Why does Macca hate F16s?

Nobody's Viper bashing, the Viper is a great boat, that's not the issue.

And I was not serious about a Pro division, but it sure seems like the F18's racing in Europe have become just that, at least all the top spots, that's what I'm trying to avoid here.

Macca isn't trying to teach anything, but there are others who are. And I will be spending time and money learning from them.

I was surprised that the well put, logical and balanced posts by Steve and Tigermike (he must be working for hobie.. ) were simply ignored, But then I remembered that this whole thread was started to bash me, so its only fair that logical arguments are passed over in favour of Macca bashing.

Timbo.... who are these pros on free boats you keep talking about? There has only been once time, to my knowledge, that a pro has been given a boat.

But I see your point, sailing on the same course and having pros and Olympians in your class is not good for it at all. Bigger all the sponsorship and coverage that comes with it.

Hi John,

I have no expectations of the class changing the rules based on the discussion here.

This whole thread started after I defended Wouter (of all people!) regarding his reasonable expectation to have his measurement certificate completed.

Since then its been a full on bash-a-thon aimed at me and my crazy,

twisted logic

ideas that all aim to ensure longevity, commercial viability and good fair racing.

wrote: So, not sure where the 30k went....

Well you spent between 5 & 6 K on the steering.! <img src="<>/shocked.gif" alt="shocked" title="shocked" height="15" width="15" />

Brett, when it comes to changing class rules, I think the boat -owners- should be the only ones voting.

What do the rules say about who gets to vote?

That is being researched right now, to see if it is

members

or

Owners

More like $2,682 AUD. Just checked the spreadsheet <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" /> And before any smartie asks, That is for two complete rudders including stocks.

guys, all i can say is thanks for the very entertaining 2 and a half hours at work i have spent reading this thread!! hahahahahaah
havent had this much fun since i watched my boss try and climb over an electric fence into a paddock of goats, not only getting zapped but getting strung up on the barbed wire while being butted in the butt by a goat with one broken sharp horn!!!!
i do not sail F16 but previous boat was a mossie, could be F16 but now sailing a stingray. not the most technilogically adavnced boat, but value for money.
if people want to spend $15-30K on a boat good on them! it leaves those of us with not so huge budgets, to own the not as popular classes for a fraction of the cost!!!

Macca's assertion that

money

will buy a faster boat in a

formula class is completely misleading and incorrect. It doesn't matter how much carbon, Kevlar, and money you plough into a formula boat when the current boats are at the limits of the

box rule

IE they are at their minimum weight, max' sail area etc and by using any other material doesn't give any advantage, it just costs more with no returns. The only changes that can effect performance are with an

improved

hull and/or sail shape which can occur just as easily with the

lower cost

materials as with more exotic ones. So the

money buys championships" argument by Macca is just a nonsense.

Darryl, you have just made a very good case for banning the use of exotic materials.

You think they make no difference to performance? So why have them if all they do is increase costs and reduce customer base?

If there's a market for it, it will be filled. If not, then, well.....

Thats the point Darryl. None of the current boats are on minimum weight. Except for a few tiapans and the mythical Aussie blade. From what i can gather measurement certificates don't exist. And if they did no ones allowed to look at them.

If exotics give no returns then why did you build an all carbon f14?

I bet Darryl could build a f16 to weight and not too expensive either. is it a project you have considered Darryl?

We already do build a Blade to minimum weight and at the same price (retail) as quoted by Marcus. We also use a large percentage of carbon and Kevlar (one – soon to be two - with a carbon mast as well as the standard carbon rudders and centre boards - not primarily for weight saving - but for strength and longevity of the boat, in fact the material cost difference between carbon, Kevlar and “standard” fibre glass is not a great percentage of the overall costs of the boat, the main costs are in build time (labour) and Macca, to the contrary, my

argument” is solid for the allowance of the use of ANY materials that an owner desires with no detriment to the

class/formula". Why should anything be banned when it/they have no detrimental effects to the class? If you start banning simply for the sake of banning for some “airy fairy, perceived, maybe” scenario it opens the floodgates and you are treading a very slippery slope. Your “argument” is not based on any fact within the class. If and when the things that you pose should happen, surely then is the time to take the required action, to do as you say now would only damage the growth of the class and I assume that is not the reason for your posturising?

We built an all carbon F14 Aldo basically because we wanted to and we could! It also solved a

supply

problem with cost for small quantities of aluminium for beams and masts for what we originally considered an experimental design. Prior to the all carbon F14 we built a standard

one off

FRP 14' (but without spinnaker) with Aluminium beams and mast - the aluminium was the last of very old stock that we had in house. The weight difference between the carbon F14 and the FRP 14 was only14Kg's

ASSUME = butt out of U & Me.

Cat rigged blade with carbon in the foils weighed 105kgs & you will wintess this for your self at the nationals next month.

Where did that rubbish come from.? Have you asked.?

I was actually quoting figures you told me when you first recieved them. I have a good memory for this sort of stuff.

BY your argument Macca we should ban all blocks, pulleys, sheet lines and fittings that have been made after 1975 because they are all lighter, more efficient, COST more, and are predominately made from

exotic

materials, and anyone who can afford to use them will gain an advantage by spending more money?
Does this sound in any way similar to your argument?
Sometimes today’s exotic materials (which become tomorrows standards) create resistance from

traditionalists

simply through their stagnation in the past, it was only a relatively short time ago that your same views were argued vehemently between sailers who wanted to convert their classes from wood to fibreglass and those who said it would kill their classes and sailing as a whole. History tells us who was right and who was wrong with that one.

I've asked quite a bit. But for the record let's see them.

I'd like a measurement certificate please.

So the difference between the old school boat and the carbon wonder f14 is around 18%. I hope you can see the irony in your figures.

On a semi related side note...

Darryl and Marcus. I'm now working with a local (Melbourne) company who are expanding into the marine market and have a line of 100gsm Carbon uni. as cloth or pre-preg. Let me know if you're interested.

Platform stiffness???? Seems to get forgotten here very quickly.

You can build an F16 down to weight using lead, but she ain't going to be stiff.

Carbon means you can produce a stiffer platform for the weight that has been set out in the rules. Or increase the hull volume and still meet min weight.

Indeed the class is. My point is that the executive committee that leads the class should be looking at not only F16's strengths but also where threats could come from. Whilst I'm sure you don't mean it that way, there does seem to be a bit of a

head in the sand

approach to potential threats and to just dismiss them out of hand because

we're doing fine

now will be doing the class a massive dis-service.

Possibly however I do believe this thread was started by somebody else asking a specific question of him.

Tiger Mike

ps. Other than paying an extraordinary amount of money to Hobie-cat in buying my Tiger I have no connection to any manufacturer. My sailing expertise extends no more than a weekend hack that might give the good guys a run for their money if I'm having an extraordinarily good day <img src="<>/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh" height="15" width="15" />

beams still need to be bolted!! There will always be movement due to this no matter how you build the beams or from what material..

http://www.formula16.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170

tell me why did you buy a Viper? (Im not going to put down the Viper as a boat/design)

The F14 doesn't have a min weight.. (unless Im mistaken)..
The question is then would a carbon F14 with 14 kg of lead be any faster than a glass F14 or a paper F14 at the same weight.

Darryl,

Instead of hypothesizing about buying blocks made in 1975, How about we keep it simple:-

1. Does building a F16 with carbon hulls, Beams, mast, pole and boom cost more than building one out of glass and alloy?

2. Will there be any performance gain in building a F16 with carbon hulls, beams, mast etc over the glass and alloy version?