Minimum crew weight

that is what sailing is about. fun. it does not mater if you win every time as long as you sail your best. and have fun.

make the rules fair to every one. most of the crew marc knows are pushing 200 lbs. but you do not here him calling for this foolish weight.

get your act together or pack it in.

MHB

If you have read all the posts on this forum you can see that the majority have decided to find a niche above the working weight zones of the F18 class so that:

A. we are not competing directly with another class (a revamp of the hobie/Nacra marketing plan that has just about killed the sport)

B. Open up a class where it is easier for sailors of all type to find a boat/fleet/area that they are comfortable in competing in. IE small guys in the F18 where they can control it, larger guys in the NAF 20 where the have the power to compete in lighter air.

Also, the object is to work WITH other classes in order to bring NEW sailors to the SPORT instead or churning the pot of the existing catsailors and competing for this ever DECREASING pool of sailors.

Please, think about this and I think you'll agree that it is best for all.

Steve

Well,,, I was enthusiastic about the F20 concept initially,, but the focus on high crew weight requirements has damped that down for sure. I am not sure that that higher than class weights are needed to control a 20 footer properly (as some have suggested). Many years of winning more than our share would back that up. I find what makes the biggest difference between our team and some others,, is that we sail 4 times as much,, or more.

When I think about how the dozen or so F20 candidate boats in our area might be affected by the currently proposed limits,,, (now that we have eliminated the lightwieghts,, the wide beams, and the H20's), It occurs to me that we have probably also quashed any interest in the concept, as far as our area is concerned.

So I would wish you luck with your efforts, and look forward to racing against the F20's, on handicap (that is inevitable, on the local scene). I still plan to cut my F20 jib, as I think it will be an enhancement to the M6 design. After all , a new jib is somewhat cheaper than an F-18 !!

One final suggestion:

On the question of crew weights,, consider an F18 style approach, ie: if min. crew weight is 330, then require competators to add correctors equal to half the difference between thier weight and 330. And restrict the spin size to 270 max.

Keep at least one hull in the air !!!

Alan Maguire

Hi Marc

For years and years, the builders and classes have set minimum weights in the 300 lb range. They simply tried to grab racers from other classes who wanted more performance or competition and hoped to get them onto their boat and create a dominate one design class. The end result was lots of small classes or regional classes.

For 2002, growth will be in spinaker equiped boats. The question is how do you organize them. If you use the old model of let the marketplace and fleet structure rule you will get the same result.... lots of small fragmented regional classes.

We should market a vision for growth to the existing core of cat racers AND to mono hull racers who might look into racing a catamaran.

F16 HP a spin equiped boat for small teams 330 lbs and under who might also want to race solo on occasion. Will compete boat for boat with F18 's Several import builders have bought into this rule by making minor modifications to their boat.

NA F18 with an optimium crew weight of 330+ lbs. this boat has at least three NA builders plus any european imports to choose from. The flexible sail plan EXTENDS the competitive weight range from 250 to 350 lbs. There is no 2 man one design class out there that can match this range. The sheet loads are quite moderate compared to Inter 20's or Tornado's The boat should appeal to the average couple team and others. (It is by design a heavy boat relative to the High performance boats)

the naF20 class is, by design, way overpowered. The optimium weight for the US I20 boat seems to be about 350 lbs. The Hobie fox minium was initially set around 350 (if memory is correct) We should set this minimum... allow teams to add weight to meet the minimum if that is what they want OR... suggest that an F18 is really their boat of choice.

Yes... we are trying to push sailors into weight appropriate classes by setting minimum weights. We should not try to have boat builders and one design classes compete for the same pool of racers. We have tried this in the past and it proves to be a zero sum game or worse. Will the 20 fleet be larger then the 18 fleet? Don't really know.

The key to success will be getting appropriate levels of competition in each class. The size of the class is irrelevent so long as in aggregate more people are sailing in each of the three classes and each class is healthy. If you pit the f18 and the f20 classes against one another for membership I think you will spiral downwards once again. You seem to argue that the f20 class will be decimated if the weight is increased...I would argue that I already know of several teams who are moving down to f18 so they can compete at an appropriae weight/strength level. It will happen... We should look at the big picture and work towards a comprehensive solution.

btw I sail a Tornado... I don't think that you can argue that the Tornado has ever been the dominant class in the US. It has succeded because it offers the best competition in the world. It maintains that niche because of its Olympic status. Weight is a HUGE issue for the class... EVERYTHING but the sailors are weighed and documented. Crew weight at the world level seemed to be 320 to 330 You know this coming into the class. They tell you the lightest teams are 280 and the heaviest are 340. Setting a minimum weight of 280 or 350 would be silly the boat is not overpowered. There is ONLY one builder of Tornado's now, the class is essentially one design, I agree with you about the class rules. I do think formula rules try to keep inovation in the class much like the tornado rules do.

