Hi all
I am pleased to announce you that the new BIMARE Javelin 16 will be officially launched next Saturday at the Vele di Pasqua Regatta scheduled at Cesenatico (Italy) from April 19 through 21, 2003.
It will come ex factory fitted with a furling gennaker.
For pics see: www.bimare.net
The boat does not comply with the new F16 rule, anyway it is likely to become the fastest 16 footer on the market.
BIMARE boatyard is willing to constitute an one-design class as soon as that a fair number of boats will be sold.
Anyway they have already got 6 orders before the launch.

Thanks for the post, but it leaves me wondering.., where does it not comply with present F16HP rules?
I further wonder if it is the same reason my Taipan 4.9 does not comply -- the Hooter! or roller-furlling genaker!
If that is the reason, I am totally behind a move to allow this type of sail, although my arguments have thus far have fallen on deaf ears.
The answer is to simply remove the mid-girth requirement rule. The sail area is probably less with the Hooter or Genaker than the spinnaker, so there is no sail size advantage.
And the roller-furling is very much easier to deal with on a single-handed boat.
Rick

Rick,
the new Javelin 16 does not comply with the actual F16HP rule in several aspects: for istance it weights some 10 kg (or 22 lbs) less the minimum weight limit fixed by the F16HP rule; the carbon mast at 9.0 m is 0,5 m (or 1.7 ft) too long and too light etc. The midgirth measurement rule is only one DIFFERENCE, even if the most interesting from a developmental point of view. In fact BIMARE boatyard is willing to compare seriously the performance of furling gennakers (hooters) versus conventional asymmetrics.
The same tests will be carried out also on the Javelin 2. I hope to be able to provide you with the outcome of these tests in the next few weeks.

rick,

Your comments haven't fallen of deaf ears, the class has only decided against it.

There are some major drawbacks of the hooter you know !

How about trying to win the Texel race or Carnac under ISAF handicap rule with a rating that is significantly faster then ALL other beach cats available and with which YOU'll have to give a beefed up tornado spi 3 minutes time on the finish line. Now the Taipan is fast but not THAT fast. And that is only with a 10 sq. mtr. hooter. Now try a bigger one => 5 minutes time to the intl. tornado with spi.

And that is one reason.

Another is the fact that the F16 class wants to be the light to medium crew weight alternative to the F18's and be able to race them first in wins at club races ands sorts. They feature spinnakers and not Hooters. If we wanted to be fastest class around then we would have build a class around the ARC-26 boat or club Med.

The class decided in favour of the assymmetric spinnaker a while ago and we are not going to force all the members to buy new headsails because the fashion just changed. This maybe okay for other classes but this is not what the F16 class is about.

Some builders won't garantee their product with hooters on them when they will with spis.

All (safety ?) considerations that I think a class should take seriously.

Sorry Rick, no matter how much I personally would like to experiment with a hooter it is not going to be in the F16 any time soon.

Wouter

Congrats,

I will be looking for those regatta pics !

>>The boat does not comply with the new F16 rule,

Just curious ; is this the offical Bimare line ?

Wouter

A little twist of logic

As I understand it, the reason the 16HP class does not want a hooter, is it is not competitive under Texel handicap.

You gave some examples using the Tornado. Interestingly there is nothing explicit in the Tornado rules to prevent me from using a "roller furling spinnaker" on a class legal Tornado. The spinnaker launcher is open and the mid girth is "shall not exceed".

What happens if I bring a class legal Tornado with a roller furling spinnaker to a Texel handicap event? Do they give me the standard Int Tornado handicap?

I do not know how Texel is administered in Europe. In the US I am pretty sure I could win an Appeal. My suggestion is take out the minimum mid girth and let any individual who wants to "go for it".

Carl,
Any headsail that does not have at least 75% midgirth is not considered a spinnaker by the Texel Rating. If it is not a spinnaker it counts towards sail area the same as a main and jib. To put it into perspective, a US I 20 rates 2% faster then a Euro I 20 becuase is has about 15 ft^2 more sail area in the main sail. If you added a 200 ft^2 ft hooter instead of the spinaker, the boat would probably rate 5-10% faster then a standard I 20.

