Most dedicated racers I know change their cats only if there is a justifiable performance gain or if the cost of a new boat upgrade is little more than the cost of 'competitive maintenance'.
If a manufacturer decides not to build a boat to a rule there must be good reason. Is the rule too extreme, too expensive to manufacture to? Are the boats durable enough? Are there sufficient dedicated racers of a design willing to commit their hard earned cash? Any manufacturer will build what he thinks will sell. Just how big are the largest active F16 fleets?
Cheshirecatman
If a manufacturer decides not to build a boat to a rule there must be good reason. Is the rule too extreme, too expensive to manufacture to? Are the boats durable enough? Are there sufficient dedicated racers of a design willing to commit their hard earned cash? Any manufacturer will build what he thinks will sell. Just how big are the largest active F16 fleets?
Cheshirecatman
I went into the F16 because of the spec. Light; Fast; Single handed with the Spi or two up with 3 sails.
But the overriding reason?
It was light.
I sailed an Inter 17 for 6 years and it WAS too heavy. I don't want to drag a 150kg boat around, I don't want to drag a 130kg around, I want to drag a 104kg boat around.
Yes Simon, I did say SOME classes. The 5.9 was not eligible to race as an iF20, I think mainly due to the fact it had carbon stringers. It was shorter, narrower, no daggerboards, no kite! Just as the 5.9 slogan reads 'when the fast isn't fast enough'
Wouldn't a fleet of 5.9s, Nacra 6.0s, Prindle 19s have given better racing? particularly with 'open' sails. Yes the F18s and the reformatted tornado have affected the 5.9s, but look at the age of the competitive 5.9s, they last,so are great value second hand boats, and now have a great 3 sail option. Buy an iF20? I think not.
Cheshirecatman
I can't believe there are still people questioning the validity of the F16 concept...some of you talk like a F16 is still a theory...That the minimum weights are unobtainable without exotic materials at astronomical prices.
Obviously some builders want to ignore the obvious benefits of a cat built around the current F16 rules and want to use 70’s/80’s construction technology and/or low skilled labor to build a 1970’s boat that
looks
like it belongs in 2008 …its too late...the cats
out of the bag
others are successfully building, and have been building them for so time now to the current F16 rules. There is no reason at all to change the F16 rules. If others can’t step up to the plate and build a competitive F16 (both performance & cost) like the Stealth and Blade, let them take their obese beasts and the class that goes with them some where else.
Regards,
Bob
In my 35 years on this planet I've learned one thing and that is that stuff often happens for no good reason. Therefor, the assumption that nearly everything is the result of a well thought out reasoning or careful analysis is therefor both wrong and extremely misleading. Any reasoning based on still making this assumption and trying to gain wisdom that way is foolish.
Larger then any of the
modern
spi equipped alternatives like FX-one, I-17's, Shadows, Bim-16, Jav-16, etc; all except maybe the Spitfires.
But far more importantly, the F16's are active ALL over the world and not localized to only one geographic area. F16's are build locally in the USA, UK, AUS and Thailand and all have been exported outside of their local area to far off places like Shanghai, Dubai, Finland and Singapore. All these places have several F16's sailing, so these are not just one-offs.
All the other classes can inhale as much air as they want to look big but they are all years away from even matching that.
But the thing that makes me smile the most is this.
Market leader
Hobie cat dares to ask 16.500 Euro's for the FX-extreme that is not fitted with a carbon mast, is 35 kg heavier, is 2.5 minutes per hour slower and 2000 euro's more expensive then a F16 ! Looking at the others; I-17R's and Evolutions; the situation isn't much better at all !
When do you know that they have lost the plot ?
When a bunch of semi-amateurs can create and produce a design (class) that is simultaniously superior and cheaper in every respect while gloriously withstanding atrocious conditions as encountered at the 2007 Alter Cup and 2007 F16 Global Challenge.
Seeker, your post said it right !
Wouter
I think we are getting to one of the main issues here, 'carrot and stick' mentality of promotion. If the F16s want to promote themselves don't build walls, go play with the others! Development of a 'wider' class could be a great opportunity to get more people on F16s. It could be someone with an alloy mast and an extra 30Kg can have great fun racing against you and see potential benefits. There are some excellent F16 sailors out there and some great boats, but they won't suit all. You know as well as I that ratings are only part of the story. Don't shout statistics at them, sail with them. A good sailor will always do well on a half decent boat and boat handling is the usually the most important factor. Embrace the initiative to get more boats racing together and let the F16 numbers grow from it. If boats start racing together the manufacturers generally prefer their boats to look good with race results, and if the F16 rule is right they will drift that way. If not the fleet will be seen as a narrow minded group of techno-enthusiasts with a chip on their shoulders.
Cheshirecatman
There is no denying it but the F16 class was indeed formed from this frustration that you descibe here.
A small group was fed up with the expensive low-tech stuff we were offered by the big boys as
the next big step in cat sailing
.
So indeed, I think the initial group qualifies as
Techno-enthusiasts with a chip on their shoulders
I certainly qualify for that.
