Hi everyone,
I'd like to get some discussion going about items to be included on the Agenda for the AGM to be held at the Global Challenge. All F16 owners are entitled to vote and a series of 3 ballots will be put to you shortly on some rule amendments/clarifications. Before any of you self-builders out there start to panic, there is nothing major in any of these proposals! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Discussion on the ballot items is welcomed here on Catsailor, but when it comes to the voting, it will be a simple agree/disagree option.

What I am looking for here is any additional agenda items that you might wish to be discussed at the AGM, considered by the F16GC, or put to a vote at the AGM.

In the case of a formal proposal, I will require a member to make the proposal and another member to second the motion. All items need to be submitted by 30th June so that the Agenda can be circulated prior to the AGM.

I look forward to hearing your views!

I would like to add the following items to the ballot / agenda

1, To ban the use of runnders that allow the "end tab" or "wings" trim to be altered while they remain in the "fully down" position.

This proposal is not to ban kick up rudders, but to ban variable trim T foil rudders. I believe that if we allow these type of T foil rudders we will instantly make all F16's currently sailing obsolete.

The reason I believe that these rudders would be so beneficial to performance are thus:

A, When sailing up wind it will be possible to trim the windward rudder to add righting moment by trimming the "end fin" so that the leaning edge is below the trailing edge and so the rudder will pull the windward hull down; By trimming the leeward rudder opposite i.e. with leading edge above the trailing edge on the fin you can create lift on the leeward hull. This will result in an appreciable addition in righting moment and thus speed.

B, when sailing down wind it will be possible to trim the rudders for the conditions - unlike the current T foils that can only be set once (for the day in theory by adding packers at the top or bottom of the rudders, but in practice only for trim of the boat as in order to change the trim of the end plates, you have to move the whole trim of the rudder). So in light winds the rudder fins would be trimmed flat so that no extra drag was given (over and above the actual drag of the T foil surfaces). When it is windy, the rudders can be trimmed to provide the right amount of "drag or pull" to hold the aft end of the boat flat. I could see that the primary trim for the hemlsman down wind COULD become the rudder fins if we allowed variable trim rudders.

You could then argue that we are a development class and as such should allow these are they are a development that boosts performance, however, I did some work on these before I got John to build my boat and they WOULD have made it much faster, but much more complex and expensive - I have ball park figures of 3000GBP for a working system based on the international Moth systems but with independant trim for each rudder (Moths only have one rudder).

I also believe that varible trim rudders will be difficult to build and thus make home build more difficult.

In summary I believe that variable trim rudders offer a large performance gain (at considerable cost) and so should be banned. If we do not ban them, the first boat to have them will make all current F16's obsolete.

Please can all people comment on this as I feel that it is critical that it is voted on as part of the 2007 ballot and banned at once.

2, Mast tip weight rule

I propose that the mast tip weight rule be removed from the class rules.

My reason for this is that it is already possible to build masts well below the tip weight rule, and this is limiting the minimum single handed crew weight as we have a class rule that states that the crew MUST be able to right the boat in all conditions - thus we have in effect put a minimum weight on a single hander because the mast tip weight rule directly controls the minum weight that can right the boat. I feel this is not a sensible control to have. We are basically saying that single handed sailors under a certain weight are not welcome in out freindly and growing class. I do not believe this is an appropiate rule to have.

2.1 I propose to simply remove the tip weight rule form the class rules, if people feel that this will be too much change too quickly and that mast designers need time to accomodate the rule change I would offer a second proposal thus:

2.2 I propose to reduce the tip weight by 1kg for the 2007 season (after the vote result) and then by a further 1kg the following year (2008) and then remove the tip weight rule from the class rules.


Please also comment on this too.

Cheers

Simon

Thank you for your comments Simon.

I have my views on these suggestions, of course, but don't know whether it would be possible for me to comment?

Any comments I make would be as an F16 owner and NOT as F16GC secretary. Would people object to me giving my views?

What I have seen people do in the past (and it seems effective) is have a login name for each role you can assume - an 'ordinary sailor' one and an 'official' one - e.g. jalani (unofficial/funny sig) and something like f16gcsec (official/boring sig). You can even disagree with youself then... which is not as daft as it sounds if you are forced to post an official view that you disagree with... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

As you will have a vote on this (should it come to be voted on - do we have a method to ensure (given sufficient support from the members that an item WILL be voted on ?)) I don't see why you should not comment. I believe you would have to decide if your comments would influence others as they would feel that they could not be seend to go against a member of the F16GC.

