At this time (12:43 PM) and date 26 februari 2005 I, the chairman, close the voting on the mast tipe weight rule. The vote was open for 1 month, from 25 januari till 25 februari.

The final result on the proposal to delete the mast tip weight rule alltogether by the onlin vote is :

10 in favour (52 %)
9 against (48 %)

This is insufficient to force a decision out right.

The second (verified) voting on this topic was, to be honest, a disappointment. Formula16class(at)hotmail.com received only 5 e-mails. 3 against deletion and 2 in favour.

There was one e-mail giving 3 more votes in favour of deletion of the rule but these were thrown out as it was REQUIRED that each crew would take the effort to send in his or her vote personally and would supply additional information. As a class we don not accept voting by proxy. We can't verify the truthfulness of such voting, that is the reason. So I'm sorry to this person, nothing personal, but it is the way we have always done out voting and we will always require this procedure.

The situation is clear.

We have a deadlock, but only one where some 75 % of the class implicetly indicated that they would accept any decision made by the class authority. They did this by not sending in their votes. I think this is the first of such a result in any class vote we held over the last 3 years.

So we have to go to the class rules to see what is next :

Rule 2.7.2 has been satisfied. The body of F16 sailors has been consulted. No clear result is available so this leave the F16 class Authority to break the deadlock with a decision. Rule 2.4.1 puts the chairman in the position to break at deadlock. It is up to me now the give an "interpretation" of this deadlock and end with a decision in this matter. I, the chairman, will have to consult the F16 class authority about this. I already have, but will do so one final time. The first contact time with the class officials pointed towards the benefits of a compromise.

But first I seek for guidence on this matter in the class rules :


I refer especially to :

Rule 2.3.1.

Formula 16 class rules are mildly restricted class rules indicative of a controlled development class.This means that small advancements in handling and general behaviour of the designs are allowed as long as the spirit of the rule is preserved and the continued existance of the class is assured.


Here: I take note of the allowance of small advancements and the importance of the spirit of the rule and the continued existance of the class

Rule 2.6.2.A

Preserving general equality in overall performance between crafts of different make, accepting small variations, in order to garantee fair racing between designs of different make.

Here : I take the fact that fair racing must be garanteed.

Rule 2.6.2.B

Maximizing the freedom to optimize a design to personal preference and to improve the performance of a given crew and craft through refinement

Here : I take the requirements that refinements are allowed; refinements meaning small increases in POSSIBLE performance.


Rule 2.6.2.C

The allowance to gently improve, by design, the handling and overal behaviour of a craft in small controlled steps which don't upset the balance in the class to the extend that the continued existance and growth of the class are no longer garanteed.


Here I see a combination of the facets named above. Small refinements are allowed as long as continued existance is garanteed and as long as level racing is not compromised.

One poster wrote that perception of the class and class rules may be just as important to the continued existance of the F16 class as real performance and equality between makes. As a chairman I agree, carbon masts still have a magical ring to them even though in physical models the choice of material is only a very limited influence. Especially with the Tornado carbon masts and the way these rules are worded so that alu mast are noticeably penalized with respect to carbon we must have a way of reassuring the potential F16 sailors. No matter how much I personally believe that tipweight is not a significang performance influence in the F16 class because of our really lightweight alu mast, I think that keeping the tipweight rule is a very good way to reassure less educated potential F16 sailors.

Such a tipweight rule is a convincing and short answer to any expressed doubts. We, as the F16 class, limited the differences that may exist between alu and carbon to a neglectable level when looking at boat performance. This will still allowing refinements in righting of the boat and improvements in durability because of having to reinvest all weight savings in the mast in other parts of the boat. This should be enough to still any "but's". Another good argument is to point out the F18's class shows tipweight differences between masts of around 1 kg as well. Nobody thinks twice about equal level racing there. So why should anybody doubt that with the F16 mast tip weight rule in place ?

So in basis I, as the chairman, will decide to keep a tipweight rule in the F16 class rules. And note that I wrote A tipweight rule. The question now becomes whether that is he current one or a new one.

As indicated above ; The class rules allow small improvements over time as long as they are slowed down enough to keep boats competitive over many years. I think this provides us a key to solving the deadlock.

By lowering the tipweight rule limit from 6.5 kg to 6.0 kg we breng back the bulk of the Stealth F16's back into compliance. And the change is also small enough to qualify as a small improvement that in itself will be unable to upset the class in any serious way.

Any boats still under this limit are considered to be remarkably under (tip) weighted for the current rule of 6.5 kg and they must ask themselfs how they became uncompliant like this in the first place. An offset like this can't not be put down as caused by a natural variation during production.

Also by lowering the tipweight from 6.5 to 6.0 kg we reach out out to them, it will be their duty to reach back out to us.

With respect to the wording of the rule, I as the chairman, decided that the current wording with the lowering of the tip weight creates just the right situation. The best masts are then the ones right at the minimum allowed tip weight. The others, after fitting corrector weights, slowly move-away from this optimal points only to increase the disadvantage with increasingly non-compliance. This dependency is a curve, meaning adding the first X kg of corrector weight makes less of disadvantage then the increase of the next X kg of corrector weight. So around the optimal point we have rather flat dependency that only curves upward after significant tipweight is added. This facilitates mast production as accuracy in mast tipweight will not be very important as long as it is abve 6.0 kg.



So the compromise that is worded in the chairmans intepretation of the situation is :

Replace the wording of rule 1.4.5 :

"The minimum mast tip weight of a fully fitted mast, excluding standing rigging, is
set at 6.50 kg's for reasons of seaworthyness."

By

[color:"red"]"The minimum mast tip weight of a fully fitted mast, excluding standing rigging, is
set at 6.00 kg's for reasons of seaworthyness and garanteeing fair racing." [/color]


I will now send the last mail to all class officials for confirmation. Also class members may express their objection or support but ONLY really pressing arguments will sort any effect. I as the chairman fully accept that the class can not satisfy everybody, it is trusted however that this change will satisfy, by far, the most members.


One final comment will need to be made however.

This time the F16 class reached out to a group of owners and a builder that allowed their boats to swing into non-compliance. THERE WILL NOT BE A SECOND TIME !

Any builder or owner of a non-compliant boat after this day WILL seriously risk being banned from the F16 class. The F16 class rules are to be adhered to. With our growth and formalisation of late we have no choice then to be firm on this and we will be.

Wouter