F16 Blade in Texel dutch Open (Geert and Raymond)

Post deleted by Tornado_ALIVE

Great result Macca.

27th Scratch and 12th on handicap.

A lot of F18s there and looks like very close racing between them.

Hey Stewart,

You do not know the circumstances behind the Worlds result. We were lucky to even be on the water (Crew injury) and decided to pack up on the second last day.

The crew / boat owner shipped his boat over to NZ without a skipper. I was heading over to NZ anyway so offered my services. Due to a back injury, he was in no shape to take to the water despite regular physio during the event and being doped up on pain killers, however he persisted for most of it with myself doing most of the work on the boat whilst he struggled to just get in and out on trapeze.

Trapezeing and steering downwind in up to 25 knots amongst a reasonable size fleet was quiet interesting and I would have to say, some of the most enjoyable downwinds I have experienced. Having the tiller cross arm at the leeward end come apart whilst I was on trap heading downwind was also very interesting. Working the main by myself for the 2 events is something I can do without though...... Especially when the mainsheet would not grip in the ratchet.

Very disappointed with how it all unfolded, however better than watching it on shore. I feel more for Stuart who made the trip from the UK only to struggle each day to get out on the water.

We where a bit heavier at 176KGs <img src=

alt=

/>
On the first leg to the lighthouse we decided to stay a bit further of the coast than you guys (about 1 NM).
During practice the day before this was the place with the most wind and seemed to pay of as we
overtook quite a few boats who where very close to the beach.

After the VC we went way too far out to sea, this is where we lost a lot.
It would have been wiser to have stayed with the rest of the fleet and put in some more gybes instead.

I see you where using the track-and-trace system:
http://spectator.sport-track.com/spec/start.php?id=4701&raceid=7961

Actually I was making a point about your comment..

Its easy for someone to make snide comments about sailing ability or lack.. It however doesn't detract from the efforts of Wouter and others in developing the F16 class..

Umm.. and why is this being posted? I made no comment or innuendo about you or your sailing.. Interesting this medium of communication that allows someone, to believe comments made, were not directed to the one I posted to but to themselves..

But your correct I don't know the circumstances you or others faced in the T worlds... Anyway glad you enjoyed some of the racing...

And now for some meaningless stock market drivel.. <img src=

alt=

/>

Its Adrian Fawcett..... <img src=

alt=

/>

Hey Wouter,

Any news on that mysterious measurement cert that shows the F17 lost 25kgs??

Someone at Muiderzand has an (uni)F17 (with the Infusion stick) which he IIRC had weighed at 135KGs.
He does have PBO rigging and a carbon pole so that might make it a bit lighter than the standard version.

Macca: Do you know under which rating they where sailing? I cant find it anywhere and I dont think F17 rig has been added to the TR database.

The F17 is a 104.

If you swapped the Wire for PBO then there is about 3kg saved, if you did trap wires too then its a bit more saved.

A Carbon pole is going to be a kilo or 2 lighter but its nowhere near a saving of 25kg...

But Wouter will for sure supply us with irrefutable proof that the F17 has somehow lost 25kgs <img src=

alt=

/>

Back to F16 subjects, does anyone know the weights of the boats that competed at Texel? Maybe if they were heavier than the F16 rating they could have got an advantage from re rating under the texel rating?

Here is the link to the F17 forum. This discussion has moved off topic for the F16 forum: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=Formula17

Who is looking at handicapped results ? These boats should be compared on elapsed time as the differences between them are too small to really matter. The only exception is the old Nacra Inter 17 design, which is a bloody slow singlehander compared to its modern competitors.

With respect of boat weights. The numbers I quoted are well founded and I have measurement numbers on several nacra 17's. However I would love to quote you (as an nacra Europe employee) that no Nacra 17 has ever been build under 150 kg's. Makes promo-ing the F16's alot easier. So I'm not sure what you are campaigning here for; if it is the latter then I'm more then willing to comply ! <img src=

alt=

/>

Wouter

Well Done Geert - I found a picture of you buried at the start!!!....

