.... 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 ,....
Than please avoid conflict and leave these classes their part of the weight spectrum. That is the best help we can get.
>>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 ,--
Well, I understand that system. I wish you luck in selling the concept. I had already a difficult time selling the simplified concept of smaller is equally fast. I got there, but a I doubt wether I could have sold a more complex system. Maybe you can however.
>>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 .
I think we're still on the same concept and the progress has been very good so far. We're almost there in creating a complete and all spanning formula framework. But formulae are popping up all over the place and try to conquer the same weightranged, this can easily undo all that has been achieved.
So I ask leave the other weight ranges to the other classes.
This F20 is a 20 foot class and 20 ft. are more suited to heavy crews than the other classes and vice versa. Now I'm sure that you can sail 20 ft. with your kid and wife, but it is not the class for them. So don't try to make it their class. Else the three length formula framework will be undermined.
>>>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 .
I really differ in this respect I really don't think that 20 ft. are
the best aspect
of the 20 ft. class. Ask any tornado sailor, ask John P.. They will all tell you that these designs are just to powerfull for beginners. And also too expensive, even second hand.
No the best aspect of the 20 ft was to cater the adrenalin junkies as was the first intend of the class.
-Let me know how to help wout ,--continueing this type of diologue is childish .
Indeed, Leave us our weight range. Fill the need at the top end with this F20 class. Leave mid ranges to F18 and the light to mid and solo to F16. Than we'll have a balanced setup.
If we get into a direct conflict here than we'll kill eachother off for nothing for light to medium crews are unlikely to be really competitive anyway in the 20 ft. range.
regards,
Wouter
Hi Marc
First point. your comments to Wouter were WAY out of line and were a personal attack. I hope you will apologize!
I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.
You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point. The attack by ridicule and insult was pointless.
Second point
your point about light teams, Women and teenagers racing on 20 foot boats misses the general point.
1) I also know mixed teams that kick my butt. Greg and Casey Scace come to mind. Can Casey out grind my crew on the boat doubtful does she outgrind other crews perhaps. Is it the critical factor... no. Does this debate have any relevance no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.
I am pointing out the observation that MOST couple teams are not racing 20 foot boats with spinnakers. Apparently, most couple teams are not looking to race 20 foot boats with chutes in the future based on conversations with the local dealer AND by observing the Euro I20 racing at texel. Are some couple teams looking to race 20 footers?. Probably. I pointed out one. You note Alan and Karen Ann. Carl and Sandra raced. The exceptions are not disproving the general point.
I pointed out one reason that couple teams might not want to race a 20 footer. Sheet loads as one being relevant to racing the boat around triangles where doublers are too slow to jibe and on a closed course crash jibes are possible.
You suggested
Boat weight.... No... the F18 is heavier by rule then a 390lb I20.
Trailer width. No. 8 feet 6 inches versus 8 feet 3 inches ... Both legal in North America.
Potential for class growth.... Hmm... Well that is the big issue now isn't it.
Why would they think that the new F18 would be MORE POPULAR then staying in an existing 20 foot type class.
Perhaps they conclude.
1) their team weight is close to optimum for the class.
2) they can do more then
handle the boat
... they could be competitive at the elite level.
3) Why not on an F20 boat??? Perhaps they will not be limited by some physical factor. weight, strength, endurance, height.. rather they will be limited by their sailing skill. (which is the point after all)
4) perhaps they judge that the Fun Factor is higher on less powerful boat.
5) Perhaps, all their competitors are moving down. so.. they want to join them.
All are quite plausible reasons.
My take home point is an obvious one in that the sailors are choosing an optimal design for them. Crew weight is one of several parameters in their decision.
AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.
The idea… is that just as in Hobie 16 one design racing.. you can set a floor on weight and Enhance competitive fairness. As wouter cleverly noted… why go shoot at the F18’s pigeons. Why not target a different segment of the market.
Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
There are options of grandfathering in teams, boats etc etc. Right now the debate is over the general philosophy.
Obviously we disagree. I suggest that we take a measure of the possible f20 sailors and see where we stand.
Take Care
Mark
Carl,
I forgot about the weight to sailarea proposal. I don't believe that requiring many different mains and jibs is appropriate. Possibly we could vary Chute size for weight but this may be tough to equalize. Whatever rule we come up with there will be a perceived sweet spot just as there is now with the F18 class. Max sail area at 340lbs in F18 is thier perceived sweet spot. I am not against this concept but I would like to see some real tank tests/ wind tunnel tests/ real life experience to back up the numbers otherwise we would be shooting in the dark.
