F16-1.040 in France and Italy

I hope to attach a list of all Cats which could possibly be included in the F104 Class, as for working out which are f16 compliant then that's a different game altogether!!

Mark,

I think there are a few additional rules in addition to only having a rating of 104. Also it is not really clear which handicap system they use to calculate this rating. It is not the NEW SCHRS system as that places a few boats out of the class I believe.

From memory the listing was :

Cirrus Evolution
Swell Spitfire
FX-extreme (Is not the same as FX-one)
Mattia Esse (is really not too competitive)

And they claim the AHPC Viper F16 as a F104 as well.

Wouter

Wouter,

I did a bit of digging around and I believe they will use SCHRS ratings 1.035 to 1.045 as being within the F104 umbrella. No doubt as soon as a boat they want to include comes along they will move this spread to suit their needs.

I was informed that then when I told them the AHPC Viper did not have a rating of 1.04 (not even rounded off) that they using the old French handicap system where it did have a rating of 1.04.

However, I mostly got the impression they made rules up as they went along. It really didn't strike me as a class that had even a generally accepted principle as foundation. Things were still in flux as one would call it.

I do really seem to remember other limitations being floated about as well like no boat being allowed to weight less then 130 kg or something.

Maybe it is time for one French speaking F16 sailor to do an update check on their commonly accepted rule set ? My info is not about 3 months old.

Wouter

I'll ask it on the French catforum.
This is what they expect to have in Carnac and the week after that for their nationals:

Au vu des premières estimations, l’Eurocat le week-end du 1° Mai devrait
rassembler au bas mot entre 30 et 40 C 1.04. (translation: 30 to 40 in total)

( 20 à 25 Spit, 15 Esse, 2 ou 3 Evolution, et 2 ou 3 FX One)

I'll also ask if they'll have a seperate ranking at Carnac.

Gill

So basically they have revamped the (Northern France) Spitfire class.

The only real F104's at this time are the Cirrus Evolution and hobie FX-extreme, only a handful of those.

More interesting is the Mattia Esse, the are counting on 15 boats of these, but the SCHRS handicap system shows a surprising picture.

Swell Spitfire Rating 1.035
Mattia Esse rating 1.081

(F16 rating 1.008 as comparison)

According to this rating system there is a 162 second difference after a hour of bouy racing between these two designs. That is a shy 3 minutes.

According to the specs given by the SCHRS measurements the Mattia Esse is also alot more narrow then the Spitfire ; respectively 2.21 mtr to 2.55 mtr.

This version of the Mattia Esse is actually fully F16 compliant except for its 18 foot hull length (it weights 155 kg and its rig is smaller then the F16).

I'm not sure how to fit this Mattia Esse into the F104.

see the data here :

Mattia Esse : http://www.schrs.com/index.php?page=class&id=87
Swell Spitfire : http://www.schrs.com/index.php?page=class&id=137

Searching over Italian websites I found a (New?) Mattia Esse that is boosted up to a rating of 1.04, mostly by entlarging the jib area and spinnaker area. But I'm not sure how many (if any) have been sold of this version.

http://www.mattiaesse.org/int/modules/cjaycontent/index.php?id=3

Wouter

Hi Wouter,
we have three version of Mattia Esse: a first (in the page of the site sailnr 541) produced from 1978 to 1991. The second (production 1992 - 2003) sail ns 853 and the actual Mattia Esse sport, from 2003. We produced over 80 boats (40 in Italy . 40 in France. This version fit the 1.04 rating and is a totally renewed boat (new hulls, sailplan, beams, etc.)At the Italian champonship 2007 we were 27 boats, at Eurocup 2007 22 (19 Ita + 3 Fra).

Excuse me,
Emanuele
Ultimate sails & Mattia Italia

Yes, I have brochures of the older versions in my archive.

This quote from the website quotes 2004 as the year the Mattia Esse Sport was launched. In 2006 the new class rules were accepted, probably confirming the change from the older designs to the new Esse Sport. New model is used in the One-design class championship.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you actually saying that :

Mattia have only produced the Esses sport, wich is a true F104, since 2003 (not the older versions)and have build 80 of them so far. At the Italian champonship 2007 you had 27 Esse Sport (F104's) and at Eurocup 2007 you had 22 Esse Sport (F104's) and you are not including any older Esse's (non F104's) in this count ?

I so then do you know why hasn't their been a SCHRS handicap for the Esse Sports that reflects the new rating ?

Thank you for any info you can provide us with

Wouter

Things are getting interesting.

http://class104.over-blog.org/

Note however that Greg is using the Texel calculator and not the SCHRS calculation to arrive at the rating of 104. Texel actually rates all boats a little slower then SCHRS. Under SCHRS the 125 kg Viper is still at a rating of 103 and therefor NOT F104 compliant.

