments though from an outsider who is unlikely to ever sail an F16.
Some brief comparisons have been made with A's in terms of both weight and cost. I have some knowledge in that area and don't believe the comparisons to be very useful. A's are long established in the market (late 1960's) and attract committed racers who are prepared to try different things almost without regard to cost. They are viewed as a premium product, usually with the best fittings and components, and the build labour is expensive. This is because of not only expensive materials such as carbon but mainly the expertise and time required to build hulls to the tolerences and strength to get down to the weight. F16's on the other hand are new to the market and are price sensitive to attract new sailors or convince those from other classes to make the change.
A heavier A for example by 20kg would sell no boats as it would impact greatly on performance. An increase of 20kg for an F16 has much less impact because it changes it's upwind speed little and downwind it, unlike an A, more than doubles it's sail area downwind. In the case of the Viper the extra weight seems to have gone to stiffer beams and bigger volume hulls. These factors probably at least compensate for the extra weight. AHPC have been able to keep the cost down and provide better performance by utilising some common parts with the F18. Sounds like a win/win to me.
Getting AHPC involved with F16 seems to me to be a good thing for them and the class. As a medium sized builder they can generate exposure all over the world unlike the others who seemed to be only able to sell boats in their own region. I can't speak for other place but in Australia it is still a relatively rare thing to see an F16 at a regatta. With the Viper and if other large manufacturers get involved that should change.
Good luck - it's a fine concept and will hopefully get more people on the water.
I have no affiliation with AHPC other than being a satisfied customer for the last 28 years.
BTW Brett, I'm sure HJS is glad you agree with her.............

There would be fireworks at home if he didn't!

I would like to find out something new.
What does the J stand for ?

Timbo,

the Klingon's, Romulans and JAMES BOND have had cloaking technology for like years! Why dont you try and come up with something original! like a transwarp drive so you can finish before you start

Im going for the "Massai".. in tan!!

Macca should be in jimmy choos since he is the pro!!


Hey you must be my credit cards bank manager being so well educated on these types of items.. My GF has name brand taste... *mutters*..

how will anyone know you have crossed the line???

Since your so "in" with skunk works.. and thus must have a high security clearance.. can I ask a question?

who really shot Kennedy?

and can I get an "aurora"? How fast do those babies do?
So many questions so little time.....

So let's look at some facts.

Why don't you announce the true boat weights at the past GCs. Or is that confidential F16 class information.

So as you say the Blade comes in at nearly 112. Is that correct. The Falcon is about 5 kg above min so that would make it about 117 kg. The Blade has been around for a bit now and they are building them lighter and lighter trying to get them down to min. Sure you can make them lighter if you use carbon mast beams and hulls, so why don’t they. I’ll answer for you. Because it would cost considerably more and price them out of the market. These are new boats and they are struggling to get them down to weight, let alone build them under by a few kg and bring them up to min weight which seems a standard with any other manufacturer. This would suggest the min weight is too low.

I originally suggested a 115kg min but now think a 120 kg would be more realistic. That way the Falcon is ideal weight and can be brought up to 120 with 3 kg of correctors. Older F16s that are heavier may be closer to the min as well. Ban the use of carbon in everything except foils (AHPC are not the only people in the world who can built alloy wing masts) and ensure the price of boats do not spiral out of control in the future.

Would it hurt to have a realistic min weight that reflects the true weight of the class, or is the class more concerned with giving the sailing world a false impression of itself, a 112 kg double hander that is as quick as an F18. That is all I hear from its internet racers. It is a great product, has unique versatility and has a very bright future if guided the right way. Don’t BS the sailing public, they are smarter than that.

TA, the facts are the min weight is 104 singled handed and 107 double handed. My boat, set up for singled handed weighed in at 105.5 new. It would about 106 now.

After talking to the builder of the hulls and foils further weight savings can be made not through exotic materials ( the carbon boat came in slightly heavier) but through more labour in the building process.