It just is not worth it, the way the texel game is played.

Eric

Actualy,
An Î-20 with a 220^2 hooter will owe a Spinnaker equiped I-20 about 10 minutes per hour. The fact of the matter is that under texel, you can not make a reacher equiped boat sail to its rating number. This is why the are not at all popular in europe.

Eric

The Girth rule clearly defines what is regarded to be a spinnaker which head sails are nothing more than very large jibs.

To give ane example. Lets say we fit a hooter or rather a reacher to a uni rigged boat. As jibs and Reachers are not celarly defined under the Portsmouth system I can choose to use the lower modification factor of a reacher for my very large jib. Okay I will get into a big argument with the race organisors but what is there to prevent me from declaring my reacher to be nothing more than a large jib

US sailing definition of small jib :

"boats with standard jib tacked to bridal wires and hoisted to or below mast hounds"

US sailing definition of a large jib :

"boats with foils or jibs with tack attached to the deck or from cross beam and/or head attached above mast hounds"

Now my reacher is not fitted to either a deck or crossbeam nor does it really need to be hoisted below or to the mast hound. I will just fit a piece of dyneema line as a make beleive forestay while my reacher luff is actually taken the true loads.

This way it will not be difficult to fit my uni rigged boat in theory with a "reacher" by fitting what actually is an oversized jib hoisted only 2 inches above the mast hounds. I fly this baby both upwind and downwind and only have to take a 2,9 % hit instead of 6,3 % hit for a large jib.

This way I can easily design a rating beater by introducing alot more performance than I get compensated for in the rating. And this is exactly why Texel and ISAF systems hold onto their definitions and regard 0-75 % girth headsails as jibs.

In fact it is more fair this way.

Now with regard to the Texel and ISAF hits, well a beach cat doesn't sail well with a 10 sq. mtr. (100 sa. mtr.) jib. This is just poor designing. The rig is out of balance. Texel and ISAF don't care wether you build your hulls like a rectangular brick they just state the maximum expected performance for a given waterlength, weight, sailarea, crewweight and sailplan. That some designers try to do the equivalent of fitting Nascar 600 hp engine to a Ford Pinto platform and not account for the inbalances is just considered bad designing. You have all the ingredients to go fast, lightweight, small surface area and a huge engine but other aspects are preventing you from obtaining that performance. Things like drive (fragile) shafts when you put 600 HP through it.

Now in theory a 10 sq. mtr. jib can add alot of extra performance. The practical implication is however that such a jib is out of place on our small beach cats.

Is this fair, well one can argue convincingly that even bad designs need to be rated accurately and I agree with that. This is a drawback ot the texel system.

On the other hand however I agree with the Texel and ISAF systems that we don't make this system more fair by knowingly give a superlarge jib (but deceivingly called a reacher) a slower rating than it is known to be able to sail to.

I mean the spinnaker hit is determined on the fact that it is carried only on downwind courses. Now imagine carrying the same sail upwind. Clearly the basis on which the modification factor is determined has no been lost.

I for one would stress for a different modification factor which is to be used for reachers (hooters) that would solve all our problems.

With respect to the Tornado, I'm sure the guys at texel would not give the standard int. Tornado rating to that boat. Class rules will not help the Tornado with reacher in this respect. And Again that would be fair I think. However, more fair would be to have a reacher modification.

I'm also sure that you would win an appeal in the US as the PN system definitions allow you to use the more favourable modification factor.

With respect to F16 class rules; we will not take out the Girth rule as neither the F18, iF20 (inter 20) and also the F18HT class rules have this rule in them.

Maurizio is once again mistaken by saying that Bim could fit hooters or reachers to their jav 2's.

Under F18HT rules they can't.

I quote rule 2 of the F18HTclass website "... Spinnaker must satisfy the following SMG >75 %* SF ..."

Now I welcome anybody who is willing to experiment with these sails to do so and hopefully they will share their info with me.

Some already have and I must say these experiences were very interesting.

With respect to popularity in Europe of these sails. Well they are widely used on ocean going designs like the ORMA tri's.

With respect to beach cats. I may be able to table this issue in the Texel committee, but for now a reacher is not what you want to have when you sail in abig event like Texel or Carnac.

