Folks,



It is encouraging to see spirited debate presented in such a respectful manner.



Last night I printed out all the comments and the printout comes to nearly 20 pages.



I openned a bottle of Bundy(rum) and sat down to read ....and consider.

Now that I have had a night to sleep on the information contained I would like to make comment.



Although I have always and will always make my own boats, I can't get past the fact that without the participation of manufacturers the fragile catamaran scene can't support our class.



Their participation is the key to success. They must be able to produce a product that not only fits into a market need it must also be affordable to the prospective purchasers.



We can build, tinker and develop, but without the big guys it's a bit like playing football by yourself.



I think Bob is right, we are at a cross-roads. My perspective regarding the Cross-Roads may be a little different. The choice seems to me to be between being a small group of homebuilders or an internationally recognised class?

I think it would be in all our long term interest to take a broader veiw of what we need in order

to attact people to the class. We need to attract both SAILORS and MANUFACTURERS. That is what will make the class strong.



I see the F16 class as being a limited development class.



What we are about is setting the parameters upon which the development will be based.

These parameters need to be set at a level that can be reliabley achieved by a good quality manufacturer. Set the parameters too liberally and the class looses its excitment value set them too tight and it develops a repuation of fragility and unreliability. The manufacturer must be able to produce and make a profit and the purchaser must have confidence in the product to purchase it.



The issues as I see them are:

(1) Performance Equalisation

(2) Total Weight of the Rigged Boat

(3) Height of the mast





(1) Perforamnce Equalisation:-

So far nothing much has been said on this and hopefully this means everyone is happy that we scrap performance equalisation.

The good ol' KISS principle. Love it.







(2) Total weight of the boat.

I think this is the most important issue of all.



There are over 200 Taipan 4.9s out there racing and many of them have been doing this for more than 10 years. (To disregard this would be foolish.)

The manufacturers of the Taipan are a leading A class manufacturer and know their business when it comes to building lightweight boats. They build the boat as light as they believe they can reliablty produce a high performance 16ft SLOOP rigged cat. Up until 4 years ago the min weight for the boat was 105, 3kg more than the current 102kg. If the boat could have been reliably and consistently produced lighter I believe it would. The F16 is not to be a clone of the Taipan, but we as individuals are doing little more than guessing when we advocate boat weights unless we consider the extensively trialled Taipan 4.9 in our arguments.



One could argue that the weight of such a boat can be brought down by the use of carbon mast and beams.

I agree with this, but at what price?



I was a strong advocate of prohibiting carbon masts during the lengthy debate 12 months back. My concern was and still is the cost. If you keep the min weight low it is my considered opinion that the carbon mast becomes mandatory to be competative.



I am currently building a 4.9 specifically to sail under F16 rules and have from the onset been very careful with everything that has gone into my hulls. Nothing went in without being weighed and where I considered something was not essential it was left out. The project is still in progress but I am confident that I won't be able to make the current min F16 weight. In reality, for me, this is not a problem because I will be sailing against other 4.9s with kites. Now if things really got going here it would only take one person to get a carbon mast, spurred on by the desire to lower total weight because he could, and everyone else would be either forced out of the class or take the $3000 expense of the mast.



How many people out there have a lazy 3 grand?



What do you think would happen to the class?



Given the current cost of the carbon mast, and the fact that it is allowed, we should set a weight where the use of a carbon mast is NOT mandatory to meet the min weight. If/when the carbon mast price comes down to a reasonable level we could then revisit the min weight.



So the question is what is a reasonable weight?



When considering this I can't get over that the T4.9 platform has not been raced with a spinnaker anywhere near as extensively as I would like to see before being able to reliabley call the platform sound when using a kite. I would hate to see the min weight go below the sloop rig proven 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit.



I realise that is more than the current proposal and consider the current proposal as a proposal for the fearless. Not really something you can build a long lasting class on.



Now when considering the weight of the kite kit I would like to see it include a snuffer.

I think for the class to have a wide appeal in its target market the snuffer is essential.



Sure you may think you can lower a kite just as quick by hand into a bag, but riddle me this,

why don't all the top Tornado Sailors lower the kite by hand into a bag.

Those guys put much more time into there training than any of us are likely to and they analyse what they do to the nth degree so their training has intensive focus.



I think there is still a lot of work to be done before a decent snuffer is developed and would like to see the work continue. I think moving the kite kit outside the rules for a period of at least two years would be a good move.



Alternatively set a value (after weighing some kite kits with snuffers) and review this value alone

in two years time.



I propose the minimum weight be 102kg, this weight excludes the kite kit.



If , for rating porposes, it is essential to have a total weight it should be 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit with snuffer.

This weight is yet to be determined. Need each type with a snuffer weighed and then take the average and, as I said, review this weight ALONE in two years time.



(3)Mast Height.

From memory the primary reason 9 metres was set at a max height was because we wanted to include the BIM16. Not because we thought it was a good height.

Personally I think 9m is too high for a 16ft platform.



If Bim have reduced the height of the mast I would really like to know why.



If I was going to vote it would be for the 8.5m mast but if that vote failed to get up I would not be concerned.



The issue of setting the right weight is far more important.



I think there is a lot of development potential within the right parameters, hulls, rig and snuffer. Any doubts just look at what's been happenning in the A class ranks and they only have one sail.



Just the way I see it.





Regards,

Phill