Maybe I missed Wouter's comment on the Blade, but I know he said earlier in the thread that the Falcon is 112kg.


107+5=117 ?

Sorry, got 112 min for 2 up stuck in my head for a bit.

107+5=112 So why not a 115kg min then?

See, that's the problem right there, you have here people makeing "sugestions" who are not even IN the F16 class, don't own a F16, probably never will, and they have no idea what the real rules and weights are, yet they think we should change the rules and weights...to suit...?

Whom?

It is 11.30 at night and I was at work at 6.00am. I'm tired, slipped up on the figure but does not change may argument other than by 5 kg.

I am not saying lift the weight to 130 to meet the Viper weight, but lift it to 115 to help meet the Blade and Falcon's weight comfortably. You can not tell me every Falcon comes out of the factory at 112kg. There will be variences, hence why you bring a boat up to weight with correctors.

and add 9kg of lead to my boat? No thanks. I'd have to give up chocolate and ice cream.

The arrogance is astounding. Do you ever see F16 owners on the Tornado or F18 boards telling you what your rules -should- be?

I sold my F18 a few years ago. I am currently crewing a Tornado for a friend. When we finish building our house, we will be looking for an F16.

The arrogance belongs to a few F16 internet racers. My views are shared by some in the F16 class and many outside. There is no point discussing with someone who has their head in the sand. Take the blinkers of and have a look at the real world of catamaran racing.

Well, since I actually own an F16, and have for 3 years, and I was at the last GC observing all the F16's, and I'll be measuring and weighing more F16's at the upcomming F16 National Championships (Guflport, Apr.9-11, shameless plug!) I don't think I have my head in the sand on this issue.

I never heard a single F16 -owner- at the last GC say, "Hey, let's all raise the weight to make it more fair!!" and that was with a mix of Viper owners and others, more Vipers sailors than others I think. Nobody thought weight was an issue.

In fact, if you watch the You Tube videos, you will hear one of the top US skippers say, "It's a Development class, let it develop..." in response to being asked that very question. And he was sailing a Viper.

Noted.


I can't speak for the class, and I'm assuming this has been discussed to death already (sorry I haven't been around much in a very long time), but I believe the general thinking is that any actual performance impact of those few kg is very small relative to other factors that we choose not to equalize such as crew weight and boat design as well as sailor performance. While setting the minimum weight a little above (someone's) factory weight as you suggest may be a common approach in other classes and could *in theory* enhance equalization a little, the magnitude of the practical benefit relative to those other factors is questionable while the cost of doing so is that it also reduces the motivation for some avenues of innovation. I think it's fair to say that philosophically the class prefers to remain open to a broader range of innovation than some other classes and places a higher value on this than absolute equalization of factors for mainly theoretical reasons. Of course not everyone in the sailing world will share this philosophy, which is part of why we have a lot of different classes.

You will get very little argument from anyone, there is a lack of tact from many posting on this board, and it is not limited to the F16 forum. Tim's argument, and I tend to agree, is that it is arrogant for outsiders to come in and and spout off about our class being wrong because it is different.

My view of "bliners in the REAL world of catamaran racing" is that there is a group with an unhealthy fixation, obsesing on boat weights. As if a kilo either way is going to make catmaran racing somehow magicaly equal. Not that it does not have some impact, but it is one of many factors and not the most important by far in comapring the equality of 2 boats.

I really hope you do look at the F16 when your house is complete. I still cannot understand why in the world you would want to buy a new boat that you would have to strap lead to though. There are min weight boats out there and several builders who can provide them, so it is not an imaginary limit, when you go to choose.

Matt

Best post I have seen in quite a while.

Tiger Mike

Thanks Matt, my point is that you want to reduce the variables in the boats and make it more about the sailor. As you note above, weight does play a part in this so why not resolve this issue. It is one of the easiest to do so.



I still cannot understand why in the world you would want to buy a new boat that is over minimum weight from the factory.