Wouter

Of course we have a few other designs that can't sail to their rating. And there are more causes to this than just the reacher issue.

Again, Texel and ISAF rating give a prediction on the maximum obtainable performance when the performance potential can be fully utilized. Not all boats can under all conditions.

But this is a topic for the future.

I am quite surprised that the Bimare factory has chosen to fit the Javelin 16 with a Hooter-like sail. I understand that the class will also allow assemetric spinnakers of 17.5 meters, so this Hooter sail could offer another good option to the future class members. Only time will tell if this is a wise decision. I favor the option, but would probably stick with a spinnaker with a launcher.

A couple of observation and questions-

1-Aren't the loads much higher for the Hooter? Will the hulls need to be made heavier to match these higher loads or are they stong enough as currently built.

2-In what conditions would the Hooter sail have an advantage over the spin. Wouldn't the drag of the rolled up Hooter harm upwind performance? I suppose that in light upwind-close reaching conditions that this sail would work very well. Any comment?

3-Is Wouter upset because he sees this new boat class as a major competitor for his struggling F-16HP class? After all, the F-16 class only managed 3-4 boats at their last North Americans. Heck, Oliver will probably bring in a container load of javwelin 16s and then there will be more Javelin 16s than F-16HPs in the USA. That would be a stick in Wouter's eye. If Wouter were smart he would welcome the Jav 16s into his class, if they agreed to sail with spinnakers only.

4-When can we get one of these babies?

I would love to hear comments by others-Wouter is too predictable and obviously prejudice.

49er

Is there any other beach cat available that comes factory with a hooter? I can't think of one. I personally think that it's a great sail but understand the complications associated with rating it fairly. Kind of like trying to rate all sorts of apples and oranges so they all taste the same - can't do it.

However, I would be shocked if Bimare doesn't have or quickly develop an F16HP compliant package for their boat - it would only make sense for them to open their boat up to that class as well. Unless they're skered!

I am all for seeing formula develop in the U.S. but even though we have some groups touting the logos, it's all still one design. So how about it Bimare? I love the idea of a factory hooter equipped boat but why not step up and make that boat available as F16HP compliant and give us at least one class that is a real "formula"?

Jake and others,

Why should Bimare, who pioneered the F-16 concept well before Wouter even thought about his class, change their design criteria to meet a new,nearly non-existant class? Bimare built the BIM F-16 years ago (can someone give me the actual date?)and it has always been a unirigged craft.

Bimare saw that Wouter was bent on excluding their BIM 16 and Jav 16 from "his" class by raising the minimum weight and lowering the max mast length. They have obviously decided to proceed with their original concept and improve upon it. I applaud their innovation in fitting their Jav 16 with a Hooter (asemmetrical spinnaker is within their rule, too). Maybe they are on to something-maybe not, but they are trying new things. Cuddos to them.

Do I dare to hope that this new boat might be popular with couples and even women-only teams? Sounds ideal for getting more women back into the sport. Many of us women are intimidated by spinnakers (at least in the United States; I don't know about Europe).

This is the same reason I was hopeful that the Formula 16 class would allow roller-furling reachers as an option.

I understand how the texel system works, technically. My point was more of how it is administered or a legal issue. Under the US system all class legal boats would have the same rating. A class legal Tornado with a maximum sized spinnaker, a small spinnaker, a roller furling spinnaker or a flat reacher shaped spinnaker using a snail would all have the same rating. Would texel try to rate them differently?

Personally I thinks texel has too many implied assumptions in its calculations. I think the numbers were derived from sloop rigged boat weighing 18-22 lb per foot of overall length. It does an ok job with boats like that. It appears to have some problems with light boats and with unirig/spinnaker boats. That is just my opinion.

Sorry I misunderstood your post.

As far as I'm aware Texel does not link any rating directly to the class compliant boats. A class can leave the sail area unspecified is they want to but they can not get a class rating then. In that case each boat has to be measured and a different rating has to be calculated. Or the maximum dimensions found will be used to rate all baost in that class.

http://www.texelrating.knwv.nl/getanumber.html

The Texel rating tries to determine the fastest possible speed for a given set of basis parameters.

