No, he can not. He can only include MORE dispensated boats to declared OPEN F16 events if these boats satisfy the very clear Grandfather requirements. When he decides to do so then these boats are included for all declared OPEN events for a year. After that he can extend the dispensation yearly of discard it.
A class head has some freedom in how he applies such rule so he can make maximum effective use but ALL THE OTHER F16 rules ARE NON-NEGOCIABLE !
I can't believe I have to explain this over and over to you guys.
That is just BS !
How about paragraph 6.1 in the class rules as quoted in several other posts. Are you that dumb or just trying to appear that way ? Man !
Humm, yeah ! In Europe you could convert a Nacra 5.5 have it measured and race F18 while in the USA you couldn't. That is nice and consistent for you. At least we have rules that apply to every region and that are applied the same everywhere..
There are no grey area's in the F16 class rules, just the perception of such by people who don't read the F16 class rules properly.
Sorry man, I'm indeed running a little frustrated here. This grandfather rule wasn't included on a whim.
Wouter
Well, why don't you apply for dispensation officially ?
I'll announce the result officially on this forum.
Wouter
Thank God, Finally somebody who is using that grey matter inside hsi skull !
Wouter
Wouter,
I had intended to step back and stop posting to this thread, however, after your last series of posts I realised that I couldn't let this lie....
Why, oh, why do you have to treat questions as personal attacks on you? Why do you have to be so patronising and sometimes venomous with your responses? The people on this forum are either existing F16 sailors or potential F16 sailors. Whatever they are, they are also part of the multihull community in general - which is already far too fragmented. Civility costs nothing. Try it sometime, you might be surprised at how much easier life becomes. Sorry, now I'm at risk of being patronising - but you get my drift 
With regard to the original theme of this thread and the way in which it evolved, I believe that the 'trigger' was this comment from you in the original post:
The Boulogne brothers have not asked for 'grandfather' status for their new boat nor, as far as I am aware have any of their customers. Yet you felt it necessary to openly state that the Evolution could be 'grandfathered' (oh HOW I HATE THAT PHRASE!)into F16. This has (not unnaturally) prompted people to think "Why?".
Surely the time has come, with the number of existing COMPLIANT F16s, to say that we don't need to grow the class artificially by adopting other classes into a theoretical 'Open F16 class'. For the coming 2006 season could we not demonstrate that the F16 class has finally come of age by doing away with rule 6.1 and its attendant criteria, declaring that ONLY boats fitting the box rule are F16 (apart from the foundation boats - Taipan 4.9, Mosquito and Stealth R) and all formerly dispensated boats are 'out'.
GENUINE growth in GENUINE F16s must be the way forward if this class is to be taken seriously. No matter what you say about 'no grey areas' there is a PERCEPTION that you can sail anything if it's close enough in size to an F16 AND IT IS RATED SLOWER. This may indeed be because people havn't read the rules properly or understood them, but the reason this perception exists is because the 'grandfather' clause exists. In that sense it is a bad rule.
Please note this IS NOT a personal attack but simply a comment on the way I see the 'grandfather' rule being percieved and why I believe it is not really helping the class now. (There is no doubt that in the early days of the class such a measure was expedient, even advantageous, but not now).
Finally, I hope that if you were to re-read some of your invective above you will feel that perhaps you took serious, genuine queries and comments a little too personally.
Step back, count to ten ..... DO NOT RETURN to check if lit 
Wouter,
Please forgive me if I missed some stuff during a few periods during the spring, summer and fall when I was not in contact with the forum, but are you the F16 class chairman again or did somebody else take over those duties? Or is there no overall class chairman right now?
Also, what happened to Phill's work on coming up with a membership plan and reorganization of the format for the class to make it more like other class associations?
Again, I'm sorry if I missed some news along the way.
The Boulogne brothers have not asked for 'grandfather' status for their new boat nor, as far as I am aware have any of their customers. Yet you felt it necessary to openly state that the Evolution could be 'grandfathered' (oh HOW I HATE THAT PHRASE!)into F16. This has (not unnaturally) prompted people to think "Why?".