Building boats under min and brining them up to weight is the norm in most other classes except the F16 class. Whether it makes and impact or not (which I believe it does), it is the perception you give to the rest of the sailing world. It may not be important to current members, however if you want to grow your class, you do not want to turn people away with something so easy to fix. At the moment, it looks like the F16 class is amature hour and sailed by punters where a boats performance is of minimal impact to the racing. I know this is not true and there are some very good racers in the class, but it is the perception you are giving out.

Why would I want to strap lead to my boat? I want to know my new boat is below minimum. If the boat puts on weight through water absorption or repairs over the years, it will be nice to know it is still below minimum. Manufactures will also produce boats that are lighter / heavier than others by a few kg. Building underweight gives them a little more room to move. My Capricorn came in at 175.4 kg and was a lightweight amongst the Capricorns which I believe normally come out around 177 / 178. Strapping 4.6kg on the dolphin striker of the Cap was a zero issue. It does not make a difference between a 180kg boat and a boat brought up to 180kg with lead. Perhaps the lead is placed in n a better position of the boat though.

Now, could you please answer what you would believe would be a preferable situation

1 – A class weight where new boats are either struggling to meet min weigh or are over.
2 – A class weight where new boats can be produced without under building to achieve or addition of expensive options such as Carbon masts, beams, hulls.

I believe some people are more caught up with telling the world hey, our class min is 107kg even thought their boats are not.

Matt, how much would a sloop Falcon set me back with alloy beams, mast, spinnaker pole, glass hulls and carbon foils. And how much would this boat way.

Now how much would a sloop Falcon set me back if it had carbon mast, beams, hulls, spinnaker pole?

If a sloop Viper is so quick at 130kg, how much quicker would it be if it was 23kg lighter, had reduced weight aloft, out front (spinnaker pole), was as stiff or stiffer again?

Every time these questions are asked, people seem to duck and weave.

My proposal is why not set the min weight at 115 for a sloop. Restrict the use of carbon to foils, keep the price as low as you can. Grandfather in all current F16s, but lock out the potential for any full carbon big $$$ boats to be produced that will swing the racing more towards boat performance rather than sailor. 115kg is not a large increase and is still bloody light. The F16 class has done a good job getting to where they are now. If they want to take the next step and really establish themself as a popular International class, it is time to tighten up those rules and show the world you are as serious about equal competition as all other International classes.

I think the fixation on weight has more than a little bit to do technical bragging rights. Whilst the the F16 is doing well in certain areas it has been noted that this is not the case in Europe. Why?

Most club racing is done in mixed fleets. In Europe this routinely done under SCHRS or Texel. The light weight penalises the F16 under these measurement systems. Take a look at the success of the Spitfire (139Kg I think) or the Viper (125/130Kg?) These are competitive 16ft boats. If the average club sailor wants to have a bit of fun competing for club trophies would he chose an F16 if despite how well they sailed or how much they enjoyed the experience of of their particular boat they would always be walking around with the chip of a harsh handicap on their shoulders? Before anyone starts on me for that I do appreciate that in the right hands they can achieve excellent results but I am looking at things from the view of the average club sailor. If I wanted an F16 for club sailing it would have to be the Viper. I would however not sail it under F16 but under an SCHRS rating suitable to the boat. If it was going to cause issues I would just walk away and buy a Spitfire. You only have to look at comparable sales in Europe to see what sailors have actually done.

Weights and what/how it is possible to build have been discussed at length for a number of years and the F16 class has decided to stand alone. If the class does want to expand it needs to appeal to a wider market. Certainly within Europe there are a limited number of club sailors with the physical attributes, sailing skills and finances who will choose F16 to club race based on it's current appeal.

Maybe the F16 was pitched too far away from the market on the assumption larger manufacturers would design/build to the rule. This does not appear to be the general trend.
It is obviously the choice of the class association to decide on its direction and it clear there are vocal sailors both for and against change within the class. I suspect there are fewer sailors outside the class who support the current position, otherwise they would be probably be sailing F16 now.

