I am getting out of International Aerobatic because of very similar performance biased issues. Being new to F18 racing, this does seem to be biased against smaller boat builders. I would interpreter this to read that you can paint a boat as long as it is a polyester, vinylester, or epoxy based paint. The pigment wouldn't matter just as you can have gelcoat with different pigments.

Just as the gelcoat is used as a finish , so can any of the other approved materials. A stricter interpretation would say that you could build the hull shell from polyester gelcoat, but I am thinking that gelcoat alone wouldn't be very durable since you couldn't mix in any glass fibers.



D.3.1(a) The hull shells shall be built from polyester or vinylester resin, glass fibres, polyester gelcoat, a core of PVC, balsa or felt, the combination of wood-epoxy, injected plastic, which shall not be altered other than locally for fittings, and passage of equipment and normal reinforcement. Epoxy glue is permitted for joining components. Every material that is not expressly permitted is prohibited.

Well if I had enough time to type out these stupid arguments like you do I might do that! Unfortunately I don't, and don't care enough to try to make the time, so I'm stuck skimming through the crap you write, with only enough time to make quick responses (that are based in REALITY).

Please Franc, GO AWAY, or discuss this topic on a French catamaran sailing website that we don't frequent.

Franck, you must be getting the feeling that you are the only one that wants to ban paint...

With so many logical arguments against your position you are beginning to be less and less relevant whilst you persist with your position.

Andrew, I want to ban nothing. You're involved in F18 business and here defending your money interest, which is respectable.

But your "logical" arguments, make me wondering if you're serious:
-paint is faster but it is not,
-F18 painted exist before (since day one and after 2005) so they are class legal, even if they were not, as you said they are , they surely are
-paint issue is in order to ban little builder, so you propose now gel-coat finish
-F18 painted are cheaper than gel coated ones, but indeed they are not

Just remind you fact that you cannot now ignore no more longer on this issue:

There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee.
World Council did vote a clarification (10 nations representing 74% of worldwide members).
ISAF confirmed this clarification and improved the wording last week.
And the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.

After saying that you're right, nothing more to add.

****. The members of this forum are sick of your rants and you are cordially requested to go away.

It has been made clear to you from numerous independent sources that there is support for painted finishes and 2 cloth mainsails. Yet you continue to bang on about the class rules and procedure. And the rest of your posts are bordering on the unintelligible ramblings of a crazy man.

See you in Carnac, where I again offer you the chance to protest any of the painted F18's present.

You haven't answered the question Franck.

- Please prove to me there is a performance advantage in painted vs gelcoated hulls.

This thread has been going for a long time now and there is not a single person other than yourself posting in favour of this ban.

Think you might have got it wrong???? Or is it directed solely at banning Phantoms??

Every time I click on this train wreck of a thread I want to light a bag full of kittens on fire.

He won't answer it. He will only assert (yet again) that there is "disagreement" among members of the Technical Committee, in much the same way that people who want everyone to believe that we were created in an instant 6,000 years ago will repeat over and over that there is "disagreement" among scientists over human evolution. It's an age-old trick: if you can't prove you're right, then you just blow a lot of smoke and muddy the waters, in the hopes that people start to have doubts about your opponent.

The other question--an equally important one--that he still refuses to answer is, "Why now?" In other words, we've had painted boats. If not from day 1, then certainly from day 2 or 3 or 4. Certainly more than were ever stuffed with Corecell. So, for the umpteenth time:

If paint is such a problem, then where have you been all these years?

Why the sudden class-threatening crisis? If you cannot answer that, if instead you can only blow more sanctimonious smoke, then the allegations that this is all just an effort to squash Sail Innovation become very believable.

It's as simple as that.

Gav,

You're right that is a key question.
I've already said there is a doubt for the members of the technical comittee and you can consider that F18 World Council (10 nations, representing 74% worldwide members) vote in a conservative way for this clarification (no new rule).

Please do not think I want to be rude if I return the question:
can you prove me there is no performance advantage in painted hull ?
It will be difficult, as to prove you there, there is a performance advantage.