I believe that we have an open exchange of views in the class and so would welcome your comments (and those of others on the F16GC).

Cheers

Simon

Duh! I never thought of that! Am I too dumb to be doing this job?

Thanks for the suggestion Colin. I'll get straight onto that <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

OK this is my new alter-ego!

I always firmly believed that a class official mus have the freedom to express his personal opinion if he so desires. I trust that the class officials are "professional" enough to not let personal views interfere with their official duties.

Hell, I've personally been accussed of many failings when I was an official but I never let my personal opinion affect my official duties, never. So it would be very childish of me to suspect the Governing Council to be any less dependable in this sense.

So I for one, will welcome your ideas and fully seperate the official statements from the personal ones.

Additionally, I can passionately disagree with somebody without disliking the person or not having respect for his official role. I think this F16 class has a high tolerance of this as well as many have learned to life with my diatripes ! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Wouter

John(F16Sec) / Scooby Simon,

One would assume there is a Class constitution.?

If so any proposed ammendments to the F16 class rules would need to follow certain guidelines before any proposal are accepted & then voted on.?

Marcus

This is the relevant section Marcus:

2.7 Amendments, changes, or additions

2.7.1 Any Formula 16 class member may propose amendments, additions or changes to the rule. They will be supported in their efforts by the Formula 16 authority with respect to communication and be given the means to propose the amendments, changes or additions to the class as a whole.

2.7.2 Only the Formula 16 authority may formalize amendments, additions and changes to the rule and will do so while consulting the class.

2.7.3 All amendments, changes or additions shall be placed on one pre-next-season notice unless the Formula 16 authoriy considers it to be essential to act immediately to prohibit or penalize a dangerous feature.

(I don't know if this is the best place to argue on proposals but until told otherwise...)

Are you proposing a ban on actuating control surfaces on the rudder or more generally all T-foil rudders?

What's your definition of "variable trim"?

I think banning packing of the rudder pintles on the transom is going to be impossible to police.

There are so many possible solutions for changing the lift characteristics of a T-foil on a rudder that your proposal needs to be refined a bit.

That cost of an actuating t-foil system seems a little extreme. The solution that the bladeriders are now incorporating, which many moths are now following, is very simple. The parts that make hydrofoils expensive are the actual foils, the actuating mechanism is a small percentage of that. It isn't that difficult for an amateur to build one with a little education.

There are three options:
- Ban T-foils outright. (Simple)
- Allow any arrangement or configuration of T-foils. (Simple)
- Have a compromise between the two. (Opening up a huge can of worms)

My personal preference is for allowing them with any configuration. Everyone is becoming convinced that they are better. The International 14 is booming since they introduced them, mainly because they are apparently much easier to sail than without them.

Second preference is for fixed blades that only actuate about a vertical axis while sailing (ie. a standard rudder with the option of a horizontal foil solidly fixed to it)

Argument against banning T-foils is that they will be something that will distinguish the class from F18's. To new sailors, F16's and F18's look very similar. Basic marketing strategy involves distinguishing yourself from the competition, whether actually or just in appearance. It's not a big difference when sailing because you won't regularly see them, but on land they will draw attention.

I don't like the current rule about mast tip weight either, but I do like having a structural check on these relatively flimsy masts...I'm assuming that's the reason it was introduced.

I don't think there is any other way to have the best of both worlds for this one. Unrestrict the mast weight and the fear is that there will be numerous lightweight expensive carbon masts built, then broken. Have the tornados gone to carbon masts?

I'd just like to also point out that your two proposals have one argument in common, cost, except that for one proposal it is used as a negative in the argument (T-foils) and for the other it is ignored (Masts)! Cost is a negative of both proposals, few ppl would want to buy an extra mast sometime in the future because the rules changed.

Anyway, these are just my opinions. I guess we'll see what is proposed for the vote.

I wouldn't want to see T-foil rudders banned but I can see that being able to adjust those foils while sailing could have tremendous advantages. We have always declared that we wouldn't want to become an 'arms race' class and therefore rules need to be deisgned so that costs of boats (both capital and running costs) can be kept under control. Coupled with this is the desire to keep older boats competitive for longer than many other classes.

£3000 seems inordinately high for adjustable rudders, but I haven't investigated costs so I'll accept your point Scooby. However, the question then is could this be done cheaper and can it be retro-fitted to older boats? My guess is the answer to both is 'Yes'.

