Gel coat is the simple way to be compatible with polyester resin and get a good finish straight from the mold. Boat builders have used it since they started making fiberglass boats. Gel coat is not compatible with epoxy and most items made with epoxy elect to use a post applied paint system.

For boats with unfinished deck seems like the H16, a lot of dinghies etc gel coat works great. The finish on the gel coat if done properly will match the finish on the mold. Minimal to no finish work and the costs are kept low. The new modern cat hulls almost all have a lot of post finish seam work done to the hulls. This is very labor intensive and can be a good application for using paint in place of gel coat. The cost adder in production here is the finish work on the hull to remove the seam, the use of gel coat or paint makes no real difference to the cost of the end boat. If the class wants to consider their rules to be a cap to costs, then the styling is the issue not the material.

A paint shop will tell you it is better to use paint and a traditional fiberglass shop will prefer to work with gel coat. Each have their issues as far as technique and finish. The big problem a lot of shops are facing is regulation. It is illegal to spray styrenated resins (gel coat) in many places around the world. Brush application of gel coat is not an acceptable alternative to any production shop. We can all move our shops to Asia, and most have already but eventually things will catch up there as well.

The new better paints weather a lot better than gel coats. This might be a nice suggestion as far as longevity of used boats. If someone is seriously considering that paint is going to provide some huge performance gain then they need to look at another hobby.

Chemical industry or fluid mechanist are able to express an opinion on this question of performance.

"In results done by Otago Flume Laboratory they found that its satin finish gave a 15% less drag coefficient that a high gloss surface. "

May be it's only marketing, like the following quotation from a recent F18 flyer concerning a point about paint performance:

"saving 3 kg per hull compared to gelcoat allows to increase the laminate and internal structure of the hulls in order to improve both stiffness and durability."

Here the key point is the fair competition between boat builders. That's why rules can change with one year delay notice.

At least there is a doubt. TC people did not find consensus. Here I do admit in the doubt the World Council choose a conservative way for the clarification (no extra rules).
Way which is just confirmed by ISAF.

Franck, Normally intelligent people can see marketing when they see it.

Nacra also claims that by Infusing their hulls they are stiffer and stronger, but I have yet to see you bash them for such claims.


Besides, if we can save weight by using paint, and then use that extra weight to build stronger hulls that last longer its better for customers, and that is what the class management should be encouraging!!!

What is of great concern to the members of the french association is that you claim to represent their best interests, but its very clear you are abusing the voting power vested in you by those members to push your own agenda.

If you could buy a boat that is cheaper, stiffer and more durable because of the use of paint instead of gelcoat then that has to be a good thing for the class.

If you are banning paint because the large manufacturers in the class won't change their production methods and will therefore have a more expensive, less stiff and less durable boat than a new brand entering the market then this has to be a bad thing for the class.

Catsailingnews blog has a lot of chatter on this at the moment with Alex Udin claiming he is being targeted by the big boys.

The more I see of this saga the more I'm starting to believe it. He may, or may not, be the most unlikeable person in sailing. That doesn't give the association the right to enforce rules to target his boats.

Franck, I've asked you this previously. Why is it ok to grandather the Spitfire when they obviously breached the rules, yet the Sail Innovation sails were banned immediately, even after being approved by association measurers?

And with this ruling from ISAF, does the association plan on banning the current Phantoms? If so, will the association also be banning all other boats finished with paint?

Franck - your claims about paint improving performance (because their marketing says so....) so they need to be banned can be easily fixed.

In the same way you have approved material for sails, hulls etc. Simply provide a list of approved paints that are to be used.

Problem solved. http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/icons/default/smile.gif

Can the F18 association please, please, please go to a back room for 6 months and re-write the class rules so we can stop the confusion of constant amendments.

I just point out, like others, contradictions and double speech.

Infusing hulls doesn't seem to break F18 rules.

The basic question here, is (any as you affirm) paint do not increase performance vs gelcoated hull ?

At least there is a doubt. TC people did not find consensus. Here I do admit in the doubt the World Council choose a conservative way for the clarification (no extra rules).
Way which is just confirmed by ISAF.

I try to expose ideas, decision and people work (TC, WC and now ISAF), that's why I do precise to be crystal clear I'm part of it.

Macca, I'm sad that each time there is no ideas or fact in front of mine, you use personnal attack.
Would you be as kind as to expose what do you mean by "own agenda" ?

I've been elected two times (2006 an 2009) and you know what ? As treasurer, I'm the bad boy who always ask for money ;-)
In 2006 they were 90 french members, in 2011 there is 280 french members.
This is a team work success and passion shared, which make me happy.

So please Macca, let's stay in ideas and fact field. F18 deserved that.

Hi Gav, I just say there is at least doubt about paint improving performance and some double speech does not help.

As doubt exists on this question, WC choose a conservative way for brand new F18.
And the new fact is that ISAF confirmed this approach (painting for routine maintenance is allowed but in the customer chapter) and in the same move improved the wording.

About rewriting I do not believe it is a fast and secure way.
Most of difficulties we have to face now are from the rewriting in order to fit to ISAF standart (ERS).

In the TC, Andrew Gallagher and now Don Findlay do great job with all the involved technicians, and they are also open to outside advices.

Here we focus (a little too much ?) ont paint but many others issues are already solved
-length daggerboard limitation,
-carbon allowed parts,
-crews weight limit,
-mainsails in one ply

and many others are on the table of the TC and soon to be precised (boat and hull centreplane, boom, mast fitting, luff and leech lines...).
I'm very impressed by this team work.

Except length daggerboard and crew weight all is already in the class rules and need just to be clarified.

Indeed since Corecell/Shockwave the new trend is to not changed the rules when the rules are broken.
Till now, grandfathering and derogation (RSS87) allow F18 customers to used material that has been certified.

