Bump, any last minute votes in this poll ?
Wouter
Just a minor follow up on our discussion earlier in the week on the open forum about nation codes... Wouter I believe that you said that these would be determined by the citizenship or residency of the skipper/crew. However my reading of the ISAF rules (RRS Appendix G 1.1(b) - Appendices D-G here) is that the nation code denotes the national authority of the boat.
This is not necessarily in conflict (a national authority may use the residency/citizenship of the skipper to recognise the boat), but the particular way the ISAF defines nationality applies to ISAF recognized classes, and by implication to classes recognized by national authorities. So requiring adherence to the ISAF rules is fine for placement, but doesn't actually provide a relevant mechanism for determining nation codes for a class that is not yet recognized.
Of course if F16 ultimately becomes recognized then there is no problem, but in the meantime it seems to me that if the F16 rules are going to make a nation code compulsory (Proposal 2 - which I agree with), then they also need to explicitly define a convention for determining which nation code will be used (such as what Wouter has elsewhere proposed). Simply referring to the ISAF rules on this point will not be sufficient.
So unless there is already something there that I've missed, I would suggest that there needs to be an addition made to the F16 rules that makes the definition of nation codes explicit.
Apologies for being pedantic. 
Mark.
A peek into the upcoming proposals
Go to :
http:/
And take a look at the upcoming proposals in worked out form.
Look at the rules
1.12.1 (simplification of the mainsail rule leading to the same end result but in much simplified form)
1.13.2 (simplication of the jib rule leading to the same end result but in much simplified form)
2.8.1 (Non-votable change)
4.2.3 to 4.2.9 (these are the new sail marking rules)
The modifications to 1.12.1 and 1.13.2 are still under development and it is also important to note that the mods are intended to keep the ruled upon end result the same while making the rules themselfs much easier to use. So in basis these are much more rewordings of the same rule than changes.
Mark, would the given rules 4.2.3 to 4.2.9. satisfy you (or anybody else who feels like commenting) ?
Wouter
It is not clear to me whether the owner of F16 is actually REQUIRED to display the nation code. "needs to" is not the same as "shall" or "must."
As Lee Parks at US Sailing told me, even ISAF International and Recognized Classes often do not display country codes if only racing within the United States and not participating in international events.
Also, you said you will assign a nation code based upon the boat owner's country of citizenship or residency. Is this going to be the preference of the sailor applying for the number? If so, that should be added to that rule.
Also, if participating in an international event, the country code has to be based upon the country that person is representing in the event.
Right now, for instance, Robi might request and be given a country code of PUR, even though he is only racing in the United States. But if he is still in the United States when the F16's start having international competitions, and if he wants to represent the United States, he will have to replace the PUR with USA. Right?
Also not clear to me: If national F16 Class associations are formed in various countries, will numbers within those countries be assigned by the national class association, or will the numbers continue to be assigned by the F16 International Class Authority ad infinitum?
Is now changed into "must".
Well, independent of others, the F16 class does require this.
The reasons are that class voting is linked to these unique combinations and we have several double numbers in the F16 class that we can MAKE unique again by adding the nation code.
I understand that some of us need to get out and buy 6 sticky characters (including myself) but the cost of these is very small. And sticking them to the sail is easy as well. I think nearly all Taipans has nation codes already. Same with Stealths so these crews don't have to do anything.
If we want to be a serious class, and I got the impression than quite a few of you petitioned for that, than we must enforce these rulings.
The skipper/crew may present a preference and the class association will decide wether to follow the preference or not. I don't really see a need to comment on this directly in the rules.
Only if that representation has any meaning. Till we have 100 boats or more on the line we will not enforce a qualifying structure based on nations and everybody that wants to participate can come and do so. I don't see us achieve these numbers within the next years and so anybody may choose to represent any nation they feel comfortable with as long as their residence or nationality is in agreement.
I think this is point where "we will cross that bridge when we come to it"
That is correct. But only if these events are structured on nation representation; meaning that we allow only a certain amount of participants frome each nation or something. However that is very far off now and if ever we need to change this than replacing a few stickers by other ones is easily and quickly done.
