Rules changes

This is ambiguous. Suggest the following:
The boat centreplane is defined as the vertical longitudinal plane of the boat each individual hull passing through the centre point of attachment to front and rear beams. The daggger boards and rudders will be at 90 degrees to the angle of attachment to the beams, with their major axis parallel, and in line with the centerplane.

That would make the Infusion illegal. The hulls, rudders, and daggerboards are canted outward. Also, better wording would reuse definitions from ISAF's Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) because the definitions are well defined through use in many classes.

No. Actually, it was written with the Infusion and Cap in mind...re-read it, and remember that the 'angle of attachment to the beams' is canted 4 degrees on the Infusion. I own one...and, uhhh, had to make a minor repair of sorts that made me very familiar with the design specs...Long story thats all figured out now!

Provide a definition for the

angle of attachment to the beams

because it is not clear to me what that is. Are you suggesting that the attachment (beam landings?) is something separate from the rest of the hull?

Here is the AC72 rule that I like:

F18VB: Actual pictures of the Infusion, cads with angles and else were provided at working party, the AC72 rules was also analyzed.

They said it was going to be all published, but not todate.
I challenged every single option you can imagine, even an hexagonal shaped hull (cross cut) where no center plane could be defined if dagger case used canted joining two angles of the hex.

With the Inf and this came the lengh of the daggers coming outside the width limit on 260cm.
And with the others contribution they reach that wording.
Although I didn´t have the final

cut

on wording as they said it was enough with above.

I think it covers most of your points though.

I agree that the majority of the surface of an Infusion's hull is symmetrical. However, the beam landings are not symmetrical about the same plane. The rules could say that the beam landings don't need to be symmetrical. But, the rules need to define clearly what a beam landing is.

Your hexagon example isn't a problem. The hulls could be cylindrical and they would still have a plane of symmetry. A hexagon has 6planes of symmetry, a cylinder has an infinite number of plane sof symmetry. They key is that the rudders and daggerboards are on one of the planes of symmetry.

Yes , Greg put the cilindrical example too.
But a good Hex shape, was more feasible to be used.

They said that the Infusion hull is

stepped

on the beam attachments and the rest is symmetrical, thus the symmetry below the waterline wording. Although I didn´t want to limit hulls to symmetric shapes only.

The Hex example was to provide a loopwhole for the hull/daggercase vertical plane.(previous wording)

I missed the waterline statement. That is a good start.

But, now we need a definition of the measurement trim for determining the waterline because waterline is a defined term in the ERS. Should the sails be on the boat? If so, where should they be? Should the mast be on the boat? If so, how much rake should it have? Since it flies a hull most of the time, should it be measured in hull flying position?

This needs to be a very exact measurement because the hulls are not very wide or deep. An error of 1 cm could probably allow the foils to be canted 20 degrees. The symmetry rule needs to have tolerances defined.

If a hull is canted, the waterline is not perpendicular to the the hull's plane of symmetry. So, does that mean that the side of the hull that is deeper in the water (inside of an infusion hull) can be symmetrical with part of the hull above the waterline?

Do we really want builders to be able to do whatever they want above the waterline? What if the port and starboard hull shells nearly came together in the middle? I have wanted to do this on my boat to make an aerodynamic fairing for the beams. But, the rules were not clear if this would be allowed. If we allow asymmetry above the waterline, this would clearly be allowed.

I'd also like to point out that this is a fundamental rule change. Boats never used to need to be symmetrical below the waterline. If we want to change the rule, we should do some with a great deal of contemplation or not do it at all.

The

Waterline

was added at the end, no further discussions were made on that, it was just added.

They said no assymetric hull existed todate, so no issue was devised.

Someone from outside the WC/TC recommended to keep the rules (all) simple, and I think it is key, as you close the doors with x wording and a

waterline

opened a new can of worms for ie.

Simple as a concept of course, as the previous daggercase rules was 'simple' or short but not a defining rule with plenty of room to play with, even curved boards were allowed in my view.

Why not state that the beams must be straight and the dagger boards and rudders must run at 90 degrees to the beam??

Then lock in underwater symmetry of the hulls along those reference points.

Without giving it much thought -

Vertical plane shall be defined as the z axis of the boat parallel to the direction of the mast (insert diagram here).

