Formula class rules yearly review ! READ !

Hi Stewart,
it's early days yet, but it has stood up to the pressures better than some parts of the boat did. But seriously carbon A mast with timber inside has put up with minor nose dives with spin up, flogged spin. in 20kts., tight wind trapezing with spin, etc. By no means proved to be bullet proof but certainly doing OK so far. Only time will tell.

Regards Gary.

Wouter,
Wouldn`t a compromise between the two groups of F16 sailors be in the best interest of the class here ? I think that exploring both extremes and setting one as the final decision is not as good an outcome as finding the middle ground.

"We are going to continue with the proposal and vote of on the tip weight rule in slightly modified form. However, using my authority as the Formula 16 chairman and giving as cause the unacceptable situation that maintaining the current rule would immediately outlaw 15 Stealth F16's and some 24 Stealth R's from the class, I immediately lower the minimum required mast tip weight from 6.5 kg to 5.5 kg."

Surely this is enough of a change in the rules, it allows all Stealth owners inclusion in the class, and only lowers the tip weight by 1kg, a compromise all sensible F16 owners should accept. I think you`ll find most Taipan sailors THAT ARE INVOLVED IN F16 will be more than happy to accept this over a complete scrapping of the mast tip weight rule. It should keep things closer between the two different camps, (even if the difference is only a percieved one), thereby not alienating either party.
The situation might then not be an ideal one for carbon mast producers, or those who wish to use them, but at least those who wish to compete on equal footing and still use alu. masts won`t PERCIEVE they are at a disadvantage.

Steve

This emergency rule is ONLY a temporary one and the final decision is still pending. For new masts build the 6.5 kg tipweight rule still applies.

There is movement on this front and I hope to settle this issue permanently soon.

Wouter

I agree Steve, this seems like a sensible compromise that allows inclusion, development yet doesn't adversely affect existing boats.

Wouter: what's wrong with this suggestion?? You mentioned in one of your first posts that Saarberg could produce a dependable carbon mast that would result in a tip weight of 5.5kg, so what's the big deal?

On the one hand, you've immediately scrapped the 6.5kg tip weight rule and changed it to 5.5kg. Fair enough, I think we can all see why this was done and seems to be fair and reasonable to include all the Stealth's that already exist and to promote harmony between all the F16 sub-classes. Then you say that all new masts must comply with the 6.5kg tipweight rule that is still in force. I don't understand - didn't you just change that rule as part of your 'chairman' abilities???

Also, you champion the fact that we are a class that discusses rules, changes, developments, thoughts etc openly yet you say that there is 'movement' regarding this rule and you're going to settle it shortly. again.... I don't understand! what is this movement, why haven't we been told about it, who is the movement being done by/to, will this be another rule that becomes 'chairman-ised' and when do 'we' get to know about it????

On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.

Please wait.

Nothing wrong. I'm just waiting for a public Catsailor posting by a party and for a reply by the Aus Taipan sailors. I totally expect to see the first and may have to abandon waiting for the second if they do not reply. But I'm giving both parties time in which to formulate and enter a response.

What are you really asking here, can you explain please ?

My mistake I used my powers as a chairman to TEMPORARY lower the masttipweight so that we didn't have to turn away any Stealth F16 sailors at racing while we were still debating what to do. This bought us time. The warning to new masts is that I don't know yet what will happen with the tipweight rule but what ever happens will applie to all masts. Even if it is decided to keep the old rule.

Well, I think I suspended it temporarily more than changed it permanently. At least for now.

We are measuring masts at this time and debating between a few important parties about what to do. Also WE're going to settle this issue soon. Not I. If I settle the issue than it means that we couldn't find concensus with the various parties and that I have to force the decision, I'm trying to avoid that. You will know more when more news comes in. Please be patient.

Relax man, I'm not doing this for pay and these things cost time. You will all know about it and get a chance to give a piece of your mind on it as well. As always !

Wouter

On the up-side, thanks for the short post - even though it did prompt even more questions.

Andy.

I have been pointing out that weezy runs your "Class" like it is his own little toy.
I have been warning you people that weezy will do what ever HE wants to please his friends in europe.
He tinkers with the class rules whenever he has a brain fart or a mfg calls up.
That is not a "Class", it is a childs plaything.