The international body will have the final say and their administration will take precedence but that don't mean that the national organisations handle the assignment of identifiers. The national organisations can well act as a intermediate and assign identifiers in predetermined ranges.
For example I envision the US association to have the power to assign "USA XXX" Codes to new members after clearing it with the international body; But they can't assign PUR XXX numbers for example. The international body will publize the identifiers allready given out so that each national body knows which numbers have been given our and which are still free.
Wouter
Wouter,
About the "simplification" of the Mainsail and Jib rule: If it were just a simplification, no problem. But it isn't..
Your proposal allows more sail area then with the current rules. The mainsail can be 15 m^2, whereas the old one had to be 14.85^2. (both with 8m luff length.)
The jib can be 3,7 ^m, whereas the old one had to be 3.65 ^m. (both with a 5.5m luff length.)
I am comparing your own examples on the F16 website.
You can't ignore these changes, almost all the current F16 sails would would be smaller than the new rule allows.
Besides, it would also change the rating; Both ISAF and TEXEL would rate the F16 1 point faster. I think we have already a hard time competing against the F18, this makes it even worse.
For me there is no real reason to change the current rule. You need a calculator anyway to know your "rated" sail area, or use the on-line calculater on the f16 website.
Geert
I thought a little while about how to answer your points. Wether I should wait and see how the others would react or not. Wether I should explain things fully or just give an alternative view and see what the following discussion produces.
I think I will choose to present an alternative view and see how the others react.
In this post I will try to explain why I personally regard it to be a simplification rather than something else.
Sure even 1 sq. inch can be regarded as to much more than the current setup but that is not the point. The true criterium should be wether the difference is in any way significant. While you are theoretically correct in what you say I will support my claim by showing how small the net effect is.
Also it must be realized that the values and structure are independent. We can just change the 15 into 14.85 and so on and come back at exactly the same situation as the current rules. So what are we really talking about is the true performance different between :
Exact interpolation (exact simplification) :
Mast & mainsail area = 14.85 sq. mtr. - 1.16279 * (mainsail luff length - 7.999 mtr.)
Jib area = 3.649 sq. mtr. - 0.082 * (jib projected luff - 5.50 mtr)
Proposed simplication (rounded numbers)
Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr. - 1.15 * (mainsail luff length - 8 mtr.)
Jib area max 3.7 sq. mtr.
Ofcourse I could not round anything downward as that could make former compliant sails uncompliant after the simplification so I round all upward with the exception of the factor 1.16279 But that is because of rounding up 14.85. Thus the factor was freed and could be rounded either way. 1.15 was easiest and closest, so ... Although 1.2 is also still a candidate. Actually 1.2 appears to be a better number than 1.15 in the simulations. It is more balanced around 15x8 and has a flatter dependency. Anyway let me stop here before I do a Wouter on you guys.
Clearly the second set has a more inviting look and feel and calcs can even be done by head in the second case. So I would venture that teh second setup wins points in this respect. This leaves the inequality that may be caused as the deciding factor and so the remainder of this post will deal with that.
So what is the difference or if you will the error/inequality ?
So lets look at the difference between 14.85 and 15 sq. mtr.
When we punch in ONLY this difference than the Texel rating changes by 0.26 points or 0.26 * 36 = 9.36 second per hour racing.
So maybe the difference from 14.85 to 15 sq.mtr appears big in fact it is only projected to make a 9.36 second difference per hour bouy racing when all other things like crew skills and wind along the course, tacks etc are perfectly equal.
I venture that this is to small a difference to decide to use numbers with 2 and 4 decimals in the F16 class rules. It is to small a difference to decide against the simplification with rounded numbers.
If the difference had been a minute or more than yes it would have been unacceptable but 9 seconds ... ? I move to declare that neglectable.
I am comparing your own examples on the F16 website.
You can't ignore these changes, almost all the current F16 sails would would be smaller than the new rule allows.
True. The difference in area is equal to adding 9 mm (about 1/3rd inch) to the leech of the jib.