My personal belief is that we are already at a 350 min. That is a good size for two men on the boat (175+175). Some teams may weigh in at (175+200)375 but not really notice the difference on the boat. I've never been able to notice less than 25lbs difference having an effect on performance. So my view is that varying sail area may have more of a negative effect than a positive effect. Of course this also is operating on the premise that teams that weigh less than 350 will be more attracted to the F18 class where it tops out at 340. And also assuming you can add whatever you want to come up to 350 if you would like to race in the F20 class.
Getting back to boat weight I think it would be too hard to police this issue and we would have people pushing the rules too often causing major discontent among the sailors. In a perfect world it would be nice but you and I both know we don't have time to weigh boats at weekend regattas.
Carl said:
-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 ,-
Ok, I'll try to explain. Take someone that I regularly beat at a regatta where we sail one-design. He finds a 225lbs crew that doesn't know how to sail and gets the adjustment sails factor. He then proceeds to beat me in all the races. My only conclusion to stay competitive is to buy new sails and get a 225lbs crew myself. Does this seem fair?
Mike Hill
H20 #791
Hi mark -
Because you do not see many female , smaller sailors or junior sailors in your area is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -
This is very faulty logic and again very inconsistant thinking applied , --you can,t have it both ways , ---20s aren.t o k -but 18 H P CATS ARE ? ---lets be honest and realistic .
-The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD , --Numerous racing sailors are interested , several have posted and stated they will return to racing and many new sailors will begin ,--as I mentioned I have 3 myself,-They need to be able to race in any class , and not be excluded from them .
If your and Wouts philosophy is applied { glass half empty }
and foolish exclusionary rules are put in place it will certainly be a self fofilling prophecy, doomed to fail just as one or the other 18 classes are bound to as they become more diluted. My bet is the heavier.
-As my 5 year old says ,-{-sink about it }
take care
Carl
Hi Mike
your starting to get there -
The majority of existing sailors have weighed their boats if you read their posts ,--I certainly trust you to be honerable and the vast majority of people who race , . Again this chart is not that difficult to comprehend ,
-The tank testing and sweet spot you refer to changes constantly with each different weather pattern wave and current condition on each point of sail differently for the vast array of boats we have and will have in the future .
Formula racing --all --IS DEVELOPEMENTAL to some degree .
The race course becomes a giant test tank and wind tunnel ,
-At least with Formula we can discover which combinations really do work best in each varying condition, -
THATs the game boat choise modification of your choosing and set up is a part of it . Some will whine , some always do even racing one design as we all know.
-Your conclusion that you will need heavy crew is interesting , Why would you believe this when all boats would rate equally , the heavier boat with more sail area is not necessarily faster , --Have you ever sailed the same start with an A Class cat , with only 150 sq ft of sail area, ? . -Are you saying ISAF and TEXEL rating are totally innaccurate ?
-You can reverse your scenario and apply it to one design to min weight , only there you have a ligit complaint as there is no weight compensation to sail area.
thanks for the input ,--understand Formula is something different that I,m learning most will not understand fully .
For those promoting the Formula Class it will be an educational process to some degree.
The F-18 High Performance Class sounds interesting , -
If we have a unified large 20 class it may attract the largest partisipation by far for that inclusive quality within the rule .
More open of a race what ya got attitude , Just come out race in one big diverse fleet and have fun , is my vision .
All the best Mike
Carl
-
-
Ok, let me first say this MHB -- you where out of line in attacking Wouter. He is often trying but he does have a depth of knowledge and is try to help. Wouter, I thank you for your opinion.
Carl, I respect your opinion also, but changing sail plans gets cost prohibative when you look at varying crew weights and formulas inside the class.
Gentlemen, we need to look at working with other formula classes. We each have a niche to go after. Looking to what is happening in the F18 class with the push for HP -- basically it is self destructing. Is anyone going to move up or down in to a formula class. NOT if we start picking each others bones over trivial issues.