Take Care

Mark Schneider

MHB

If you have read all the posts on this forum you can see that the majority have decided to find a niche above the working weight zones of the F18 class so that:

majority ?? Sorry I don't see this.

There are but a few of us participating on the F20 Forum. I have yet to find someone in my area with a 20 footer who thinks a 350 pound minimum weight rule is anywhere near reasonnable for a 20 foot class.

A. we are not competing directly with another class (a revamp of the hobie/Nacra marketing plan that has just about killed the sport)

** What kind of argument is this ? From what I see, people who want to sail a 20 footer do so for no other reason than that's what they want. What has killed the sport is the high prices involved with sailing. It was tough enough for some thinking they would have to buy an extra jib for there Mystere/Nacra 6.0, Hobie 20 and so on, and now you're telling them they have to buy a new boat(18).

B. Open up a class where it is easier for sailors of all type to find a boat/fleet/area that they are comfortable in competing in. IE small guys in the F18 where they can control it, larger guys in the NAF 20 where the have the power to compete in lighter air.

** I guess Randy has difficulty controling a 20 footer. Maybe that's why he is so often ahead, he simply looses control and the boat just takes off on him (in the right direction). Oh, and he's not the only lightweight hot shot cat sailor on a 20 footer.

Also, the object is to work WITH other classes in order to bring NEW sailors to the SPORT instead or churning the pot of the existing catsailors and competing for this ever DECREASING pool of sailors.

** How is setting a high minimum crew weight

working WITH other classes

. So often you will see the same crew competing(sometimes winning) in one Nationnal event only to turn around and do it in another class in the same year.

Please, think about this and I think you'll agree that it is best for all.

** Have you thought about it ??

What are you trying to creat

e ? Do you really think that other 20 footers will have any interest in joining such a class when they don't come anywhere near what you suggest.

What if the class rules went the other way and decided that the minimum boat weight should be 440 pounds(more like many 20 footers) wich is very much in line with the arguments you have given regarding crew weight. Would you be interested in adding 40 pounds to your boat to meet minimum ?

What is wrong with a weight to sail area ratio ? Are you afraid of fair racing for all ?

marc

Hi Alan

Do you have any thoughts about how to keep the wide beam boats in the class. The physics just seems to work against us.

Do you really have any H20 sailors who want to put a chute on their boat for triangle racing? In our area, the one fellow who did add a chute... wound up moving to an I20 a year later. I just did not see a lot of interest there. (Distance racing is a different story) What would a grandfather wavier be to get the boat up to a texel 95 rating.

Perhaps, the f20 rule should consider grandfathering in older and heavier designs using a combined boat weight /sail area ratio as Carl proposed but ONLY for the purposes of grandfathering existing designs.

I agree with your proposal of using the F18 corrector weight system.

The local fleet scene so far is

Chesapeake / Div 11 area

4 or 5 H20's

4 Tornado's

6 I20's

1 N6.0NA no chute.

2 P19 MX's

New England

4 I20's

20 N6.0's No chutes for triangles

Obviously, a formula class will not happen overnight so we will be racing portsmouth while we get to a formula class over time.

Hi Marc Steve -Allan -thanks ,-we need input from all and to gather all available information to make good decisions. -

-The only solution to min. weight that all have agreed on and is totally FAIR in all regards is a total boat AND crew weight rule ,---Steve Marc and Allan have mentioned this solution and no one can establish a factual scenario when this would not be fair to all racing sailors .

-It requires added rules and statement of weights labeled on each boat ,builders can publish boat weights and crews can verify this and be responcible for their own weights , mfg and sailmakers can label sail areas clearly on all sails next to their logo at the tack , - this is the correct solution.

-In the previous post , commented and tryed to illustrate how any Formula class is delopemental to some extent . -

-It is to what extent we are trying to define now, and also understanding the degree of developement rules are required to solve the problems defined.

Existing Formula classes have the basic concepts correct but have only taken a small step to solve proplems of racing cat sailors .

-problem defined -= existing are seperate one design classes which we listed with specifications for each ,that lead to dead boat classes within a number of years continue to become more diverse and spread out in increasing number with new boats and mfg , If all cat sailors could attend regattas and distance races show up and be assured that they would compete in a large fleet of equal performance boats where the first across the line wins is the ideal .-The prospect of not being locked in to one Mfg. and being allowed to purchase sails and modify your boat to suit your own preferances and sailing style up to this class standard or top rating number ,also has great appeal .Open racing in the U S based on averaged times of boat brand finishes does not have this appeal ,with boats all over the course and no one knowing or really understanding who won until hours latter.