Actually, the source of this discussion was the fact that their Dutch importer/dealer stated on their webpage (go check the original post in this thread) that the evolution is suitable for sailing in "Open Class or F16".
To my mind it sounds like they are trying to take advantage of any benefit that there might be being part of the F16 class, without actually building a true F16 design, and I believe that this is bad for the class.
Paul
You're right in your statement on the content of the webpage Paul. However, I took Mary's query:
in the second post (first response) of this thread to have been 'triggered' by Wouter's 'grandfather' statement rather than anything the Dutch importer might have written. 
All,
As someone looking in from the outside. As the Current Inter 17 EU is grandfathered, can I add a bigger mainsail so that I rate (on SCHRS / Texel) so that I am the same as an F16 and then join the Open F16 class ?
In my Current spec, I am approx 4.5% SLOWER (107 vs 102 on SCHRS); if I add a mainsail at approx 16sqm I then rate to 102; can I then come and Play ?
Does not really sound like a good idea for the F16 class IMO.
I think that the F16 class needs to become a true Formula class and only allow boats that are F16's to play at F16 events. If you want your buddies (or nom buddies) to come and play, run a handicap event at the same time. All you are currently doing is diluting the class.
I can understand at the beginning, you wanted as many as boats at opens, I suggest this is no longer the case as you dilute the class.
Allowing the Cirrus in is Bonkers IMO; it was built after the rule, you cannot allow it in.
Thank God, Finally somebody who is using that grey matter inside hsi skull !
Wouter
No, Thank God you are part of the F16 class.
Whilst it is clear from the rules that it is not a requirement that a "grandfathered" boat be designed before the creation of the F16 class, there seem to be a fair few voices on this forum stating that that's how it should be, and that letting in new designs under this rule would be a mistake. I think, perhaps, many of us had not considered the case of a new design being incorporated this way. Certainly, the webpage that talks about the grandfather rule http:/
I agree with John on this - there are now sufficient true F16s that don't need to include new ones under the "grandfather" rules. Perhaps the time has come to consider a change to the wording of this rule?
Paul
I couldn't agree more. It is just not fair to John P or Phill or one-off builders who have built true F16s to let Cirrus in with a longer boat with a bigger rig--heck, they're were no doubt aware of the formula but not interested. I'm happy to sail with them anytime, just as with the I17s or Fx-1, but it isn't right to allow grandfathering in a new design now that the rules are in place. It goes contrary to the spirit or intent of the rule.
All this confusion based on the release of a boat that has yet to even prove itself. Does anyone expect a builder to come out with a new boat and say…”its pretty fast, but there are faster boats already out there”? come on…
I have a question, if this new boat is “all that and a bag of chips” why didn’t they build it under the F-16 box rules?... and take on the existing competition head to head?
It may prove to be a great boat, but designing it so close to F-16 rules without actually being within the rules sounds like they are hedging their bet. Personally, I think the designer/builder shot themselves in the foot, as the F-16 class is quickly gaining momentum. By designing outside the box they have eliminated themselves from fully profiting from this growth. This new boat may find itself in the class of “neither fish nor fowl”. Who wants to buy something close, when they can have the “real thing” at the same price? And having an extra 30 kilos over F-16 minimum weight… doesn’t that kind of defeat one of the main attractions of the class?
Regards,
Bob
“Think : The best way to show the strong points of our class is in direct comparison on the water. Think Datchet UK again.”
“No please, lets the clause be as is and let me do my thing. Up till now it has always resulted in a growing class and attracting more builders to our full compliant setup. Something we all appreciate”.
Having watched this F-16 concept grow into reality (from the side lines) over the past few years, it appears to me that the big picture is being missed. Many do not understand Wouter because they do not share his unwavering belief in the F-16 concept. He has a vision of where he wants the class to go, and how to achieve that objective. As far as I know, he, Phil and Kirk spawned this idea and have brought it to this point of… being on the brink, of really taking off. It is obvious that they firmly believes that the F-16 compliant catamaran is the optimum compromise of beach cat racing. The F-16 did not result by accident, it is a result of careful research, planning and years of work by its founders.