The basic 350 crew weight minimum with correction corrects every male/female H20 team that I know of. SO that arguement atleast in this area is mute. Do we want junior sailors in what is suppose to be the premier F class? No, we need to use F16 and F18 as breeder classes. Having NAF-20 being the top F class is where we need to be. Having well trained race teams racing over powered boats is exciting to watch as much as to do. THat is our market.
NAF-20 (the legal class name --iF20 is not) is a marketable venture when you address the basics and place an eye on what can happen a few years down the line. Are there better boats in the world? Yes. But, who is racing them? And why would everyone of us go spend our hard earned dollars to have one right now? What we need to focus on is getting people back on the water in an inclusive format -- (everyone that can meet the minimum requirements). Hell, its kind of like joining the ARMY (no offense intented) We take eveyone as long as they can meet the minimums OR correct to them.
Will new boats come along? YES. SHould we embrace them now? NO!
Look at the Mhullers. A few years ago a hot new boat came out -- the viper 830. God was it fast, light, strong, kick the crap out of everything on the water. Did it sell?? HELL NO! TOO much money getting rid of the old boats! Are the J's still around? Yep! because it is CHEAP to race and there was alot of them. SO the builder is making a smaller version called the Viper 640. THe J guys use them to train new crew!!
History has a funny way of repeating itself and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Gentlemen, 350 crew weight works. As does boat minimum of 385. Sail area needs to be capped somewhere lets look at that instead of trying to revisit the weight issues. THe question you need to ask is what SA is fast for a crew weight range of 350-400 lbs + a boat of 385?
Hobie, PC, and Mystere have agreed to configure a boat in the 550sq ft area. Do we want this across the board or is this TOO MUCH SA? No different amounts allowed by class rules. But, if you want to race less than thats ok. Also, the class needs to agree that the mast and sails can be bought from any NAF20 class approved sailmaker. Let the sailmaker be the measureres of the sails.
Please think of this.
Respectfully
Steve
Oh yes MHB, apologize to wouter and I am sorry if I bit you on the other board.
To all,
>> I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.
That is exactly what I meant. In light air there are hardly any limiting principles like righting moment and than the lightest crew with respect to sail area will win. Min. overall weight is intend to address this equality problem when sail area is fixed at one size for praticality.
In this respect setting a normal minimum is very instrumental in stimulating fairness in all conditions including light air. Without it heavy crews will alsway loose out in light air.
>>You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point.
My clearification is above.
>> no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.
Agree. And that applies to me too. So here guys; here I offer my hand.
>>> AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.
I second that.
>>> Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.
Good point Mark !
>>Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Ohh yeah, and not always are these confirmed by numbers. And vice versa.
Wouter
I agree with all of Steve's points above:
1. Keep it SIMPLE (or people will ignore it)
2. 350 lbs min crew weight works
3. 385 lbs min boat weight works (with periodic reductions)
4. Some SINGLE limit on SA.
Just making these simple limits work and getting the class off of the ground is going to be hard enough! If we try to add special cases, exceptions, options for this, variations for that.....the whole thing devolves into a mess that is even less attractive than Portsmouth!
Sail fast and have fun,
Alan Thompson
I20 - San Diego
>>>The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD ,
>>>is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -
The reason to haggle over these weight spans is equality and fairness of racing while keeping costs acceptable.
I will put it into a question :
On a nice warm day with a 5 knot wind I bring my regular crew of 400 lbs. You look at the weather and decide that the winds are light enough to bring your little nethew. How can you explain to me that this racing is still fair ? Fair as intended in the formula class.
Now you could reply to my question by saying that you will just pick the smallest of those 5 spare rigs (main, mast, jib and genaker sets) that you always cary around in your modified trailor. But how can you sells this to a crew starting out in the class and that can not buy 5 complete rigs of different sizes ?
The Only you can do in that situation that would be fair is to take along all your nieces and nephews untill you make minimum. you can still race with your younger familiy members and I don't have to give you a 180 lbs weight advantage. and thus practically give you the line honours and the price of the day.
That was talking about your class. Now move down to do smallest class.
There, there is no minimum and you can sail solo with nephew and even with you wife. And no heavy crew can complain to you that you are unfair by being so light. Why because there are no teams in that F class that are heavy enough to notice a real disadvantage. Even a adult with small kid will weight in at at least 240 lbs so the biggest weight disadvantage will be 90 lbs. Also way less than the 180 lbs in the earlier example. No solo sailors are lighter but are also at a disadvantage with respect to handling.
