Whether or not you can utilise the advantage IS the whole point, and you can utilise 90% of it even with the tip rule in.

Are you saying that if carbon masts are allowed everyone will want them?

And a carbon tube will cost you around $2000 so when you you take off the price of the aluminium tube it's about $1500 difference

Carbon is allowed now obviously, but the tip weight rule makes the cost/benefit ratio go up. I did some small research and was told that a carbon mast adds about 3000 to the price of a blade. This is not specific but knowing a local carbon expert I think this is about accurate.
What do you think would happen to the F18 class if carbon were allowed? Every boat produced from here on would have a carbon mast. It would fragment the class (but it would likely recover but maybe it should fragment it and hopefully kill the need for 400lb boats <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )
In truth I am not sure- and no one really can be- but I think if the tip rule is dropped carbon would become the "standard" and the price of the boats will go up 2k at least. If everyone is cool with that and think it will still allow the class to grow (and it certainly has a lot of allure even adding the 2k) then do it. I can afford the extra 2-3k but it would irk me to think that I am trying to buy some advantage at the expense of people trying to get into the class. Newbies would look at it and want a carbon mast for sure because carbon is absolutely cool. Aluminum is so "old school!" <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have broken a Hobie 16 ali mast a Hurricane ali mast and I have broken a Stealth F16 carbon mast. The cost to replace each mast was the same. I dont understand the argument that cost is the factor. How much is an F16 ali mast? Can someone tell me? We might be surpised. It might cost more than a carbon one!

Where do you guys live that carbon is so "cheap?"

Any US guys want to back me up or shoot me down?

If carbon costs the same as aluminum then absolutely get rid of the tip weight rule.. without a doubt. I think if the costs were the same we wouldn't be having this discussion

Maybe Alu is more expensive in parts of the world.

good point.. didn't think the other way around <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ali has certainly gone up in price in the last 12-18 months. Just talk to anyone involved in marine insurance and they'll confirm that thefts of spars from dinghy parks have gone ballistic. The spars are then sold on as scrap <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

No-one seems to be stealing carbon spars though <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have to agree with David, a bare carbon mast compared to ali is not much more expensive, its the fittings and build time which racks up the costs and that is equal what ever mast you use. Dare i say it but I think a few of the Carbon mast manufacturers do rely in the mystique of Carbon to justify their prices.

We are a unique class in that we are in essense an experimental class, now everybody acknowledges that carbon masts are better so why are we dithering, lets bite the bullet and allow any mast you like as long as its class legal in girth and length. As a by product of that move you will allow light weights to sail solo, have less masts break and be seen to be a modern look ahead class.

Scooby Simon your perceived thoughts on just how effective adjustable T Foils could be is way over the top, if you are so worried about them then simply put an overall area size for the horizontal foil, if the area is small enough then no matter how much angle of attack they have, they simply cannot generate enough lift to be able to influence a 16ft boat.

David is very right in saying that the foils we use are completely different to that of the Moths, our small foils will never create enough lift unlike the Moths which are quite large and designed for lifting the whole hull out of the water <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

So......

Perhaps we need to just discuss the rules and not the construction of the masts...


I relly feel we should make the tip weight rule the subject of a formal poll for Zandvoort.

If you relly(sic) feel that scooby, then draft a proposal and submit it with another member to second it and the F16GC are duty bound to put it to the members. BUT I recommend that you think very carefully about the wording as, if passed, it will become part of the F16 ruleset and will need to be robust enough to stand up to people trying to circumvent it if they can (although in a simple case of removing an existing rule I guess that's not a concern).

OK.

Would someone be willing to support this :

Remove rule 1.4.5 from the class rules for the F16 Catamaran. The rule currently reads:



Proposal to go the the F16GC.

Proposal "Remove rule 1.4.5 from the F16 box rule".

Wayne,

I am not trying to ban the foils as I believe they can lift the boat out of the water ! the exact opposite. I believe with trimming the foils upwind you can created righting moment and thus drastically improve the upwind performance; I also believe that you can then also trimm them to create the extra drag to make pitchpoles almost impossible.

In Australia an aluminium wing mast blank cost $990,
while a carbon wing mast blank cost $3000 to $4000.

It has been stated the difference in the USA is similar at $3000.

These are substantial increases in costs to people you are trying to lure into the class.
Good luck to the UK guys if they don't have such a large price differential.

Until the cost is similar on a global basis changing the rule is very much to the detriment of the class and will kill the potential growth in many countries.

First, we dont know the benefits yet as there are no boats equipped with these rudders (which is what I want to see before an eventual ban is introduced).
It might be that I am just too simple to understand so you have to feed it to me with teaspoons, but why would the class look stupid if we didnt ban such rudders before someone developed the technology and skills necessary to make them work?
I prefer rulesets to be "reactive" and based on what we know, not "proactive" based on what we assume. Especially so in a formula ruleset where there is supposed to be room for experimentation and development.
This whole matter just might be a lot of hot air as trimming two independent T-foils from the trapeze seems a daunting task to me. We are obviously not going to agree on this matter, but I would like to understand why banning new technology before it has been tested and tried is so vital?