Those that don’t have full faith in the concept act like “the sky is falling”. Wouter sees the same sky and says “bring it on”; it will drive us to ultimate success that much faster.
Wouter has faith that the concept of an affordable, light weight, easy to manage (on and off the water) catamaran, with superior performance, can, and will, stand on its own merits. Where many want to adhere to old methods of class formation, that have lead to past failures, the authors of the F-16 concept have chosen to cheery pick the best features of the past, combined with an eye for the future. Remember that one definition of insanity is “Wanting to do the same thing, the same way, as you have always done it, but expect to achieve a different result". Do you want to do it the same old way and fail? Or can you have a little vision of what can be?
You have an individual at the helm that has pretty much built the last few years of his life around the idea and implementation of a F-16 catamaran class concept, you might want to put a little faith in him and not drive him to such a point of frustration that he starts to unravel...
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
Wouter's enthusiasm and energy have undoubtedly had a huge, positive impact on the progress of F16 class this far and I hope will continue to do so.
However, as the class grows, and increasing number of people have a strong, direct interest in the success of the F16 class. All that we're looking for is the ability to have an open, reasoned discussion about an F16 class rule in the official F16 forum. Why is that a problem?
Regarding copying features of the past: those who have expressed an opinion would like a change in the rule to make it closer to the F18 ruleset. Last time I checked, that class was doing pretty well, so yes, I want to do it the same old way and succeed.
Paul
Why do you want to make it like the F18 class rule?
The worlds largest builders played an enormous role in generating a 400 lb 18 foot boat. Successful class ...yes... (why because it became a good game and fit the middle weight band of the market with major builder support) Do you think Hobie cat WANTED it this way... Or would they have preferred their SMOD business model? Heck they are still trying to keep that model going in the USA!
Are the F18's great boats?... certainly a matter of opinion...
Now the F16 class does NOT have Hobie and Performance building boats to the rule now... In fact... the two major builders appear to ignore the rule and hope to build better mousetraps in the 17 foot range... they try to market the hell out of them and they want to undercut the F16 niche... Hey... Its just business. and IF they get a SMOD critical mass it ensures easy profits... Just ask the US I20 fleet about... the Performance only equipment rule)
I think you need to make a much better argument then... It worked for the F18's... Since the situations are entirely different (Small builders… existing F18 Class etc etc) ... the solutions are likely to diverge from the F18 path.
In the USA... critical mass on the beach is NOT trivial. How many times do the Tornado's generate at least a 10 boat fleet? How many times do the Nacra 20's generate a 10 boat fleet. The F18’s did well this year BUT… count the number of events with F18’s (Hobie or NAF18) Heck... how about a 5 boat fleet? The answer... NOT many...
It seems to me a strategy of loosening the box and getting more boats to play will grow the class. Calling the process, grandfathering, or waivers or whatever, is just semantics. F16's and I17's single handed on the race course even up is a win if you get 10 boats.
F16's and all of the other's even up on the race course is a win as well.
Your real problem is if those boats are simply not competitive in the even up game… When the owner's can't afford to upgrade to the F16 and don't come out to play anymore then you have a problem. (See what happened to the F20 fleet when one design kicked everyone’s butt…bottom line… it never took off. You actually hope that they are close enough that the owner remains interested in the game... ONE DAY... they will decide its time to try the better optimized design.
Mark,
Sounds like things are different between the UK and USA in this respect. I believe that one of the reasons why F18 is so successful is because it is attractive to manufacturers. The box rule is tight enough that you can be competitive on an old boat, but sufficiently loose that a manufacturer can introduce a few tweaks each year to the point that people who have the cash can justify upgrading. This also creates a strong second-hand market which grows the class.
I agree that in order to grow the class we need more boats on the start line, but that doesn't mean you have to have a loose definition of F16. As I keep saying, the successful Datchet event didn't need the grandfather clause. It was Stealths/F16s vs FX-one.
