And by that same reasoning so could every other racing dinghy from Opi to Tornado.
However,the majority of people I know and race against are fully aware of the basic principle of sportsmanship and the rules and abide by the 2nd Rule of Racing.
Incorrect, The F18 and Tornado have the total boat weight and correctors marked on the measurement certificate. If your boat is under the min weight then you must carry the corrector weights shown on your measurement certificate. Its easy to check if someone is carrying 3kg (as per a cert) of lead at an event rather than measuring an entire boat...
But like I said, I am sure the F16 class knows better <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />
Macca,
Where did we say that corrector weights aren't shown on the cert???
It is perfectly reasonable to state that a boat is over minimum weight and still list the corrector weights required to be in class.
It should then be obvious that if a boat has correctors listed on its certificate that it should always race with those weights in place unless the boat is reweighed and the certificate amended as necessary.
I can recall several of my Tornados having the corrector weight amended in this way over time.
guess I need to teach you to read all the thread.. <img src="<>/cool.gif" alt="cool" title="cool" height="15" width="15" />
F18 measurers in the US leave the all-up weight box blank. All-up weight is checked at major events for compliance, but because variability in lines, blocks, tillers, ect., can be expected throughout the season, our measurers are not required to fill the box in - just check for compliance.
From Your Parent
_________________________
John Williams
F18 USA 70
Maybe you could argue John Williams doesn't know much about the F18 or cat sailing.. This will be an interesting discussion... *reaching for the popcorn*...
then maybe the F16 actually knows what its doing... <img src="<>/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin" height="15" width="15" />
Actually, John said that they don't do it in the USA and we all know how many things they do wrong over there <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />
The EU fleet of F18 is a well run professional scene, much like the Tornado was when it was Olympic. These two classes use the approach I described and both are ISAF recognised classes...
Why would you have a section on a measurement cert for a total boat weight and then leave it blank??? Might as well leave other details blank too, like length, sail area and beam??
Looks like winter has been too long for you guys
I really hope it gets warmer soon so we can see some posts about sailing and racing.........
I never thought I would say this but I actually agree with Macca here. <img src="<>/sick.gif" alt="sick" title="sick" height="15" width="15" /> <img src="<>/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink" height="15" width="15" />
Without weighing the boat I don't see how you can be F18 compliant.
The rules require that the measurer put a sticker on the hull stating the all-up weight, which has to be the same number as stated on the certificate.
It is also a lot less work to weigh it once instead of at every mayor event.
Measurement Rules: http:/
****. At all of the F18 championships and many of the regional events, boats are weighed and sails are checked. Guess how many boats failed a measurement check in the last six years. US F18 racing has been growing steadily and competition is fantastic, and for six years we've managed certification differently than the EU. So if the F16 Class has decided that they are going to manage things in a different manner than the EU F18s have done, it is petty and inaccurate to chime in that it can't work for them.
Forest. Trees.
John, As most Capricorn's come under the F18 class min weight they are generally required to carry correctors. Without having the boat weight and correctors marked on the cert its not possible to regulate the compliance unless you do a complete weigh in of all boats.
Why make it harder than you have to? Simply do an initial full measure of the boat including weight, note that weight and required correctors on the cert and then unless the boat is measured again or weighed at an event it needs to carry the correctors shown on the cert. Then there is no cause for any questions over the compliance of the boats weight.
All this discussion isn't so relevant for the F16 though: they are all over the min weight anyway <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />
But if we had listened to you Macca, we would have raised the min wt. and have to carry correctors and have stickers too....great ideas you have. Thanks for your valuable input.
Then your class would be taken more seriously..
2be or not 2be
I think this Class is starting
to be
taken seriously.
More seriously by whom? You? Hahahaaa
Yeah, we really care what you think!
Haaahahaha, good one Macca! You crack me up!
hell, I own a F16, and I don't take is seriously. Its a dumbass little sailboat that enjoy floating around on. Past that who gives a crap.
I think this Class is starting
to be
taken seriously.
Ahh, you mean the Viper? the boat that is how much over the F16 class min weight??? So I guess it won't need correctors any time soon!
I think this Class is starting
to be
taken seriously.
Ahh, you mean the Viper? the boat that is how much over the F16 class min weight??? So I guess it won't need correctors any time soon!
Ha, Ha, HA. ZING!!! you got them there! WAY TO GO MACCA!!!!