But more importantly. the jibs on F16's with superwing masts now appear to have 5.2 to 5.3 mtr projected luffs that allow 3.67 and 3.66 sq. mtr. jibs. So we would risk banning these jibs if we decided on 3.65 in the rule over 3.7 sq. mtr. In such a case we would have to ban all jibs that are not 5.5 mtr long in the projected luff right now; which is probably the majority at this current time.
Also the 0.082 dependency is FAR to small to matter. The 0.05 sq. mtr. difference between a 4.9 mtr luffed jib of 3.70 sq. mtr. and a 5.5 mtr luff jib of 3.649 sq. mtr. is just to small to matter in any significant way. If we compare the two in the Texel handicap system than this difference results in a 0.12 point drop in the rating OR 0.12 * 36 = 4.32 second difference per hour racing.
Therefor "max 3.7 sq. mtr." felt like a simply and safe boundery without any significant drawbacks.
So I'm neither ignoring the differences nor am I unaware of the differences. Again, I do not claim that the numbers are perfectly equal just that the difference is just neglectable (or that other word I can't remember how to spell).
I repeat for clearity ; the (small) increase in jib area is equal to a 4.32 sec speed increase per hour of bouy racing (according to Texel system).
I wish to put forward that this is too small a change abandon the jib rule simplification.
So if we look at the combined result than we see that the simplification results in 9.36 + 4.32 = 13.68 seconds = less than 14 seconds per hour bouy racing increase in speed.
So yes, you are right the simplification allows slighly bigger sails but the increase is so small that it performance boost is less than 14 second per hour racing. I claim this to be too small to matter. I'll claim that 14 seconds/hour is a very acceptable price to pay for a significant simplification of the F16 rules.
Geert you omit the fact that the F16 rating under Texel system dropped from 102 (=F18) over the past years to 103 with the introduction of Texel version 2005. So yes with the simplification the F16 Texel rating will become 1 point faster but only with respect to the new 103 Texel 2005 rating (several weeks old). Not with respect to the Texel rating we had for the last couple of years. The end result therefor is that the F16 rating will stay at the F18 rating of 102 as it always has been since late 2001.
So the NET result is a continuation of the situation of the past 4 years. So in this respect nothing changes.
I also would like to comment specifically on the claim that "we" already have a hard time competing against the F18's. I hear this comment more often but I think it is totally false to blame the boats for this. The skill in the F18 class is just very high and our own skill is just way below that. We are discussing here a rounded off Texel system swing of 36 second per hour while both you and me are getting beaten by the first F18's by 15 minutes per hour racing and more. We can't even correct out ahead if we would use the Hobie 16 without a spi rating (=117)! So don't blame the boat or the ratings; lets blame ourselfs. We, as crews are simply no where near good enough. Even to such an extend that those 36 second per hour won't make any difference what so ever. We are still 864 second per hour (= factor 24 !) away from sailing at the boats full potential. In laymans terms ; If we were sailing on F18's ourselfs we would be at exactly the same rear guard places as with our F16's. And sailors like Matt and Gary seems to be very capable of hanging level with F18's and sometimes even I-20's. It is us Geert, we need to get our act together.
I'm sorry but while your stance is fully understable as a consumer and participant it does not not carry more weight than the requests by sailmakers and the efforts of our competition to make us look complicated.
The simplication is an answer on the request of three different (professional) parties and several private owners who mentioned that they felt the sail area rule was too complex and confusing.
I admit that like you I have no problems understanding formulae and using calculators but I do understand that other persons may have a different perspective.
That is not true. The concept of rated sailarea has been completely removed from the proposed rules, therefor no rated sailarea calculation is necessary. Also in the proposed setup all calcs can now be performed from the head or using a pen and paper. This was a major component of the simplification.
And of course in addition the F16 rating is placed back at the F18 rating were it has been since 2001 and were it belongs.
Wouter
P.S. I can tell you that Bard and I finish, what felt, close behind an F18 which we had been neck to neck for the whole race and we when checked the results it turned out that even the small time between us was more than our 103 (texel 2005) rating could correct out over. You won't believe how close you need to be to the guy in front of you to be able to correct out over him with just 1 rating point difference.