Paul
Paul
Because everyone else was at a cat open 60 miles up the road with 145 boats present; If I am welcome I might travel to Datchet next year!
Of course you'd be welcome Simon -
just bring an F16 with you.................................
I would much prefer to not post at all, but as the Chairman I'm obliged to give explainations when needed. So in this point I will directly adress a few points raised in several posts. I'll do my very best to stay "on point" although I really must admit that that will be difficult for me.
So here goes :
Well, it can be in the way "grandfathering" is defined in the F16 class rules, this definition may well be different to what people feel when reading this word. As an official I can only go by the official definition of Grandfathering :
7.26 Grandfathering
The allowing of non Formula 16 compliant designs to race against fully compliant Formula 16 designs.
we could have called it "dipensating" and still use the same paragraph 5 and 6 rules to determine which boats can be grandfathered and which do not, but would that make much difference. It is just a word and these rules are indeed predominantly used for older classes.
You can then APPLY for a grandfather status, which, if granted, would be yearly reviewed. You can NOT however participate in (closed) F16 events. So it will all come down how an event is declared. I can assure you however that you would be on a full compliant F16 boat within two years. Which is exactly the intend of the grandfather clause. Let people have a taste of the class and boats and let the superior quality and sailing behaviour of the F16's do their work.
Only full compliant F16 boats and the 2 named foundation boats are allowed into F16 events. If an event is declared to be an Open F16 event then the grandfather boats may come and play as well. You are calling that a handicap event but it really isn;t as we will all be sailing first in wins. The difference between my "Open F16 class" and your "handicap event" is just sematics in my opinion.
In some areas maybe, but not in all area's. We are still not "There" yet in every place around the world.
It is't "allowed in"; nor can it ever be allowed into the F16 class. It can only proof its website claims in declared Open F16 events IF it officially applies for a grandfather status which indeed the builder or any crew hasn't done.
Personally I would love to see the Evolution measure up to the say the Blade F16 knowing that the Blade has a true wingmast rig with 30 kg less overall weight and the same mast length. I think we will see a similar thing happening as at the combined Stealth F16/Hobie FX-one event. That wouldn't be bad promo at all. But on to the next point.
In the UK you have about 35 Stealth F16's sailing, maybe the UK can be considered to have sufficient numbers, but there are definately area's where this is not the case. Altering the grandfather rules will strike a powerful tool out of the hands of less developped area's. Is this in the interest of the global F16 class ? I argue that it isn't. Please note, that we still need to find a way into the French catamaran market and I'm open to suggestions.
Spoke to Phill about this and he really isn't bothered at all by this. I think I can say that he even agrees with the beneficial use of the grandfather clause. I have good reason to believe that John P. isn't hung up about it as well. All three withnessed some very compelling reasons to maintain the grandfather clause and use it skilfully to grow the F16 class. And I really means growing the class !
Personally I would like to underline the points Seeker has made, and Seeker has been with us since 2002.
One of the most important realizations is that building and growing a class is possibly much more about how you play the political and marketing game behind it then about garanting that a design stays the same over many years. There are many important factors behind a catamaran class that many people just don't realize. I'm fully convinced that inclusiveness and some flexibility are extremely important is achieving and maintaining a healthy class. I have enough first hand experience at it and time and time again I've seen "close the thing off" mentallity have a noticeably negative impact on the health of a class.
Best example I ever seen was in the Tornado class. I think some 73 % of the Tornado class members voted down ANY modificiation to the classic tornado at the 2001 ballot. Any modification would ruin the class it was argued and scores of sailors vowed to stay true to the classic seup. It took [color] LESS THEN 18 MONTHS for 85 % of the Tornado class to convert to a much more radical new Tornado setup then was on the ballot and this new setup went through a total rival. The vows of those 73 % didn't mean %#$@ when push came to shove. And the new modified setup is doing significantly better than the say the classic 1999 and 2000 Tornado class.