The differences between the boats you listed are quite considerable, 50kg in boat weight for a start! The texel rating shows a big difference in performance based on the differences in the listed boats so are you now saying that there is no

truth

in the texel system?

With respect of boat weights. The numbers I quoted are well founded and I have measurement numbers on several nacra 17's. However I would love to quote you (as an nacra Europe employee) that no Nacra 17 has ever been build under 150 kg's. Makes promo-ing the F16's alot easier. So I'm not sure what you are campaigning here for; if it is the latter then I'm more then willing to comply ! <img src=

alt=

/>

Wouter

Again you have manged to turn a simple question into something totally unrelated.

Where is the measurement certificate for the F17 that is 25kg lighter than a std F17? Just scan it and post it. Simple hey? Until then stop making claims that we all know are wrong. You have done it before and been called out on it so either you're a slow learner or not the sharpest spoon in the drawer....

I'm not going to send you copy's of measurement forms Macca, and you can spin that every way you want.

Nevertheless the fact of the matter will remain that the data is sound and others like TonyF18 are confirming that the Nacra 17's in their area are being measured as lighter then the acclaimed 150-158kg (www.texelrating.org and www.nacraeurope.com). The only exception are the aging orginal nacra inter 17's that are indeed typically on the heavy side (+150kg).

There is NO standard F17 !

We have had 7 different Nacra 17 designs over the last 10 years and to put the icing on the cake we note that the US F17 has a different mainsail area then the F17 offered in Europe by www.nacraeurope.com. The difference being respectively 16.45 sq. mtr to 15.25 sq. mtr.; a whole 1.25 sq. mtr !

Hell, The nacra 17 design has had more design changes then all the boats in our TRUE Formula 16 class combined.

But I must admit, the newest iteration of the alu masted nacra 17 footer appears to be alot better boat then the original inter 17 you guys started out with 10 years ago. So at least there is progress.

And I stand by my point that the Nacra 17's appear to be converging to the F16 specifications and that is the source of much amusement on my side.

I mean, how big is the difference between a 15.00 sq. mtr (F16) mainsail and a 15.25 sq.mtr (EU F17) mainsail ? Or between an AHPC alu wingmast and the Infusion alu wingmast ? Between a 17.5 sq. mtr spinnaker (F16) and a 17/19 sq. mtr spinnaker (F17) ? Between a 3.70 sq.mtr selftacking jib (F16) and a 3.45 sq. mtr. selftacking jib (F17). Between a 5.00 mtr long hull (F16) and a 5.23 mtr long hull (F17). Between a class designed and optimized for 1-up/2-up versatility and level racing against the F18's and a class now marketed as a 1-up/2-up versatile boat that is optimized for 110-145 kg crews that are looking for an alternative to the F18 class ? Between the name F16 and the name F17 ?

A copy cat class if ever there was one.

I guess the following two sayings are true.

Nothing creates contempt like succes

Copying is the highest form of flattery

Yes I think you can say that I'm throroughly enjoying this !

Its the proof that my

useless ivory tower mathematics

of the era 2000-2001 was indeed spot on !

Wouter

I thought that the same could be said of the F16 being a scaled down lighter version of the F18. You could compare F18 and F16 numbers the same way to make them look similar. So a case of who is copying who?

But Wouter and Macca. You are both in Holland at the moment. The place ain't that big so shouldn't be any excuses for the two of you to meet for too many beers and rums.

Well, actually, such a view can be succesfully defended.

Indeed the F16 setup is heavily inspired by the F18 class; especially the succes they achieved with the Formula setup of their class rules.

For a very long time we even explicetly said so on our official webpages.

Although we all remember the ridicule and disbelieve we reaped when we started out in 2001 with F16 and claimed it to be comparable in performance to the F18's. Many believed that our lightweight and short hulls were a receipy for disaster, both physically and economically. The fact that we claimed that this setup would be equally well suited for competitive 1-up and 2-up sailing (even against one another) was also frowned upon.

