Welcome Guest
Catamaran Sailing at TheBeachcats.com Logo
Notifications
Clear all

Hypothetical question?

137 Posts
27 Users
0 Reactions
127.9 K Views
PTP
 PTP
(@CaptainPP)
Posts: 2684
Captain Registered
 

guys... don't know why you took the bait. I posted immediately after he posted so hopefully people wouldn't see that he had posted.
gotta ignore him or he'll never stop posting stupid [censored]. I would love it if one of the moderators would delete stuff like that.

now, if he ever says anything helpfull then sure it would be great.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:35 am
(@_removed-account)
Posts: 15030
Four Star Admiral Registered
 

Any thought of you guys going to Carnac? The more we can get on the water there the better. I checked google maps and it looks like a nine hour drive from Geneva.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:41 am
MaryAWells
(@maryawells)
Posts: 5485
Member
 
Quote
every F16 owner is happy with the F16 class rules as they are now

EVERY F16 owner? How do you know that?


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 11:19 am
 Karl
(@sogncab)
Posts: 3551
Member
 
Quote
That Hobie Extreme is a

Proust Sailing

project and not officially santioned or supported by Hobie Europe or Hobie in general.

The wierd thing with the FX-Extreme is that there are parts for it in the new parts guide. But the FX-Extreme parts are not OD legal. It's just odd.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 11:28 am
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 
Quote
Quote
That Hobie Extreme is a

Proust Sailing

project and not officially santioned or supported by Hobie Europe or Hobie in general.

The wierd thing with the FX-Extreme is that there are parts for it in the new parts guide. But the FX-Extreme parts are not OD legal. It's just odd.

Thats beause it is supported by Hobie Europe... They see a future in selling boats that meet 104.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 3:15 pm
Mark P
(@markpressdee)
Posts: 948
Member
Topic starter
 
Quote
Quote
every F16 owner is happy with the F16 class rules as they are now

EVERY F16 owner? How do you know that?

Yea Wouter, how do you know that considering there are loads of F16 Sailors who don't even bother getting involved in this forum!! <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 3:46 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 

Because he is the class spokesman <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 3:53 pm
(@waynemarlow)
Posts: 877
Chief Registered
 

Not sure I would want to be following Hobie Europes lead if the FX1 has got anything to go by, great two man mini F18, poor single hander, Hobie Europe just got things wrong and is now trying to fit a design into a new market ( rather than fitting an intended market ) to try and recover some of their design outlay.

Anyway why all the discussion, we have now probably around 200 F16 boats out there actively sailing, why upset those owners by changing things at this stage, I for one would be setting up a F16 lightweight class if ever there was a change to a heavier detuned version, as the boats as they are, are just toooooooo much fun. <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 4:05 pm
(@wouter)
Posts: 9363
Three Star Admiral Registered
 

More Welsh humour, Mark ?

Wouter


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 4:12 pm
(@Anonymous 13024)
Posts: 4319
 

None have submitted a proposal with the GC for fundamental rule changes yet, so it might be safe to say that all are happy?

Wayne, if by some magic the min weight was raised, the rest of the class would stampede after you. But the min weight is not going to be raised, so the topic is mute.

I dont think this guy would spend the winter in my garage aiming for min weight if he was not certain the weight would stay where it is.
[Linked Image]

What I dont get is why people are so fascinated by the question, letting macca goad them on in a discussion not going anywhere. I can only imagine the reactions to the same agenda on the Mosquito forum, the F18, Tornado, A-class, Taipan or just about any other class. It would be utterly ridicilous, but here.. I dont get it.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 4:29 pm
(@waynemarlow)
Posts: 877
Chief Registered
 

What I dont get is why people are so fascinated by the question, letting macca goad them on in a discussion not going anywhere

Easy one to answer that question, haven't counted but I would guess that the majority of participants on this site don't actually own or have sailed a F16 boat ( and I think Macca fits into that slot ).