We are not talking about any chances to the F16 compliant setups here; just that allowing some flexiblity in who we race in more general events is helping us. And I can assure you that it really does. Openess and flexibility is good. It allows creativity into the class it allows experiments that make us better, keep us at the front of the fleet were we should be. And it keeps us all on our toes, thus being a dependable guard against complacency. Closing off class rules fully is not a receipy for succes.
The writers of the rules (not just me) did put a considerable amount of thought in these class rules and we didn't include any rule lightly. In specific the grandfather clause still has some very attractive uses with attractive being defined as growing the class, making us healthier and stronger. I really don't see how anybody can not agree with that.
You are darn right about that. I can assure all of us here that it will not be an easy trick at all to surpass the full compliant F16 designs by abusing the grandfather clause.
I can also tell you that our most experienced class member Phill Brander sees it in the same way. And there is a very ellegant trap included in the grandfather clause. Any non-compliant design that does look to sneak up on the F16's can really only do so by converging onto the full-compliant F16 setup. Meaning that a customer will ask, "why not full-compliant" or "what advantages are there to convince me that I should buy a non-compliant boat when the differences are so small ?"
And I'm saying; leave this rule alone it is certainly still of much use to the F16 and will remain so for a while.
Not a problem, but I only ask that everybody researches the matter more thoroughly before lining-up behind revoking this grandfather clause. An additional problem is of course that we had our class rule review and we also agreed to maintain the current rule set as it is for quite a sizeable future. This pretty much means that this discussion can not really result in any changes in the short term anyway. Another complication is that not everything can be discussed in the public sphere. Have some confidence in the skills and judgement of the class officials.
I'm staking my reputation on maintaining the grandfather rule and considering my past work for the F16 class and the fact that is was build up from scratch to what it is now, does say something.
I'm most strongly against making our class rules closer to those of the F18 class. This will be bad ju-ju for us in more than a few ways. Currently the most active members of our class are in the F16 setup because they have gotten really pissed by the F18 class tendency to make rules for every little detail. Others really don't feel that good about designing/building/promoting a pretty unimpressive design/class (their words). Other statements include :"F18 could have been so much better still". When they talk about F16's their eyes start to sparkle again. These are the guys giving us class growth, given us new design like the Blade, who are actually building or marketing the F16 designs, etc.
I would hate to loose these persons. In addition if the F16 rules resemble in on the F18 ruleset much closer then I will leave this (new) F16 class myself and continious in its old (and current) direction.
It will be fun to watch how such a new F16 class will fare. In such a case I will assign alot of predictive value to the earlier Tornado class example.
We must all remember that while we are not unlike the F18 class we were founded and build on a different mindset.
Examples :
We say lightweight boats are both very affordable and dependable in harsh conditions. Classes like the F18 differ in opinion.
We say slowed down development is good for maintaining a healthy class. F18 used to say that but has now more and more "retreated behind the walls". Think clearly guys, Taipan had a wingmast rig a decade BEFORE the F18 is discovering the advantages of such a profile. Slow development means that sailmakers and builder can continue to earn money while it creates a secondhand market for sailing looking to buy into the concept on the cheap. See Blade F16/ Taipan 4.9 situation in Florida.
We say carbon usage can both be very benefical and inexpensive. F18 believes carbon is the devils invention. Look at teh Stealth F16 design. Most carbon use of nearly any boat outthere except the A-cats and M20 while being one of the most affortable cats around. It is even cheaper than a race ready Hobie 16 for crying out loud !
We say inclusiveness is good it opens peoples minds and makes them concentrate more on improving sailing skills and enjoying sailing in what ever form it comes (Class fleets or handcap fleets). This has lead to a small line of people that have sold their old boat in favour of a full compliant F16. Among these are owners of F18's, I-17's, FX-one's and even A boyer mark 5 A-cat. Gary maskiel coming of the Mosquito F16 and now sailing Altered with good results is an excellent example of this. It has even lead to some events that otherwise would not have been organised. : Combined A-cat/F16 regatta at Tampa (twice now), Both NSW and Victorian F16 championship (both small but it was a start), Datchet FX-one/F16 even.