-Another problem already surfacing for the new F-18 Class is the also new F-18 high performance class boats weighing some 100 LBs less . A split proposed already before they begin due to the desire for stricter one design type racing , but allowing some developement in hull shapes , boards and rudders and sail plan and mast to a lesser degree than evan the Euro F-18 classes. --The new 16 H P Class has the same problem in reverse , excluding older 16s from competing equally , but fortunately having an existing base of excellent lightweight cat designs in existance to choose from . It will be the excellence of these designs and their builders that allow this class to become successfull .

-Back to the crew weight solution ,-and how to propose a broader 20 class rule that will include existing boats and allow new H P lighterweight boats to compete equally and fairly as one F-20 class.

-It is in a larger sence first having the U S adopt ISAF -or Texel -design measurement ratings for use . Once it is generally understood how designs are rated it becomes easier to allow modification to existing boats and for future designers and mfgs . to target a Max,performance within 20 ft -8.5 beam class structure.

-We have length and beam established for us by other existing accepted class lengths of 16 and 18 ft, -and trailering restrictions of 8.5 ft.

This leaves weight and sail area as variables.

-Ideally we would provide a range of weighs and sail areas in total . --example --A 350 crew on a 350 Lb boat =700 LB total --racing a 300 LB crew on a 400LB boat =700LB -

both cats having equal rated sail area , placed on any 20 platform .-The complexity enters through the variety of boat weights and crew weights in combination .

Proposed a list of boat weights to sail areas based on existing 20 ft specifications which needs to be refined to fall within ISAF equal ratings and we need to factor in crew weights to the scale . -Will try to propose a scale that falls within ISAF ratings, though as explained some class definition is also required. Would really appreciate some constructive help in formulating this proposed solution.

Adopting this type of much broader developement rule is the only long term solution . It requires new understanding of design , a new rating system for the U S , and a desire for sailors and builders to work together towards this goal.

Hi Mark,,

Yes,,, we had (3) H-20's add spinnakers to thier boats this last year. The wanted them for both distance racing and they used them in open class racing. Of course they still have the option to leave the chute off and race one-design or as an standard H20 in open fleet whenever they want.

Keep at least one hull in the air !!!

Alan Maguire

Dear all,

I feel that mark and Steve have said it perfectly and

we

as one of those named classes will work together with you in a setup like that. This was also our intend from the beginning which one of the first texts put out by the group shows.

It deals with the concepts of equal performance classes and it also described as the formula of formula's.It will stimulate proper development of a related formula class BUT still allow BLUE SKY development (Carl?) :

Please take the time to read it it can alsobe found at link(scrolldown halve a page):

http://www.geocities.com/F16HPclass/F16HP_general_intro.html

---Our view on a Formula based catamaran class ---

We feel that the biggest danger to the Formula scene right now is for the manufacturers and unsatisfied sailors start creating more and more different formula classes eventually recreating the current problem of many small incompatible catamaran classes condemned to handicap racing. Several examples of this can be named, a few brands have already launched their own particular implementation of a so called

F16 boat

even though there has been no F16 framework or association yet. The result is that several designs have been offered with big differences in important performance determining parameters. For example, a weight difference of no less than 55 kilograms between two so called

F16

designs built by two well known manufacturers of beach catamarans.

We feel that the biggest benefit of a formula class based race scene is to have a limited amount of large fleets of independent but still equally performing designs with a high standard of racing. Therefore the following paragraph explains our views on formula racing as a whole. The F16 HP class will fully comply with the (Equal Performance classes) principle described there

---The concept of equal performance classes ----

The formula concept has already done alot for small catamaran sailing in the EU and is expected to do alot more for it in the future. However the need for a higher and governing formula for formula classes arises, meaning that the relationship between formula classes should be regulated too. The penalty for not achieving this is uncontrolled creation of unrelated formula classes and eventually ending up with the problems of the old, diluted, catamaran scene but with new class names. The following proposed concept is completely adopted by the new F16HP framework, and is even one of its design goals. It is also viewed as the methode of grandfathering in the old, non formula, catamaran designs into the formula scene (and F16HP) thus maintaining the low budget entry in to catamaran sailing for beginners. The last is of paramount importance for maintaining a thriving catamaran scene, even more so now that new designs are getting more and more expensive.