Could the lightweight singlehanders cope with (maybe) 10/20Kg ashore without harming the class? It certainly seems that in practice 'actual' boat weights would not necessarily have to change that much.

Cheshirecatman

Steve - the F16 assocation has an official web forum for serious debate about class rules - discussing them here has zero effect.

I just want to make the observation that there are two quite separate issues here, and I think it's best to discuss them separately. One is whether the minimum weight should reflect the actual weight of the boats currently being built a little above minimum weight like the Falcon. This I believe is the point of Stephen's suggestion that the min weight be raised to 115kg. The second is whether boats should actually be built heavier, as implied by your comment about the impact of an extra 10-20kg of actual boat weight on singlehanders.

The latter is an important issue because as much as people are attracted to the class by the light weight relative to say an F18, they are also attracted by the flexibility to sail two-up or solo and because of the ease of handling a lighter boat singlehanded on shore and when it's on its side. I suspect some are opting for the lighter boats in the class precisely because they intend to sail mostly single-handed. I'm still hoping that Brett will offer an answer to my earlier question about the suitability of the Viper for singlehanded sailing.

This discussion would be more productive with more information... Stephen, taking the Falcon as an example and assuming for the sake of discussion a nominal weight of 112kg, what do you believe would be the actual performance impact (say minutes per hour, or equivalent delta Texel) of (a) decreasing the weight to 107kg and (b) increasing weight to your proposed 115kg, all other factors being equal?


Can I suggest that a more relevant question is how much Matt would charge you to produce a boat that is 107kg (or if you like, 3kg under)? (Also note that this question becomes even more interesting when combined with your answer to my question above.) A full carbon boat is an interesting idea but if it comes in way under weight it doesn't really help us understand the relative merits of 107 vs 115.


A fair question, but I think it needs to be answered in the context of some other pieces of information... e.g. how much of the Viper's 130kg is a consequence of the decision to use bigger components like beams and choice of manufacturing methods, what is the actual impact of beam size (and maybe other things) on stiffness and of that stiffness on speed, and compared with say a Falcon, how much of the increased hull weight can be attributed to the size of the hulls vs say materials or construction methods? (BTW your question about the 130kg Viper would still be valid relative to your preferred class weight of 115kg.)

Even if the Viper were a total lump of poo for singlehanded sailing, Brett isn't going tell you that. That'd be like me telling you to get cabinets from someone else.

I am happy to tell you that the Viper sails great as a one up. Its very easy to sail downwind in bigger breeze due to the big volume and you can easily trapeze downwind and feel comfortable pushing the boat.

Upwind you need to depower earlier than you first think, but thats the same with any boat you sail one up.

Oh, I am not being paid to say the above

"Even if" or "only if"

Thanks for your comments Andrew. I'm still hoping to get some insight from inside the designer's head about how they were thinking about singlehanded performance when they made their design decisions. As Karl suggests, that may be an unrealistic hope, but you can only ask.

again all moot..
I suspect Greg has a business agenda. I am guessing he wants a class viable as a SMOD design. If I was in his position that is what I would be logically aiming for. If he produced a F16 killer Viper weighing 90Kg all up.. It would be a Viper SMOD killer..

My suggestion you and macca get together and build your "killer F16"..

I want in on the killer F16 too.

Stewart,

I have never had any intention of building a f16 to the full optimization possible under the class rules.

You may have noticed that my position in all discussions is focussed on promoting fair and quality racing. The simple fact that the class rules allow for such a boat to be built (and it will be markedly quicker) deny's the class the potential for fair racing.

can we just lock this fuggin thread...


I mean, it's like having kids say, "You are it....no, you are it...no I'm not, you are it".

This is just stupid...

Everyone has had some valid points...I mean everyone has, but then those same people just don't care about someone else's view, if they don't agree with it.