F18 rules specify that a daggerboard needs to be at least 3 kg heavy, because somebody thought that a lighter board would be unfair somehow. A complete daggerboard/ruddersetup on an F18 weights 20 kg's ! My F16 setup only weights 8.5 kg's and is holding up beautifully considering the abuse I give it while sailing. Now I much rather carry 8.5 kg from the sail shed to my boat then 20 kg's. Anybody else ? Such F18 rules are simply non-sense from a performance point of view, it is just because somebody with insufficient scientific knowlegde got scared and wouldn't put faith in more knowlegdeable people. Or even put faith in the concept that a class will most certainly survived small differences between boats if the speed of change is gradual or when the class is strong on participation and attractiveness.
Lets face it guys; sailor skill is 95 % of your end result, having the best platform for the conditions is never more than 5 % of the end result, and that is when making a generous estimate. Many will stare themselfs blind on those 5 % and totally forget about the much more important 95 %.
Penny wise - pound foolish.
Wouter
Wouter
No, he can not. He can only include MORE dispensated boats to declared OPEN F16 events if these boats satisfy the very clear Grandfather requirements. When he decides to do so then these boats are included for all declared OPEN events for a year. After that he can extend the dispensation yearly of discard it.
My mistake. If I understand things correctly, under Rule 6.1, Pretty much any cat under 5.3m and has a jib of between 4.25 & 2.75 sq m could compete (more or less)
Rule 6.1 makes most rules negotiable.
Is this how you have a rational discussion? I don't sail the boats but have several friends who the F16 concept fits perfectly. I discovered this thread after a very similar discussion on the weekend where this exact topic was raised. Personal insults do nothing to help persuade anybody.
Humm, yeah ! In Europe you could convert a Nacra 5.5 have it measured and race F18 while in the USA you couldn't. That is nice and consistent for you. At least we have rules that apply to every region and that are applied the same everywhere..
Sorry - I don't know the NACRA example you are talking about. I know of a few inconsistancies between some regions however my understanding is they were very minor and all areas are working to get 1 set of rules ASAP. When F18 was in it's infancy, America decided to go their own way a bit which has made things a little more difficult than they could have been but nearly all of those issues have been resolved for several years now.
In Australia you can front up with virtually anything you like. The rules are simple - If it measures it's an F18, if it doesn't that boat can go and sail in misc cats. To my knowledge that is the same anywhere in the world for F18.
Michael
Considering the unfortunate clash of dates then the F16 FX1 meet was probably a better success than most.
As far as the Cirrus goes it will only be an old nail as 137 kilos is F18 territory with smaller sails and less length, I guess the manufacturer realises he's built a nail and has to try and market it hence the cheeky F16 label ( actually it is bit cheeky really and poor form ).
Nah I say bring these type of boats down to play, the faster we can thrash these boats on the water the sooner potential owners will see the advantages of the F16's and buy a F16 in preference. Now is definately not yet time to close ranks on other boats ( we are still just too small a fleets ) but maybe in a few years the time will be right.
As to whether you want to come and play with your Inter is simply why not, I'm sure there is space for you somewhere after all that is why the F16 rules were written in the manner they were.
Wouter,
Thank you for taking the time to post that. It certainly clarifies a number of things for me. To bring this back to where this started, my real concern is this: The Evolution is competition to the F16 class. Anyone who buys a brand new Evolution is unlikely switch to an F16 design in the short term. The wording on that importer's web page is, to my mind, misleading in that it implies that the boat can be raced in F16 when, at the moment, it can't even be raced in "Open F16" events. Such a claim is damaging to our class. There are many cat sailors out there who don't understand formula classes at all, and who will be easily confused by such claims. Also, it associates our class with heavier-than-necessary designs - removing one of our key selling points.
Now I only know 3 words of Dutch so I bow to your better knowledge on this one, but based on your translation I would suggest that a request for them to re-word that is in order.
Paul
Wouter,
I agree with Paul on this. Will you have a word with the dealer?
