Cheshire cat,

Have you actually read the F16 rules ?

They are the least restrictive of all catamaran classes expect the A-class, C-class and 18HT class.

The Stealth R version was and is a foundation boat of the Formula 16 class and is dispensated for participating in official F16 class races indefinately. There was no need to switch from the R version to the F16 version because of the F16 rules. However, there are currently no R versions anymore as all owners decided to upgrade to F16 standard because that was easy to do and made the boats significantly faster.

Additionally, the F16 class rules also rule on the "open F16 class" were exactly the same thing that the F104 is doing now is regulated. This time on the rating 101 of the F18 under SCHRS. This area of the F16 class rules was never used much as FX-one, I-17, Spitfire and others sailors never took much interest in it. The single exception being last years F16 Global Challenge and single Spitfire crew (who I think should have been allowed to race).




I don't really think that that is a fair statement. The Hobie Fox, Swell Storm, US I-20 and Eagle cats were never ruled out of the iF20. Their designers and companies decided to modify these boats from the originals in such a way that they became none-compliant. The Hobie Fox remained compliant but was just not competitive enough in comparison to the Inter-20's and Hobie failed to promote that particular design strongly enough. All attention was diverted to the Tiger.

Wouter

The iF20 is most definately a Formula class.

Sadly because all the other builder quit, Nacra decided to turn this Formula class into the Nacra 20 One-design class. They did change the name however, thereby leaving iF20 as being a pure formula ruleset.

Wouter

Wouter,
your translation is correct,
at the Italian Champ we had 4 old Esse O at Eurocup.

The newer version of the class rules (to be approved by Italian sail federation)is updated to have a correct handicap for the 1.04 division
Emanuele
Ultimatesails - Mattia Italia

Of course they "forgot" about correcting that error. They are trying to show that the F104 class is gethering a following world wide.

People only have to go to the AHPC website to see the Viper announced as the "F16 - Viper" with the (doctered) picture showing the identifier "F16" in its mainsail. In all associated documents, webpages and pricelisting the design is called an F16. At no single point is the name F104 mentioned.

http://www.ahpc.com.au/p_models.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/m_viper.htm

http://www.ahpc.com.au/pdf/viper_price_list.pdf

Would that make the Viper an F16 instead of an F104 ?

I guess we'll get another "ooops, sorry" answer to thet question.

Basically the only thing Greg has confirmed publically is that when you start adding weight to the platform that the "F16-Viper" will at one point satisfy the (expected) F104 ruleset and become F104 compliant.

That is like saying that you can make your F18 "F104-compliant" by taking a knife to your F18 mainsail. The statement itself is true enough but nobody is going to do that in reality.

As extra info : cutting down your F18 mainsail from 17.0 sq.mtr to 14.8 sq. mtr. is enough. Or alternatively, fitting the standard F18 light crewweight jib of 3.45 sq.mtr. and cutting down the mainsail to 15.6 sq. mtr. Especially the latter option is quite attractive as the mainsail will still be very well proportioned (aspect ratio of 4.7: Tru F18 has aspect ratio of 4.3; F16's have 4.4).

AHPC is not going to charge less money for a 135 kg F104-Viper then for a 125 kg F16-Viper. The customer will get 5 kg of resin poured in each hull, with the performance loss thrown in for free, and that is it.

Will you consent to such a thing, as a customer ?

Wouter

I think these rules already favour one setup over all others.

In my view the optimal F104 will look like this :

Length : 5.50 mtr
width : 2.55 mtr
Weight : 135 kg
mast height ; 8.5 mtr (same as F16's now)
mainsail area : 14.0 sq. mtr.
mainsail luff length : 8.0 mtr
mainsail aspect ratio : 4.6 (F18 = 4.3 , F16 = 4.4)
jib area : 3.5 sq. mtr. (= 25 % of mainsail; as is the case with F18's and F16's)
Jib luff : 5.25 mtr
Spinnaker area : 15 sq. mtr.
Spinnaker luff : 7.00 mtr (same as F16's now)
Aspect ratio spi : 3.3
Area board : 0.16
luff length board : 0.80 mtr.
width board : 0.20 mtr
aspect ratio board : 4.0

What I don't understand is why the Spitfire class, Boulogne Evolution and AHPC with their Viper (all 16 footers) are opening themselves up to competition from this ideal F104 setup that is 18 foot long. Same for Hobie with their 17 footer FX-extreme.

