Hypothetical question?

Macca,

Now you are rehashing all old discredited arguments again.

Do you know that the current bare F16 platforms are actually LIGHTER then the bare Taipan platforms.

Why ? because the mast section as mainbeam and the small but thickwalled box rearbeam are very heavy for the strength and stiffness they provide. It was a piece of cake to reduced weight on both them and also increase stiffness and strength, without changing the material.

Also the selftacker in plain form is lighter and cheaper then the old Taipan setup. No need for any exotic materials there, just plain common sense.

Similar data is available on many other

problems points

as you call them.

Endlessly repeating the same BS is not making them is any less untruthfull.

We have been done this path many times now and you keep refusing to be convinced by science and verifiable numbers. You keep coming back with argumentation that feels right because you simply gloss over or ignore conflicting data. Just like many people can be made to believe that when they have gotten 3 daughters already that there is a larger chance they'll be getting a son next; which isn't true either.

Simply put, what you say and write is NOT TRUE and have been proven as such in REAL F16 boats and by public comments made by F16 builders like Matt McD. from VWM.

Wouter

Do sombody dare to put their cat on the scal? With the fat spar (19kg) that I recived for the Sydväst one I don't get down even close to specs.

But that wouldn't include the Viper which is a F16 platform.

So whose sweeping statement is correct then?

Ok, So how many current F16 boats are under min weight?

And further, what percentage of the known fleet are under min weight?

That should give us some science to work with <img src=

alt=

/>

The F16 class rules don't require any NA or any other organisation to be able to submit and complete proposals for rule changes.

In fact the F16 class rules don't recognize an AGM in any official manner either. Therefor you reasoning is in error on both accounts.

Wouter

That is indeed correct. This doesn't include the Viper. It does include all other F16 designs however. AHPC was never even trying to get the Viper down the F16 weight anyway; this pretty much disqualifies the Viper as a counter example.

Wouter

Now that is strange logic.

It is marketed as a F16 by AHPC (reference is http://www.ahpc.com.au/m_viper.htm) , it is designed to be a F16 (again reference is same link), it measures as a F16, but you have disqualified it from your argument as it doesn't fit to your view as the boat is well above minimum.

Maybe we can get the moderator to start a new thread titled :

The sky is falling and we're all going to be dead soon !

For the non-F16 member, non F16 owning Aussies to play in ?

With respect to the Viper. By similar reasoning as you just applied we'll conclude that the Viper is its own proof that you can't build the Viper at 125 kg as claimed by AHPC themselves, afterall it was measured at 137 kg at the GC 2007 right ?

If I want to ride the merry-go-round then I'll go to an amusement park; not the F16 forum.

Wouter

Mark,
As you started this thread could you please advise if your question has been answered.
If not please advise what else you need to know
with regard to your original question.

But that's because rule changes are not governed by the class rules.
Rule changes and class administration are covered (as you well know, Wouter) by the class constitution. The Class Constitution IS the class and when NAs form and join the Class it is the constitution they sign up to. Without a constitution ratified by Member National Associations we don't have a class - we're all just pissing in the wind.

mine is....... <img src=

alt=

/>

So a Viper is a F16 when YOU want it to be one, but its not when it doesn't suit YOUR purpose?

How about you answer the question:-

How many current F16 boats are under min weight?

And further, what percentage of the known fleet are under min weight?

Someone must have the data! otherwise the

Science

you speak of is all theory....again...

Come on moderators, this thread is going around and around and around and around in circles going nowhere, isn't it time you did your jobs and get this forum back on track <img src=

alt=

/>

Agreed! Back on track or lock it.....

I thought we now had a class association in the United States. No? And how does a national association get

fully ratified

?

Sorry if I am asking something that has already been answered somewhere.

How can you even consider that the thread is off track??

The original question was asking if big manufacturers would be of benefit to the class if they were to build an F16 compliant boat.

The discussion has evolved to how the current builders are faring with meeting the current class rules particularly with regards to meeting the min weight rule. This has a major bearing on whether the big manufacturers actually get involved!!

So we are still very much ON topic here.

Just because the answers are not to your liking, the thread is still valid and moderators would be censors if they shut it down now.

Macca you steer every thread around to whether the big manufacturers can build to min weight. You have been there 20 times already, you are killing off any conversation we may have with the same gospel, give it a rest and go and do some sailing please, we would all be better off.

But could someone PLEASE weigh their F16? To see if it does indeed meet the min. weight specs given by the F16 box rule?

I mean, whether it is off topic or not, it is very interesting to see if the manufacturers can keep what they promise. Don't you all think??

I ddn't need to steer it at all!

That is the conversation!! the whole topic is about what I am talking about.

Now I am asking if the CURRENT builders can build to min weight <img src=

alt=

/>

How about somebody supply the data we are asking for? the facts will either silence me or give me the credibility I crave so dearly <img src=

alt=

/>

Yes we have and there are boats already under 104 kilos, I beleive Hans ( the class chairman ) Blade had to ballasted up to meet the 104 kgs at the last GC. Stealth have been right on the limits since 2001. The weight limits are where the members want it to be.

So that is a total of ONE boat under min weight??

How about the actual real weight of the Stealths? has anyone actually weighed them properly?

Seems to me the most logical way to establish if the min weight is correct would be to check each boat that is considered to be F16 (don't use Wouters method of determining what an F16 is, fundamentally flawed...) and then decide based in the results if the weight needs reviewing. No point having a Min weight that only ONE boat meets!

The racing will not be fair and it needs to be fair if you want the class to grow. Or doesn't that little bit extra weight make any difference to performance?

The US has an Association already, to date it has not applied to the F16GC for membership but we expect that will change very soon. The AUS Association is currently being formed and I understand that an application for ratification will be made by them in the next few days.

There is a lot of positive work being done by people in several countries at this time to progress the class.

As the moderators seem unable to

moderate

for fear of being accused of censoring this thread, may I remind everbody of the original start of this thread.

Would the F16 Class gain more respect and sailors if say either Nacra or Hobie developed a F16. I think most of us would agree that their marketing power and name certainly wouldn't do the Class any harm. I'm NOT trying to fan the flames of a recent thread but I'm interested in knowing how F16 Sailors feel about the future of the Class. Do they see it continuing as it is with just a small group of manufacturers servicing a small market or do people really expect F16's to be on a par with F18 sales in a couple of years time?

Please, it had nothing to do with weight. <img src=

alt=

/>

If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, use your ignore button! And stop responding!

I have tried this remedy, it works.

For Hobie or Nacra to build a F16 it would have to be on he premise that the min weight was up for discussion so therefore it is STILL ON TOPIC.

So what? You have a way of irritating the other posters. Keep it up, eventually you will be ignored.

Speaking as a moderator, I see the current discussion as a repetition of what has been said from both sides many times over in several threads already.

I re-post what Phill posted earlier:

I think the message is pretty clear.
Lets move on.

Great, you don't like the way the discussion is going because the answers are not favourable so you stick your head in the sand hoping it will all go away...

Post deleted by RickWhite