I understand.
The describtion is indeed open to multiple intepretations.
Let me see what I can do.
Wouter
Tiger Mike,
Sorry, I snapped at you. It is the frustration that builds up over time without any single person being fully the cause of that; so in effect I have no justification to snap at any particular person as the cause is the combined effect of many. Forgive me.
Lets see about the points you raise :
And it must be slower or equal in rating relative to the F16's as well. And it can ONLY compete in declared OPEN F16 class events. Mostly likely this will exclude important events like worlds, continentals, etc.
The grandfather clause is actually more restrictive then many understand it to be. Also it only allows design to be grandfathered that are already pretty similar to F16's in their general setups. These additional facts must be appreciated.
It must be compared to racing Nacra 5.5's with F18's at more leasurely events and not with mixing Nacra 6.0's or Tornado's with F18's at important class events. And even then only when the local class head considers such limited mixing to be in the interest of the F16 class.
See my comments above. I really don't agree with this particular statement. But more importantly I don't see the benefit to any builder putting himself outside of the F16 rules set this way. It will always result in a inferiour performing boat. This, of course, is never in any way unfair to full compliant boats. The Grandfather rules as stated make sure of that.
...
In Australia you can front up with virtually anything you like. The rules are simple - If it measures it's an F18, if it doesn't that boat can go and sail in misc cats. To my knowledge that is the same anywhere in the world for F18.
The F16 is very similar to that, with the exception that the grandfather rule allows older boats and modified boats to be part of the F16 fun, under well defined circumstances that is. Having said that full compliant F16 boats will always have the advantage in racing. So this leads to a stuation that everybody can get into the fun, even on a shoestring budget, while the racing among full compliant boats will stay fair. If such a setup is not beneficial in a local setup then the local F16 class head can decide to hold only F16 event (as in CLOSED F16 events) and then only full compliant boats can enter. Every area must make this decision on their own. In my local area the OPEN class setup is an attractive way to build the F16 class, in your area it may not be. The F16 rules allow you to choose the best setup for the local circumstances.
But I truly think that we are making to much of this flexibility that is build into the F16 class rules. What are we afraid of. A hobie 16 with spi being entered ? An Australian I-17 with spi being entered. I can assure everybody that this has already been done and the outcome wasn't at least unfavourable to us. What if a mosquito catamaran enters an Australian Open F16 event and wins. Then that skipperd would have totally killed everybody if he had been on a full compliant F16, meaning the other teams were no where deserving enough to be placed higher. Such a skipper would have overcomed a 5 to 10 % performance difference by superior sailing skill alone. Would you feel better if he had beaten all the other crews by 5 to 10 minutes to the line while sailing a full compliant boat ? What is the difference ? His sailing skills were superior in no small magnitude anyway. How does that take way sailing enjoyment or make the racing unfair ? He choose to enter with an disadvantaged design and won anyway. I say celebrate that skippers "can-do" metallity and admire his remarkable level of skill and then pick his brain for go-fast tips. All will be better for it.
I personally don't really believe in "sail my class or get out of my start fleet" mentality. I think it has done the cat sailing scene alot of damage. It has been good to the F18 class but its succes killed off so many other classes that served other needs really well. One-size doesn't fit all.
I'm very happy to see several F16's racing in my club races next year and have the F18 sailors welcome us. They see more competition on the water as a good thing and will congratulate you with a race well run. That same welcome we extend to sailor looking to get into modern racing on a small budget. And there only converting older designs is an option. Eventually they will upgrade and pass on their old design to another newbie. We are all better for it.
But if you don't want that than talk about it with your local class head or declare your event to be a (closed) F16 event. Problems solved.
Wouter
Gee!! all this discussion over what really comes down to the semantics of a single word.
I would humbly suggest that the word “Grandfathering” be changed to one of a less argumentative nature.
Perhaps to a short phrase such as, enabling conditions for non, “fully compliant F16 catamarans” to compete “head to head” with, and against fully compliant F16’s
Just a thought.