Thank you Wouter - 4.2.4. on nation codes does address the concern I raised.
A few other small things...
Since the ISAF rules referred to in 4.2.6 require sail numbers on both a mainsail and spinnaker, is it your intention that the F16 rules also be interpreted as requiring numbering of a spinnaker, or should 4.2.6 be modified to refer specifically to the ISAF rule with respect to the mainsail only?
Also, I'm not clear on the rationale for including 4.2.8 in addition to 4.2.6. I understand that the former is compatible with ISAF, but don't understand why you would want to be even more prescriptive than the ISAF by including the latter.
I notice that you have not made any mention of the F16 identifier at the bottom near the leech that was in the earlier proposal. Do you still have any preference on this? I'm guessing that the reason for explicitly expressing the preference regarding the insignia at the top is because it relates to an issue specifically contained in the ISAF rules.
It did initially seem a little odd to me that you would require an F16 to carry a number that is explicitly assigned by the class, but not require it to actually identify itself as an F16. However, I am guessing that this may be to make life easier for say a Taipan sailor, who might sometimes sail F16 and sometimes standard Taipan without having to change sail markings.
BTW, I notice that the ISAF rule does actually require a class insignia above the nation code. Even if you are not going to require an F16 insignia (maybe for the reason above), if you wanted to maintain consistency with the ISAF you could perhaps require a class insignia, but allow this to be either an F16 insignia or a design sub-class insignia, i.e. must have either, rather than may have either.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but just want to make sure that you had noted the difference between the rule as written and the ISAF rule.
Mark.
If there is no firm view on spinnaker numbering, I'd just like to throw in my penn'orth for no numbers on spinnakers.
With regard to F16 insignia, would it really matter if a Taipan or similar raced OD with the F16 lower leech insignia? I can't see that it contravenes ISAF as written.
I'm not hot on numbers in the spi as well, so I'll look into this and try to only have numbers in the mainsail.
These OD sailors can be funny folk. It may be politically smart to not enforce such insignia just yet. I will look into this as well.
Wouter
Wouter
You lost me somewhere. Are you talking about the poll that is somewhere earlier in this thread and relates specifically to the class insignia on the sails and boats? The poll that only received 11 votes worldwide?
As I think I have observed to you before, democracy does not seem to function well in the sailing world. But it is very nice of you to make the effort.
Just a suggestion: Maybe it would be easier for people to vote in the future if you make the voting poll a post of its own, instead of the poll being buried in another thread. And get Rick to sticky the poll at the top of the F16 forum for a given period of time, so people can find it. Something that says, "F16 Member Vote Required Here on X Topic."
Maybe people still would not vote, but at least they would not have the excuse of not being able to find it or not even knowing it was there or not remembering that it was there. And you would be able to easily refer people back to its specific location, even in the midst of discussions about the subject that might crop up in that same thread or other threads.
Believe it or not, most people are not paying attention to this forum all the time. If I had just arrived here, I would not have a clue what you are talking about as far as "the poll" or "voting has now ended." 
Yep that would be the one. But it was more a poll then a vote. Besides the ISAF regulations will take precedence anyway ...
At least it determined that there is no significant resistance to this (ISAF compliant) setup. That is all we need to know.
Thank you.
Noted !
I believe that, the poll was open for over a month and was bumped up to the top of the board a few times. In principle people not bothering to vote are assumed to accept any outcome. And of course we weren't doing anything major here. Small stuff.
My intention is to allow input from everybody and guys like Mark provided that. And very helpful input as well.
Wouter
mark and all,
Okay we'll leave that rule as is.
My preference is that we only use nation codes and sailnumbers in the mainsail as is standard in catamaran classes. I will adjust the rule to reflect this.
It is what we polled upon in the last few weeks and it was expressed that some uniformity was desired by the class members. I rewritten soem of the rules as I ran into problems. I seriously dislike ISAF way of formulating rules. It is like a big word puzzle. This is one reason why we redefine several rulings of ISAF to make implementation easier and more accessible to normal folk.