Now look at the mid range class lowest is 310 and highest 350. Only 40 lbs difference. Now this must be the class with the closest racing !
So everyboy is catered and not subjected to accusations about unfairness.
And this is the strength of a three length formula framework.
Wouter
Hi wout
All formula classes are developemental to some extent --
This means variables in sails and overall design features as defined within limits per class definitions .
Existing Formula classes use various jib and spin sizes to adjust for crew weight .
This proposed 20 rule combines total weight to a sail area formula ,-{more comprehensive approach } -\
--
-You provide extreme examples , ignore the same effects on existing Formula classes , jump to false scenarios , -mislead , then state how wonderfull you believe 16s are .
Racing sailors are smart , they can deside this for themselves , based on the excellence of design and their requirements .
--Sails --All Formula class racing sailors if they change crew would need different spin and jib sizes to max. allowed in the rules .
New 20 rules proposed are no different , --roller furling jibs are allowed ,--changing sail area ,--reef points on the main are allowed ,--2 spin sizes for each team are allowed ,--and in the 20 class 2 mains labeled and approved would be allowed .
I would remind you that any Formula Class inc 16 could have a full main built and a flatter main built , both within the limitation of class rules and choose the one that best fit the weather forcast for that regatta weekend . -
-In the 20 class sailors that modify existing boats to max allowed sail area per rules would of course keep their older smaller main , and potentially use it , along with their roller furling jib if it was in the above 20 wind strength that weekend ,--This adds an element of seamanship along with furlers and optional reef points in the main that I wish we had available during the Worrell 1000 races . -
-In allowing sailors to go to any sail maker for their sails is there the potential for some to buy speed , --yes , true for any developemental class , but sail areas are all equal along with total weight ,
This is not complex or difficult to comprehend .
Your objections and extreme scenarios are based in fear that the 16s will not be accepted . --Again these are excellent designs that will attract numerous sailors ,
What I,m politely trying to say is the extreme examples and insistance on rules for other classes you do not intend to partisipate in , but post with intent to promote 16s ,actually has the oposite effect and result , and is not constructive or helpfull to ANY formula class .
Do appreciate the efforts and hard work you put in the 16 class and have stated so numerous times on the various forums as you know -
All the best -
Carl
Carl,
I'm starting to agree with you again! just joking have always admired your points if I have totally agreed or not.
I see your points on different sail areas for crew weights. It does have merit. However, I ask this question.
If we set a sa cap. then won't natural selection find what is best for the sailor/boat combination?
Will it give lighter teams an advantage? slight one in light air. But also a slight disadvantage in heavy air. It is this trade off that the light crews have to make before the regatta. I have been at tons of regattas where one day it was 5 and the next it was 25. Hell, I've seen it happen in a few minutes.
When we close the gap at minimums then your only talking about a 50lbs spread between boats. We are all use to seeing 100-150 lbs spreads between the boats. I think we should just cap it and go forward because this difference is small and to try and correct it only complicates the ability to run the formula at the regatta site.
If you show up and have your class endorsements than all the RC has to do is figure where to start you. Simple.
Light crews have to be aware that if they are weighed and the boat is not corrected (with weight) than they risk being DSQ from the class for the season. I think this should also be in the rules for all violations. Basically, if you cheat and are caught there are consequenses. Whether DSQ or a fine is levied remains to be discussed but, lets make a penalty and set a presedense.
Thanks
Steve (my spell check is not working)
Hi Steve , -
-The problem with the natural selection theory is if you set a 50 LB range between boats then set a 350 crew weight min ,
tHE NATURAL SELECTION IS OF COURSE narrows only to THE LIGHTEST BOAT AND 350 LB CREW .
All others are at a disadvantage or eliminated from ever partisipating ,--If you are 350 and have a light boat ,---{ like a lighter H-20 } -as example ,--You like this rule written to suit narrow specific needs ,--350 and a lighter boat ,-all others that do not will not partisipate ,--
How many fit this ,-and is this fair equal sailing for all ?
Think we can set a higher class average as a target -330 ,-but still allow all to race equally ,--Again under a sail area to total weight rule the heavier team is well compensated in sail area ,--a huge plus in light air ,--this is the best solutution ,and is no more complex than other formula classes , but much more comprehensive and inclusive ,-helping insure large partisipation and a successfull class.