Should we be inhibiting development in a development class? - that's a difficult one. In the best interests of the class we DO need to control developments. It may be that initially we need to ban a particular development and then permit it a few years later (perhaps once relevant technology becomes cheaper) but I am reluctant to ban on a perceived threat - particularly in respect of something like rudders that, after all, just hang on the back of the boat and could therefore be changed on any boat.

Personally, I'd like to know a bit more about the cons of having adjustable T-foils before I'd vote for a ban. I like to keep an open mind to developments, but if the cost of a new idea is shown to be out of reach of most people I'd vote for a ban in an instant.

On the mast tip weight rule - I've never liked this rule and with the speed at which mast technology is developing I think it to be an unnecessary hinderance to better masts and for a lightweight like me I'd love to have a lighter, more flexible mast. Having said that, I don't believe we could just remove the rule in one go. Nor do I think that 2 years is enough. If it were to be slated for removal then I think it should be removed over 4 or 6 years.

I've never been a fan of the mast tip weight rule either. I've always felt that the issue of structural integrity is between the sailor, the builder and the warranty. I wouldn't buy a boat that I felt had a mast that wasn't up to the job.

I'm also not overly concerned about how quickly the rule is introduced. I sail with an alu mast, which I assume is way over the current mast tip limit, and I don't find it puts me at a significant disadvantage against the Stealths, which presumably are a lot closer.

What would you expect manufacturers to do during the transition period? Put some kind of removable weight at the top of the mast? Or build boats that are "obsoleted" within a year or two? (Although as per my previous point, this obsoletion will be more buyers' perception than anything else)

Paul

I think that a weight at the top of the mast is the obvious solution. When the Tornados went through a spate of new mast designs in the early 80's I ended op with 0.25Kg of lead screwed to the top of my new slim taper Sailspar mast.

If we go down this path then people can build the mast as light as they dare, add the appropriate tip weight for the year or two then reduce it over time. They will always have a mast that is 'down to minimum'.

The reason for suggesting that change like this should be spread over a longish period is so that people have the opportunity to do just what I have outlined above. If a heavier mast remains unbent or unbroken during that period then it is up to the individual to either keep it or replace it with a new lightweight one and use it as a spare.

Gero,
The mast tip rule was introduced to minimise the perceived performance difference between carbon and aluminium masts.
Removal or even further reduction of the weight means you are affectively forcing the class to be compelled to use the more expensive carbon masts. If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself how many top A classes are sailing around with aluminium masts.

As far as adjustable T foils.
I designed some adjustable T foils a year or so back and the cost difference is not significant. Closer to 300 rather than 3000.
You can retrofit a system to existing foils. No big deal.

Regards,
Phill

I would like to ban the ability to trim the "end fences" or "T foil INDEPENDANT" of the blade while sailing.

The big cost in this is the development of a double twist grip (or other method) to allow you to trim each T foil independantly; The 3K GBP is an approximation based on the 2K to convert a standard Moth to dual foil (moths have foils on the plate and rudder; the plate foil is controlled via a prodder in front of the boat and is fairly simple. The rudder control is changeable manually and is the complex part. I believe a "independant rudder" control for a catamaran will be complex and expensive to make and provide an immence advantage once done.

I do not want to ban the current T foils as I firmly believe they offer an andvantage at limited cost or handling penality, I also do not want to bad the adding of packing behind the rudders in order to trim them correctly. It would be impossible to control and someone has to make another boat trim decision before starting the race (just as setting the rig tension which is currently in the class rules).

The proposal is to solely ban a development that will be

a, Costly
b, If allowed make all current F16 designs obsolete and require all current boats to adopt this at significant cost.




Regarding the mast tip weight rule, I don't believe removing the rule will make a SIGNIFICANT difference - it will not make boats obsolete overnight, but the rule does limit who can sail the boat. We have a rule that by measuring the tip weight, we limit who can sail the boat single handed.

Phil, were these adjustable from the wire so you can trim one positive and one negitive at the same time ?

What is the difference in cost between a carbon and alu mast? Is it that much? The only production F16 currently being offered with a carbon mast (as far as I'm aware) is the Stealth, and that doesn't seem to come out any more expensive as a result.

Paul

Paul,

The Blade is also available with a carbon mast.

Regards,
Hans

Hans,

What is the cost difference?