Bunch of fuggin babies.....

If YOU give that much **** about the class, then YOU need to get an F16 become a member and decide on how and where it goes...

That's what I did...



So, until you do that, shut the kiss up!

Come on now Mike, you know we can't possibly survive without their -valuable- input...we're just a bunch of punters who need more pro's in the class to straighten us out.

I'd like to see just one of them write a check though...then they can bitch, and vote for a change. I've yet to hear a single F16 boat owner bitch.

And why are they even considering a F16 when the F18's are so much faster, even though they are heavier and have so much better rules that make their racing so much -more fair-? I think they should just stay on the F18, where their better rules provide much more fair racing, obviously.

Thnaks Marcus, I don't spend much time there as this seems to be the place where most of the the F16 discussion happens. Perhaps more goes on there in the private forums which I can not view, but the open seems fairly inactive nearly a repeat of what happens here.

[
5 kg could mean a boat length or 2 on each downwind leg for example. The boat has to push an extra 5 liters of water out the way. Each gust the lighter boat will accelerate that little bit quicker, run just that little bit deaper. Around the course by yourself it would not make much difference. In a sizable fleet a few boat lengths could mean places and mean a greater difference in time over the course of the race. Racing in a big fleet you will notice that a boat that gains even 1/3 boat length on you can spit you out the back and add to even more of a loss as you are forced to gain clear air.


That is what I thought I asked. How much would Matt charge for a full Carbon Falcon over a standard boat. And Marcus, how much would you charge for a full Carbon Blade? I do not want a boat that is way underweight, but perhaps a few kg under. The weight saved by using Carbon can be used to build stiffer beams or beam mounts. Take the weight from aloft and put it down low and close to the center of effort, reducing the pitching of the boat.



Yes Viper will still be overweight and the same argument would be valid, however Greg has chosen to build his boat at 130kg and is quiet heavier then the average F16. I have only seen pictures of the Falcon. I have sailed the Blade and seen the Viper and know the hulls and beams are MUCH bigger on the Viper then the Blade. Obviously the added stiffness and hull volume allows for the Viper to push an extra 20 odd litres of water out the way and still keep up. The weight is a handicap for the boat, but these other factors out weigh it. Put the Viper on a diet whilst maintain platform rigitity and it will be quicker again. Quiet a bit so.

Weather the class does or does not choose to raise the min weight, just restrict the use of carbon in all but the foils. If a company then builds a boat like a Viper and chooses to increase the hull volume or platform stiffness at the expense of weight, then it is their decision. As long as they don’t build an all carbon boat down to weight and force the class into an arms race.

IMO, a lighter boat can be built using standard fiberglass, i.e, down to the minimum class weight, and still be just as strong. This would drive the boat cost up, however, as the manufacturer's would have to have better quality control methods. I am opposed to banning Carbon outright; Carbon boats last longer and remain stiffer for a longer period of time. Of course, the current F16 build quality is pretty high and the platforms I've seen and sailed on (Blade and Viper) were very stiff, so it may be in the classes best interest to ban carbon fiber in an effort to keep costs low.

Also, many manufacturers are building slightly above class weight, allowing owners to upgrade to a carbon fiber mast and not have to add corrector weights. This is definitely not the norm in other classes (A cats, Int. 505 etc.), where the boats are built underweight by several kg's, corrector weights added and removed by owners over time when rigs change, rigging changes, and moisture is absorbed into the hull.

Since 5g can make this much of an impact, does that mean that you are close to minimum crew weight as possible?


On a Tornado, there is no minimum crew weight...correct?

Does that mean you have really small crews so they can be that much faster on the race course? Do you make sure you have the least amount of body fat as possible without hampering your performance? Does your crew do the same thing?