Additionally, it is a different kind of skill to build a 107 kg ready to race 2-up spinnaker boat then a 180 kg ready to race 2-up spinnaker boat. So in the first years we had to some researching and build optimalisation ourselves to get down to the specs we desired. Experiences taken from the A-cat class was very helpful here. Interestingly enough, we also recognized the superiority of item like the (true) wingmast before the F18 class did.

So I think we can rightfully claim to have done alot of pioneering work with the F16 class. We had to do alot of proving against commonly encoutered disbelieves. And surprisingly enough we got the concept and specs right almost entirely from the first moment. I think we only entlarged the mainsail form 14.85 to 15.00 sq.mtr and the jib from 3.45 to 3.70 sq. mtr. ; all the other specs have remained unaltered. Some class rules were replace by improved and simplified wording without affecting the specs and that was it.

Also our class rules have rather diverged from the F18 setup rather then converged. We actively fight the pressure to included more and more class rules and to pre-ampt any freedom by stating that everything that is not specifically allowed is disallowed as the F18 has done by opting to register themselves as a

closed ruleset

with ISAF. Of course we have a mix of carbon masts and alu masts, we do allow exotic fibres any part where you may want to use these. In this respect we are actually ahead of the F18 class. Although we still make lots of use of (sail and laminate) optimization that is achieved in the F18 and A-cat classes.

So I think that we can be defined as a class that was heavily inspired by the F18 class but have since then (and from very early on) blasted our own trail and have grown beyond the example set by the F18 class and have broken new ground.

So if indeed we started out as a copy-cat, we have long left this category.

Wouter

Wouter,

the changes made the F17 are so it fits the 104 class, And its appears that its been worth it too.

The F17 has just won the French 104 nationals and was also the standout boat in the recent French magazine test.

If someone has the time (and inclination) maybe its worth recalculating the results from Texel using 104 for the vipers handicap (2 up) and then if Geert's boat was heavier than the F16 handicap how about recalculating it with the correct handicap and see how he would have gone?

Oh and if you have technical issues scanning and posting the

light F17

certificate you can just fax it to me and I will do it for you.....

I keep asking about this mysterious Wouter character when I am ay regattas and not even the locals have seen him... I think he is some kind of phantom <img src=

alt=

/> Never at regattas either...

Firstly I am a big fan of F16 class, however Wouter the F16 is also a copy cat class, yes as you mentioned. (and there is nothing wrong with that).

The class had a good look at the F18 formula and decided down a similar track. They had a good look at the Taipan 4.9 with regards to it’s flexibility and possibly even the F17 as if I remember correctly, they were offered in one man to two man form (At least in OZ) many years before the F16.

The F18 class is a much bigger boat, in length, volume, loads and rig size. It’s rules regarding build material also differ from the F16, so it is inaccurate to compare the skill / weights of building the two boats. More accurate to compare the F18 with the F18HT.

The F16 would have mimicked what the A class and Taipan 4.9 had done over many years (no point in re-inventing the wheel)

The F16 class was foundered in 2001. The first wing mast was used in the F18 Worlds in 2001 by the Taipan F18. So, a little inaccurate there mate.

Not too hard to copy the Taipan 4.9 and put a spinnaker on it.... Then look at system developments from Tornadoes and F18s. Hardly pioneering but the right way to go about it.

No wonder; the F104 is a F16 copy-cat too !

Just add a few kg's to any F16 ... et voila c'est une F104 !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. After 7 iterations, each one making the Nacra 17 resemble the F16's more closely, it is finally so close to these that it is starting to float to the top of the leader boards.

Several of us have been saying this for years ! Finally we became fed up with talking to the proverbial wall and having to accept pretty awful designs from the big time builders and thus we went out and created the

F16 class

ourselves. Showing in deeds what the big boys were ignoring.

Honestly Andrew, it is okay to admit to this. There is no shame in it. We ourselves readily admit to learning from other classes like the F18's, A-cats and most importantly the Taipans.

Why ?

We are not playing the handicap game and we never have. We race the F18's on

first in wins

, we race any other design like the F17's on a

first in wins

basis, the same among ourselves (1-up/2-up). We are not some sea lawyer trying to find an advantage in the small print or some handicapping formula.