About being narrow minded; I don't really see that. Again we have actively endorsed racing with other designs in the past, we also actively endorse
open class handicap racing
were we favour one big single fleet with a single start instead of several smaller OD starts. At least that was the policy during my tenure (2001 - 2006).
We have indeed set a few rules to which any F16 must adhere. These were included to garantee fair and equal racing between boats of different make and stimulate the public perception of that.
Please note that in the past we had a mast length and sail area rule that allowed an infinite number of different combinations to qualify as F16's. Our experience was that boat designers, sailmakers and class members were too challenged to understand this rule and use it correctly. One of the best things we did was to simplify this rule in 2003 for a simple
max mast length-max sail area-max luff length
combination.
Some can call that narrow minded or a rule set that is being too restrictive, I would call it the best solution to a problematic situation that we experienced first hand where others are just speculating about it.
I would go as far as to say that as good as all F16 class rules were honed that way. Afterall we did do alot of work on the class rules in the first 3 years of the class. I can still write up all the reasoning behind every class rule from memory. We also worked from the principle that when a proposed rule did not have a sound foundation or pressed reason to come into existance then it would not be accepted into the F16 class rules. As a result the F16 class are actually one of the least restrictive class rules about in the catamaran and dinghy scene. Ony A-class, 18HT's, and the Aussie 12, 14, 16 and 18 foot skiffs rule less on their boats. And that is the honest thruth.
If other builder gravitate away from the F16 class then it is because they are simply not up to the challenge of competing with the other F16 builders on a level playing field, both performance and technology wise.
It is most definately NOT because F16's are fragile, too restrictive or whatever. Arguing otherwise is not looking at the facts. Over the last 6 years the F16 class has proven that much in race results and by surviving perfectly well in the most rough conditions. The fact that relatively skilled but still very much amateur homebuilders can build F16's shows the lack of technological prowess of the builders shying away from the F16.
I own the very first purpose build F16, the prototype of the class, homebuild with the valuable help from other amateurs. The boat is still sailing without having experienced a single major breakage in 5 years and it weights 121.6 kg fully fitted. That is indeed overweight with respect to the 107 kg class minimum, but none of the other non-F16 builders like Hobie, Nacra, Boulogne, Swell, Mattia, etc can even offer a product that beats an overweight homebuild F16 like that.
The only exception here is Bimare of course as their Bim-16, Javelin-16 and X16.
Does this situation result in some F16 sailors having a chip on their shoulders. I guess it does. I don't respect the big boat builders who are still putting our boat that my 1974 Prindle 16 would beat in the weight department and there is no reason to be silent about that.
I don't think the F16 class was ever formed to be nice to other builder who put lipstick on old technology and call it the next big step forward in catamaran sailing. One reason why we formed was to show what could be done if some designers put their heads together and really tried. As such it was formed to challenge the other builders in producing a proper racing catamaran !
Wouter
So you think a box rule iF20 would have succeeded.. If the rules were more open?
Ok ..
Say length 23 foot max Should account for all 20 footers and those close.. <img src=
alt=
/>
hull width 20 Should account for all 20 footers as well.. <img src=
alt=
/>
Sail area open to make sure every boat can measure <img src=
alt=
/>
No weight limit so everything can measure.. <img src=
alt=
/>
Would this class succeed.. nope.. Because some would argue this would be
too open
a class.. Cant please everyone!!
The F16 rules are as open as we could make them and still allow fair building.
techno-enthusiasts? Okkies.. <img src=
alt=
/>
Lets put this to bed once and for all.. The F16 weight rule was put in place so the semi-experienced home builder could build to close to or on the limit!! Not with nomex/vac/bagging layups but techniques pioneered in 1941!
Wouters boat is built using 1940s technology and I'm pretty certain Wouter isn't the most experienced cat builder around!! Phill's first Blade was 1940s technology building!! How many Mozzies & Tiapans have been built in the back shed? Some of these platforms are still at the pointy end of their national fleets.. Yet its amazing how some squawk and moan about high technology, the F16 and its all too difficult to do.. Yet its been done for 30 years!! Done by dads with a mate or with their kid..
The weight rule also allows for the thinking professional builders to build a 1980s technology boat to just under the weight limit. Note I said
thinking
as opposed to low thought low technique boat building companies.. These companies may know of the technology but just cant fathom that a
chopper spray
gun isn't needed in a layup.. Building a F16 requires
thinking
something it seems has by-passed mainstream cat builders..
Ches, there is no new building technology in reality since the mid 1980s.. Nomex isnt new.. Carbon isnt new.. Both have dropped in price but neither is needed for a F16 platform to come in under weight..
Personally, when I can, I sail in an
open
fleet against A's Hobies etc.. If there was a F16 fleet here I would allow other classes to share the start line.. At my level it not the pennant its the rum after Im sailing for.. I want a light boat that after a race an old man can haul up the beach.. Not something I need to reverse the SUV to have a chance in dragging the excess resin up the beach..
May I point out resin is an oil based product so using small amounts is my way to build a
green
boat.. <img src=
alt=
/>
Interestingly he built the Tiapan 4.9 for years under weight, without using carbon.