Not that hard I would have thought - or am I missing something?

Michael

Beams 90°: That is what I proposed exactly and was used.
The Mast was proposed but as it may vary its angle due to shroud lenght trimming etc, was not used beside it is down at measurement.

It was a good working party.

You are missing that the Infusion (and the Cap, I think) would be non-compliant, as the hulls are canted.

Go back to my original. It works for all the boats, whereas the ERS ISAF description is innappropriate for a catamaran of two individual hulls (that may or may not be canted).

Flashy geometry language could be substituted for the part in question, (i.e. 'daggger boards and rudders will be at 90 degrees to the angle of attachment to the beams') could become ''daggger boards and rudders and the center plane shall be orthogonal (90 degrees) to the beam seating angle of the individual hulls' but my opinion is that simple language has advantages to acceptance and recall of rules, (vs jargon which is sometimes unintelligible).

Oh, and skip water line discussions. While there may be design specifications, actual water lines are unknown until a boat is floating. IMHO a waterline is an arbitrary, and empirical specification, and therefore a non-starter from a rules standpoint.

Could we say the dagger boards and rudders will be Parallel?

Parallel is good. But, in the same plane is more restrictive. Otherwise they could be offset from the

centerline.

+1.

This is the easiest to check. However, needs to enable some tolerance.

who needs a hug now?

Franck, It appears that you can't protest any painted boat in Carnac. The votes are in and Painted surfaces have been approved for all F18's including new builds.

The vote for 2 cloth mainsails was very close but the conservatives from FRA, and ITA had too much weight in the vote numbers and for now it is not possible to have 2 cloth mainsails, But that can be rectified in September at the Worlds meeting

My dear Andrew,

Obviously, one more time, you do not understand how it works. Or you do not have the right facts, anyway just ask before misinformed other sailors ( I recommand to every F18 sailors to ask their national association it is more serious) <img src="<>/cool.gif" alt="cool" title="cool" height="15" width="15" />

Your mind is so confused (wishfull thinking is not enough) and may be you should make difference between two words: a wish and a rule.

Just try to read this:

A.7.2 Amendments shall be placed on one year's notice unless it is considered essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize an undesirable feature.

For Carnac, do not be afraid anymore I won't protest (as I write before). No time to waste, I'll be there to enjoy sailing and have some beer time with my friends. May be other factory people will go on your protest challenge, but it is your job your paid for. So sorry if you loose your beer time in protest room <img src="<>/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin" height="15" width="15" />

More seriously as I explained here (everybody can read my numerous previous posts), class rules clarification and interpretation were necessary in order to go on derogation and/or grandfathering, or changing the rule.

There are 280 French F18 sailors in 2011, there were only 97 in 2006 when I was elected the first time in the french board association. I wish such a number of F18 sailors in all countries. I they are conservatives or not, really I do not care.

PS: I won't be able to have time to try to explain you again if you answer. That I don't doubt, it is your business, you're paid for, I hope it is a lot in order to accept to embarrassed yourself as on SA, very funny indeed and you were alone there.

I won't answer anymore, because we're now in sailing period and I'm training my club youth team: it is my passion. I'm not paid for that :), as to write (badly) here, so everybody can understand I prefer be on the water..

Yes Franck, you lost your fight.

Paint was always approved for use and now it has been clarified by a vote of all NCA's that they confirm paint for newly built boats.

I know you and your mates are pissed that you lost, but at least you could do it with dignity.

Andrew, as everyone can read in previous post (or SA forum), paint is your personnal and business fight.
Please be more adult and try to forget loose/win and consider F18 rules and its global interest (which is wider than the very respectable interest of the company you're working for).

Olivier Bovyn, F18 world chairman want to go out from a poor looser/winner confrontation you seem to like.
As everyone noticed, TC advices for and against painting, WC last december clarification vote and ISAF interpretation drop paint finishing out two month ago.
That was, one more time, a mandatory path to go further: derogation as for ShockWave, grandfathering or changing the rule. That may arrive now.

This clear position (paint, except for real maintenance, is not F18 class legal) create an opposition.
You may understand that each action spliting the F18 community is against your own F18 business.

So, in order to get a peaceful consensus, as everyone can find on the f18.org Olivier Bovyn asked the national association what they do wish on several items including paint issue including grandfathering/derogation and changing this (now) clear rule.