-One great difficulty we have is discussing one rule aspect ,with out the other coresponding rule aspects in place ,--polls and the rest are useless if no one understands basic concepts and all options available to solve these complex problems and existing conditions handed us ,in the best methode .
Will try a FOX to INTER 20 comparison under the proposed sail area to weight rule ,--maybe this will clearify and demonstrate to attributes of it.
-Any help with the Worrell effort in any sponsorship is greatly appreciated , we are seeking travel expences for the ground crew ,--and are completely open to any assistance at this stage -
Though would not want it to conflict in any regard with this class ,--but do hope the Worrell would be run under 20 class rules in the future ,--Mike is currently considering FORMULA and will announce it in spring of 02 .
Carl
Carl
Car; how many different sail sizes are you suggesting (main and jib) for the class?
Whoa, I'm having problems here! I posted a response that did not update. So I'll try again.
Carl, we are the ONLY formula class that is looking into grandfathering old boats. For this conversation lets not even think about the
new
I20 and Fox.
As for the dead boat club. We are looking at seperate issues. Crew weight and boat weight. Boat weight 385 Minimum and crew weight 350 minimum (unless corrected to)
You my friend are looking at this as the glass half empty.
If you have a 405 lbs boat and weigh in at 330 then your ok to race. Your boat is a natural corrector. Will this bring in alot of existing sailors? YES.
The rules are proposed to get the class down to the boat weights that you not so long ago where in favor of.
The rules are also proposed to get the formula assoc's working in concert. SO that F16 will feed F 18 and then NAF20. Will people try to get to minimum weights. YES. But they already do! This just evens the racing out in to a sane area.
The reason that most CWM's are in the 295-325 range is due to marketing. (Remember Carl this is my fort'e) And where set there to pull people off the H16's. Hell Hobie admits this.
Is there any basis in what it takes to sail these boats? Nope, nada, negative, -- NO.
If you layout several regatta lists and figure boat weights and crew weights you will find out that people on the average are already at what we are proposing when you look at spinnaker equipt boats. You can not quote the H20 weights because most H20 sailors do not sail a spinnaker and when we do we go with larger crews.
Will the H20 have a weight advantage? No. since it still has to meet BOAT Weight minimums just like everyone else.
If the boat weighs more than you can figure that into your crew correction. If it weighs less and you weigh more -- too bad add weight to the boat and go on a diet if your upset about it.
350 (CWM) gives two 175 guys an even break on a 385 BWM boat.
330 (CWM) gives a team an even break on a 405 BWM budget boat.
This is still skewed towards the lighter teams but it is the fairest, cheapest, and easiest to regulate compromise that I have ever heard of.
It makes since to the RC to have very little headache other than just starting and scoring. And all they have to do is carry a bathroom scale at a race to weigh crews at check in. As for the boat it should be weighed by the class anyway. How? well lets talk about that after we get to rules committee.
Thanks
Steve
Hi John ,
Please excuse all the infighting here , different diverse customs ,--We do all actually sail and race and have a good time .
--It is open , the total boat and crew weight to sail area scale would ideally be in increments small enough to be fair ,--maybe as low as 10 LB between each ,--or as high as 30 for more simplisity. -
You are more qualified than I also to establish the amount of sail area of each main -jib and spin .
tryed 1-jib 3 main and 10 spin per each 10 Lbs of total boat and crew weight. as an example , believe this is close based on existing designs but need to be revised and corrected to ISAF rating numbers consistant for a class .
I do not believe it is enough just to have them rate to an ISAF or Texel number as we are setting higher crew weights generally , and more sail area ,based on the U S version Inter 20 ,-which has 15 more sq ft of main sail area . --
Believe they should rate within one point . -but may also run an individual performance prediction of the specific boats with various crew weights at each end of the scale .
Was hopping for a total range from max 410 boat weights down to 320 ,-again in 10 20 or 30 increments ,--using an average 330 LB crew .
-I design homes, extentions , and small commercial buildings , but am not a navel architect , we do really need someone with your expertise to advise and direct .
--Thankyou John
-Carl Roberts
crdesignr@earthlink.net
I ask the question how many diferent sized mainsails and jibs will be legal because it seems that there will be a lot, it is quite dificult to get accurately made sails to a specific area.
we have just made the new f16 sails, they are computer generated, but the computer programmes are just not that accurate at measuring sails the way ISAF do it, so we had to have paper sails made first, then measure these, adjust the programme and cut the proper sails.