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 4:37 pm
scooby_simon
(@simonJlongstaff)
Posts: 3496
Captain Registered
 
Quote

What I dont get is why people are so fascinated by the question, letting macca goad them on in a discussion not going anywhere

Easy one to answer that question, haven't counted but I would guess that the majority of participants on this site don't actually own or have sailed a F16 boat ( and I think Macca fits into that slot ).

I think you are right there Wayne.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 4:43 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 

Boys, I hate to tell you but I was one of the first <img src=

alt=

/>

I had a 14ft skiff and F20 kite on m Taipan 4.9 in 1995...

been there done that.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 6:06 pm
scooby_simon
(@simonJlongstaff)
Posts: 3496
Captain Registered
 
Quote
Boys, I hate to tell you but I was one of the first <img src=

alt=

/>

I had a 14ft skiff and F20 kite on m Taipan 4.9 in 1995...

been there done that.

Still got the boat?


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 6:15 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 

nope, now the only boat i own is the Super Taipan, and that is a heavy underpowerd shitter <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 6:19 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 
Quote
None have submitted a proposal with the GC for fundamental rule changes yet, so it might be safe to say that all are happy?

Rolf, Just because I haven't submitted a new taxation proposal to my government doesn't mean i'm happy with the situation <img src=

alt=

/>

Quote
What I dont get is why people are so fascinated by the question, letting macca goad them on in a discussion not going anywhere. I can only imagine the reactions to the same agenda on the Mosquito forum, the F18, Tornado, A-class, Taipan or just about any other class. It would be utterly ridicilous, but here.. I dont get it.

Aside from the fact that I didn’t start this discussion I think there are a few points that need to be made:-

I agree that a lighter boat is a better boat to sail, but that does not make it a better class or even a better race boat.

Take F18 for example, the boats are heavy for their size, but that has no impact on the quality of the racing or any real impact on the joy of sailing the boat. I get the same buzz from sailing the F18 as I do sailing the Super Taipan.

Now have a look at two yacht classes:-

Farr 40 and Sydney 38. The F40 is a lighter, more powerful and a lot faster than the S38. But the racing in the Sydney 38 class is better imho. The boats are closer in speed due to the lower power/weight ratio so the racing is closer and rewards better tactics rather than who gets one extra wave. In Europe you have the X35 class with huge fleets and close racing, The boat is simple to build, cheap and easy to sail. But the racing is great..

F16 was conceived with the Taipan as the baseline of the class. The Taipan hullshape was not designed with F16 sail configuration in mind and as such it is not optimised for carrying a spi, this has been confirmed by the designer of the boat. The platform weight on a taipan is low because of the low surface area/volume in the hulls and sub standard beams for F16. Newer designs have taken the needs of spi sailing into account and as such the hull volume has increased. You can’t increase hull volume/surface area without either:-

a) increasing weight
b) reducing layup to maintain weight (less strength, not a good idea with increased loads from a spi)
c) use more exotic materials to maintain weight (increase costs)

So the evolution of the hull shapes has meant that its now very hard to build a boat to min weight. The Blade is larger than the Taipan but I think the fastest hull shapes across a broad range of conditions (particularly 2 handed) will end up more like the Viper which is larger again.

So now you have a choice:-

a) have a boat on min weight that has a sub optimal hull shape
b)have an optimal hull shape that's overweight
c) have an optimal hull shape that's on weight but costs a lot to build due to the need for exotics

So to build a F16 with the new larger volume hulls and have it on weight you are talking about building a boat close to the standard of an A class.

Herein lies the problem for F16… If a builder were to build a boat with the new larger volume hull shape and did that to minimum weight you would have to resort to exotics in the hulls (possibly beams) and for sure mast. So based on the current costs of an A class (around 21k Euro) I think a F16 would be around that price.