Are you ever going to have a real class and VOTE on something?
How many years before someone else has an opportunity to run things?
You "vote" on class issues and weezy collects the votes and tells you the outcome.
Of course the outcome is always what he wants.
What a coincidence.
Or he will override the vote on "technical" reasons.

HOW LONG WILL YOU PEOPLE PUT UP WITH IT?

I've you just wait a little while you can save yourself another embarasment.

Wouter

Sam, if you had another neuron, you could have a synapse and be almost dangerous.

Seeing as our masts are the primary reason for this discussion I thought itt time that I add my opinion to the melting pot.

First as you may guess I am in favour of abolishing the tip weight as a measurement.

Carbon mast have not been seen in mainstream catamaran classes until now, it is not realistic to say how light a durable mast can be made at this point, I can tell you that they can be considerably lighter than aluminium and still stronger.

We are a developement class and part and parcel of this type of rule is that boats are allowed to get better and better. However it is controlled improvement in as much as the main performance enhancing parameters are defined.

Hull drag by limiting length and minimum weight
Sail power by limiting dimension of sails
Access to sail power by limiting width.

With these dimensions fixed, any improvments made will be in small increments, I don't believe that any-one will come up with anything that will overnight make all other boats obsolete, but the strength of the concept is that over a long period the boat will get faster and easier to use, the old boats may become outdated but the class will not become obsolete, we can expect evolution not revolution.

So how will the mast tip issue impact on the class, in the short term not a great deal, the majority of catamarans have aluminium masts with greater tip weights than ours, we are ahead of them.

However carbon masts are coming to mass catamaran sailing, all the major spar manufacturers are investing heavily in carbon technology, the price is coming down and will continue to come down, alumium masts on seriuos racing boats will eventually go the same way that wooden ones went.

Already there is little difference in the price of carbon and aluminium masts.

Lighter mast tips will offer these improvements

Easier to raise the mast

Easier to right a capsized boat.

Slightly faster upwind in chop.

No-one will have a problem with the first 2 points the only issue is the third.

The increase in speed we are talikng about is very difiicult to measure and is certainly a fraction of a %.

To be honest if we are worried about this we should worry about other things effecting rig weight Cuben fibre sails would save as much, aramid rigging some more should we limit sail cloth weight and rigging weight, or should we do what we are aklready doing and say, when the price of this technology becomes affordable I'll have it.

Well carbon masts are affordable, you can have them now.

Mast makers need to be given the freedom to find out how light a DURABLE mast can be made after all we only want to give you our potential customers a better easier to use product can that be bad.

Aluminium masts could be made lighter than they currently are, but spar manufacturers have found the safe limit to go to, and we have reliable masts, they will adopt the same approach with using carbon as a material.

if we leave the tip weight in then any light masts will have to have lead on them just like the old Tornado masts did, and just like any light boat must add lead.

But remember this is about the distribution of the weight on the boat, all boats will still weigh the same.

To hell with any "class" discussions, I just want to see what kind of a fool SAM EVENS is goimg to make of himself next (he reminds me of a "visious" version of MIGLETO on sailing anarchy - for any one who is familiar with that "saga")?
Darryl J Barrett

I think perhaps too much is being made of the mast tip weight issue - as John Pierce puts it, when mast builders find the limit of a durable mast in carbon, they will have reached a point where it can`t become any lighter unless it becomes more fragile. Ultimately a super-light carbon mast will still heave a "tip weight", it can never be zero (unless the mast is filled with helium ). So if the tip weight comes out at 3kg, the gain would only be 3,5kg over the current rule, or 2,5kg over the current Stealth mast. Now I know that if I bought a super-light carbon mast I might go up one placing in my fleet, but it would take a lot more than that to elevate me to the point where I am "unbeatable" due to an equipment advantage.
Another factor to take into consideration on the mast tip weight rule is that, should certain boats (such as the Mosquito) within the F16 framework, elect to have a substantially SHORTER mast than the max. allowed, this would reduce the tip weight even more since the leverage is shorter (I`m no engineer, so please excuse my theory here if it`s incorrect.) Ok, the Mosquito is a bad example as it`s not full F16, but should someone develop a short fat rig with an idea of challenging the high-aspect ratio believers, he should not be limited to a mast tip weight that works for an 8,5m mast when his mast is only 7,3m.