You claim to have the results of this poll. Great !

Everybody can notice that I point out the rule changing process, month ago.

In the case that you do not forget some details (that I and everybody can doubt), to change the class rules there is , as everyone can check, a clear process.

Please have the dignity to respect it, and by the way respect the F18 community.
Because the rule changing process involved F18 members. In France at least that is our way and we propose in general meeting the change.

So, to go from a wish (Olivier Bovyn words:

do you wish...

) to a rule change, you need first a proposal, which have to be voted then by the world council.
Till now, there is no clear and official proposal (you may have any other sensationnal informations to spread ?)

And then may be you should also consider ISAF regulation which do not accept paint/finishing that (pretend to is enough for ISAF, I guess) improve performance.
By the way you're sure that you do not use one of those in your product (just kiddin' ) ?

Then consider F18 class rules (I know it is borrying):

A.7.2 Amendments shall be placed on one year's notice unless it is considered essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize an undesirable feature.

So if the proposal (that may not exist for the moment 😉 for class rules amendment is voted (that is never 100% sure 😉 asap in september 2012 next WC meeting, the rules change will be available on year later, very effective in 2014.

Please do remenber here I just try to explain f18 rules and some facts (please pardon my poor globish), that is my only purpose.

And it is not a fight for me. I do no play anything here so I cannot win nor loose anything.

I'm so sorry I can't continue this interesting exchange for the moment: two weeks of sailing will take my time. Not less than 142 F18 sailors in Carnac 10 days before the Eurocat is more important for F18 that some paint on the hull.

Err, didn't you say that you weren't going to reply here anymore??

Anyhow, here are the vote results related to paint:-

Do we wish to change in the future the rules regarding hull exterior finish?
vote result :
YES : 947
NO : 0

If Yes, do we wish to allow “painted hulls” as the external finish?
vote result :
YES : 708
NO : 561

If Yes, do we wish to have a restricted paint list ?
vote result :
YES : 190
NO : 499

What is pretty funny about the above is that despite the NCA's clearly voting that they did not want a restricted paint list, the Class management have taken it upon themselves to compile a list of all paints used by builders so they can formulate an approved paint list!!

What you write deserved some corrections and complementary information, not specially for you but for F18 readers/sailors.

Be happy, we're going in 15 minutes... I understand very well that you prefer have no contradiction.

The result you have, if they're correct, show that you were wrong (on more time) considering WC attitude.

Just respect the rules and the people and you can move with the community.

Now we're waiting for the proposal... may be you'll have it before the WC members.
Showing all this data is very strange and significate there is two kinds of F18 members.

PS: 142 F18 sailors for the Eurocat, one more time it is more important for me that your marketing/technical indeed poor fight, as you see there is consensus to change the rule after it has been clarified. No need to be very clever to get that point.

http://www.yccarnac.com/uploads/htm... cat%202012/R_EUROCAT_INSCRIPTION_INS.HTM

Franck,

Once again, I am seriously struggling to understand what you are on about.

The votes clearly show that the NCA's approve of paint, and that they do not wish to have a restricted paint list.

If you would like to point out any corrections with the voting results I am more than happy for you to do so. But I doubt if you will make any comment on them because you know they are correct. You have received the results just as all NCA's have. So if any members of the class would like to know the results in full they can ask their NCA representative and I am sure they will pass on the info.

....I'm getting a better idea why the rules committee comes out with indecisive rules that read like they were composed by people that don't speak English...

I may be incorrect because of a language gap but it sounds like Franck is saying that the NCA's vote does NOT automatically make paint legal. Further, I intrepret Franck's response is that paint has been deemed illegal and until there is a formal petition/proposal that includes an extended waiting/phase-in time if approved, paint continues to be illegal.

Kris
....considering an F18

Kris - The f18 is a great platform and the class is really doing great things here in the states. Do not let the pissing match between these two tools affect your decision.

I agree. Trying to figure a way to at least visit the F18 Worlds in Cali.

Step 1: Buy my boat (see classifieds)
Step 2: Go!

Kris,

I know of at least one East Coast F18 that is looking for a crew for worlds. He has a 2011 C2. Let me know if you are interested and I can get you in touch.

-Jeff