It is now in the rules again. Sorry for the omission.
Has more to do with uniformity among F16 boats.
Spot on.
We can either but I prefer to have sailors make this choice themselfs. It is the same in the F18 class. I see no big advantages or disadvantage of either approach.
Ohh yeah I know of the differences; several are intentional.
Thank for your help mark.
What do you think of the rules now ?
http:/
Wouter
Mark.
Had a good talk with John Pierce today (Stealth) about simplifying the sail area rules.
I'll came back to me on teh exact area's and luff lengths of his sails and then we can decide on what simplification we'll perform.
It looks good. We can cut alot of complex stuff away without altering the resulting situation in any significant way.
Will try to talk to Greg Goodall tonight. Another long distance phone call for me ! I'm really looking forward to bringing this issue to bed.
Candidate high on the list are :
Option 1
Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr. - 1.2 * (mainsail luff length - 8 mtr.)
A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr
Option 2
Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.
Max mainsail luff length is 8.05 mtr.
A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr
option 3
Maximal Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.
Max mainsail luff length is 8 mtr.
A jib sail is considered to be compliant when the total jib sail area is no larger then 3.70 sq. mtr
*
Either one of these simplifications should really help us with sailmakers and potential F16 sailors.
Wouter
Option 2 :
*
Maximum Mast & mainsail area = 15 sq. mtr.
Maximum Mainsail luff length is 8.1 mtr. (= 8100 mm)
Maximum jib sail area = 3.70 sq. mtr
(no maximum jib luff length defined for the jib; such a rule would serve no purpose)
*
Looks like this is the prefered candidate at this time.
Still need to talk to 2 builders (Matt McDonald and Greg Goodall), but Goodall will go along as he wanted such a simplification; Phill and John are already on line. Also 3 class heads have expressed support for this option already (Steve, Phill and myself) we have 6 class heads in total. So we are on the brink of a class authority majority. So this option look promising. I will however try to get full concensus on this issue.
Wouter
Wouter,
The spec for the Stealth F16 quotes a mast+mainsail area of 15.3 sq. m.
Does this rule simplification mean that existing Stealths will not measure? Or is it a case of 'depending on how you measure it'?
John
Don't worry.
All the old sails will remain class compliant.
Also we have gotten the exact data on the Stealth sails from Landenberger himself. They are at the very limit of the old rule but have less than 15.3 sq. mtr. of area. If they were at 15.3 sq.mtr. then they wouldn't be compliant under the old rule as well. I hope John can forgive me for giving away some real data here.
As it stands now, the simplified rule will be valid for all the boats build after, say, 1 may 2005. The builders are poised to all agree to that. All boats build before this date can choose which rule they want to use. There is as good as nothing between the 2 rules performance wise so it really doesn't matter which one is chosen. We fully expect the old boat crews to switch to the new rule when ever they get new sails a few years down the road.
An update :
Only Greg Goodall is now left to agree and three class officials, but as said before Greg is fully expected to go along. So we have 63 % in favour now and 75 % when counting Greg Goodall. The opinion of the class body is showing a clear trend. This simplification is very much welcomed by the builders and we have yet to see one class official to object. The sailmakers can't vote in this but it is clear that they favour this simplified rule as well. It is pretty obvious that all favour this simplification.
I still have to contact Gary Maskiel and a few other one-off home-builders. But I know Harry, Michael, Scott, Phill and myself are compliant with the new rule. All the mozzie sailors are compliant as well and the only two unaswered cases are Gary Maskiel and Stewart. I think Steward was already dispensated for this 9 mtr tall mast, so no chance for him. That pretty much leaves Gary. We are not going to hold on the simplification for him alone and if he is non-complaint with the simplified rule (rumour has it that he is compliant) than we'll dispensate him as well.
In the end that will leave us with a much simplified situation, With at max only 2 dispensations (Stewart and Gary) and a range of Stealth sailors that either just measure in under the simplified rule or just not. We're not going to make alot of fuss about that. They measure in under the old rule and therefor are compliant and have identical performance.