The only negative aspect of doing away with the min. tip weight I can see is that the F16 class is made up of (mostly) boats that are OD classes such as Taipan, Stealth, Spitfire, Blade etc, who must comply with their own class rules to race OD. If the perception is that carbon is better, lighter & faster, who would buy a class-legal mast and a carbon mast for F16 use only ?

Another interesting thing is how will the Stealth class take the news that all older Stealths have a tip-weight of 5.5kg, but newer boats can have lighter masts ? Within a One-design framework this is a dangerous thing to do and I`m sure John Pierce knows this. Just because the technology exists that allows him to build lighter masts than he could 3 years ago doesn`t mean that he should use it, unless he wants his class to disintegrate.

I think we need to be careful not to open the rules up to the point where the original founder boats in the class are no longer competitive. Development is good as long as it is not too rapidly implemeted. Saying full carbon hulls are allowed is fine, as long as the boat complies with min. weight. Removing the min. weight starts an arms race.

With this in mind I would think lowering the min. weight to accommodate the Stealths is all that would be required at this point in time. The percieved performance advantage of carbon over alu. would then be acceptable to 90% of the members.

Oh, and just a small note to John Pierce :
"Already there is little difference in the price of carbon and aluminium masts."
"Well carbon masts are affordable, you can have them now."
Please send me 1x 7,3m carbon mast for Mosquito catamaran, painted to match natural anodised aluminium, together with invoice for 150 pounds. That`s what I`m paying for an aluminium mast blank, anodised. (don`t worry John, I won`t hold you to that price )

Cheers
Steve

Sammy:
Are you thinking of joining the F-16 class now that the Hobie 17 is Dying due to HobieCat America bailing out on you? (and the entire US Catsaiing community)
If yer hanging out in this Forum offering your input as to class direction, that MUST be the case.
If so guess we'll be sailing against one another again.
How fun is that??
Which boat are you buying?
CARY
www.seacats.org

Anyway to keep progress going I put in this update, I also expect everybody who wants a say in the matter of tipweights to be aware of the following info. You will need to base you vote upon.

Mast data :

I-20 Carbon ; overall weight = About 21.0 kg ; tipweight about 10.0 kg
Tornado alu : Overall weight about 23 kg ; Tipwweight 10.0-10.5 kg
Tornado carbon : Overall weight about 15.5 kg : Tipweight about 7.0 kg
F18 : Overall weight about 19.5 - 21.0 kg ; Tipweight 9.3 - 10.0 kg (depending on the make : Mattia = lightest, Tiger = heaviest)
Hobie FX-one : Overall weight 19.9 kg ; Tipweight 9.5 kg
I-17R (best est.) ; Overall weight about 14.5 kg: tipweight about 6.8 kg (comments by sailors suggest heavier mast etc)
A-cats : Overall weight about 9.5 kg Tipweights ; 4.5 - 5 kg's

Superwing F16 : Overall weight about 16 kg ; Tipweight 7.3-7.6 kg (depending on weight used spreaders and other fittings)
Stealth F16 doublehander : overall weight about 13.5 kg ; tipweight about 6.3 kg (Standard masts)
Stealth F16 singlehander : overall weight about 12 kg ; tipweight about 5.5 kg (These are special custom order masts)

Of course the Superwing mast is the alu section that is featured on the Taipans and Blades and as good as certain on a 3rd new F16.

When looking at righting the boats the Alu masted Taipans and Blades are about as easy to right as the carbon masted I-17R or easier depending on how good our estimate of the I17R masts is. It is however unlikely that the I-17R is easier to right. The only boats currently easier to right than the alu masted F16's are the carbon masted F16 and the A-cats. The FX-one required some 2kg*8.5mtr = 17 kg extra bodyweight to right which is what was found in real life as well. A Taipan 4.9 with alu mast can be righted by a 70 kg person (naked body weight). The Stealth doublehander (at 6.3 kg tipw) can be righted by a person 10 kg lighter = 60 kg's or more. A 6.0 kg mast tipweight limit would allow a person of 57 kg or more to right the boat by normal means (righting line)

So the situation we have is as follows :

Right now the Stealth carbon masts are between 2.5 and 4 kg's lighter in overall weight depending on which type you order with your boat. The Tipweights differ by 2 kg at maximum. The comparison between only doublehanders is respectively 2.5 kg overall and 1 to 1.3 kg tipweight.