The proposed formula for formulas should fix a small number of

main performance classes

to which individual formula classes should be assigned. This way, we can have unlimited formula classes and still race together more fairly and

one-design like

in a few main performance classes (meaning fleets). In each of these classes a head formula is appointed and to the actual performance of this formula shall the other classes inside the same performance class be made equal. The last is done by specifying the individual Formula rules in such a way that the framework is forcing the general design into the same (or similar) performance. Old designs are grandfathered in by making small modifications so their performance falls into their nearest performance class. The catamaran design incorporates a few factors that can be used as equalizers; to name but three, Jib size, genaker size and boat width. Notice that the impact of these is nearly independend of eachother. Therefor they are well suited to boost the performance of a particular design on a particular course. For more in dept analysis of the concepts behind this claim go to the main F16HP page and view the mathematical performance comparison pages; the links are given at the top of the page.

The

Formula of formulas

may well look like this :

* Performance class 1 (might well be made equal to Hobie 16 performance)

F16 = head class inside PC 1 (F16 does not exist yet)

Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the F16 boats.

* Performance class 2

F18 = head class inside PC 2 (does exist and is very succesful)

F16 HP (is being formed right now)

Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the F18 boats

* Performance class 3

iF 20 = head class inside PC 3 (does exist and is growing)

F18 HT (It is hoped that the founders of this class will follow suit)

Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the iF 20 boats

These three formula's shall coexist with the three main international classes that allready exist and thrive:

* A-cat class

* Tornado (International and/or Olympic)

* True one-design Hobie 16

This way we arrive at a 6 fleets catamaran scene spanning 95 % of the international catsailing community. This will mean that tens of boats of different designs and different manufacturers can be raced fairly in a regatta which only runs 6, well filled, fleets. And all boats will race like they were a one-design class in their equal performance fleet. There will ofcourse also be a true open class without any rules and were the big bucks boys can play, but this is not taken up in this proposed concept for these boys will regulated this scene themselfs.

It would be very smart to define the actual performance of

Performance Class 1

to be equal to the Hobie 16 (with genaker) and make that boat the head class of

Performance Class 1

. PC 3 will be very near to the performance of the Int. Tornado or even equal to this. Races with the predecessor of the Int. Tornado, the tornado sport, have indicated this. The regatta fleets can now be descreased from 6 fleets and 6 starts to 4 fleets with 4 starts. The F18HT is put here in the class of PC 3, but at this time it is unknown wether this class is actually comparable to PC 3 head class iF20. We call upon the founders of this class to contemplate this setup and modifying their formula framework accordingly.

For the equaling of individual classes a measurement system can be used. The obvious choices are ISAF small catamaran and Texel rating systems. Preliminary studies have indicated that inequalities inside these systems and with respected to yardstick systems can be increasingly decreased in size or even be totally cancelled out by prescribing a few simple requirements. Implementing these in various cat designs will disproportionally decrease handicap offsets with respect to true performance when handicap numbers are put closer together. Actually equalling handicap numbers is an extreme case in this respect and then the offsets are expected to be very much less than offsets due to the normal variation of sailing skill, even those of active racers, and things like

sailing in dirty air

. The closer the handicap numbers (and the underlying actual performance) are to eachother, the more One-design like the racing will become. When these numbers are actually equal than the fleet is approximating One-design racing as much as can be done without actually sailing in a one design class.

It must be extra underlined that this formula concept is in no way undermining the true One-design racing scene. Actually, Formula and One-design races are often conducted in one fleet and start together. The individual boats are then named on different finishing lists, that's all. Sometimes individual boats are racing in two classes at the same time. For example : a Hobie tiger can simultaniously race in the F18 and the Hobie Tiger class at regatta's such as Round Texel

written by Formula 16 HP class group

>>>Will try to propose a scale that falls within ISAF ratings, though as explained some class definition is also required. Would really appreciate some constructive help in formulating this proposed solution.

I can help in this, but you need to ask me.

Wouter

Thanks ,-did actually ask in a previous post if you would run the numbers ,-the reply was a long disertation on 16 performance ,some 16 testamonials, and stats on 16 prismatic drag ,--understandabley would like to avoid that again . -John P ran some which is greatly appreciated .I will get up to speed on these I,m not a naval architect just an active racer.

-Applying terms to proposed solutions like {blue sky } ---hmmm -lets just say again they are not accurate , -

much like several aspects of 16 class rules in attempting to really address this problem and goal of including all cat designs within a particular length catagory within a F-Class rules structure , which as noted would encourage over time all to place within these respective length catagories.

-.Wishing this to occur does not provide a realistic or clear means for it to do so . -Establishing a clear formula or ratio allows an accurate means and a defined systematic path for this evolution to occur.