Let's talk about F18's...They do have a minimum crew weight. Are the top racers as close to minimum weight as possible? Or are the top crews in varying weights such as 5kilos(~11lbs).
With that thought, with the top crews in varying weights, that means the Top crews should get the tops spots according to their crew weights. Does that happen in the F18's? Or do the crew weights NOT matter and a lot of the winning spots depends on who has done the CREW work?
Here's another example...

What is the primary driving force when you are going downwind with a spinnaker? The spinnaker, correct? You get some driving force off of the Main and Jib, but it's not enough...

So, with that being said and the weight thing being so performance enhancing or detrimental that a singlehanded crew on an F16 going downwind should DESTROY the F16 crew being double handed...is that correct? I mean, everytime I've seen a singlehanded crew go up against a doublehanded crew, it's pretty much equal...I don't see the singlehanded just pull away like a scolded dog. They should, correct, that's ONE LESS BODY, much more than 5kilos?

Or does it happen to be the DRIVER and THE CREW WORK?

Answer me that one!

If this 5g's makes that much of a difference, then that means as soon as I see two 75lb midgets show up to a regatta, that the race committe needs to go ahead and hand them the trophies? I mean, heck 150lbs.....against other crews of 250-350, they are obviously going to win it, correct?


I'm not trying to pick on you, you just happen to have a statement about 5kilos there...

YES, I understand that weight DOES make a DIFFERENCE, but with so many other FACTORS that comes into play, WEIGHT is least of my worries and should be the same with a lot of you guys and gals. Especially when it comes to the better hull design's and using a spinnaker going downwind...That HAS been proven. If some of you care about weight that much, then you need to put down the burger, fries, and beer and eat a salad and drink some water.

Mike

The F18 class does have a very elaborate crew weight system that involves 2 different sail plan sizes and carrying additional lead if the team is really light. I would have to say that the F18 class is the poster child of removing weight as a variable in competition. Makes a lot of sense why they are the most vocal about trying to get all of the F16s to weigh the same. F16s & F18s are at the two ends of the spectrum on which is best for it's class. F16s & F18s are not the same in many ways. In my sailing region, the F18 is heavy and the N20 prevails as the big 2 hander. Each class has their own niche as they currently stand. I for one resent any notion that the F16 is the feeder or little sibling to the F18. That only encourages some F18 sailors to impose their doctrine on our class as though it is a mistake not to.

If the F16 class was as tight as the F18 class regarding eliminating as many variables as possible, we would not be a class of 1 & 2 up teams competing together which I believe is an attractive aspect to our class.

For those that can't handle it, you don't have to sail an F16. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Oh.....the F16 class will still be strong also.

Kris,
I love those words of wisdom.
Regards,
Phill

Me too.

Mike, we raced our F18 at 186 kg initially and it hurt, particularly on the downwinds. We got our weight down to 165kg for the Worlds but still suffered against the lighter crews. We were heavy weights on the Tornado (165kg) and it hurt us there to. Every boat has an ideal crew weight. The F18 would be between 150 and 155kg, the Tornado 140 to 150 and the F16, I have not spent much time on but I believe it would be around the 140kg mark.

Additional boat weigh is dead weight and serves no great purpose. Additional crew weight carries a lot better but still hurts. If the boat is too heavy, put it on a diet. If the crew are too heavy, then put yourselves on a diet..... then work on your skill level. But make the racing about the crews, not the boats.

humm.

Wouter

Yep the new owner did not had the time to go to Carnac because of private business. It can happen when you run your own business that you did not have all things under control.
And i would stop eating peanuts , with the humm it looks like you are choking in it, and when you have a problem with me then you should not spread it out on the internet , like you do everytime but directly contact me.

Yes,

The whole world is out to get you, right Hans ?

Have a nice day.

Wouter

No!! The world is out to get me!!

hence the subject of 2 threads on this forum now...

I think they just miss you when you're not around.

Don't be modest Macca !

I think the whole universe is out to get YOU !

Not a bad thing, mind you, sort of adds to your messianic self image, I guess.

Wouter