With respect to your tornado question I think that all Tornado's with the named sails will be rated the same as long as the girth rule is satisfied. The one which doesn't gets a different rating number.

We are talking handicap racing here and although it may be fair to rate tornado's with rather equal sail equally, it will be unfair to bend the rule in case of one class in relation to another that does satisfy the Girth rule.

A no win situation, I admit. Its unfair to other designs when you rate them equally (PN) and it;s unfair to that class when you don't (Texel).

Wouter

Man, it must really be going badly in the other class as we're at the "lets bash Wouter and his dumb class" again.

And than I'm predictable.

Answer to -1- Well DUH !

Answer to -3- Yeah right ! And 7 at the Aussie event, 5 to be at the South African Event this weekend and working on South Asia. Glenn Ashby sponsored our Aussie perpetual trophy and MAN ! This class is really going down the drain. Hell we're closer to ISAF status than any other of the newly formed classes. I'm getting really scared now. BWAHAHAHAH !

>>If Wouter were smart he would welcome the Jav 16s into his class, if they agreed to sail with spinnakers only.

Indeed !

Answer -4- Good question !

Wouter

4 dec 2001

Part of the e-mail Communication between Valerio Petrucci of the Bim yard and myself.

"Wouter,
a few years ago, we tried to start a BIM 16 class, but without too much
success.
Therefore is no use sending you its class rule. The first BIM 16 had a
main of 11 sqm, then 12,50 sqm, then 13,50 sqm before reaching the
actual level for the 2001 version. The same was for the gennaker.
Valerio"

Even Maurizio never claimed the Bim 16 design (!) to be older than 1991 (12 years = a few years ?)

It is common knowlegde that the concept of the Taipan was first floated in 1985 by Greg Goodall and Jim Boyer. And it was launched on Easter Sunday 1988, 15 years ago this weekend. If anybody pioneered this type of craft and made it succesful than it is AHPC.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt it is the F16 class which is also know under the name F16HP that succesfully set up a FORMULA class around these craft with more than one builder making compliant designs. We soon welcome the third (or forth if Bim still wants to play along) and that means TWO fully optimized designs and one very competative foundation design in the shape of Taipan 4.9 with spi.

The fact that there wasn't a single rating in both ISAF and Texel as well as PN and VYC (Eu, USA, AUS) under the name Formula 16 or F16 prior to our ratings (in contrast to say the F18HT's) is more than indicative of the fact that the "old F16 class" never existed. Which seems to be confirmed in writing by the comments of the person who of all people should be in the know.

Now, I have nothing but respect for the Bimare Yard and father and son Michelangelo - Valerio Petrucci and they have given me none other than dependable information.

My problem is with the well known proxy mouth pieces who seem to knowlingly spread information that is noticably in contradiction with the truth and comments from more dependable sources. And who can argue with with the source named at the beginning of this post ?

Now, I was under the impression that we had a defacto truce. Or shall I start quoting more e-mails and ask questions like why the much heralded Javelin wave peircer design is finishing where is does in the A-cat class itself where the Flyer wave peircer is found on places 1,2 and 3 ?

I was pretty content with the truce actually; I trust you were too.

We may all be living in glass houses but some of us are living class manors.

Wouter

Wouter,

Regarding you comments about the origin of the F16 class, I have a print of a F16 by Bimare from the 1995. I understand that the originia BIM 16 (1991?) was not heralded as a F-16, but please name another F16 cat that predates the 1995 Bimare F16. I know that Cirrus, Mystere, Ventillo, and others build "F16" cats, but not to your rule. Pathetically, You just try to lump them into your class in an attempt to legitimize your class. I applaud you efforts in forming the F16HP class, but you insistance in grouping other designs into your class is laughable. Only Stealth Marine builds a F-16HP. Taipan (AHPC) builds 4.9s and will provide a "F-16HP-ize" version, but their main thrust is the 4.9 Class. The other 16 foot designs that you have tried to group into your "class" were not built to your rule. Face it your rule is largely ignored by the builders.

In the USA, there has not been one successfull F-16HP regatta! Three or four boats at the North Americans? What a joke! None stayed to the end of the event. You tout the Australian event, but even tht event garnered less than 10 boats.