Some pretend to have this performance gain and they step back in another (marketing or true ?) speech.


I'm not postin in favour (or not) of this ban. I post:
-to explain the process of this issue (which is not against one buiders as Macca said Mattia and WindRush are concerned)
-to allow reader to have another sound.

That's why I'm goin on, and I don't care personnal attack or insult (just learnt what "crap" means, that is strong )
An people aggressivness is getting higher when those people argument are poor, that is clear sign to reader who want to make his mind.

More than this, you know as me, than 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.

This apply on another subject: in forum or blog you find many post and reaction against HC16 for Olympic.
Despite this, each poll on the web, HC16 is the first or the second choice.
The more harder is the attack against this boat, the more significant is the HC16 choice.
Funny isn't it ?

Again, and sorry to repeat, I'm not agains or for painted hull.
It's not a trick. My own opinion here does not matter.
The start of the thread was: "what happen ?" I try to make description.
But it appears that this description was another sound that the most spread one.
I think it's better to have 2 sounds than only one point of view to make your own (and respectable) opinion.
That is no smoke, ray of light may be

Why now ? is a very interesting question. I agree with you they were no painted boat at F18 day one and may be some home-made during 18 years.

-F18 is growing faster worldwide, so the economic interest are getting more important. On one hand (fully respectable) builders interest on the other F18 owner interest.

-You mentionned Corecell issue. You're right that is a key moment of F18 history.
Since then, the trend is when a rule need to be clarified it is done (just have a look on the ant work made by the TC: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy). In Corecell case Loday/White change their process, now Phantom are proposed with gel-coat.
More noise in the second case, but the same principle.

There is no plot or witch hunt:
-Mattia is concerned and Contreas is member of TC.
-Not big builder against small: Manu Boulogne is for gel coated finish.
-And three F18 are concerned, not only one.

You right, WC vote is in conservative way, because more than 95% of the F18 fleet is gelcoat and beause it is in class rules principle: "The Class remains aware to keeping development under control"

But, again, do notice that rules are ours, and they can change.

Franck, You really need to quit the lies.

this quote is from Manu Boulogne who you claim is against paint: "My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause
we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in
our opinion not the best solution. But if there are builders who want to
build in paint, should be their choice as long as that builder specifies he
is not using an epoxy paint. "

You can twist it however you like, but the intelligent people see your lies.

And if you want me to stop picking on you you can always call me and ask for mercy, its not going to stop me if you call Alex and beg him to make it stop... You are a bad influence on the F18 class and a primary reason why the class is in the mess it currently finds itself. The fact that you believe you are right when everyone here is telling you that you have it wrong is proof that you are not interested in the class members but only your own agenda.

Andrew, as I'm not in a marketing speech (which you say are not believable) so there is no lie

I write
"-Not big builder against small: Manu Boulogne is for gel coated finish."

Your quote is:
-"My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause
we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in our opinion not the best solution"

Of course as a pro, Manu Boulogne is a TC member he cannot vote for the clarification of the rule and decide for the others builders.
That wouldn't be fair. Despite what you pretend, F18 association does not work this way
World council vote this clarification (no new rule), ISAF confirmed this clarification and improve the wording last week.

And everybody can cross check with the last TC report (http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy):

"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"

Andrew, where is the twist ?

For his product Manu Boulogne is against paint, thank you to help me to confirm.
I hope you agree with this wording.
By the way it is terrible for your technical (or marketing speech, I don't know, you make it a bit confused) point of view.
You remember you write:

"Paint is proven to be a quicker method to complete a hull as you can spray all the seams whereas gelcoat takes about 8-10 hours per hull to finish the seams."

Proven is here a very interesting word. It's your fully respectable analysis.
Here Macca "your" truth is not everybody truth. That is now proven, thank you again.

Indeed, I ask Alex Udin to stop all personnal attack (not only for me...).
Because first, that only show that you've got poor arguments.
Most important I think that F18 deserved better than ridiculous personnal attack.
And I always prefer talking to the boss, in this case the boss of the company you work for.