Ah but the Viper is over weight by choice, not because it cannot comply to the class weight. It has traded the commercial cost saving of using heavier beams etc from its bigger brother and larger volume by design ( again by choice ), against the heavier weight penalty. Those commercial desicions have not handicapped the boat at all, it will become a very sucessful design within the F16 class.
There are a number of manufacturers who are now building to design weight and there is no reason why AHPC by design could not as well, it is their choice.
Just one thing about beam size... The width of the boat controls the size of the beams.... The length is irrelevant. There is little difference between the width of the F16 and the F18. Hence, if you want a stiff F16, you will need to have beams very similar to those used on a stiff F18..... OR go for CARBON... and accept that price tag!
Scooby,
I have never seen a 5 bucks annual fee for any URL and think this to be a total BS quote.
Prices have come down, but that also means that I'd paid more in the earlier years. In the beginning the exchange rate between the Euro and Dollar was kind of bad.
There was also an initial
administration fee
and additional fees for some extended features.
Other then that I held two URL's and payed for both of them.
I acquired them in (late) 2001 and they were freed in (late) 2009; by my counting that makes for 8 years of double payments or about 40 bucks per year per URL on average (excluding the initial admin fee). Which is quite reasonable in my experience.
In short, the quote was accurate. I'm really not trying to scam the class here. Additionally, I truly wonder why anybody would ever have endeared such a thought.
The company I was with was register.com (based in the USA)
Wouter
I have never seen a 5 bucks annual fee for any URL and think this to be a total BS quote.
Prices have come down, but that also means that I'd paid more in the earlier years. In the beginning the exchange rate between the Euro and Dollar was kind of bad.
There was also an initial
administration fee
and additional fees for some extended features.
Other then that I held two URL's and payed for both of them.
I acquired them in (late) 2001 and they were freed in (late) 2009; by my counting that makes for 8 years of double payments or about 40 bucks per year per URL on average (excluding the initial admin fee). Which is quite reasonable in my experience.
In short, the quote was accurate. I'm really not trying to scam the class here. Additionally, I truly wonder why anybody would ever have endeared such a thought.
The company I was with was register.com (based in the USA)
Wouter
I hold a couple of .com URL;s one that is being used by me right now; the fee for the URL has just gone UP to 2.95USD per annum. No BS.
Maybe I've mis-uderstood; is the 80USD PA for a full hosted webspace package; if so that's not so bad; most are around 50-80USD per annum for a fairly small site (say 25 email addresses, 15,000 MB per month data trasfer and 500BM storage and MySQL database support)
WRONG !
The flexing of the beams is determined by the size of the crosssection, the length AND the size of loads placed on them.
The latter two ARE significantly different from the F18 design and therefore the first can be significantly different from the F18 design as well while maitaining the same overall stiffness.
The loads placed on the beams are directly linked to the displacement of the hulls. How else can the boat twist or bend them ? The overall volume of the F16 hulls are (5/5.52)^3 = 75% of that of the F18's. That is then the maximal ratio to what the F16's beams can be subjected too. A similar reasoning is valid for the mast step load.
The flexing of the beams is related to overall length of the beams by the thir power. Or rather to the unsupported span of the beams. This means that a typical F18 flexes by (1.9/1.8)^3 = 118 % when compared to a typical F16 when only looking at beam lengths.
Combining these two ratio's results in the F18 flexing by 158 % when compared to a F16 when identical crossectional beams are used. Quite a difference, I say !
In layman's terms this means that the wallthickness of the F18 beams can be reduced to 63% while maintaining identical flexing during sailing. Of course there are other factors as well that improve this situation further, like the fact that the F16 hulls are shorter and therefor have the beams have to flex more to lift the bows by the same amount. This is felt as additional stiffness.
Grouping all these factors and ending with the same flexing of the bows while sailing (assuming both boats encounter the same height of waves) result in the F16 beams only requiring 55% of stiffness (crossectional) that a F18 needs. Basically, if the wallthickness and shape of both beams is maintained then the F16 beams will weight only 74% of the F18 versions. If all reduction in stiffness is handled by reductions in wallthickness (maintaining identical overall shape and size of the beams) then the F16 beams only need to weight 55% of the F18 versions. The real figure will lay somewhere between these two extremes.
Notice that a pair of bare beams can easily be 10 kg combined; this means a weight saving from the range of 2.6 kg to 4.5 kg is possible while maintaining the same overall effective platform stiffness between the F18 and F16.
That is a difference worth noting, I think.