Afterall, in the publics eye hull length is King !

Wouter

Thank you Emanuele

One of the biggest differences in a Box rule or Formula class structure as opposed to a strict 1 design is that the life span of any given model is now limited. People expect that the builders and designers will continue to offer new models every X number of years. In the A class this seams to be about 3 years for any given hull design. Properly constructed boats if maintanied will last years. In competitive and growing classes where there is a good used boat market many of the top guys and those who can afford it, upgrade to new boats every few years. Motivation to do this is hightened if they can not only get a new boat (It may be only deck styling or color or hardware options, but its new), but something that is different and not have to jump classes. This is 1 huge advantage for class growth if the sailor base is there and understands the concept of a formula class. (It is a bad deal for the builders because of trying to amortize tooling and design costs, but thais is another thread)

Given this, if the F16 class can show growth, and is seen by others around the globe, as builders look at new models they will be more tempted to to build in the future to the F16 spec. If we grabbed a general rule to try and bring in a lot of already built boats we would have a much different rule: longer, heavier, more sail, all the things that were avoided and now the selling point of the class we have currently.

Bimare has already identifed customers for its new boat. I did speak to them about building something that was compliant to a rule as they are very close, but it required more changes than they were prepared to make to fit what they could sell now.

Our charter as the F16 class has to be to just continue to sell what we have and grow the class. With numbers and visability others will join.

Thanks Matt, very good and clear message which makes perfect sense!

Ok the stealth 'r' main might have been acceptable to the F16 class but the huge jib? Did the existing mast accomodate the extra F16 main area? Didn't all the 20 footers you mention come after the formulation of the 20 foot formula? The existing 19 - 20' fleet boats were no longer the flavour of the month, but many owners held onto them. They reluctant to commit expense to another class showing little benefit over what they sailed. Result in UK - dilution of some classes and failure of the formula.

Cheshirecatman

The failure of iF20 in the UK, was, IMO a direct result of the strength of the Hurricane 5.9 fleet.

In the 10 years I sailed the 5.9, I was never beaten by a iF20 in any race OVER THE WATER, there was no need to move to the iF20 as we all had the best boat at the time in the Hurricane.

I'm afraid you are not quiet right, the 59 was still the flavour of the month. We did not all go and buy iF20's; The fleet only started to reduce when a forumula boat came along. That boat was the F18.

Most dedicated racers I know change their cats only if there is a justifiable performance gain or if the cost of a new boat upgrade is little more than the cost of 'competitive maintenance'.
If a manufacturer decides not to build a boat to a rule there must be good reason. Is the rule too extreme, too expensive to manufacture to? Are the boats durable enough? Are there sufficient dedicated racers of a design willing to commit their hard earned cash? Any manufacturer will build what he thinks will sell. Just how big are the largest active F16 fleets?

Cheshirecatman

I went into the F16 because of the spec. Light; Fast; Single handed with the Spi or two up with 3 sails.

But the overriding reason?

It was light.

I sailed an Inter 17 for 6 years and it WAS too heavy. I don't want to drag a 150kg boat around, I don't want to drag a 130kg around, I want to drag a 104kg boat around.

Yes Simon, I did say SOME classes. The 5.9 was not eligible to race as an iF20, I think mainly due to the fact it had carbon stringers. It was shorter, narrower, no daggerboards, no kite! Just as the 5.9 slogan reads 'when the fast isn't fast enough'
Wouldn't a fleet of 5.9s, Nacra 6.0s, Prindle 19s have given better racing? particularly with 'open' sails. Yes the F18s and the reformatted tornado have affected the 5.9s, but look at the age of the competitive 5.9s, they last,so are great value second hand boats, and now have a great 3 sail option. Buy an iF20? I think not.

Cheshirecatman

I can't believe there are still people questioning the validity of the F16 concept...some of you talk like a F16 is still a theory...That the minimum weights are unobtainable without exotic materials at astronomical prices.