I think this puts an end to several years of finding the best setup for the F16's. We started out with allowing 9 mtr masts and a very free mainsail area rule. We had to because we allowed mast that ranged from 8.2 mtr to 9 mtr. In the last years we have been able to tighten the rules without much pain. With the simplified rule we have a very good rig. In the same time I have been able to fine-tune mathematical models and found that these 15 sq. mtr. by 8 mtr rig on a 8.5 mtr mast are just what you want for 140 kg crews when they have to race F18's on elapsed time.
To give a few good examples.
With this rig our aspect ratios of the sails are the same as the F18's. So no matter how ISAF and TEXEL rules are adjusted in weighting sails; F16 will stay at the F18 rating. The same aspect ratio forces any physical model (and reality) to exactly the right power in relation to the F18 (sailed at 150 kg or more)
This new rig is just very good on paper. And yes, it appears to be just as good in real life conditions. It has been reviewed from many angles by various parties and everybody seem to be very happy with it.
I feared it would be quite a struggle to everything in line, but we got lucky and it is all failing in place on its own. Even the performance difference to the old rule is better than hoped for. Less than 20 seconds per hour bouy racing.
But back to the point.
Stealth owners should not worry; they will all remain compliant.
Wouter
Greg Goodall has chosen sides as well.
He even replied to me on a weekend day, the first time ever. His exact first sentence was :"excellent idea. I am 100% in favour of this idea.".
Then he mentions he would have proposed it to me himself in the "very near future". I expected that as he has made several comments along those lines in the past as have several others.
Alright; this now means that we have a full bucket as far as designers and builders concerned. And we have 6 out of 9 officials that are in favour 1 voter understands the proces but would like to pospone it and two other votes still need to came in. But even if we count the last 3 votes as against then the group in favour has 6/9 votes = 2/3rd of the vote. I however fully expect Scott (local class head Asia) to support this simplification as well, making it 77 %.
I understand that this last contructions work on the rules can be a little unsettling to some, maybe even several, but the reactions of the builders and sailmakers was just sheer relieve and exitment. This simplificantion is really favoured by the supply side of things. And this side is just a very important part of the F16 class.
I will start a new thread explaining all the issues we could settle with this simplified rule. I trust that will make all of us understand the need for it as well as the benefits of it.
Wouter
Mate, Mine isnt compliant due to having the taller rig.
Myrule of thumb..
Anything that makes the measurers job easier and less stressful is good.
Hi Wouter,
just found this post. Haven't had time to go through all posts lately, to much sailing, driving, working and fit family in somewhere.
Have just run out to shed and measured mast, to late to pull out sail. Looks like my luff is at least 8.1 more like 8.2 or 8.3. Do you include all of sail or head to tack only, mine has flap underneath tack with a slug on it. I am not use to where measurement is taken on sail. Most classes I have sailed have bands on mast sail is not allowed to pass rather than measuring sail luff. Area shouldn't be a problem though seems to be smaller than other F16/Taipan sails I have compared it to. Am all for simplification though, Lindsay found it difficult to understand rules when making sail.
Regards Gary.
No worries mate, I estimated that you wouldn't come back with the measurements in a short timeframe. Take you time measuring the sails properly and than apply for a dispensation. I trust your sail is full compliant under the old rule and so this dispensation is garanteed to you.
My secret service agent (I'm king weezy right ? what is a dictator without an excellent spy network ?) already mentioned that your sailmaker had trouble understanding the rules and that your sail looks smaller than the Taipans/F16's. Your example contributed significantly to the choice to get the rules really simplified.
If you left the bottom as it was on the A-cat then I expect your luff to be around 8.2-8.3 mtr.
From the very top to the very bottom when fully tensioned (stretch). That would definately include the flap on the bottom.
On boats that are constructed such that the sail can not be stretch to a length longer than the distance between the bands than the distance between the bands is your luff length. However, it must be physically impossible to pass the bands. An obstruction must be present at the banda in the mast groof or something.
Please send your data to Formula16class(at)hotmail.com so we can register your dispensation. And take your time getting the measurements, there is no hurry. The new rules will be implemented and you will be dispensated.
Wouter
Wouter