Sue,
You can go off and create your own class of boat ignoring the rating systems involved or you can create one that is optimised for racing to a rating. Somethng some of the heavier F16s should consider. You dont have to add wieght either, you can achieve the same result buy removing sail area,
Huh ?!
What should we consider ? Using yardsticks inside our Formula fleet ?
Besides adding weight to a platform is alot easier and cheaper then having a new mainsail made or have it cut smaller while not affecting is flying shape c.q. behaviour too much.
The 2 optimised 104s that sailed at texel finished within 10 seconds of each other,
No they didn't. A Sloop rigged EU nacra F17 and a One-design Spitfire finished within 10 seconds of eachother. Both are at this time declared as Single Manufactorer One-Design (SMOD) classes; neither choose to register themselves as F104's or even under any other shared name indicating that they belong to the same class.
Also The OD Spitfire specs were layed down somewhere in 1997 or 1998 and have not changed ever since. And while its rating is 104 under SCHRS it has still some margin to cover with respect to the lowest possible rating under F104 which is 1.035.
To call a Spitfire an optimized F104 is the same as calling the OD Taipan 4.9 design an optimized F16, which it isn't. The formula classes grew to enclose both these designs, but neither designs were ever optimized for these formula classes.
Officially, the Spitfire class DOES NOT recognize the F104 class as an official class for their boats. They hold on to their own One-Design class while not (actively) opposing the creation of F104 (and why should they ?) and have said so in discussions with the F104 class.
The two boats looked and behaved very differently but in the end turned out to be as evenly matched as you could get.
Yes, but the boats specs are very identical; what is the difference between a 15.45 sq, mtr main (Spitfire) and a 15.34 sq. mtr main (EU F17) ?
Truly the F104/F17 class is discovering a concept that was pioneered by the A-cat class and F18 class for over 30 to 15 years and has seen follow-ups in many other classes like the F20, F16, F18HT, etc. Get a grip guys !
Wouldn't this point to the 104 rule being a good one?
How about showing this tendency in a consistant sense and over a wider range of crew skills first ?
This single Texel result, with the second F17 waaaaaay down the listing, can even have been caused by a lucky hit. I'm not saying this was the case but we can't know from just one single result. Let alone have this single result acts as a convincing proof.
Who needs extensive class rules? Just make sure your boat is a 104 and your away. Doesn't matter if the boat is 18 ft or 16, just make it fit the rule and come racing.
As a guy who has been done this road before I can tell you that the F104 class needs a few additional rules to make it a stable class. Not many rules, but a few nevertheless. And that it needs to remove the "produce at least 10 boats" and "launch it officially at an international boatshow" first.
Without deleting these, you just can't "make sure your boat is a 104" unless you are reasonable sized boatbuilder to begin with. Lets totally forget about any private modifications to an existing platform to become a F104. F104 is definately NOT as easy as "just make it fit the rule and come racing"; as is the case with truly owner run formula classes like the A's, F18's and F16's.
Again, it is easy to show how much BS is flying around.
Wouter
