Luiz has sent me some wording tweeks (thankyou), however, I'll wait to hear from others before making changes (so I don't have to do it too many times).
The only thing I have an issue with is the 30 liter volume, thats about 50% higher than my round bilge design and as I just secured a builder for it, I'd like that to continue.
You might want to amend the 6m black band rule on the mast as it can't be seen with a pocket luff sail.
Cheers
RG
In order to keep a 50+ kg boat from sinking when flooded, it is necessary to have slightly more than 50+ liters in any type of safe emergency flotation volume.
Would the Vudu design be compliant with
10% more flotation volume when flooded than the actual ready to sail displacement
?
RG the foam requirement isn't new, its been in every draft set of rules published including Wouter's originals. Could you not add some foam in a bag like the F18s do?
Proposed alternate wording or rule?
It looks good, I wote for it.
ooops....sorry...missed a
0
in that...disregard the previous post. (was half asleep late at night)
Billy wasn't intending to have a hatch cover....and it would be difficult to fit as we only have half a deck width to fit it to with the bevelled deck design....why is it necessary to have that in the rule ?
From memory the hatch cover was a cut and paste from F16 rule. I'm happy to delete.
we may put a inspection port in anyway so no problem with that for the vudu in nz
bill
Ncik's post from home building thread.
Preferred wording should state something along the lines of requiring two compartments of atleast 30 litres each, which I believe is the intent.
Something like...
1.5.2 Each hull shall carry atleast two compartments of alteast 30 liters of flotation each. The hull may be divided into two suitable compartments with a watertight bulkhead or a single compartment hull may be fitted with solid closed cell foam, solid blocks of compacted foam granulate or air bags of 30 litres volume each suitable attached to the hull.
A bit wordy but hopefully less ambiguous.
oops, probably wrong location for this.
Yeah...I think that needs a rewording.
Is the intent also to allow the hull construction foam as part of the positive flotation? My F16 conforms to its requirements with just the hulls foam (no dedicated positive flotation foam). I have no problem with it being counted towards the positive flotation volume.
I do have some concerns about allowing a single air bag in each hull for positive flotation. My intention isn't to complicate the existing rules, but without appropriate securing of multiple air bags, one air bag may be rendered completely useless during a collision.
So you can inspect the hull on the inside and check for the required flotation.
Wouter
I'm largely in favour of these rules; but I have comments on the following points
section 1.4.3
I would remove the identifiers
halyard lock
or
shackle
and replace them with something alot more general. Actually, sleeved sails use neither a halyard nor a shackle to secure the sail to the top. Pretty popular now is a ribbon cross that forms a small cup and a single line. The mast top is of significant length (say 200-300 mm) in order to keep the sleeve tight at the top and allow the sail to twist easily around the mast. I can put pics on if people don't understand what is meant here. Interestingly enough this setup would allow an upper black band to be visible again.
Basically I would reword this rule so that no part of the sail may be beyond the upper band with the exception of those parts that function ONLY as a means to secure the sail to the compliant position. Of course any real sailarea will have a double function and be non-compliant.
With sleeved sails that just close the top of the sleeve by stitching we can simply require that the top of the mast or the upper black band is no further away from the top of the main beam then 6.00 mtr, which ever is lowest.
Personally I strongly prefer a max luff length measurement as well, mostly because this rule is alot more difficult to break then a black band rule. Afterall, my unstayed mast will be collapsable and it is a 5 euro and 5 minute job to replace the top section with a slightly longer one after getting a measurement certificate. Replacing the sail (with a stamp and signiture) is alot harder and more expensive. With a max luff length the mast black band distance is also implecitly fixed.
Point 1.5.1 Inspection hatches.
To retired geek etc. Marstrom and the F14 builder fit inspection hatches to their sterns which are always flat panels as it will be pretty hard to align the rudder pintles on a curved panel. So this may be the solution to you guys.
Point 1.10.2 For sleeved sails Area = A + As
Firstly I would write down
For sleeved sails; Total area = A + As
and thus refer directly back to the basic rule which is
Total area may not be greater then 7.0 sq. mtr.
Secondly, we must define A properly. Currently it can be argued that the sleeve area must be included twice as who is to say that the
actual area
of a sleeved sail doesn't include the sleeve already ? Also do we included the area of the sail that is inside the mast track or inside the sleeve ? If not then we must exlcude those from the actual area as well. Remember, when things get competitive we can expect some sea lawer to comb the rules for an advantage. Remember the protest at the F18 worlds two years ago about every one being protested for having the compliant peddles on boards ? We better make sure the rules are already as well worded as possible from the start to avoid troubles later.
I would also include organistional rules, event rules and a definitions section to the F12 class rules and make the boxrule section an individual section. These don't have to be as elaborate the versions with the F18 or F16 rules but I still think we should have them. Again to avoid ourselves difficult discussions later.
A point in case. In rule 1.1.1 we refer to the spirit of the rule but we don't really define what this spirit is. We do a little bit of that in the Prologue but it is wise to consider defining a few well worded goals/spirits that can be used as a checklist. Something like.
The spirit of the F12 rule is to
-1- Limit the overall performance of all F12 craft to such similar level that first-in-wins course racing is fair irrespectibally of the craft used by a particular crew.
-2- Have all crews have acces to any F12 design (given reasonable costs) that is most capable of wining a course race if ever a significant difference between makes is ever encountered.
Etc
I may spot more points later.
Wouter
Personally I strongly prefer a max luff length measurement as well, mostly because this rule is alot more difficult to break then a black band rule. Afterall, my unstayed mast will be collapsable and it is a 5 euro and 5 minute job to replace the top section with a slightly longer one after getting a measurement certificate. Replacing the sail (with a stamp and signiture) is alot harder and more expensive. With a max luff length the mast black band distance is also implecitly fixed.
