Now that the other have had their say; I would like to present my own opinion on the subject. Ofcourse I couldn't earlier as that could be regarded as influencing the discussion as a chairman of the class. Now the potential of that is gone as the discussion is winding down.



I will limit my opinion to mast height for now as the discussion on minimum weight is just starting as well as the other topics.



Mast height



Let me start out that I believe that the current rules are adequate in the sense that they are self limiting and look like to converge to 8,5 mtr. masts on their account. Precisely the intent we had 12 months ago when fixing the current rule set.



Helens comment about the Australian Inter-17 (the original) also supports this.



Just like Phill I'm not at all concerned that a 9 mtr. mast has an advantage over the others especially with the rule that only one suit of sails can be used per regatta. Think off it like this; even when despite the rated sailarea rule a taller mast is advantagious in the truelly light laminair winds than it would almost certainly be equally disadvantagious in the stronger turbulent winds of the afternoon or the next day. In short, the expected gain, if any, is so low that it will not hold up against the extra costs in doing so.



So for a person with the background knowledge and grip on the rules as Phill and I have there is no worry.



However Micheal has brought up a good point which I have found myself to be true to. We all, members of the first hour , remember the early discussions and the arguments used. We understand after considerable discussion how the rules interact and work and how it is nearly impossible to beat them. However there is absolutely no garantee that new members will so to.



The current rule requires some basis of technological thinking where it is understood that amount of driving force isn't proportional to actual sailare; where it is understood that other parameters are present too. Just yesterday on the beach at a regatta I found that a majority of people do every much equate sailpower (or rather speed) with actual sailarea.



Personally I think that perception is more relevant in this case than truth. Why ? Because the class is only made aware of new members when they have decided to contact us and are looking for a new boat or have just bought one. That means NOT when they are checking out the class and its rules via websites and articles. We, as a class, must therefore convince the newcomers at that early stage when we can't explain the rated sailarea rule limiting quality to the extend that it may well require. And even if we did make alot of webarticles on our website this will still not garantee that the reader is convinced.



The point with lowering the mastheight to 8,5 mtr. is there is no discussion possible. The reader is most likely to think : All have the same mastlength and it is limited to that size. It is rather tall and therefor effecient and thus fast. Period.



I found in my working life that sometimes avoiding a discussion is better than having one. EVEN if you are succesful in convincing the other side in the end. And we all know how much I enjoy a good discussion.



So concluding this paragraph I think that avoiding the discussion and explainantion all together by lowering the mast to 8,5 mtr. (excluding a mast crane) is the preferred way to go, despite the fact that I trully believe in the effectiveness of the current rule. Psychology wins over physics in this respect.







Second point made with respect to the mast height which I think is very relevant is the following. Current crews of below 150 kg's don;t have a viable race class at this moment. Ofcourse the H16 is still going strong and is catering for these people but it is becomming increasingly clear to me that this class is slowing down and that good sailors are opting for modern designs with gennakers; also the H16 doesn't appeal to the younger generation that have seen F18's and modern looking gennaker skiffs like the 29-er and 49-er.



The F18 was intended to take up these sailors as the heavier ones and have the performance equalisation rule to make that fair. However, some feel that the F18 may be the most fair as it can be it still favors the heavier crews over the lighter ones. There is talk of abandonning the two sizes of jib in the F18 rule. All in all, the F18 class will be dominated by heavier and often male-male crews instead of the rest of the sailing world which are male-female crews, all female crews and parent-teenager crews.



How does this related to out class ? Well, a builder has to decide what platform to optimize. A platform with a 9 mtr. mast will be optimized differently than one with a 8,5 mtr. mast. Boom length will change, volume distribution will change, etc. Is is unlikely that a builder will design two F16 variants with tow different mast lengths. My fear is that to tap into the psychological perceived advantage of taller mast and hit the lighter crews once again with alot of heeling moment. Or even worse that the potential newcomers wil few the possibility of 9 mtr. mast as another advantage to heavier crews which excludes them again. Especially since the same mast heigh is used in the F18 class where they are disadvantaged too !



On the other I'm sure that when the same crews look at the shorter mast of 8,5 mtr. they will feel more assured that this class is their class where the roles have reversed. In this class (F16) the heavier crews have a very good change but the perceived advantage remains with the sub 150 kg's. In this respect it is the perfect counterpart of the F18. This way we'll have a verys strong selling argument.



My 3rd consideration is the singlehander option. I feel that with more sailarea than an A-cat on a similar 9 mtr. mast singlehanders will overlook the extra width and platform weight and consider this class a very challanging singlehander. We know that this is not the case, it may be challanging but it was also found to be well in the comfortable zone for relatively inexperienced crews. No matter what some A-cat sailors say, the A-cat is perceived as a tippy and extreme boat by the target group we are aiming for.



Reason 3. it is regarded to be optimal at this 8,5 length anyway or is extremely close to the optimal. Because at this time all the boats have 8,5 mtr. masts except 2 one-offs. And because it would prevent investments in a sector (mastheight) without merit and which could be better spend in other area's like saildesign and snuffersystems.





So my personal opinion in this matter is that for reasons of perception of fairness and attractiveness of the singlehander option in the minds of the newcomers we are wise to limit the mast height to 8,5 mtr.(excluding mastfoot and mast crane) and thus pevent any discussion or required explaining that we can never fully drive home.



And we be wise to divert development efforts and money to more promising aspects of the class like sail design and snuffersystems.



I do choose to keep the rated sailarea rule to equal out the 8,5 mtr. rigs and to help us in the rating systems.



Wouter