One proposes a defined solution that requires refinement -

Another labels it bluesky then wishes it to occur in absence of proposing any real solution other than open rating and grandfathering ,-unscientifically at their discression.--

not a real solution.

--The 16 class has a great basis of excellent designs that exist . -

My only comment as the 16 class formed was that it may be overly rigidly defined and structured. Already proving to be true.

-You now already have new designs proposed outside the scope of the 16 class . -Existing heavier designs can not compete equally .

The only apparatus within the 16 class rules to address this is to use the term {grandfathering } -then stating Texel numbers are close enough so sailing skill can overcome the differences in design , - and they can adjust jib and spin size.

-Why not clearly define these , and at the same time correct the crew weight equalization problem ,--Not by listing extensive corrector weights, sail areas of jib and spin sizes , but by a comprensive total equal list of sail area to weight in an equal ratio scale . -Isn't this the reason we have design measurement .Lets use it to it.s full benifit in forming these classes so ALL designs can race equally , not just High Performance or regular catsdesigns . -

Carl

Hi Carl..

I understand the formula rule Plus grandfathering system that F16 is using. I understand why NA rejected this scheme for older boats in the US.. (cause they were not gonna measure boats).

I don't really follow what you mean with this idea.

Carl Wrote:

-Why not clearly define these , and at the same time correct the crew weight equalization problem ,--Not by listing extensive corrector weights, sail areas of jib and spin sizes , but by a comprensive total equal list of sail area to weight in an equal ratio scale . -Isn't this the reason we have design measurement .Lets use it to it.s full benifit in forming these classes so ALL designs can race equally , not just High Performance or regular catsdesigns . -

This is just not clear to me what you intend.

Thanks

mark

Hi Mark -

Always enjoy the negative reflective arguements we seem to have with P vs ISAF etc ,--you have better debating and writting skills ,-but will try again , debate forces one to clearify their thoughts ,

Hope you understand WHY I believe the U S should change to ISAF or TEXEL and use a beafort scale and then use porthmouth as a correction factor percentage ,--Believe we wilL see this ,---EVENTUALLY .

Refer back to the other post --min weight and spin . -

Believe you recognized the need for an added weight catagory to include older heavier existing designs that we listed with their specifications previously ,---Our class goal is to include ,--and provide FAIR sailing .

-If you can comprehend the need for an added weight and sail ar. catagory for exs. heavier cat designs than the prop/ 388 Inter 20 base class , then expand the thinking to include new high performance --H P designs as well . -

Again -we have L and B defined , that leaves sail ar to weight in an accurate ratio applied to all designs including factoring in crew weight.

A total boat and crew weight rule .-FAIR for all ,-

-

Sailors will have to determine crew weight in selecting their boat and sails ,-builders may have to provide basic platforms moreso , with sail options ,but this predetermining choice allows all boats to race equally and factors in crew weight equally within the formula .

Again so ideally if both cat designs have the same sail area - they weight in total boat and crew the same . -Otherwise the lighter gives up sail area , it is your choise, some heavy crew teams may actually have a total lighter weight than crews 50 LBs lighter , if they have a 60 LB lighter design , but coresponding sail area trade offs. -

-Now ask how exactly to propose this rule and market the ideas so all can readily comprehend them ,--

-hope to have some constructive help .

Carl

Carl

Sorry Mark,,,,

I gapped 2 other H20's in our locallity, that have spin's as well. That makes a total of 5,,, and they all participate in bouy racing.

Keep at least one hull in the air !!!

Alan Maguire

STEP BY STEP-

We have based the class largely on I-20 specs as a base,

-380 min.boat wgt,-208 main 53 jib 270 spin ,-+crew

ISAF RATING =

-We require a higher weight and sail catagory to include existing iF 20S like the Fox and all existing boats with specifications to a min.410 boat weight and above.

The sail area ,main ,jib and spin to rate equally to ISAF and Texel ratings per weight with the existing Inter 20 -

-We now have 2 catagories of wgt to sail area that include the Inter 20 and existing designs plus iF 20S,

propose a 3rd catagory to allow boat weights from existing 410 to 380 and now to 350 with sail area that rates equal to the Inter 20 in ISAF and Texel ratings .

-Also a 4th catagory for HP 20 designs down to a boat weight of 320Lbs --30 LB increments.

this also of course has a proportionately smaller sailplan in accordance with weight to equal the Inter 20 rating according to ISAF and Texel ratings .

-Adding crew weight to this 4 catagory formula may require sub catagories or 10 even increment catagories of 10 LBs each , dependant on how much weight should be allowed between catagories to provide FAIR sailing . -

--All boat and crew weights in total match sail areas to an equal rating .