Replacing the aluminium by carbon will only win you 3 kg over the full set at much increased costs. Designing specilized alu F16 beams while applying basic engineering skills wins you about the same amount for very small costs indeed. See another recent thread about the cost of having an extrusion die made and fabricating/shipping a batch of beams. That is why the last route was taken by Formula catamarans Aus and VectorWorks Marine (now Falcon marine).
Again, similar paths can be given for items such as the daggerboards. Here the F18 boards weight at least 3.0 kg a piece (as per class rule) while the F16 boards (just as dependable, but unregulated by class rules) are between 1.6 and 1.8 kg a board. Rudderstocks, same story. Then add all this up and you'll see that a glass/alu F16 at 111 kg is viable. Replace the superwing by a carbon mast (at minimal tipweight of 6.0 kg) and the ready to sail F16 will be spot on 107 kg and still not cost more then a modern F18.
Now we have also covered the reason why the glass/alu F16's are overweight to the min. class weight by a few kg's. The builders rightly reason that it is not economically attractive to offer the carbon mast upgrade if the weight savings there are matched by lead corrector weights. So they aim for a glass/alu weight that will see the ready to sail weight with a carbon mast upgrade end up right at the class minimum. Any serious racer will buy the carbon mast and any buyer looking for a cheaper F16 will not fret over being 4 kg overweight.
Wouter
Macca,
I agree with you on the measurement certificate issue. (Thanks for your support !)
The class rules envisioned fully filled out measurement forms as is the trend with serious classes like the F18's and Tornado's (and hinted at in F16 class rule 3.2.4.)
With respect to using lead blocks and heavy lines to scam the measuring proces, that is why the F16 class rules include the following class rule :
3.2.3 The measurer shall record on the measurement form anything he considers as departing from the concept or spirit of the Formula 16 rule, he shall send it with detailed explanations on the contentious points to the Formula 16 Authority for a ruling.
Of course any such scammed boat will be discovered during the weight ins that take please at the larger events. That is why the F16 class has the following rules.
4.1.1 The Formula 16 authority has the right to check the boats for compliance and safety before the race, on the water and right after the race even when a valid measurement certificate has been presented.
4.3.2 During events, the three first finishing boats of the daily sailed races, plus another boat drawn by lot may be checked.
Therefore I completely miss the reasoning leaving the measured weight field blank. This is not consistent with how the F16 class was setup and its rules were written down. Leaving this field open does nothing to combat any boat owner from cheating; it is certainly no better then filling in this field as indeed your corrector weight example proofs.
With respect to area's new to the process of measureing (like the USA) the following rule was included in the F16 class rules.
3.6.1 In the start up phase of the class the Formula 16 authority may hand out a temporary certificates, without actually measuring the craft, based on measurements made on other boats of the same type. Their certificate will become invalid when a proper measuring practice is available to the owner of the temporary certificate.
Nonsense.
Spinakers also stretch over time (increasing the overall area) as do mainsail luffs; but we are still recording those measurements on the certificate.
We must take care to not make the measurement certificate into something that it is not.
The measurement certificate is nothing more then a report of the boat's dimensions when it was measured on the given date (date stamp) from then onwards the following class rules apply :
3.5.2 All modifications or replacements of parts of a significant change, shall be remeasured and notification made on the measurement certificate by a measurer recognized by the Formula 16 Authority.
4.2.1 The competitors are responsible for showing the valid measurement form and
measurement certificate corresponding with the boat used.
There is NO F16 class rule that states that original (unmodified) equipment can invalidate a boat when it has become non-compliant due to aging or wear (I have yet to see a boat grow lighter with age). If all (unmodified/non-replaced) parts used were compliant on the date of their (first) measurement then they will remain so during their lifespans. Not allowing for this will open a can of worms. This opening was intentional when the rules were written.
Besides, a F16 can only be invalidated when it no longer adheres to the limits set out in the box rule, NOT when a certain measurement alters with aging. Therefore the reasoning that the boat MUST weight in at what the measurement certificate says is a reasoning that is alien and non-sensical to the F16 class (and the spirit of its rules). Additionally, if this reasoning is to be maintained then the spinnaker area measurement and the mainsail luff measurement must be left open as well (which is currently not the case). Probably a few other specs too.
Therefore, this whimsical (inconsistent) approach is best ended altogether.
Wouter
Have to agree with Wouter here.
The certificate is for proving a boat has been measured and passed the rules at that time.
If the weight increases over time, it still passes the class rules of a MINIMUM weight. This does not make the measurement certificate invalid.