Also can we please have the minutes of the Global Challenge meeting published as all the news is not coming out through 3rd party channels, that is not a good situation to have.

Wouter

Greg obviously consider the Viper a F-16 boat, which happens to measure in under the F-1.04 if weighting in at 125Kgs.
We can view this as an opportunity, if a F-1.04 boat measures in under F-16 rules, to embrace the owners and invite them to race with us.

At this time it doesn't unless Greg starts building the Vipers not at 125 kg but at 130 kg and then rounding the numbers off upwards.

The F104 class uses the SCHRS system to calculate the rating of the F104 and not the Texel rating.

Of course every F16 builder can add weight to their boats to arrive at the 104 rating. That is one of the effects of having a F16 rating that is faster then any of the alternative classes. It is easy to make a boat slower.

Of course a 130 kg Viper F104 is not much compared to a 107 kg F16; 23 kg weight difference is not something that is easily brushed off the table.

The Viper started out as a F16 and is in my opinion an F16 before all others.

The Mattia Esse Sport is an 18 foot boat and therefor none F16 compliant.

The Spitfire is too wide and has a mainsail, jib and spinnaker that is slightly too large; Non compliant therefor

The FX-Extreme ; Hulls are 17 foot long and the jib is too large. Non-F16 compliant

The Cirrus evolution : 5.09 mtr long hulls, 2.55 mtr width, 15.50 sq. mtr mainsail. 4.15 sq. mtr jib and 18 sq. mtr spinnaker make the Evolution non-compliant with F16 rules.

Basically the Cirrus Evolution is almost a Spitfire copy in its major dimensions.

Bimare X16, on the French forum it was announced that the Bim X16 would not satisfy any additional F104 rules like a minimum ready to sail weight of 130 kg. It also won't have a jib which all other F104 do, with an undersized mainsail the X16 will not come down to a rating of 104 anyway. X16 non F16 compliance has been discussed in another thread.

The only boat at this time that is playing with doule roles (F16 and F104) is the AHPC Viper. It is also the only boat that can actually do that at this time

Wouter

There is that Wouter, but having as strategy to embrace all boats measuring in under the F-16 rules is a good move. Even if the boats are 20-25Kgs heavier than an optimal boat. Judging by the list MarkP posted earlier, not many boats qualify tough (can we get the same list compiled under SCHRC):
texel,hobie 17s +1 Incl Spi,103
texel,hobie 18 form. +1 Incl Spi,105
texel,hobie FX one +1 Incl Spi,
105texel,Nacra 18m2 + 1 no Spi,104
texel,nacra 5.5 sl +1 Incl Spi,104
texel,nacra inter17 XL +1 Incl Spi,105
texel,Bim Javelin F18 HT + 2 no Spi,104
texel,bim 20 speciaal 2004 + 2 no Spi,105
texel,b-klasse + 2 no Spi,103
texel,Cobra 5m +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,coolcat 18s +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,corneel 18 +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,formula 18 Hightech + 2 no Spi,104
texel,g-cat 5.7 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,hobie 18 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,hobie 18 form. + 2 no Spi,105
texel,hobie 18 magnum +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,hobie 20 form + 2 no Spi,104
texel,hobie FX one +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,hurricane 4.9 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,hurricane 5.9 sport + 2 no Spi,103
texel,iroise 2000 + 2 no Spi,103
texel,mattia 18 +2 Incl Spi,103
texel,mattia 18 raid + 2 no Spi,105
texel,mattia 18 s +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,miracle 6.0 carbon + 2 no Spi,103
texel,mystere 5.5 + 2 no Spi,104
texel,mystere 5.5 fun +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,mystere 5.5 xl fun +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,mystere 5.5 xl master +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,nacra 5.2 +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,nacra 5.5 sl + 2 no Spi,105
texel,nacra 5.7 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,nacra 5.8 + 2 no Spi,103
texel,nacra 570 +2 Incl Spi,103
texel,piranha 19 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,prindle 19 + 2 no Spi,103
texel,prindle pacer + 2 no Spi,104
texel,shark + 2 no Spi,103
texel,stealth f18HT + 2 no Spi,104
texel,swell spitfire +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,Taipan 4.9 +2 Incl Spi,103
texel,thundercat 17 +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,topcat k1 big jib +2 Incl Spi,104
texel,trac 18 + 2 no Spi,105
texel,tropic +2 Incl Spi,105
texel,Ventilo F18 HT + 2 no Spi,104
texel,ventilo f18 ht sloop + 2 no Spi,103