The lightest catagory can set min crew weight for that catagory only at a higher percentage of total eliminating the perceived lightweight advantage . This allows all a choise of boat sail and a total weight rule , fair to all.

-can I get some help with this -

thanks

Carl

Hi Alan, Marc and others, I sail a hobie 20 and I weigh 195lbs. I beleive that the minimum weight of 350lbs is too heavy for formula 20 racing and should be down to 330lbs. I usually race at a weight between 330 and 360lbs. I also beleive that weight, light or heavy becomes a slight factor when sailing in different wind strengths but not enough to determine the outcome of a regatta. In the end, heavy or light the sailors who sail well will do well. I also think that choosing formula 18 or 20 may have a slight factor when considering weight but more of a factor when it comes to boat handling ability in heavy air. I am also thinking of adding a spin to my hobie 20, which would make a total of 5 hobie 20's with spin in our fleet, which will be good for open class racing. Sail Fast and Live Slow. Marvin. Hobie 20 #337

Marvin, MHB, et al

The point that you all sail H20's is not lost on me as I too sail an H20. However, I endorse the 350lbs rule due to the fact that it levels ALL teams to that minimum. Marvin if you weigh 330-360 when you race on occasion you would have to add ballast to the boat to meet minimum. Is that fair? well, yess due to the fact that it closes the gap between ALL boats on the water. The weight range would in theory be between 350-390 or 40 lbs. At the last 20 continentals the weight was from 295-398 or 103 lbs. It is this difference that the F20 class is trying to close so that we can truly race

heads up

on different boat designs, with varying different sail plan layouts, and different venues. The thoughts are to make the rules inclusive for the

grandfather

boats (H20, P19, N6.0, I20 and the Fox --YES even the I20 and the FOX). The rules are trying to look forward to see what can be done in the future. THe only way to form a class that will revive the sport is the make it forward thinking enough to include new sailors, philosophies, future boat, designs and to create a

fair

venue. Will all the

grandfather boats

be fair everyday? No. simply by the fact that they are so fractionalized in designs and what they where

perfected

for. But, they will be equal everyday and each crew will have to find out what works for them in each race at every regatta.

What comes down the road over the next 10 years hopefully will be exciting and just like the A class have several quality boats on which on any day any sailor can be the fastest just by their own skill. We are trying to take the checkbook out of racing and make it more of a skill event. It may not look like it right now. But, if you look over all the data -- it becomes real clear, real fast that these proposals are good for the sport and each of us in the short and long of it.

Thanks

Steve

Sorry Steve but Marvin is the only one who owns a Hobie 20 here.

Al has a Mystere 6.0 and I have been sailing a SC20 but will have a Beaum F20 soon(providing no one screws up the rules).

I also sail an H20. I have sailed an I20 on occation and really like the boat. I believe it is a two man boat as demonstrated by the Alter cup with only two guy girl teams out of 20. These two teams did not place very well despite being very good sailors. How many guys do you know you weigh under 175. Not many I bet. Now 175+175=350. I believe the others are right in that smaller crew weights should look to the F18. If they want to race F20 they are welcome to add the weight of course. This seems like a fair deal to me.

Mike Hill

H20 #791

Thanks for the endorsement Mike its good to hear a fellow H20 sailor chime in that the weight under 350 is too low.

Steve

-Hi guys

I,m still open , but would ask for complete logical answers to the following questions as they apply to the class goal of EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,--

-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .

-2- We have existing boat weights ranging 30 40 50 LBs and potentially more , -are you saying 50 LB boat weight differences are ignored under your proposal ,---

-How are boat weight equalized ?

-Why elimate new lighterweight HP designs from the class ?

4-If a total weight is applied how do you provide FAIR sailing through this boat weight and crew weight range , -A 400 LB team on the heaviest boat would be more than 100 total LBs heavier with the same sail area in accordance to your proposal , --How can this possibley be marketed ,-accepted or in any regard construed as FAIR ,

5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -

how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }

Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?

-

-If you can answer these logically and completely as applied to FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,-then please propose this rule in its entirety for review -

thanks -

>>I,m still open , but would ask for complete logical answers to the following questions as they apply to the class goal of EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,--

Okay

-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .

With a 300 lbs minimum the 400 lbs crew would be at a 100 lbs disadvantage. And no, I haven't overlooked your combined crew + craft weight proposal that NO other formula class has except ... well .. lets call it the smallest formula in existance. That proposal doesn't really work for you don't have any lightweight designs that would make a 400 pound crew equal in combined weight to a 300 pound crew. Not are builders likely to make those.