Obviously some builders want to ignore the obvious benefits of a cat built around the current F16 rules and want to use 70’s/80’s construction technology and/or low skilled labor to build a 1970’s boat that "looks" like it belongs in 2008 …its too late...the cats "out of the bag" others are successfully building, and have been building them for so time now to the current F16 rules. There is no reason at all to change the F16 rules. If others can’t step up to the plate and build a competitive F16 (both performance & cost) like the Stealth and Blade, let them take their obese beasts and the class that goes with them some where else.

Regards,
Bob

In my 35 years on this planet I've learned one thing and that is that stuff often happens for no good reason. Therefor, the assumption that nearly everything is the result of a well thought out reasoning or careful analysis is therefor both wrong and extremely misleading. Any reasoning based on still making this assumption and trying to gain wisdom that way is foolish.




Larger then any of the "modern" spi equipped alternatives like FX-one, I-17's, Shadows, Bim-16, Jav-16, etc; all except maybe the Spitfires.

But far more importantly, the F16's are active ALL over the world and not localized to only one geographic area. F16's are build locally in the USA, UK, AUS and Thailand and all have been exported outside of their local area to far off places like Shanghai, Dubai, Finland and Singapore. All these places have several F16's sailing, so these are not just one-offs.

All the other classes can inhale as much air as they want to look big but they are all years away from even matching that.

But the thing that makes me smile the most is this. "Market leader" Hobie cat dares to ask 16.500 Euro's for the FX-extreme that is not fitted with a carbon mast, is 35 kg heavier, is 2.5 minutes per hour slower and 2000 euro's more expensive then a F16 ! Looking at the others; I-17R's and Evolutions; the situation isn't much better at all !

When do you know that they have lost the plot ?

When a bunch of semi-amateurs can create and produce a design (class) that is simultaniously superior and cheaper in every respect while gloriously withstanding atrocious conditions as encountered at the 2007 Alter Cup and 2007 F16 Global Challenge.

Seeker, your post said it right !

Wouter

I think we are getting to one of the main issues here, 'carrot and stick' mentality of promotion. If the F16s want to promote themselves don't build walls, go play with the others! Development of a 'wider' class could be a great opportunity to get more people on F16s. It could be someone with an alloy mast and an extra 30Kg can have great fun racing against you and see potential benefits. There are some excellent F16 sailors out there and some great boats, but they won't suit all. You know as well as I that ratings are only part of the story. Don't shout statistics at them, sail with them. A good sailor will always do well on a half decent boat and boat handling is the usually the most important factor. Embrace the initiative to get more boats racing together and let the F16 numbers grow from it. If boats start racing together the manufacturers generally prefer their boats to look good with race results, and if the F16 rule is right they will drift that way. If not the fleet will be seen as a narrow minded group of techno-enthusiasts with a chip on their shoulders.

Cheshirecatman

There is no denying it but the F16 class was indeed formed from this frustration that you descibe here.

A small group was fed up with the expensive low-tech stuff we were offered by the big boys as "the next big step in cat sailing".

So indeed, I think the initial group qualifies as "Techno-enthusiasts with a chip on their shoulders"

I certainly qualify for that.

About being narrow minded; I don't really see that. Again we have actively endorsed racing with other designs in the past, we also actively endorse "open class handicap racing" were we favour one big single fleet with a single start instead of several smaller OD starts. At least that was the policy during my tenure (2001 - 2006).

We have indeed set a few rules to which any F16 must adhere. These were included to garantee fair and equal racing between boats of different make and stimulate the public perception of that.

Please note that in the past we had a mast length and sail area rule that allowed an infinite number of different combinations to qualify as F16's. Our experience was that boat designers, sailmakers and class members were too challenged to understand this rule and use it correctly. One of the best things we did was to simplify this rule in 2003 for a simple "max mast length-max sail area-max luff length" combination.

Some can call that narrow minded or a rule set that is being too restrictive, I would call it the best solution to a problematic situation that we experienced first hand where others are just speculating about it.