Every class I have participated in that has a minimum weight operates this way.
I was the measurer for a number of national and state titles in two different classes. Every boat was weighed prior to the Nationals event and if I was feeling sadistic randomly in the nationals or States. Competitors were warned this may happen.. But it wasn't a huge job to do and almost everyone was helpful.. Took maybe 10 minutes if the scales are set up ready..
The thing is when I was measuring I wasnt alone. So any issue was well known by the local fleet.
how many ratings do you want the F16 to have in the same fleet on the same course?
Stewart,
I don't understand your question.
Can you rephrase it for me, please ?
Of course, there is only one rating for all F16's and that is the rating belonging to the (virtual) boat that is maximized under the rules. In principle this produces the fastest possible rating to which all F16's are subjected. When a particular craft is slower by being say overweight then that is the choice that the owner has made for himself. I.E. he accepts that he sails a slower boat and with it the difference in performance to the official F16 rating.
This is always fair to the other competitors and the only party disadvantaged by it is the owner of the slower boat himself.
I am myself an example of such a sailor. My own homebuild is overweight and uses an outdated hull shape; not to mention aging gear (unmodified) throughout. I accept that say a new Falcon owner has an advantage over me as I'm too cheap at this time to buy one myself even when my own boat is now 7 years old and competitively speaking ripe for replacement. I have decided for myself that I will only replace it when I have
-a- enough spare cash laying around doing nothing
or
-b- start finishing consistently within 2 minutes of the leader in class races
Currently my own sailing skills have
aged
as well and I'm first in need of lots of on the water training before I can sail a new 3rd generation F16 (I have a 1st generation boat myself) to its full potential. I can get that practice just as well on my oldy as on a new boat.
Maybe that answers your questions without you rephrasing it.
Wouter
WRONG !
The flexing of the beams is determined by the size of the crossse...... etc etc (Not going to include the whole quote here)
Wouter
Wouter - I find it very interesting that you so strongly disputed my comment...
I recently discussed this issue with Greg Goodall, and his comment was that when you put a 130+kg of crew weight on the back beam, then the main factors influencing the twist of the boat is the
unsupported beam length
(ie the distance from inner gunwale to inner gunwale), and the distance between the front and back beam.
These distances are very similar on both the F18 & F16. He finished by saying that you MAY get away with making the beams upto 15% smaller without having a significant impact on the stiffness.
Wouter - I challenge you to prove all your theories - DESIGN & BUILD that F16 that will be FASTER than any of the current F16's....
Up until then, sorry, but I will tend to take the advice from Greg Goodall in preference to your views.
its a straight engineering problem.. So should be worked out using standard engineering principles no more no less..
As for building a faster boat.. you forget that is not just an engineering or design issue.. One needs to be as good a sailor as the fastest sailors in the class.. I have never seen Wouter claim that title or ability..
The fastest design with the slowest sailor is still slow..
HJS,
Like Stewart says, it is a straight-up engineering problem.
I don't want to play this on the man here, but Greg is in error here.
All I can add is that I hold a engineering degree in Mechanical, Maritime (Naval) and Materials engineering so this was standard stuff during my education. I have done such analyses many times.
I've already run all the numbers and build the prototype F16 remember. I widened my boat to F16 specs and needed to know how that was done best. I made these calculations about 9 years ago and my boat is still sailing and has the same bow flexing as a nacra F18 (which was popular at the time) when layed up for a stiffness test. My beams are no where the size of the Nacra F18. I used the superwing section as a mainbeam and a 80x2 round tube as the rear beam. I was also closely involved with the beams that were specially designed for the F16 boats and are now featured on the Aussie Blade F16 and Falcon F16.
Therefore I think I have already matched my statements with a boat(s) actually build (along the lines of
all my theories
). My homebuild is here as well as other fruits of my engineering and the F16 class is an international fact. So what have you to show for yourself ?
Besides, Macca is the guy who is on about FASTER F16's I'm just saying that F16 beams can be significantly smaller then a F18 while maintaining identical flexing on the water relative to an F18. Since we sail in the same wave conditions I feel that is sufficient criterium for the F16's. The Viper (with F18 beams) is said to be incredibally stiff and my models do indeed confirm that. Personally, I feel that that is also an issue of diminishing returns.
Please note that all F16 builds use smaller beams then the F18's with AHPC being the only exception; I feel validated by that fact as well. It
sort of suggests
that
my theories
have been peer-reviewed.
Regards,
Wouter