5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -

how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }

The answer is simple to this. Because these groups are not serviced by a 20 footer. I would like to see you put two youths on I-20, after the first gust you can be assured that they will never set a foot on a catamaran again. Same goes for women.

And honestly why are you shooting among another class's pigeons ? The F18 and that other class are happy to let you have the upper spectrum of the weight range, now in return leave them the mid and lower weights or you're heading for a conflict that will hurt us all.

>>Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?

Same question worded twice.

Because they are not your target group. And let the F18 and other classes have their piece of spectrum.

-If you can answer these logically and completely as applied to FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,-then please propose this rule in its entirety for review -

thanks -

You're welcome

Wouter

The spin sheet of a 24 or 25 square meter chute in a breeze is substantial.

Setting aside the crew weight issues or boat weight/sailarea calculation solutions for a moment.

How many teams on the I20 are/were competiive with women crew last season?

How many Tornado teams are competitive with women crew now?

Not many... I doubt that its over 20%of the I20 fleet and I can think of only one team in Miami on tornaod'os (Scace and Scace)

This is not to say that women can't or should not compete here but to simply observe that they are not choosing to compete in these classes now. The F18 sheet loads are much less and sheer upper body strength is not at the premium as on a 20 footer. I( already know of at least one very good team at 325 on an I20's considering a move to an F18 because of this issue).

Why should an iF20 class try to be all things to all people?

With a 350 minimum light teams can add dead weight and race if they choose. Heavy teams must change personel to race.

Hi wout -you wrote -The answer is simple to this. Because these groups are not serviced by a 20 footer. I would like to see you put two youths on I-20, after the first gust you can be assured that they will never set a foot on a catamaran again. Same goes for women. ---oh wout ,--whewww

this is silly ,-people will choose a boat brand type style size {mono}-cat they like mainly because of availability , and friends relatives sailors in their area encouraging them to sail , or an active fleet in their location .

--As to the other comments -Women won,t sail 20s --

there have been 6 women in the Worrell , I raced it in 2000 with Sandra , who could most likely kick your a## - and races a 20 ,currently .

I often sail with one of my 3 sons ages 10 -7 and 5 who always have a great time on the Inter 20 w chute, though they steer while I raise and snuff it. -

-I think the 16s HP are great cats , I would love to race one {singlehanded } and I,m sure fly by many 18s and 20s , -

I have tryed to be positive and would be happy to help support F-16 ,-,----but this again is not the way to promote the 16 class . -I will help with the 18s if I can ,--Matt and Tom that wrote a good part of the rules are good friends . They did a great job .

If this total weight to sail area is enacted and becomes as successfull as I believe,-- it can easily be applied to all Formula classes , still maintaining ones within if desired ,--

In discussing this concept over the last 2 years understood this was the real goal ,--A comprehensive FORMULA system in 3 Length catagories that would include the vast majority of cat racing sailors. ----we just have different concepts ,--

Lighten up .

The best aspect of the 20 rule is allowing entry level racers , who will most likely begin with stock older less expensive boats with smaller sail areas , --Once they get better skills they move up . --This is how we begin to grow partisipation in the sport .

-Let me know how to help wout ,--continueing this type of diologue is childish .

regards

Carl

Wooter you're such an idiot.

I understand that English is not your first language but it isn't mine either.

If you understood the sail area to weight relation proposed you wouldn't make such erroneous comments regariding 400 pound teams being at a 100 pound disadvantage over a 300 pound team.

You continuously offer extreme and most of the time unrealistic examples like your 'two youths' argument and then you so often back things up with flawed mathematics. And, if you don't like women, that's tough.

What do you see wrong with the iF20 rules principle.

marc

-The lack of logic here and common sence is a bit much ,

excluding 3/4 of sailors , never allowing them to partisipate ,

what are you thinking ?

-We want people in the sport not exclude them from it .

Is it the old addage ,--what fun is it having a club or class unless you can exclude people from it ? -

Mike Worrell is getting more female partisipants and iquiries each year. -We need to encourage this , this is good for the sport , ---My son Kyle and I won the second leg of the Red Fox this year in blustery conditions over an excellent field of 35 cats , several natl, champs inc with CRAM . uNDER YOUR RULES VERSION WE WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM EVER PARTICIPATING , !!!

sheet lines are not a problem , you can switch off skip and crew with spin and traveler , -you can add a two to one easily , -

Sailing cats requires some athletic ability , its not monos sitting around slugging down beers ,

You and wout are really offering some obscure silly arguements , --therefor we must be on the right track !!!

just jokin with ya -

I've seen you sail so don.t think Sandra can kick yours , pretty close though .

any others today ,-have fun

Carl

Mark,

You'd be surprised how many people(men) I know who are under 175 pounds.