The elapsed time listing says enough I think; Fawcett/Dobie sailed an excellent race on their 2-up F17 and beat all the competition in their field fair and square.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, there is no reason why I CAN'T send these to you; I just refuse to do so. Plain and simple.

Wouter

Stephen,

Indeed I readily admit to first looking around to see what works over trying to reinvent the wheel.

Indeed, the F16 class took alot from several other classes and recombined it into a new concept. Again I readily and frequently admit to that.

Personally, I think this is the smartest way to go about it.

Personally, I'm even in favour of having the F16's class hold more events together with other classes like the F17's, FX-ones, Spitfires, etc. I have been vocal about that in the past. The basic reason being that this is the most enjoyable for everyone and again all the sailors can learn from eachother that way. Afterall, what is the real difference between these boats these days ? Even the handicaps (if you want to go down that route) are only a few points apart. An F16 at 101 (under SCHRS) or F104/F17 at 104 (under SCHRS). That is only a minute difference per 45 min. bouy race ?

I don't know, but would an A-cat/F16/F17 invitational at the Gulfport club be something that many would object to for 2009 ?

But this aside. The F16 class did do some pioneering. Afterall the Taipan class was absolutely dead set against any spinnaker addition or sail shape changes. Never did the Taipan class race

first in wins

between their sloops and cat-rigs.

There was indeed an Aussie version of the nacra Inter 17 before F16 was officially launched in 2001; but we (I) didn't use anything off that design. We did witness the launch of the first EU version of the Nacra Inter 17 that introduced a spi for singlehanding to the mainstream cat sailing and we (I) did pick up on that. The modifying the F16 to suit level racing between 1-up and 2-up racing however was only preceeded by the Dart 18 catamarans (1975) where the F16 extended to idea of a modern design with a spinnaker.

With respect to the wingmast. While we started the F16 officially in the spring of 2001 (before the F18 worlds that year), a small group had been on the case for

a better mousetrap

a while before that and even then there was no doubt that the wingmast was the way to go. As far as I know this Taipan F18 was basically a Taipan 5.7 that was modified with the help of a hacksaw and a very thick (heavy) walled mainbeam. Of course the Taipan 5.7 and Taipan 4.9 had featured the wingmast for many years by then. If anything the F16 mast usage is a direct extension of the Taipan 4.9 design, that did indeed inspire a large portion of the basic F16 setup.

Well, that is not really the way it was/is. If it had been that simple then there is no reason why the original Nacra Inter-17 should have been a smash hit world wide. Or why the M18 should have been a hot selling boat. Or indeed why the Taipan design itself would have pre-empted to F16 growing beyond the Taipan influence. Think about the Bim 16 too or the French BCM (Boulogne) Energy

All of the named boats (and many more) share some aspects with the F16 setup, but not a single one combined all of the important aspects into one setup and in such a well balanced form. At the time not a single alternative design dared to believe or even claim that such a setup could be rated the same or even close to the F18's; let alone race these directly to the line. No single boat did that and ALSO optimized versatility as defined by 1-up/2-up racing off the same performance. Of course we dared to start an open ruleset formula setup without the backing of any significant catamaran builder. And to top it off we didn't ask ANY membership fees while still growing the class internationally to the point were it is now.

In fact if you look at the whole picture then the F16 history is quite an interesting piece of reading. Indeed we took many things from other classes but in just as many cases we did things differently. One prime example is the fact that the F16 builders produce very lightweight boats for a retail price that sees 150 kg 16 and 17 footers struggle to achieve. Nobody believed we could pull this off, but we believed we could and we have put

the deed to the claim

.

But indeed the biggest pioneering we did was fight against the disbelieving judgements that a small boat could be this good and convinced the sailing scene of the contrary. We stood on the shoulders of the Taipan 4.9 class, no doubt about that, but we progressed beyond their example and have indeed broken into new ground.

