I feel qualified to express a view - take it or leave it.

The more important twin of the technical pink elephant that is not explored are the merits of a formula class that believes that fair racing between one up and two up teams is possible.

Ace,

You are welcome to this forum and I have nothing personal against you.

However, anybody creating or maintaining any chaos on this forum with respect to the F16 class rules or imaginary killer boats will get a cold shoulder.

The time has come to permanently deal with these distractors.

It is up to you to decide on which side you are on; the way I treat you is directly linked to this choice.

Wouter

No Stephen, you have been beating this dead horse for 4 years now. I can't count how many times you've hinted that you would buy a F16 for yourself but eventually didn't.

I state and truly believe that a nomex/carbon F16 will be just as fast on the water as a 19.800 bucks race version of the Falcon/Stealth/Aussie Blade F16's

I have been following the DNA in particular for some time and find it particularly interesting. The word from Europe is that it is a rocket ship and that it really impressed at Cesenatico first time out. However, while curved boards are an obvious feature, there are a number of things that seem to make the boat very different.

First, as much as I can tell from pictures, some line drawings etc, it appears to me that the hullshape is very different from what we are used to seeing.There are 2 factors to this. First is underwater shape, which has more volume than, say, a flyer and means the boat should be able to be pushed harder downwind. But the real difference is that the hulls seem very big, with lots of topsides and beam. This plays into one of the things I believe is really important. The whole platform is designed to be incredibly stiff. They have paid a lot of attention to this. The boat is pre-preg carbon-nomex. By having a large hull, that lends itself to good strength. Then they have spent a lot of effort in how the beams attach to the hulls. Again, this is something seen with the Nikita but which i think most boats have an issue with.

I have commented before on my suprise as to how much twist you get on most of the top platforms (at least the ones I have checked!). It is interesting that Bob Baier commented in a recent interview, saying

So, yet again, we see many variables add up to what appears to be a great package. The real question is which element has the biggest impact. I am convinced by the need for a stiff platform when using any foils designed to give lift and I expect platform stiffness to become a major theme going forward. When I commented before that I thought we would see hullshapes develop to go with curved foils, I had thought we would see thinner hulls relying on the foils to keep them out of trouble. The DNA seems to go the other way - fatter hulls that are safe when needed but whichhave foils to lift and therefore improve hullshape in other conditions.

Then there is the issue of what shape the actual c foils are and in that regard, we have no idea how they compare with what is out there at the moment. This is where it is going to get fun. Somebody needs to take a single platform/rig and compare all the foils. Of course, as suggested above, that will only work for foils of the same type as the position of assy foils would probably by different from symetrical ones. For instance, at the moment there are at least 3 curved foils I would like to try in my boat, but I cannot afford it!

The final thing of note for me is that the DNA has a really good way of adjusting the amount of lift from the curved boards


While it does still need to be set up properly, it does seem to make a lot of sense. All that's missing is a few numbers next to the case so one can start building a picture of what is going on.