The concensus between builders is that the current aluminium users are really not interested in having carbon masts on their boats. And the Goodall Superwing mastsection deal is fully intended to hold for the future. Greg Goodall himself expressed that to me. I can add to this that the production of these mast is NOT an issue. We don't seem to have problems sourcing these masts or have them produced. I must also be said that the builder using carbon mast is currently building the most inexpensive F16 boats. In his case the carbon masts are NOT making the boat (needlessly) expensive.

The same builders do want to keep open the option of carbon for the future, as a precaution to future events that we can't predict at this time. Some what to go further in this than others.

The alu mast builders favour a tipweight rule to assure buyers that the alu and carbon masted boats are equal in performance. They agree that there is probably not much difference in real performance but there is a general fear with respect to the PERCEIVED advantage of carbon. For this reason they do not wish to push for a carbon mast ban or to penalize them. They do however seek a methode of garanteeing (perceived) equality in level racing. As of such the alu mast builders want to keep some kind of tipweight rule while the carbon mast builder favours full deletion. Having said this, it appears the carbon mast builder is not really hung up on the deletion of the rule. So there is room for a good compromise between the builders.

When looking at the mast data again we see that the A-cat masts when going from alu to carbon saved at least 6 kg in total and at least 2.5 kg in tipweights. The Tornado saved about 8 kg's and about 3 kg in tipweights. In relation to this the differences between F16 alu and F16 carbon are significantly less. At the currently tipweight rule (6.5 kg) we are looking at a difference in overall weight of about 2 kg and a tipweight difference of 1 kg. Any differences between both makes of mast will be limited to the same degree. We must be careful not to extrapolate any differences found in both A-cat and Tornado classes to the F16 class. Example: IF, and it really say IF, a difference of 30 secons is found in the tornado class than F16 may expect only 1/3rd of that or at most 10 second difference. The opinion of builders is that the differences are less than that. The opinion of the F16 class body is that tens of other design differences between different F16 makes give cause to theoretical differences like that on the water these are noticeable. That is what the F18 class has proven over the last 10 years. As John said there is evolution but not revolution. For example The Inter18 is no longer the wapon of choice but was very much considered competitive for a shy 10 years. And even now the REAL difference very small and neglectable for 85 % of the racing fleet who don't finish in the top 15 % regulary anyway.

The best quote I got was that the expected difference (without any tip rule) between optimal aluminium and optimal carbon was less than the difference between new years and 1-year old sails. So if you want to spend money to be and feel competitive then buy new sails every year. As all competitive One-design class sailors do anyway, as we all know. So no difference here.

Update on the write-in voting :

We have one more vote in favour of complete deletion of the tipweight rule than we have in favour of the tipweight rule. The mailed votes however less than the numbers of voters in the internet poll. Right at this time the Internet poll is at 8 pro and 8 against. All signs point in the direction of a compromise were we keep the tipweight rule (for perception purposes) and allow a little room for future evolution and factors like ease of righting.

There is a way to make the current tipweight rule theoretically more exact BUT the current implementation of it is both the most simple to use in comparison to others AND it disadvantages underweight masts without banning them. This is actually a situation that is most attractive to us. We maintain a large freedom of design while favouring mast that are on the edge of the rule.

The current tipweight of 6.5 kg is still workable, but a tipweight of 6.0 kg seems to adress all desires and needs best. It also draws back in the largest portions of Stealth sailors into the F16 class without a need to modify their masts.

F16 theortical mast (tipweight rule at 6.0 kg) ; overall weight 13 kg ; tipweight 6.0 kg's :righting min = 57 kg
Difference to Alu superwing ; about 3 kg in overall weight and about 1.5 kg in tipweight. : righting min = 70 kg
Difference in moment of enertia of the whole rig (including sails and stays) between theoretical carbon and Alu superwing = 10%-15 %

These difference are all but considered neglectable from a performance point of view. Buying a new jib every year makes more difference.

IMPORTANT :

We are not likely to dispensate any boats. One rule applies to all. As a class we need to show that we keep things strickt and fair. Currently there is also no party campaigning for dispensation.

FOLLOW-UP PATH :

As promised the outcome of the earlier votes guides the follow-up path.

We still a have few days for the e-mail votes to come in, but if they don't then the class body will assume that everybody will accept the decision that will be made by the F16 class body (local class heads and myself). If the votes continiues to balance out than then the above compromise of 6.0 kg tipweight will be proposed and campaigned.