Handling spinakers ? You should ask Karen-Ann Xavier what she thinks. She has been sailing with Al Maguire for some time now flying a chute. I am not sure if she hits 125 on the scale.

I also know of people sailing 20' cats considering moving to an 18,including myself. The reason is not a question of not being able to handle the 20 but looking for a lighter boat to tow around on a hitch and on the beach and also because of the potential of the class growth.

Why should an iF20 class try to be all things to all people?

To be fair.

With respect

marc

-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .

Well this is better than sailing against a team with a Min. at 325lbs where the difference is 75lbs. So I would think it would be a positive step for a 400lbs team. Minus racks or a total boat+crew weight answer I don't see anything else that could help a 400lbs crew.

-2- We have existing boat weights ranging 30 40 50 LBs and potentially more , -are you saying 50 LB boat weight differences are ignored under your proposal ,---

I seriously doubt there are 50lbs boat weight differences that are not due to water weight or 1/2" lines used all around. However i am assuming most factory boats would weigh in within about 25lbs. The weight of the hulls is about 100lbs each. The rest is in fixed weight pretty much. If I water logged my boat for a week and got it weighed and then dryed it out how would you stop the cheating.

-How are boat weight equalized ?

They are not equalized. Buyer beware.

-Why elimate new lighterweight HP designs from the class ?

They don't fit in with the other designs. However the class is going to continue to move in this direction by lowering the min. weight over a period of years to keep older boats competitive.

4-If a total weight is applied how do you provide FAIR sailing through this boat weight and crew weight range , -A 400 LB team on the heaviest boat would be more than 100 total LBs heavier with the same sail area in accordance to your proposal , --How can this possibley be marketed ,-accepted or in any regard construed as FAIR ,

This is not about completely fair racing. There are numerous issues that have nothing to do with weight that make this racing unfair. Such as sailmakers cutting different sails and using the best one for expected conditions for the regatta. Another example would be the home builder that comes up with a superior hull design or board design. Or the guy that shows up with new sails at every regatta. It just isn't fair!!! Life isn't fair <img src="<>/frown.gif" alt="frown" title="frown" height="15" width="15" />.

5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -

how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }

Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?

Not marketed too the smaller sailors. They already have an F18 class or numerous others. Nothing fat about two 175lbs men. Do we want to continue this quest for 150lbs guys that are interested in sailing and know how to sail. Most of the guys I know that weigh 150 are long distance runners without the time for sailing.

I tried to be logical and complete, Carl. Not sure if I was successful. I'm not sure this is the right road to go down but am still waiting to hear a more logical direction. And I have read all of your posts Carl and respect your opinion greatly.

Mike Hill

H20 #791

Hi Mike ,

having fun ,

You seem to be missing the basic concept Mike ,

The proposed rule is a total weight to sail area Formula -

-If you have a 30 LB heavier boat and are 20 Lbs heavier than av then , according to the comprehensive formula chart you can sail with proportionally more sail area than the 50 LB lighter team ,---

With example numbers of 1 per jib -3 per main ,and 10 per spin , in 10 LB increments , the 50 LB total more weight team would be allowed 5 more sq ft of jib,--15 more sq ft of main sail area ,--and 50 more in spin area, --again these numbers need some refinement and should rate equally through the entire range in ISAF -and Texel ratings as a check , -but also adding some class rules due to additional definitions required .

-Not sure what your post is referring to, hope this helps ,

-All formula classes require some weight to sail area trade offs ,-this total boat and crew weight formula is more comprehensive , and can include lightweight boats .

A heavier boat team with proportionally more rated sail area than a lighter team should have the opportunity to be equal and fair , -

do realize the world is not ,--thanks for clearifying that ,

jokin -

W F is promoting the 18HP Formula Class -even before regular F-18 has begune. -18s will be splitt again , We had better find some comprehensive solution to allow all to race equally together , -

-HP 18S- have no jibs and taller masts,but believe areas can be traded off and rate equally , -sail areas are smaller on this lighter version , so are sheet loads ,--which they would also be in the proposed 20 class. -

-Getting a handle on the bigger picture ,then comprehending all the problems clearly is half the battle ,---

a comprehensive long term solution with the goal of FAIR sailing ,-{or providing the opportunity for it } is then the class objective .

A total weight to sail area rule provides this ,

a 350 Lb rule does not ,

If you are 50 LBs heavier is there some objection to a 50 sq ft larger chute ,-15 sq ft larger main ,-and 5 jib , -{example #}

-Please state how this could be construed as not equal ,-

Your choise of boat and weight and set up any way or combination you prefer.. -

thanks

Carl