All expensive and time consuming, add to this the fact that the luff of the main will shrink by about 1-2% after its been used a couple of times and I think that you may have dificulty in getting loads of differnt sized sails made. these will then need to be measured by a measurer. the cost will be high and policing it will be hard.
If somone buys a suit of sails to suit an all up weight of say 700 lbs can they only sell this boat to someone else of the same weight? Of course not, they'll seel 'em to whoever turns up with the cash and that person will expect to be able to race without buying a complete suit of sails.
I agree with your idea of an all up weight for crew and boat, but I think you need to simplify the weight correction and to have about 3 or 4 maximum bands, I would also leave all the boats with their standard mains and do the correction on jibs, and maybe have 2 spinnaker sizes.
If you want to keep the 20s a lot faster than the 18s and 16s then you may need to have a separate class within the class.
You could have standard NA20 based around inter 20 and NA20 turbo or whatever based around an boat that will outperform the 18s etc by about 6 or 7%
I just think that you are trying to achieve too much in one hit.
john
Hi Steve
Think the best vehicle for top level sponsored racing that is easily understood by the general public is one design ,
This is how Prosail was run ,--on Hobie 21s ,--great fun ,
the olympics are one design ,-and of course the Worrell has been one design , it eliminates rule problems ,though in this case for your purposes you would change the class min. to 350 LBs .
The Inter 20 is ideal for large crews , and as posted under Inter 20 crew weight in several posts that refer to the Worrell and designers comments on how these cats are geared for larger crew you have the ideal vehivle for this purpose .
More than 200 are in the U S sailing ,--all past and present Worrell teams have one .
-Trying to force a 20 developement class to fit these needs leads to the rules complexity and comprehension problem the general public has as you,ve mentioned .
To meet sponsors requirements lets just propose I-20 races at the breeziest venues at the right times of year for them , guarenteeing flips capsizes and crashes , again just as we did in Prosail . The fleet already exists of excellent top level sailors , we can potentially tie in the Worrell 1000 as one of the events as mentioned .
Formula will really take a few years to get into full swing ,
This should be a class for all people and a wide variety of 20 ft boats to race , -please look at the handwritting on the wall ,-F-18 vs F-18 HP ,--16 hp -16HT - WE NEED A COMPREHENSIVE INCLUSIVE 20 CLASS.
Carl
Thanks John
Appreciate the imput , -The characteristics of the new sail material shrink the luff 2% , it must be difficult to design the ideal shape antisipating that shrinkage , only along the luff bias ,or all directions .
-Hope the 16 is very successfull .
-On the 20s we have the Inter at 388 Lbs , and some existing classes at 418 ,-a 30 Lb difference ,-one added weight catagory - 30 to a total of 3 weight catagories may be understood . --410--380 and 350 boat weights .
The only other sailors who even comprehend the sail area to weight rule so far have been you and Marc , in the boat biz with design backgrounds .
-I see F 18 , and now F-18 HP appearing and proposed for the U S market,--I would much rather own the 100 LB lighter better performance F-18 H P ,
High Performance 20s can not be too far behind , though if a new 20 class is formed it should have larger beam or wings , - We need the increase of righting moment and better overall performance . -I would like a class that would include these and progress , but you are of course correct , one step at a time , maybe propose 3 catagories with a potential 4th in 2003 , but then again why not just include it now .
Happy Holidays John
Carl
Carl,
I'm going to go over this just one last time. I understand the weight to sail area formula completly. Hell, I understand it better than you know. I also jump (as in out of airplanes) as a hobby and have custom chutes built all the time. Since the formulas translate evenly. Actually, if you want to get in a conversation about lift, drag and bernoulis principle I could probably spend hours bending your ear about the benefits and detriments of adding/subtracting SA versus performed weight.
The thing that you don't quite get here is this FORMULA IS FRICKIN' ONE DESIGN!!!! Just as much as America's cup boats are ONE DESIGN. I bow to your experience in the sailing world. However, I do not bow to your experience in marketing, business development and sponsorship presentation.