Note: The savings you make on the F16 by possibly not using carbon beams etc are more than taken up by the expense of:-

Jib
Self tacker
Spi and pole etc
Extra rigging etc

Hands up who wants to pay 21k Euro (33k USD these days <img src=

alt=

/> ) for a F16 built with the new hull shape and to the current rules?

Now before you all come down on me for being nasty, let me say this:-

I like the boats, the class is a good idea. But I can see that its growth will be hindered by the above issues and attacking me for expressing a valid point of view only takes away from the positives that the class currently has and reduces the opportunity for the class to reach is ultimate potential.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 6:50 pm
PTP
 PTP
(@CaptainPP)
Posts: 2684
Captain Registered
 
Quote
Hands up who wants to pay 21k Euro (33k USD these days ) for a F16 built to the current rules?

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the VWM blades F16 an F16 built to F16 specs? and they don't cost 33k or 21k for that mater


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 7:31 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 

just qualified my statement, by editing my post.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 7:42 pm
(@Anonymous 39109)
Posts: 191
 

Hi all just because no proposal has been submitted as yet does not mean it's not going to happen. These things take time to formulate and get right.Then everyone will have the opportunity to vote for or against.
One further question who do these proposal need to be sent to?


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 7:53 pm
(@Anonymous 39109)
Posts: 191
 

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the VWM blades F16 an F16 built to F16 specs? and they don't cost 33k or 21k for that mater

You should put your boat on a set of scales then let all of us no what it weighs then we will see if it's built to specs.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 7:56 pm
PTP
 PTP
(@CaptainPP)
Posts: 2684
Captain Registered
 
Quote

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the VWM blades F16 an F16 built to F16 specs? and they don't cost 33k or 21k for that mater

You should put your boat on a set of scales then let all of us no what it weighs then we will see if it's built to specs.

How close would it have to be to fall under the definition of

to specs?

I have been meaning to weigh mine for a long time.
Seriously, I am curious.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 8:07 pm
(@_removed-account)
Posts: 15030
Four Star Admiral Registered
 
Quote
(and we're expecting to add a 4th builder soon)

For some reason this comment crossed my mind while I was driving home tonight and I realized I didn't understand it - by my count, we already have 4 builders. Are you leaving someone out?

And you know we really want to know who the new builder is!


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 8:21 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 
Quote
Quote

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the VWM blades F16 an F16 built to F16 specs? and they don't cost 33k or 21k for that mater

You should put your boat on a set of scales then let all of us no what it weighs then we will see if it's built to specs.

How close would it have to be to fall under the definition of

to specs?

I have been meaning to weigh mine for a long time.
Seriously, I am curious.

I would say that the boat has to meet the min weight limits set by the class, in both cat and sloop rig configs. That would be to spec.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 8:27 pm
(@Anonymous 39109)
Posts: 191
 

What Macca said.


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 8:28 pm
Marcus F16
(@artdomain305)
Posts: 305
Member
 

Did anybody notice hypothetical was changed to hypocritical...!!!

I think you will all find that no submissions for rule changes will be proposed at the next AGM as there are no national associations that are fully ratified by the GC.?

With out NA's, submissions would be a waste of time.?


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 9:29 pm
macca
(@macca)
Posts: 981
Member
 

There, I fixed it <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 9:40 pm
 Matt
(@fullcave)
Posts: 472
Mate Registered
 

Guys you are still kicking a dead horse. <img src=

alt=

/>
Why not build your own class and let us know how it goes.. OK? <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:01 pm
Marcus F16
(@artdomain305)
Posts: 305
Member
 

No we flogg dead horses....dont kick em.. <img src=

alt=

/>


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:10 pm
(@corksfloat)
Posts: 81
Lubber Registered
 

In the mountains of North Carolina they clog with their horses. [Linked Image]


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:29 pm
(@flatlander)
Posts: 1108
Master Chief Registered
 
Quote
There, I fixed it <img src=

alt=

/>

Hippopotamus question?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqIM_bPTws


 
Posted : February 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Page 3 / 5
Secret Link