None of the boats mentioned in Mark listing is full F16 compliant, most of them have hulls that are too long 17-20 feet. Only the following boat can not be identified as non F16 compliant at this time

texel,Cobra 5m +2 Incl Spi,104

However, I do know that there is only 1 such cobra in the whole of Europe and none outside of Australia/New Zealand

Wouter

Hi guys,

Here is a short update (not extensive) of the class rules F104 (that's only a project for now as F104 doesn't exist):

*SCHRS rating between 1.035 and 1.045
*No carbon in the hulls, no epoxy unless it is used with
wood.
*Aluminium mast, beam, pole. No carbon allowed.
*max length 5.52m
*max width 2.55m
*min weight all up, 135kg !!!!!!!!
*max corrector weight allowed 5kg

I posted a comment on the french forum concerning the viper and the F104 blog arguing that the minimum weight requirement was not met by the viper and that gregg took the wrong rating to meet the 1.04 rating criteria...
I got an answered which sounds like

ooops sorry

but the post on the F104 is still there.

That's too bad because it would have been great for the F16 to have a major builder like AHPC choosing F16 exclusively!

Ciao,
thomas.

Makes you wonder if the F16 rules are too restrictive. Look what happened with iF20 ruling out other 20ft cats. If the cats rate similar why not race against them? JP had to change the Stealth 'R' on which he had been very successful just to satisfy F16 rules. You can appreciate other manufacturers just saying NO. Were the IYRU right in creating classes A, B, C & D? Should the F16 rules be opened up (less restrictive) and become an ISAF class (I can hear the ring of the spitoons). If you create a set of restrictive rules to suit a specific need you will alienate many sailors/boats. Moving on this way leaves many inactive boats and sailors no longer bothered to get involved in racing because they 'Don't fit' the latest thinking. If you race against others they may be tempted to try or even invest in something that they can see benefit in. If you see a restrictive 'niche' group. Do you really want to get involved or invest?

Cheshirecatman

What do you mean this is backed by Nacra?

If I'm correct the iF20 is a one-design class, not a formula class. I think the F18 is much more restrictive than the F16, still the most famous class existing.

I also think being to open (for example 1.04) is not good either. The formula spirit goes to waste here. With longer/shorter hulls, wider/smaller boats, ... you may have (more or less) the same rating, but certainly not the same performance during different types of weather (waves, windspeed, ...). I think you can as well sail on a handicap rating then.

Regards,
Gill

What would you want to open up on them?

There is not much you could change to make the F16 rule more open!

Cheshire cat,

Have you actually read the F16 rules ?

They are the least restrictive of all catamaran classes expect the A-class, C-class and 18HT class.

The Stealth R version was and is a foundation boat of the Formula 16 class and is dispensated for participating in official F16 class races indefinately. There was no need to switch from the R version to the F16 version because of the F16 rules. However, there are currently no R versions anymore as all owners decided to upgrade to F16 standard because that was easy to do and made the boats significantly faster.

Additionally, the F16 class rules also rule on the

open F16 class

were exactly the same thing that the F104 is doing now is regulated. This time on the rating 101 of the F18 under SCHRS. This area of the F16 class rules was never used much as FX-one, I-17, Spitfire and others sailors never took much interest in it. The single exception being last years F16 Global Challenge and single Spitfire crew (who I think should have been allowed to race).

I don't really think that that is a fair statement. The Hobie Fox, Swell Storm, US I-20 and Eagle cats were never ruled out of the iF20. Their designers and companies decided to modify these boats from the originals in such a way that they became none-compliant. The Hobie Fox remained compliant but was just not competitive enough in comparison to the Inter-20's and Hobie failed to promote that particular design strongly enough. All attention was diverted to the Tiger.

Wouter

The iF20 is most definately a Formula class.

Sadly because all the other builder quit, Nacra decided to turn this Formula class into the Nacra 20 One-design class. They did change the name however, thereby leaving iF20 as being a pure formula ruleset.

Wouter

Wouter,
your translation is correct,
at the Italian Champ we had 4 old Esse O at Eurocup.

The newer version of the class rules (to be approved by Italian sail federation)is updated to have a correct handicap for the 1.04 division
Emanuele
Ultimatesails - Mattia Italia

Of course they

forgot

about correcting that error. They are trying to show that the F104 class is gethering a following world wide.

People only have to go to the AHPC website to see the Viper announced as the

F16 - Viper

with the (doctered) picture showing the identifier

F16

in its mainsail. In all associated documents, webpages and pricelisting the design is called an F16. At no single point is the name F104 mentioned.

http://www.ahpc.com.au/p_models.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/m_viper.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/pdf/viper_price_list.pdf

Would that make the Viper an F16 instead of an F104 ?