Makes sense to me.
Marstrom and the F14 builder fit inspection hatches to their sterns which are always flat panels as it will be pretty hard to align the rudder pintles on a curved panel.
I like stern hatches because one can see the entire inside from there, not only the vicinity of the hatch. All Supercats/ARCs have stern hatches. I used them in my floats for the same reason - and because they are usefull for construction in two halves.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.catsailor.com/bb_files/152594-CarlosNeckel%2817%29.JPG)
Remember, when things get competitive we can expect some sea lawer to comb the rules for an advantage... We better make sure the rules are already as well worded as possible from the start to avoid troubles later.
I would also include organistional rules, event rules and a definitions section to the F12 class rules and make the boxrule section an individual section. These don't have to be as elaborate the versions with the F18 or F16 rules but I still think we should have them. Again to avoid ourselves difficult discussions later.
Although I still dream of a one design class, it seems that we have a mini A class in our hands. We need not re-invent the wheel: just adapt the A-Class rules to the F12.
The spirit of the F12 rule is to
-1- Limit the overall performance of all F12 craft to such similar level that first-in-wins course racing is fair irrespectibally of the craft used by a particular crew.
-2- Have all crews have acces to any F12 design (given reasonable costs) that is most capable of wining a course race if ever a significant difference between makes is ever encountered.
Etc
The right wording is of utmost importance here. This point deserves our atention.
I think that it's very important to get the basic rules on paper NOW-NOW.
There is already too much my design have that and that, and it will become worse with more designers joining the club.
Can we not agree on the draft Scarecrow made, and the rest we let until the the control is handed over to a specific group?
I agree with your first point but lets give it a good work over here and now. When the little loopholes and inconsistances are to be worked out by a group of owners then we'll be in for a huge amount of discussions and arguing. Right now the discussion group is still small and sufficiently focussed.
Wouter
The A-class has actually one of the worst rulesets in the catamaran scene from a class stability and low-participation-cost perspective. Two pitfalls we really want to avoid in the F12 class.
It has only somewhat stabilized in the last 10 years because after 30-40 years of repeative development and significant changes to the boat the concept has found a balance that is hard to improve upon. Do we really want to see the F12 take 3 to 4 decades to find its place ?
Wouter
The A-class has actually one of the worst rulesets in the catamaran scene from a class stability and low-participation-cost perspective. Two pitfalls we really want to avoid in the F12 class.
It has only somewhat stabilized in the last 10 years because after 30-40 years of repeative development and significant changes to the boat the concept has found a balance that is hard to improve upon. Do we really want to see the F12 take 3 to 4 decades to find its place ?
No problem, let's find the most appropriate and easily adjustable rules available. It is easier to improve existing rules than to start from scratch. Then we can add the best parts to Scarecrows text.
From the moment the first draft became available, it already was THE F12 rule, even if under discussion. Remember that after the text is agreed on, it will necessarily remain provisory until the by-laws or statutes are made official.
I suggest the reading of the following rules before deciding if one of them can be used as first draft or if we should improve the existing F12 rules.
A Class: http:/
Wave: http:/
F16: http:/
F18: .pdf]http:/
Tornado: .pdf]http:/
Open 60: .pdf]http:/
It seems that we killed the discussion once again by doing the things far to serious...
Still the F12 is for having fun, and most of the cats will be uswed to play around in the clubs like the Opti. Let's keep it at that, we make the rules simple. To hell with the winners, they don't play fair game anymore.
So, the A-class rules seems simple to me...
3rd draft is on its way, but I'm rather busy so may take some time. Don't worry Gato, there is another boat about to start in your backyard.
I feel I've had my say Gato so now its just a matter of locking in the rules so people know what theyre building.
regards
Have you read the Opti rules? <img src=
alt=
/> They are crazy complicated, right down to construction laminate details. Sometimes the simplest rules create the most complicated classes and the goal of a simple class requires the most complicated rules.
On that note, may I suggest another possible addition to the rules. A clause along the lines of
If it is not stated in these rules it is allowed/disallowed.
Have you read the Opti rules? <img src=
alt=
/> They are crazy complicated, right down to construction laminate details. Sometimes the simplest rules create the most complicated classes and the goal of a simple class requires the most complicated rules.
On that note, may I suggest another possible addition to the rules. A clause along the lines of
If it is not stated in these rules it is allowed/disallowed.
The initial Optimist rules were simple and lasted for decades. They were rewritten with a high degree of detail when it became the (very strict)
International One Design Optimist
. The text is strict because parents are compulsive when it comes to buying speed for their kids.
Today's F12 is a box rule, so there's no need to complicate anything and the rules can be very simple. Still, we should learn from the Optimist and try to eliminate possible loopholes. In view of this I prefer the suggested clause to be restrictive:
If it is not stated in these rules it is not allowed
.
Does anyone want to volunteer for the re-write? I'm happy to email the word document.
I think we have made valuable headway with the current draft and I hate to see all that be thrown away by looking at another ruleset like the A-class. We have already progressed beyond the point where the A-class is in the way of class rules and in my opinion that is a good thing.
I would volunteer to do the draft writing Scarecrow, but we know what happened the last 3 times when I was responsible for that. The biggest advantage you provide is that no-one has a fixed mind about yout persona yet and that is huge benefit at this time. However, if help is much needed then I can do some ghost writing for you.
Wouter
Wouter its on its way. There is no need for people to get emotional. I believe if you leave the content but fix the wording everyone will be happy.
Alright !
Personally, I really like this F12 setup (and always have, since 2002) and I think it is a real pitty that I simply don't have any spare resources like money that I can invest in it. I got some spare time though so that'll invest !
Wouter
It's about one month since last, any news?