For me the great next move is to have a builder certificat of compliance.
Given with the bill to the customer, it will not replace the measurer work and the certificate which transform a 18 feet catamaran into a magical F18.

<**** agenda against one builder.

Neither Hawk, Alado, Cirrus, Tiger nor Mattia (nice pinky gel coat) were painted.
May be you can afford exemple of the day one, I've found none.

Just an extract of the 2002 rules, looks like paint or epoxy paint were not allowed:

"For the construction, only the following materials are authorized : polyester or vinylester resin, glass fibres, core of PVC or balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, steel, extruded aluminium profiles of constant section, which shall not be altered, other than locally for the fixings and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement.
Every material that is not expressly permitted, is prohibited.
Carbon is only permitted in spreaders, rudder blades, dagger boards, blocks, cleats and tiller extension. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components."

Check there: www.sailing.org/2129.php

But that is the past and we have to look forward (5 years is a long time ;-)

Present is: still no consensus on this issue in the TC, (the last report is this week old), more than 95% of the F18 fleet is with gel coat finish.
At the last november WC, a majority vote for the clarification (no new rule) confirmed by this week ISAF interpretation:

"Question 1:
In reference to class rule D.2.3(a) "Routine maintenance such as painting and polishing is permitted without re-measurement and re-certification" - Does this rule allow new boats to be supplied with a painted finish?
Answer 1:
NO."

Future is wide open, propose an amendment to TC, then the chain of vote will work from national association to WC. In France I'm sure some will support such painting amendment,also I know some will be against.

Concerning price I feel (show me I'm wrong) that all prices are very similar for brand new F18, from "big" or "small" company.

Mattia are painted. Confirmed by Enrico himself.

I had a wood epoxy boat in 2005, painted.

I know of more small run production boats as well, all painted.

Many refurbished boats in Paint as well.

I'm done with arguing a mute point with you Franck, you have displayed a clear bias against paint regardless of the mounds of evidence to support paint presented to you.

If you truly have the best interests of the class at heart I suggest you look at the facts, and remove your personal grudge.

Your French class members will appreciate it

I do agree the last Mattia is painted. I was considering about old one as you speak about the past of F18.

We never waste time when we expose some point of view or when we have a confrontation of ideas.

For me the key point is not to be for or against paint. Indeed, I've got no personnal interest in this issue.

My main goal is to communicate about the facts and the process, as precisely as I can, in order to explain recent decisions (WC, ISAF) made about F18.

Franck,

Nobody is confused that you are against paint and even more so, you are against sail-innovation.

In the previous pages in this thread you have been presented with clear information that there are no performance advantages or cost increases with paint, yet you simply ignore it.

I can only hope that the French class members are aware of your misuse of your voting position and they act accordingly.

Talking about costs, how much does an SI Phantom cost anyway?

Andrew, sorry to say this: here you're wrong. Please, again; stay in ideas field.

I'm not against sail innovation. Believe it or not, it's not a big deal.

More than this, find a word of me which show that my very own opinion is against paint... The game was not only to present facts different (or in response) than yours.

In this thread you find that a lot of F18 sailors asking for informations. So, I just talk about and explain what did happen. As you see the theme (rules changed) is not only about paint.

You give your vision as you work now for sail-innovation as sales-manager (http://www.sail-innovation.com/racing-team/), at least I did a complementary chapter.
2 exposed differents points of view are a good way to make people mind.
I believe that TC and WC work deserved that. I hope I did it correctly whith my poor english.

About weight issue (large sails from 140 to 130 kg) I was against, because I think that is not in favour of the majority of people (getting older and fatter like me) and favorised skinny people and some silly diet.

With French team we organise the vote. Every part express themselves. A majority come for this change of the rule. So in the WC I vote for... even if I don't change my mind.
But I respect French members vote when I'm representing them.
It's a running joke with my son (135 kg with his crew on a Tiger and large jib & spi).

On paint, no new rule or rule changing indeed. There is no consensus in TC on this point, for WC it was only a clarification of the text beyond many. And this clarification is interpreted now by ISAF.

Again the story is not finished there is a rule changing process, go for it !

I agree, especially with the durability aspects.

This conflict make me wonder if the big-manufactureres are scared of better looking painted boats with fancy graphics. Just look at the Nacra 17 with all the fancy painted stripes on it. Everyone thinks it looks great.

I'm just a small-time club sailor of no consequence (other than my dollar vote) wanting to sail cats again and buy me a new boat. I used to sail a H16 (I do not like the gel-coat finish). I would rather have a painted boat. I also think two-cloth main sails sound better too. But whatever.

I just hope all this confusion get straighten out soon.

Here you can have a good view upon TC work:

http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

I don't understand why the class association doesn't allow boat owners make decisions about the trade offs between quality/performance and cost. Boat owners already have the choice of how often they buy new boats, new sails, have the boat polished, or receive coaching. I think owners should be able to decide between gelcoat and paint, single material sail and two material sail, or long daggerboards and short daggerboards. Its not like these decisions about materials double the cost of the boat or make a boat unbeatable. From my perspective, its more about perceived performance than actual performance.

I agree: F18 owners/members have to make decisions.

Don Findlay write:"Many of the requests for change have come from commercial interests and not from National Class Associations".

Limitation of daggerboard length is a new limiting rule for controling the cost (long daggerboards are very expensive).

Paint and single material main sail are only clarification made by the WC on previously existing rule.

Rules can change with a one year delay notice in order to have F18 builders/sailmakers playing with the same rules.

What were the F18s that were made in Holland of plywood, yellow hulls and clear sails I remember?

Just to be clear, I was thinking let the owners decide what boat they want to buy instead of having the class decide what they can buy. So, I think the class is being too restrictive.