If you want to make your case either in favour or against of any alternative then you chance is now. Before Februari 2005 is over the decision on tipweights will be made and it will be final for the next years.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :

If no more class rules issue are open after this one than the F16 class is considering fixing the rule set for the next 3 to 5 years. Take NOTE !

We, the class and the builders, want to create utmost stability in the glass for 2005 and the years following. Some major things are going to happen and we all feel that the F16 concept and F16 class rules are now well defined and well developped.

So anybody who has any idea's about this, let him or her speak up now as within the month we will close the windown of opportunity for a long time.

Regards,

Wouter Hijink

Chairman Formula 16 class

Reactions coming in after 18 feb will be ignored.

Wouter

"...The opinion of the F16 class body is that tens of other design differences between different F16 makes give cause to theoretical differences like that on the water these are noticeable. ..."

Should read

"...The opinion of the F16 class body is that in a formula framework there are tens of other design related differences that give cause to as many theoretical differences of similar magnitude but that don't give rise to noticeable speed differences on the water ..." The F18 class proved that ...

Wouter

Another dumb question. Does anybody know where I can find the Formula 16 Class Rules?

Mary,
The rules can be found on the F16 website at the following url:-

http://www.formula16.org/

Regards,
Phill

Wow, there is a website! Thanks, Phill. When Wouter started this post asking for input on the rules, he didn't mention where to FIND the rules.

For the benefit of new people interested in the class (and for the benefit of us older, brain-damaged people) it would be nice if class officers would list the web site when they are making posts related to the class.

It appears there is no such a thing as "membership" in the class, so who were the people who voted on the original rules, and who would be eligible to vote if a change is proposed?

There are a myriad of boats that fit into the class specifications, including my own Hobie Wave. So how would I go about joining the class so I can vote on things? (My mast is very light, and I want to make sure I don't have to put more weight on the top of it.)

Mary,
Wouter has a nailed up post at the top of the forum. In that post there is abit of an intro about the forum which includes the website URL for anyone that would like to learn a little more about the F16 Class.
As that nailed up post is mostly about how to use the forum if you already know that you may not bother to read it all to find the URL that is right at the end. Maybe a nailed up post with just the URL in it would be a good move?

Have you ever thought that your Wave may also fit into the A class box rule as well as the F14. These box rules usually just specify maximums. I don't remember any minimums. The conncept of the F16 class revolves around inclusiveness. It had never occurred to me that A Hobie Wave could join in F16 racing. How heavy is the wave?

As far as voting goes.
In the vote for the original rule set we asked all persons with a genuine interest in the F16 class and its concepts to cast a vote.

Aha. That is why I never noticed it. Only the forum administer, Rick, is able to post a sticky at the top of a forum, so I assumed it was something Rick had put on there just to explain how the forum works. So I never paid any attention to it. Turns out Rick stuck it there for Wouter. But also, Rick apparently has never read it himself, because he didn't know what the website was, either.

And, yes, of course, I am aware that the Wave fits into the A-Class specs. I have often thought about how happy the A-Class would be to have a bunch of Waves come to their Nationals.

The Wave weighs 245 lbs.

Mary,
I thought your Wave may have had to carry weights to make the min weight but at 245 Pounds (equals 111.13 Kilograms) you make it.

Ehh yes, and it has been there since 2001. It is the same website that is listed in the catsailor "geat links" section with the wrong link and we tried to get that adjusted for the last 2 years. And even recently, on Ricks general request on the forum, I have send him an e-mail asking to list the correct websadres. The www.formula16.org adress. Neither the less since 2001 we have a dummy website at the wrong link to make sure people can find us.

You did think to look :

-1- in your own catsailor great links section
-2- in the post on top of the F16 forum with the subject "New to the Formula 16 forum ? Read this !"
-3- type in "Formula 16 catamarans" in www.google.com
-4- simply type in www.formula16.com or www.formula16.org in your browser.

All four approaches would have landed you at the class rules within 3 steps.

How much easier can a class make it ?

There is a permanent post right at the top of the F16 class forum with the subject "New to the Formula 16 forum ? Read this !" that lists the website and contact info together with other important information.

I do understand that eyes and brains have to register this first before action can be taken by the hand moving the mouse but I feel I'm sort of at the end of what we can do to make it even more easier, accessible and more "in front of your nose" than it is now. (teasing you here a bit !)

