Using the results of the last couple of weeks voting and discussion I've drafted this.

Thoughts?

Luiz has sent me some wording tweeks (thankyou), however, I'll wait to hear from others before making changes (so I don't have to do it too many times).

The only thing I have an issue with is the 30 liter volume, thats about 50% higher than my round bilge design and as I just secured a builder for it, I'd like that to continue.
You might want to amend the 6m black band rule on the mast as it can't be seen with a pocket luff sail.
Cheers
RG

In order to keep a 50+ kg boat from sinking when flooded, it is necessary to have slightly more than 50+ liters in any type of safe emergency flotation volume.
Would the Vudu design be compliant with "10% more flotation volume when flooded than the actual ready to sail displacement"?

RG the foam requirement isn't new, its been in every draft set of rules published including Wouter's originals. Could you not add some foam in a bag like the F18s do?



Proposed alternate wording or rule?

It looks good, I wote for it.

ooops....sorry...missed a "0" in that...disregard the previous post. (was half asleep late at night)

Billy wasn't intending to have a hatch cover....and it would be difficult to fit as we only have half a deck width to fit it to with the bevelled deck design....why is it necessary to have that in the rule ?

From memory the hatch cover was a cut and paste from F16 rule. I'm happy to delete.

we may put a inspection port in anyway so no problem with that for the vudu in nz
bill

Ncik's post from home building thread.

Yeah...I think that needs a rewording.

Is the intent also to allow the hull construction foam as part of the positive flotation? My F16 conforms to its requirements with just the hulls foam (no dedicated positive flotation foam). I have no problem with it being counted towards the positive flotation volume.

I do have some concerns about allowing a single air bag in each hull for positive flotation. My intention isn't to complicate the existing rules, but without appropriate securing of multiple air bags, one air bag may be rendered completely useless during a collision.

So you can inspect the hull on the inside and check for the required flotation.

Wouter

I'm largely in favour of these rules; but I have comments on the following points

section 1.4.3

I would remove the identifiers "halyard lock" or "shackle" and replace them with something alot more general. Actually, sleeved sails use neither a halyard nor a shackle to secure the sail to the top. Pretty popular now is a ribbon cross that forms a small cup and a single line. The mast top is of significant length (say 200-300 mm) in order to keep the sleeve tight at the top and allow the sail to twist easily around the mast. I can put pics on if people don't understand what is meant here. Interestingly enough this setup would allow an upper black band to be visible again.

Basically I would reword this rule so that no part of the sail may be beyond the upper band with the exception of those parts that function ONLY as a means to secure the sail to the compliant position. Of course any real sailarea will have a double function and be non-compliant.

With sleeved sails that just close the top of the sleeve by stitching we can simply require that the top of the mast or the upper black band is no further away from the top of the main beam then 6.00 mtr, which ever is lowest.

Personally I strongly prefer a max luff length measurement as well, mostly because this rule is alot more difficult to break then a black band rule. Afterall, my unstayed mast will be collapsable and it is a 5 euro and 5 minute job to replace the top section with a slightly longer one after getting a measurement certificate. Replacing the sail (with a stamp and signiture) is alot harder and more expensive. With a max luff length the mast black band distance is also implecitly fixed.


Point 1.5.1 Inspection hatches.

To retired geek etc. Marstrom and the F14 builder fit inspection hatches to their sterns which are always flat panels as it will be pretty hard to align the rudder pintles on a curved panel. So this may be the solution to you guys.


Point 1.10.2 For sleeved sails Area = A + As

Firstly I would write down " For sleeved sails; Total area = A + As" and thus refer directly back to the basic rule which is "Total area may not be greater then 7.0 sq. mtr."

Secondly, we must define A properly. Currently it can be argued that the sleeve area must be included twice as who is to say that the "actual area" of a sleeved sail doesn't include the sleeve already ? Also do we included the area of the sail that is inside the mast track or inside the sleeve ? If not then we must exlcude those from the actual area as well. Remember, when things get competitive we can expect some sea lawer to comb the rules for an advantage. Remember the protest at the F18 worlds two years ago about every one being protested for having the compliant peddles on boards ? We better make sure the rules are already as well worded as possible from the start to avoid troubles later.



I would also include organistional rules, event rules and a definitions section to the F12 class rules and make the boxrule section an individual section. These don't have to be as elaborate the versions with the F18 or F16 rules but I still think we should have them. Again to avoid ourselves difficult discussions later.

A point in case. In rule 1.1.1 we refer to the spirit of the rule but we don't really define what this spirit is. We do a little bit of that in the Prologue but it is wise to consider defining a few well worded goals/spirits that can be used as a checklist. Something like.

The spirit of the F12 rule is to

-1- Limit the overall performance of all F12 craft to such similar level that first-in-wins course racing is fair irrespectibally of the craft used by a particular crew.

-2- Have all crews have acces to any F12 design (given reasonable costs) that is most capable of wining a course race if ever a significant difference between makes is ever encountered.

Etc


I may spot more points later.

Wouter

Makes sense to me.




I like stern hatches because one can see the entire inside from there, not only the vicinity of the hatch. All Supercats/ARCs have stern hatches. I used them in my floats for the same reason - and because they are usefull for construction in two halves.





Although I still dream of a one design class, it seems that we have a mini A class in our hands. We need not re-invent the wheel: just adapt the A-Class rules to the F12.




The right wording is of utmost importance here. This point deserves our atention.

I think that it's very important to get the basic rules on paper NOW-NOW.
There is already too much my design have that and that, and it will become worse with more designers joining the club.
Can we not agree on the draft Scarecrow made, and the rest we let until the the control is handed over to a specific group?

I agree with your first point but lets give it a good work over here and now. When the little loopholes and inconsistances are to be worked out by a group of owners then we'll be in for a huge amount of discussions and arguing. Right now the discussion group is still small and sufficiently focussed.

Wouter

The A-class has actually one of the worst rulesets in the catamaran scene from a class stability and low-participation-cost perspective. Two pitfalls we really want to avoid in the F12 class.

It has only somewhat stabilized in the last 10 years because after 30-40 years of repeative development and significant changes to the boat the concept has found a balance that is hard to improve upon. Do we really want to see the F12 take 3 to 4 decades to find its place ?

Wouter

No problem, let's find the most appropriate and easily adjustable rules available. It is easier to improve existing rules than to start from scratch. Then we can add the best parts to Scarecrows text.

From the moment the first draft became available, it already was THE F12 rule, even if under discussion. Remember that after the text is agreed on, it will necessarily remain provisory until the by-laws or statutes are made official.

I suggest the reading of the following rules before deciding if one of them can be used as first draft or if we should improve the existing F12 rules.

A Class: http://home.planet.nl/~dwars000/id20.htm

Wave: http://www.catsailor.com/waves/wave_const.html

F16: http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_class_rules.html

F18: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/F18_2007_Class_Rules-[5051].pdf

Tornado: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2...0208-[5103].pdf

Open 60: .pdf]http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/60MT_2004_CR-[859].pdf

Correct address for F16 rules:

http://www.formula16.org/content/view/14/35/lang,en/