Like the man, Rick White, pointed out in a previous post you and your class shold spend more time sailing and racing than posting. Your performances on the water confirm this keen observation. Maybe you should put away your typewriter and go to a Rick White Siminar.

Got to go-SAILING, so bye-bye for now.

49er

>>>Regarding you comments about the origin of the F16 class, I have a print of a F16 by Bimare from the 1995.


Show it to us please and name the mainsail area that it featured at that time. Please remember that I actually HAVE a bim 16 in the Dutch class at this time, and I know every measurement of it. And while you're at it please name the MASTLENGTH that was featured in 1995 too. I predict you will either lie or not answer the questions.

Then I'll invite you to visit the ONLY independent confirmation that exists on the web of a Bim 16 as it was at that time.

http://www.schrs.com/schrsratings.asp?id=all

And what do we see there ? No it can't be ! a platform that is full compliant with the F16 rules. Yes that is right MY F16 rules.

The second mentioning of a BIM 16 on the web by an independent party, The Texel committee is a one-off modified BIM 16. Hell it even says "ONE-OFF" in the rating table and is actually called a "Bim 16 special". And would you just have it that that particular Bim 16 is involved in the Dutch start-up !

In 2000 and 2001 I look hard of this ghost rules and you know what. Nothing could be found in either English or Italian. I gave up looking for them after I received valerio's mail which pretty much said to me "Don't bother". Later when I discovered the multiple setups with different mastlengths, mainsail area's and spi area's I understood why. There was no common rule which was agreed upon by multiple builders and there never has been one too. In my case there are. AHPC has provided input and has agreed, Stealth did the same and also launched a F16 in 2002 and a third party was also involved and will launch in 2003.

THAT is what makes a FORMULA class. Multiple designers and builders working together to build a common class.

And what surprises me all the time is that Neither ISAF nor Texel measurement ever refer to a BIM F16, but always to a Bim 16. I mean, could it be that we are all mistaken and that it has been Hobie F16 all along instead of Hobie 16 !?

THAT dog don't hunt my dear.

>>Face it your rule is largely ignored by the builders.

Well there is only one builder ignoring my rule dear and it isn't Ventilo (Compliant), Mattia (compliant), Taipan (Compliant), Stealth (compliant), Blade (Compliant), hell I have even discussed the class with Cirrus and they are taking this seriously.


>>In the USA, there has not been one successfull F-16HP regatta!

Oh well the first F18HT event was a big DUT then as we were at the same event and had just as many boats (when NOT counting the Isotopes). We were less loud, I admit to that.


And what is worse, YOU KNOW ALL THIS ! We had this talk several times before. But still, you and your companions seems to have a thing for the F16 class. I don't know why. Could it be that ...? Nah !

>>>None stayed to the end of the event.

No, none of us stayed to the end of YOUR event , remember that we shortend our event that time and did so well before the event happened ?

High school must have been darn difficult for you.

>>You tout the Australian event, but even tht event garnered less than 10 boats.

Well we had more than you had at your nationals ! And I mean both classes that you have expressed to participate in.


>>Like the man, Rick White, pointed out in a previous post you and your class shold spend more time sailing and racing than posting.


The much respected Rick White has never expressed anything of that sort. This another one of inventions. And I'm delussional !?

Now I think the Jav 16 is a intriguing design and I have no problem with it launch and if you guys want to have your own class, ALL BY YOURSELF, than that is fine with me.

But despite this the fact of the matter remains that there was no old F16 class establish prior to my F16 (which is rather OUR F16 class). Our class rating in all the major handicap systems prove this and so do the comments made by Bimare yard.

That you have a thing for me personally, well, I'm even okay with that as long as you don't start inventing history or even "a present". I'm looking forward to those 6 jav 16's coming to the USA and I hope to welcome them at a F16 regatta some time in the future.

If they are in time they can even participate for a charter slot in the 2005 F16 World challenge. Just like that Dutch "Bim 16 special" will be doing. And that is what I think about letting Bims into the F16 class. Not that it will stick in your memory because I'm sure I can expect another outrage at my class and rule in say 2 to 3 months time.

Ahh well, as long as the other forum participants know what your grasp on facts is.

Wouter