But having written down this

selfaggrandizement

I still believe that the cat classes and builders of the world should work more together and converge on a limited number of racings groups that serves all of the needs. In my opinion this means that the F16 class and sailors should aim to hook up with similar boat like the Spitfires, Taipans, Nacra 17's, FX-ones and, if it grows, the F104's.

Personally, I think the F104 class is completely redundant. It's class setup is basically a F16 with 25 kg added. The only reason to fix its number to a handicap of 104 is to exclude the F16's. The big boys are up to their old tricks again; creating internal competition that benefits no-one in the long run.

I hear that rumours are being circulated that F16 are fragile boats, but when I'm being asked what I think about the new nacra F17, then I'll say that I think it is a good boat that will give the onwer many years of enjoyment. If a party is looking for a more recreational oriented catamaran comparable to a F16 then I typically refer them to the Nacra 500.

My personal hope for the future is to see all these new 16 and 17 footers converge and work together to reinvigorate the catsailing scene. To attract more young people to the sport and to see all owners have more fun racing eachother on comparable boats.

That and the succesful creation of the F12 class, a real catamaran that is just as easy to rig and transport as a laser dinghy and inexpensive to own and maintain.

Wouter

**** all yuou want

Ask Christa, I think you see her weekly if not daily.

Also I stood no more then 3 mtr away from you on 17 aug 2007, when you checked us out at the F16 Global Challenge.

But indeed I stopped frequenting regatta's somewhere in 2005. I enjoy sail craft design and recreational sailing more then the hassle of regattas these days.

It is the same with my landyachting. I enjoy taking people along and just have a good time more then the actual races. If you want to do some landyachting Andrew, and you are here in the winter time or even early spring or late autumn then give me a call. Christa knows how to reach me and otherwise Tony Mels does, you know both.

I'm currently running a 5 car landyachting cirquit for enthousiasts and other people interested in giving this a try. Initially free of charge, although I do appreciate some maintaince contribution if people start coming regulary.

Some times you move on to do other things in life, Macca.

Wouter

So Macca/Wouter, you still doing beers then? Wouter obviously knows what Macca looks like but not vice versa. And you can even show what the cert looks like and not worry about this scanning thingy.

So Wouter..... To sumarize, who really cares how the F16 or other boats came about.... Who copies who. They (Including F16) have copied other boats. The F16 as with the F17 and F18 are good products.

At the end of the day, let's go racing and enjoy them.

Many people think their class of boat is the better class to be in. Each have their own opinion and for each of them, if they enjoy their class... they are right (better class to be in..... For them).

Not everybody shares your veiw that the F16 is the

better class

as you may disagree the F18/104/A Class/H16 etc is the better class.

PS - I think you are flattering youself more then the boats are flattering each other.

Steve,

Not sure i agree with you comments here.

F18 is 10% longer than F16
F18 has say 25% more volume than F16
F18 has 3-4% extra width over F16
F18 has 12% more mainsail area than F16
F18 has 10% more jib sail area than f16
F18 has 20% more spinn sail area than F16
F18 rig loads are thru rig loads only - crew weights are similar.
But they are over 50% heavier. That's comparing 107kg f16 to 180kg F18.

We all know that the manufacturers could build their boats at 165kg if they really wanted to, but profit margins reign.

Our F18 was well overbuilt & was over weight by 3-4 kgs. The new glass ones will be like the capricorn 5-10kgs under & weighted up to the 180kg max.

Marcus

Steve,
I agree.
We should not be arguing about which boat is better than the next. Far more productive to be aguing that sailing any boat is better than video games or some other activity that is drawing the young away from our sport.

I'd rather be sailing against, or on, any of those boats instead of a Gameboy or X-box.

Regards,
Phill

Hi Marcus

I don't believe it has anything to do with profit margins. The Formula was born from the Hawk and Tiger, both built at 180 kg. Builders today could build them lighter, very easily but they have a sucessfull class going at the moment and would put that at serious risk if they decided to knock 15 to 20kg off them.

The A class also can be built with ease now, down to 70kg..... But the class also does not wish to damage their sucessfull fleet. It would be a hell of a lot easier and less damaging too introduce it into the A Class, than the F18.