Membership is free of charge and has been since 2001. We do thing a little different at the F16 class. Typically I only ask membership fees in the shape of volunteer work that helps the class. Up till now this has suited us really well.

The people who voted for the orginal rule set where all F16 owners. Only 1 vote per F16 boat allowed. There were some 50 votes back then. All verified with boat make and boat numbers.

For less important votes we simply allow anybody to vote that has some interests in F16 class. So owners, crews, to-be-owners and people taking a serious interest in the class.

Up till now this has never caused us any problems as votes are always well prepared in advance and the guys/gals scanning this forum behave themselfs very admirably.

As a class we also have no qualms about redoing a vote when a single party questions the accuracy or dependability. As a class we know who owns boats and with what sail numbers and sails with which crew. With this listing we can easily check up on the voters.

Like I said for the important votes you need to specify your boat type and sailnumber. You can still vote and we'll look at these votes as well but as a class we do weight them accordingly to your "F16-ness". It is often quite clear if somebody wants only wants to spike the vote or is serious about it.

As said before the F16 class is a little bit different. We don't have "a majority vote decides the outcome" structure. This is to prevent "Tiger OD"-sation of the F16 class where say a large group of one particular F16 makes highjacks the vote and favours their own designs.

The F16 class is run with a group of engineers, boatbuilders and experienced sailors. This committee decides things along the lines set out in the rules. This means that majority support must be sough when ever possible but never to the detriment of loss in equality, fairness, survival and continuation of the formula rule set that allows maximum freedom to tinker to individual sailors.

The F16 also doesn't want to go the way of the F18 class were they have rules that limit how light a daggerboard may be and set it at an adsurd high level. As a class we don't want to measure daggerboard weight, nor do we think it matters AT ALL in performance what they weight and my 2 kg glass daggerboard is both cheaper and stronger than any 3 kg F18 board. So what was the purpose of this F18 rule again ? To ease the minds of scared weekend warriors who aren't competitive anyway, even if they tried really hard. Sometimes the decisions need to be left to the people that understand the situation and the designs.

Some call this undemocratic. I call it darn smart. Did I tell you about the time that 70 % of the members voted down the Tornado upgrades or the time where Tiger members vote down each F18 upgrade to it so there is no Tiger class in Europe anymore ?

Having said this, we in the F16 class do really try to explain the issues as good as we can before we hold the vote. We want to educate people and allow them to understand what is going on. So you can't call this a dictatorship as well. We are somewhere in between. Actually we are more how 90 % of the businesses are run. There you don't lay the future direction of the company in the hands (Brain) of the Janitor as well despite the fact that it is often very wise to really listen to what he has to say.

F16 class is different. And we have a reason for that. We are fighting some big powerful competition out there that don't like nothing better than to seel you 150 kg singlehanders cobbled together from left over F18 parts. Also we are bringing advances in sail design within reach of mainstream sailors. Things like wingmast. That was something that was about to be lost in the loud screaming of F18's and Tornado's, both of which still haven't caught on to wingmasts.

In way the F16 class is a project and a show case of what can be done when you put your mind to it. It is also a great show case that the use of carbon does not have to be expensive as we are made to believe. In many cases it is just smart. In other cases its use is not smart.

Recently I discovered one remarkable thing. We have differences in tipweight of 1 kg in the F18 class and nobody gives a darn. We had the same differences in tipweight between alu and carbon in the F16 class and halve the class feels uncompetitive. Luckily the F16 class is a class with a few capable designers and engineers and they spot these things and this difference in their rightful place.

Anyway I'm on a tangent here and I should stop before I bore you guys

Wouter

If you want to race f16's on first in wins while sailing a wave then I'm not going to stop you.

As a matter of fact a crate of best californian wine if you win the race !

Inclusiveness all the WAY (or WAVE !)

Wouter

(P.S. will have a 150 % finish time cut-off)

I see on the F-16 website that it says the F16 class fits into the A-Class and can race with them boat for boat. We had hoped that would be the case when we got our Taipan 4.9, but turned out the Taipan is about 2(?) inches too wide. I suppose that is true of all the boats that are built to the maximum-width spec of the Formula 16 class?

If so, perhaps that representation should be removed from the F-16 web site, or modified.