If you really want to make formula simple -- you toss out every other boat except the TORNADO. YES you got it the TORNADO. It is the only boat that will perform the way a HT 20 should due to its beam and participation of sailors. Also, it does not have all the BS from PC and Hobie. The years of brainwashing and lax business practices. Also, then you build a development class around that boat as the
grandfather
boat.
JESUS CHRIST you guys this is not brain surgery here. There are so many opinions and agendas here that you can't swing a dead cat (animal or sailing vessel).
The box perimeters that have been layed out are fair, inclusive to all designs, and economical to start. They also move the class in a direction that allows all owners to get the invested dollars out of their boats before they fall apart. A 2001 boat only has three years of life before it needs to go to that big boatyard in the sky. FACT. Will 100 sailors go out today and buy a new HT 20 cat. F#@$ NO! Anybody that dreams tomorrow the sun will rise and we will all be sailing 300lbs boats needs to wait for the guys in the white suits to come and take them away.
If we can field tons of boats that race a box rule NOW. Then in 3-5 years we can by attrition upgrade to the 300lbs boats and worry about how to equal crew weights then. At that time maybe we spin off the HT class for high performance sailing and use NAF20 as a feeder to that fleet.
We need to get something moving and endless discussion about what if's is not going to accomplish anything.
I will say this the next time someone suggest one design to me is going to be really pissed when we walk this hardwork over to a single manufacturers one design class and All sailing will suffer.
Tired of all the Rhetoric.
Steve
Ok I'm sorry I told him he is an idiot. 🙂 🙂
Wouter should have
a depth of knowledge
he is studying(maybe done) to be a naval architect.
This frustration builds up from reading 2-3 years worth of 'Wooter posts' and if you have noticed he has been attacked many times by many but never by me before. The rest of my statement still stands.
I applaud his enthusiasm and effort.
Ok maybe he can help me with this ...
Dear Wouter,
Following the link that Carl gave me, I had a look at the Word document named 'ISAF_SmCat_Rules210501.doc
. I am creating a program that will give an appropriate sail area per weight graph for NA F20 using the ISAF system of equations.
The problem is that one of the variable I came accross is undefined and unclear.
Under section :
C.3.3. Corrections and Penalties
there is an equation as such
BR = VLB2 / MAB
.
My question to you or any that can help is ...
What does the variable MAB stand for ? And how is it calculated ?
My guess is that it is
maximun authorized board area" or CB.
chillin
marc
im i reading you right? are you calling the iacc boats a one design class?
To show you I'm a nice guy despite everything else
BR = VLB2 / MAB".
Board aspect ratio = Vertical length Boards squared / Mean or main area board..
This equation can only be one thing and that is the calculation of the board aspect ratio that is used to determine the effectiveness of the total area.
Compare it to the similar calcs performed on the sail area.
Wouter
What a guy ! - thanks wout ,--and thanks Marc for working on this sail area to weight formula and much needed valueable information .
One huge problem we are facing here in the U S in promoting ALL formula classes is as I,m more readily understanding each day is a lack of general knowledge on catamaran design.
People will not be likely to become interested in something they do not understand . There is no readily available information on cat design elements , or how they effect sailing performance . There is no readily available easily understood articles or information on ISAF rating , -though there is a brief explaination of Texel .
We need some good articles explaining design elements and how they are measured . The board ratio calc . is a good example , most will not understand why a board calc. would be needed or how different a Hobie 18 board is from a more modern Inter 20 board , wetted surface areas their effectiveness , cord section etc .
-I,ve build one cat and have a basic understanding of design , though do have an extensive cat racing background for practical application ,
Promoting the formula classes will involve an educational process , the U S has used Portmouth rating ,--an average time system , they have added design modification factors in an ever growing list . --The rest of the cat sailing world uses ISAF -and Texel design measurement ratings so naturally people who are accustom to design elements as a basis for rating are more familiar with what aspects make a good fast seaworthy cat design.
-Lets all try to work on making all information readily available for all formula cat sailors.
Carl
Thanx Wouter,
Always thought you where a nice guy and I never said any different.
VLB has already been defined as:
VLB = Maximum board depth below the hulls
in the very same document.
You claim that 'MAB = Mean or main area board'. Would you say that this is the underwater surface area of the board ?
I will have a look at the calc for sail area as you suggest.
cheers...
Marc
Wouter
Only put in the surface area of one side of one board
John,
Thanks for the great input. Some new facts to mull over.
Mike Hill