I would go as far as to say that as good as all F16 class rules were honed that way. Afterall we did do alot of work on the class rules in the first 3 years of the class. I can still write up all the reasoning behind every class rule from memory. We also worked from the principle that when a proposed rule did not have a sound foundation or pressed reason to come into existance then it would not be accepted into the F16 class rules. As a result the F16 class are actually one of the least restrictive class rules about in the catamaran and dinghy scene. Ony A-class, 18HT's, and the Aussie 12, 14, 16 and 18 foot skiffs rule less on their boats. And that is the honest thruth.

If other builder gravitate away from the F16 class then it is because they are simply not up to the challenge of competing with the other F16 builders on a level playing field, both performance and technology wise.

It is most definately NOT because F16's are fragile, too restrictive or whatever. Arguing otherwise is not looking at the facts. Over the last 6 years the F16 class has proven that much in race results and by surviving perfectly well in the most rough conditions. The fact that relatively skilled but still very much amateur homebuilders can build F16's shows the lack of technological prowess of the builders shying away from the F16.

I own the very first purpose build F16, the prototype of the class, homebuild with the valuable help from other amateurs. The boat is still sailing without having experienced a single major breakage in 5 years and it weights 121.6 kg fully fitted. That is indeed overweight with respect to the 107 kg class minimum, but none of the other non-F16 builders like Hobie, Nacra, Boulogne, Swell, Mattia, etc can even offer a product that beats an overweight homebuild F16 like that.

The only exception here is Bimare of course as their Bim-16, Javelin-16 and X16.

Does this situation result in some F16 sailors having a chip on their shoulders. I guess it does. I don't respect the big boat builders who are still putting our boat that my 1974 Prindle 16 would beat in the weight department and there is no reason to be silent about that.

I don't think the F16 class was ever formed to be nice to other builder who put lipstick on old technology and call it the next big step forward in catamaran sailing. One reason why we formed was to show what could be done if some designers put their heads together and really tried. As such it was formed to challenge the other builders in producing a proper racing catamaran !

Wouter

So you think a box rule iF20 would have succeeded.. If the rules were more open?
Ok ..
Say length 23 foot max Should account for all 20 footers and those close.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
hull width 20 Should account for all 20 footers as well.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Sail area open to make sure every boat can measure <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
No weight limit so everything can measure.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Would this class succeed.. nope.. Because some would argue this would be "too open" a class.. Cant please everyone!!

The F16 rules are as open as we could make them and still allow fair building.

techno-enthusiasts? Okkies.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Lets put this to bed once and for all.. The F16 weight rule was put in place so the semi-experienced home builder could build to close to or on the limit!! Not with nomex/vac/bagging layups but techniques pioneered in 1941!
Wouters boat is built using 1940s technology and I'm pretty certain Wouter isn't the most experienced cat builder around!! Phill's first Blade was 1940s technology building!! How many Mozzies & Tiapans have been built in the back shed? Some of these platforms are still at the pointy end of their national fleets.. Yet its amazing how some squawk and moan about high technology, the F16 and its all too difficult to do.. Yet its been done for 30 years!! Done by dads with a mate or with their kid..

The weight rule also allows for the thinking professional builders to build a 1980s technology boat to just under the weight limit. Note I said "thinking" as opposed to low thought low technique boat building companies.. These companies may know of the technology but just cant fathom that a "chopper spray" gun isn't needed in a layup.. Building a F16 requires "thinking" something it seems has by-passed mainstream cat builders..

Ches, there is no new building technology in reality since the mid 1980s.. Nomex isnt new.. Carbon isnt new.. Both have dropped in price but neither is needed for a F16 platform to come in under weight..

Personally, when I can, I sail in an "open" fleet against A's Hobies etc.. If there was a F16 fleet here I would allow other classes to share the start line.. At my level it not the pennant its the rum after Im sailing for.. I want a light boat that after a race an old man can haul up the beach.. Not something I need to reverse the SUV to have a chance in dragging the excess resin up the beach..

May I point out resin is an oil based product so using small amounts is my way to build a "green" boat.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Interestingly he built the Tiapan 4.9 for years under weight, without using carbon.