Anyway to keep progress going I put in this update, I also expect everybody who wants a say in the matter of tipweights to be aware of the following info. You will need to base you vote upon.
Mast data :
I-20 Carbon ; overall weight = About 21.0 kg ; tipweight about 10.0 kg
Tornado alu : Overall weight about 23 kg ; Tipwweight 10.0-10.5 kg
Tornado carbon : Overall weight about 15.5 kg : Tipweight about 7.0 kg
F18 : Overall weight about 19.5 - 21.0 kg ; Tipweight 9.3 - 10.0 kg (depending on the make : Mattia = lightest, Tiger = heaviest)
Hobie FX-one : Overall weight 19.9 kg ; Tipweight 9.5 kg
I-17R (best est.) ; Overall weight about 14.5 kg: tipweight about 6.8 kg (comments by sailors suggest heavier mast etc)
A-cats : Overall weight about 9.5 kg Tipweights ; 4.5 - 5 kg's
Superwing F16 : Overall weight about 16 kg ; Tipweight 7.3-7.6 kg (depending on weight used spreaders and other fittings)
Stealth F16 doublehander : overall weight about 13.5 kg ; tipweight about 6.3 kg (Standard masts)
Stealth F16 singlehander : overall weight about 12 kg ; tipweight about 5.5 kg (These are special custom order masts)
Of course the Superwing mast is the alu section that is featured on the Taipans and Blades and as good as certain on a 3rd new F16.
When looking at righting the boats the Alu masted Taipans and Blades are about as easy to right as the carbon masted I-17R or easier depending on how good our estimate of the I17R masts is. It is however unlikely that the I-17R is easier to right. The only boats currently easier to right than the alu masted F16's are the carbon masted F16 and the A-cats. The FX-one required some 2kg*8.5mtr = 17 kg extra bodyweight to right which is what was found in real life as well. A Taipan 4.9 with alu mast can be righted by a 70 kg person (naked body weight). The Stealth doublehander (at 6.3 kg tipw) can be righted by a person 10 kg lighter = 60 kg's or more. A 6.0 kg mast tipweight limit would allow a person of 57 kg or more to right the boat by normal means (righting line)
So the situation we have is as follows :
Right now the Stealth carbon masts are between 2.5 and 4 kg's lighter in overall weight depending on which type you order with your boat. The Tipweights differ by 2 kg at maximum. The comparison between only doublehanders is respectively 2.5 kg overall and 1 to 1.3 kg tipweight.
The concensus between builders is that the current aluminium users are really not interested in having carbon masts on their boats. And the Goodall Superwing mastsection deal is fully intended to hold for the future. Greg Goodall himself expressed that to me. I can add to this that the production of these mast is NOT an issue. We don't seem to have problems sourcing these masts or have them produced. I must also be said that the builder using carbon mast is currently building the most inexpensive F16 boats. In his case the carbon masts are NOT making the boat (needlessly) expensive.
The same builders do want to keep open the option of carbon for the future, as a precaution to future events that we can't predict at this time. Some what to go further in this than others.
The alu mast builders favour a tipweight rule to assure buyers that the alu and carbon masted boats are equal in performance. They agree that there is probably not much difference in real performance but there is a general fear with respect to the PERCEIVED advantage of carbon. For this reason they do not wish to push for a carbon mast ban or to penalize them. They do however seek a methode of garanteeing (perceived) equality in level racing. As of such the alu mast builders want to keep some kind of tipweight rule while the carbon mast builder favours full deletion. Having said this, it appears the carbon mast builder is not really hung up on the deletion of the rule. So there is room for a good compromise between the builders.
When looking at the mast data again we see that the A-cat masts when going from alu to carbon saved at least 6 kg in total and at least 2.5 kg in tipweights. The Tornado saved about 8 kg's and about 3 kg in tipweights. In relation to this the differences between F16 alu and F16 carbon are significantly less. At the currently tipweight rule (6.5 kg) we are looking at a difference in overall weight of about 2 kg and a tipweight difference of 1 kg. Any differences between both makes of mast will be limited to the same degree. We must be careful not to extrapolate any differences found in both A-cat and Tornado classes to the F16 class. Example: IF, and it really say IF, a difference of 30 secons is found in the tornado class than F16 may expect only 1/3rd of that or at most 10 second difference. The opinion of builders is that the differences are less than that. The opinion of the F16 class body is that tens of other design differences between different F16 makes give cause to theoretical differences like that on the water these are noticeable. That is what the F18 class has proven over the last 10 years. As John said there is evolution but not revolution. For example The Inter18 is no longer the wapon of choice but was very much considered competitive for a shy 10 years. And even now the REAL difference very small and neglectable for 85 % of the racing fleet who don't finish in the top 15 % regulary anyway.
The best quote I got was that the expected difference (without any tip rule) between optimal aluminium and optimal carbon was less than the difference between new years and 1-year old sails. So if you want to spend money to be and feel competitive then buy new sails every year. As all competitive One-design class sailors do anyway, as we all know. So no difference here.
Update on the write-in voting :
We have one more vote in favour of complete deletion of the tipweight rule than we have in favour of the tipweight rule. The mailed votes however less than the numbers of voters in the internet poll. Right at this time the Internet poll is at 8 pro and 8 against. All signs point in the direction of a compromise were we keep the tipweight rule (for perception purposes) and allow a little room for future evolution and factors like ease of righting.
There is a way to make the current tipweight rule theoretically more exact BUT the current implementation of it is both the most simple to use in comparison to others AND it disadvantages underweight masts without banning them. This is actually a situation that is most attractive to us. We maintain a large freedom of design while favouring mast that are on the edge of the rule.
The current tipweight of 6.5 kg is still workable, but a tipweight of 6.0 kg seems to adress all desires and needs best. It also draws back in the largest portions of Stealth sailors into the F16 class without a need to modify their masts.
F16 theortical mast (tipweight rule at 6.0 kg) ; overall weight 13 kg ; tipweight 6.0 kg's :righting min = 57 kg
Difference to Alu superwing ; about 3 kg in overall weight and about 1.5 kg in tipweight. : righting min = 70 kg
Difference in moment of enertia of the whole rig (including sails and stays) between theoretical carbon and Alu superwing = 10%-15 %
These difference are all but considered neglectable from a performance point of view. Buying a new jib every year makes more difference.
IMPORTANT :
We are not likely to dispensate any boats. One rule applies to all. As a class we need to show that we keep things strickt and fair. Currently there is also no party campaigning for dispensation.
FOLLOW-UP PATH :
As promised the outcome of the earlier votes guides the follow-up path.
We still a have few days for the e-mail votes to come in, but if they don't then the class body will assume that everybody will accept the decision that will be made by the F16 class body (local class heads and myself). If the votes continiues to balance out than then the above compromise of 6.0 kg tipweight will be proposed and campaigned.
If you want to make your case either in favour or against of any alternative then you chance is now. Before Februari 2005 is over the decision on tipweights will be made and it will be final for the next years.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS :
If no more class rules issue are open after this one than the F16 class is considering fixing the rule set for the next 3 to 5 years. Take NOTE !
We, the class and the builders, want to create utmost stability in the glass for 2005 and the years following. Some major things are going to happen and we all feel that the F16 concept and F16 class rules are now well defined and well developped.
So anybody who has any idea's about this, let him or her speak up now as within the month we will close the windown of opportunity for a long time.
Regards,
Wouter Hijink
Chairman Formula 16 class