I guess we'll get another

ooops, sorry

answer to thet question.

Basically the only thing Greg has confirmed publically is that when you start adding weight to the platform that the

F16-Viper

will at one point satisfy the (expected) F104 ruleset and become F104 compliant.

That is like saying that you can make your F18

F104-compliant

by taking a knife to your F18 mainsail. The statement itself is true enough but nobody is going to do that in reality.

As extra info : cutting down your F18 mainsail from 17.0 sq.mtr to 14.8 sq. mtr. is enough. Or alternatively, fitting the standard F18 light crewweight jib of 3.45 sq.mtr. and cutting down the mainsail to 15.6 sq. mtr. Especially the latter option is quite attractive as the mainsail will still be very well proportioned (aspect ratio of 4.7: Tru F18 has aspect ratio of 4.3; F16's have 4.4).

AHPC is not going to charge less money for a 135 kg F104-Viper then for a 125 kg F16-Viper. The customer will get 5 kg of resin poured in each hull, with the performance loss thrown in for free, and that is it.

Will you consent to such a thing, as a customer ?

Wouter

I think these rules already favour one setup over all others.

In my view the optimal F104 will look like this :

Length : 5.50 mtr
width : 2.55 mtr
Weight : 135 kg
mast height ; 8.5 mtr (same as F16's now)
mainsail area : 14.0 sq. mtr.
mainsail luff length : 8.0 mtr
mainsail aspect ratio : 4.6 (F18 = 4.3 , F16 = 4.4)
jib area : 3.5 sq. mtr. (= 25 % of mainsail; as is the case with F18's and F16's)
Jib luff : 5.25 mtr
Spinnaker area : 15 sq. mtr.
Spinnaker luff : 7.00 mtr (same as F16's now)
Aspect ratio spi : 3.3
Area board : 0.16
luff length board : 0.80 mtr.
width board : 0.20 mtr
aspect ratio board : 4.0

What I don't understand is why the Spitfire class, Boulogne Evolution and AHPC with their Viper (all 16 footers) are opening themselves up to competition from this ideal F104 setup that is 18 foot long. Same for Hobie with their 17 footer FX-extreme.

Afterall, in the publics eye hull length is King !

Wouter

Thank you Emanuele

One of the biggest differences in a Box rule or Formula class structure as opposed to a strict 1 design is that the life span of any given model is now limited. People expect that the builders and designers will continue to offer new models every X number of years. In the A class this seams to be about 3 years for any given hull design. Properly constructed boats if maintanied will last years. In competitive and growing classes where there is a good used boat market many of the top guys and those who can afford it, upgrade to new boats every few years. Motivation to do this is hightened if they can not only get a new boat (It may be only deck styling or color or hardware options, but its new), but something that is different and not have to jump classes. This is 1 huge advantage for class growth if the sailor base is there and understands the concept of a formula class. (It is a bad deal for the builders because of trying to amortize tooling and design costs, but thais is another thread)

Given this, if the F16 class can show growth, and is seen by others around the globe, as builders look at new models they will be more tempted to to build in the future to the F16 spec. If we grabbed a general rule to try and bring in a lot of already built boats we would have a much different rule: longer, heavier, more sail, all the things that were avoided and now the selling point of the class we have currently.

Bimare has already identifed customers for its new boat. I did speak to them about building something that was compliant to a rule as they are very close, but it required more changes than they were prepared to make to fit what they could sell now.

Our charter as the F16 class has to be to just continue to sell what we have and grow the class. With numbers and visability others will join.

Thanks Matt, very good and clear message which makes perfect sense!

Ok the stealth 'r' main might have been acceptable to the F16 class but the huge jib? Did the existing mast accomodate the extra F16 main area? Didn't all the 20 footers you mention come after the formulation of the 20 foot formula? The existing 19 - 20' fleet boats were no longer the flavour of the month, but many owners held onto them. They reluctant to commit expense to another class showing little benefit over what they sailed. Result in UK - dilution of some classes and failure of the formula.

Cheshirecatman

The failure of iF20 in the UK, was, IMO a direct result of the strength of the Hurricane 5.9 fleet.

In the 10 years I sailed the 5.9, I was never beaten by a iF20 in any race OVER THE WATER, there was no need to move to the iF20 as we all had the best boat at the time in the Hurricane.

I'm afraid you are not quiet right, the 59 was still the flavour of the month. We did not all go and buy iF20's; The fleet only started to reduce when a forumula boat came along. That boat was the F18.