Right now, after reading all the class rules, the big problem I have with them is that they appear to be written to create what is, in essence, a new one-design class with various manufacturers that have slightly different hull designs.

It looks intimidating for home builders and too restrictive to allow much creativity in sail plans and other features of the boat. And I do not get a feeling that it is "welcoming" to other classes that are not fully F-16 compliant but that fit within the specifications.

I think to get an F-16 class going in the U.S. (it certainly is not going yet), it would be nice to come up with a list of all the existing classes that are potentially compliant with F-16 rules and invite them to Open F-16 Events.

The mast-tip-weight issue may be of interest to manufacturers of new boats and masts, but it is a real turn-off when you are trying to get people to come out and race in a new class.

Geez, Wouter, you didn't have to waste two pages of text to just tell me you think I am an idiot. I was just pointing out that if you don't put the web site right in front of people's faces all the time, they are not going to go to the trouble of searching for it. Basic marketing.

I was teasing you a bit there ; note the smiley.

I understand what you are saying

Wouter

This is not totally true. This has been discussed previously as well, and has proven that the F16 class in the US is growing strong.

I am a total newb to the F16 class, and all classes at that. But I am a future Blade F16 owner. There is plenty of F16's around the US and plenty of action for us as well. The F16's are invited to the GPYC A cat nationals, thats something HUGE for the class, I also pretty sure they were invited last year as well.

The Blade F16 is being built locallly by Vector Works Marine. They tested the prototype at Tradewinds. Did you miss it by any chance? Jennifer Lindsay won on a Taipan 4.9 which is F16 compliant. Now she will go to California and compete for the Walter Cup in a Tiger F18.

Those are a few that I can mention off the top of my head, I am sure there is a lot more to talk about this. But saying that the F16 class has nothing going on in US is pretty vague and is a total blanket statement that has been proven wrong.

Well, Robi, your enthusiasm will certainly help. The BIG thing that will help is the fact that we now have a U.S. builder. Vectorworks Marine is ready and willing to mass-produce the Blade, a lightweight, high performance 16-footer. We have needed a boat in that category for a long time. And the fact that it can be sailed singlehanded or doublehanded just by varying the sail plan that comes with the boat is a major plus.

If the Blade is a huge success, the question will be whether it will become a big one-design class on its own that does not even need or care to be a part of the Formula 16 class.

By the way, I haven't heard anything about the A-Class Nationals being held at Gulfport Yacht Club in St. Pete. It is listed as A-Class/F16 Uni Gulf Coast Championship. It is my understanding that they race as separate fleets. But even if the A-Class decided to have that venue as their Nationals, what would that have to do with the F-16 Class?

Hi Robi,
I agree with Mary.., your enthusiasm should really help. And if it were not for Jennifer there would probably be no class at all.

Just to clarify, Jennifer sailed in the F18 Class at the Tradewinds.., there was no F16 Class.
And while there seems to be some F16s around, the problem seems to be that they never travel to regattas, therefore most racing with these boats is in the Open Portsmouth Class.

What the F16 Class needs to do is use this forum or a get an email list going so that everyone is prompted to go to certain regattas in order to make a class. That is what we do with the Waves and it works pretty well.
Pretty simple to email 10 or 12 people and suggest the Tradewinds, Jetty Park, Gulfport, or whatever and get a poll on who will be attending. If no one wants to travel, then scratch that event and try for another.

The F16's are invited to the GPYC A cat nationals, thats something HUGE for the class...

This is NOT the A-Cat Nationals, rather the A-Cat Gulf Championship and there are only 4 of them registered. And if our F16 was so strong we would have more than 4 F16s registered as well. I will make up the 5th boat, if I can make it. Looking good at the time.

I was pretty pumped about the F16 Class but have been pretty disappointed with attendance in the last couple of years. I hope between you and Jennifer ya'll can get everyone excited again.

Rick

Sorry for the A cat screwup, should have looked more into it, before posting. It is the Gulf Coast championship and NOT the nationals.

And yes, that is my intention to try to promote the class locally. I will do my part in traveling to a good ammount of venues. I already have a few marked on my calendar, only problem is, I really do not know when I will get my boat. Could be the end of Feb, or could be the end or March. I hope the sooner is more feasable. I havent heard anything from Matt.

I already have the registration form filled out, all I have to do is mail it out, I am holding off, because I do not know when I will be able to pick up the boat.
See you on the water.