People are using the cost item to disallow my proposal on tip weight and so I use the same argument to counter this one. When someone gets it working there will be massive benefits and it will be very costly. When this is working I don't believe a non varible trim boat will be able to compete; it will mean that we MUST all make our boats work with variable trim rudders.

Simple as that.

Rolf, how about you support me on proposing this ban (and then vote against it) so we can see what the F16 community really think ? I am simply proposing this ban to control costs on a solution I believe firmly would mean we all would HAVE TO follow it to stay even remotly in touch.

To make the foils work well enough to prevent a pitch pole is a big ask, there is a huge leverage effect of the Spinnaker on the mast sufficient for me to think ( without a clear calculation ) that any wing able to prevent this would also be creating a huge amount of drag thus slowing the boat to such a point that any gain would be nullified.

I agree with Rolf, we should be promoting a bit of experimentation and trial and see, if adjustiable T Foils did have such gains then so be it, think of it as a safety aid ( pitchpoles are pretty scary things ) but I still very much doubt it. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

You are not playing at politics, are you <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Cost control is vital, hence my stand on carbon masts. But then carbon masts is a relatively well known technology. Adjustable T-foil rudders as seen on the I-14's and foiling Moth's are still relatively new technology with complex solutions. I can't even imagine what the control system for two controllable T-foil rudders would look like.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
I am relatively relaxed on the matter, even if I keep on with my line of arguments, as I think this will be too complex for use.
If a working prototype came along and was clearly superior around the course, but at a cost above GBP£450, I would be among the first in the line of sailors pouring concrete into the bucket for their feet. That is, unless there was an option of homebuilding the same system at a reasonable cost. There is probably not a lot more to say about topic..
What I really dont like is suggestions about limiting the size of T-foils, again based on the fact that we dont know much about them.

Sorry, but I dont think my vote will be accepted. I only have a collection of parts for a boat yet, not a boat. We are going to strip plank the hulls, and the drawings for the stations have not been done yet. Got a sailnumber tough, NOR-25, and the budget is so small that it has slipped under the radar of my wife.

I you paid for a set of plans, that's good enough for me.

I'm not playing politics at all; I just want this properly discussed and a vote taken and a decision made. I firmly believe that if we allow it, it will work and it will be expensive.

I'm not willing myself to spend the time in making it work with the possibility of it then being banned, but if someone does I (and I firmly believe all others) have to go to this.

Question for John and Hans; If a boat was made to work, could it be retrospectivly banned ?

I think a lot of the discussion is mirroring what has previously happened in the moths, it's actually quite interesting how similar the topics and their arguments for and against are!!!

The very first foiling moth and its cousin were retrospectively banned. The builder then went on to develop the next generation foiler that you see today. Very sucessful transition don't you think.

A carbon moth mast costs less than an aluminium moth mast, I should know, I got the quotes! Admittedly one of the technologies to build carbon moth masts (filament winding) is now very mature, hence very cheap, so the other methods are forced to come down to a reasonable price.

Moths were using fixed T-foil rudders for years very successfully. There was a transition period of a few years, while the foilers were developing, where manually actuated rudder T-foils were popular and sometimes complicated. The system now is such that there is almost no actuating of the rudder T-foil while racing, and the systems that are used are again, very mature and not very complicated. Applying them to a twin rudder system is another matter though.

Carbon masts are already allowed in the rules, the weight restriction sort of dampens their main benefit though, that of reducing weight. But the other benefits are still there, increased stiffness, customisation to a crew weight, etc...I don't think deleting the weight restriction is going to help the class as a whole. Someone who wants a carbon mast can already buy or build a carbon mast and have most of the benefits associated with carbon masts. They are not necessarily expensive or hard to build, they just require a bit of thought.

If you propose a rudder T-foil rule amendment, make sure you get it right. I wouldn't want to see a complete banning of T-foils, nor a poorly thought out or worded compromise that allows some systems but has unexpected implications.

My current stance is:
- Leave the mast tip weight rule as is.
- Leave the T-foil development alone for a while longer to see what emerges.

If the T-foil debate becomes an issue, the class is allowed to vote on it in the future and any builder/buyer just needs to take that risk if they want to. The discussion here and on the rigging lawn should give builders a good indication of whether it is wanted or not.

I for one will be attaching fixed T-foils to the bottom of my rudders eventually (probably a year or two away yet), and probably pack the rudder pintles as desired for the conditions. There may be some sort of system to change the angle on the water but only between races, something like racing car spoiler adjustments in pit-stop.