A lot of people read this thread, they have two sounds, not only one, that is my only goal.
For this I 'me evil for you, that is your truth but may be not everybody truth (as for gel-coat).

We can have a beer in Carnac (If you've got time after protest room, that I sincerely do not wish for you )

You should know that 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.
Everybody understand you're not satisfied.
As old man I can say that being unsatisfied is not good for business.

Please tell me more about my own agenda, trying to be allusive is also a typical sad path.

Just one more thing.

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community

Take time to think about that. I hope you'll see it's far more clever attitude.

Franck -

As a non-"pro" I can tell you I have recently purchased my first F18. It is a 2007 Nacra Infusion. I plan on possibly buying another F18 next season. Undecided on the model.

Thanks to you I am actually thinking about not bothering with this class at all.

Perhaps it is no more than a language barrier - but NO ONE here is impressed with your rants. You are, as we say in my language, "digging a hole".

Cheers,
Karl Funk

Franck,

I do not know how the F18 class system is supposed to work, but this current debacle does not show well for the class and your defense of this position is making it worse in my view.
The F18 class has had painted boats for years - this is more than verifiable.

It is not possible that this is now an emergency within the class such that they would need to place a vote. This makes the decision a new rule not just a clarification. Banning something that has been knowingly accepted years after the fact should not be acceptable to any class member, and reeks of poor sportsmanship, conspiracies etc.

Local regulations play a huge part in the processes builders may elect to employ. If someone is already using 1 type of process, they are not going to want to switch to the other. For a performance cat hull there is very little difference in cost between paint or gel, but it cost a lot to switch. As an ex-boat builder I can vouch that any claim this is being done to protect costs is BS. Add to that, the material suppliers are constantly upgrading and revising their product lines. The PVC core and the gel coat used in the F18 today is nowhere near the same as it was 10+ years ago. Restrictions to brands or very specific material types is a bit of a fallacy if your intent is to claim equality. What about all the new carbo blocks and high tech lines? If we want to keep equal and keep cost in line, let’s all go back to hemp rope and metal shiv blocks.

Bringing Manu into this is a bit ridiculous as well. Is not Cirrus the latest in the rush of builders heading to China for the cheap labor and to shed themselves of regulation? To small builder or even 1 offs with no tooling budgets, paint is a very economical, practical solution. To the builder located where spraying styrene is not allowed, paint is the only real cost effective and cosmetically good alternative. For rehabilitating whole hulls paint is by far the better solution to post gel coat application. (If rehab or repair paint is allowed, it is a bit ridiculous to open up rules such that this is acceptable but on new builds it is not – who decides how much is repair? Big big mess coming up)

If you are part of the F18 process, I would suggest some more time trying to get rid of this issue and not continue to try and defend such a poor example of power being abused.

Hi Mini, You don't know how F18 class system is supposed to work.
That's why I try to explain the process (3 steps) for this issue and add some clear informations:

1-There is no consensus in the Technical Comittee ("is giving advices"), just read the last TC report: http://tinyurl.com/7u5gmhy

2-Last november World Council ("is making decisions") did vote a clarification, not a new rule (10 nations representing 74% of worldwide F18 members), see extract of the WC minutes:
" The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish. "

3-ISAF ("as decisions controller") product 3 files confirmed this voted clarification and improved the wording last week then published 2012 F18 class rules: http://www.sailing.org/2129.php

And please notice that: the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.
Here is the key point to maintain fait competition between builders. They can adapt their process to the new rules.
So the start line is open at the same moment for every builders.

You're right F18 painted boat exists. Some refurbish it's class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified. So those existing boats can have derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).
Then no protest (so sorry Andrew ,)
It is not a deblacle, it is balance between rules clarification/appliance and interest of the F18 owner.

As far as I know, there is no particular rules for rope or block.

F18 rules process and Painting and one factory in a low cost country are not the same issue.
The same factory is the provider of several F18 brand, for the hull, that is an industrial common case.
Builders make choice, for the sails how many real factory ? A few indeed.

Manu Boulogne is well known and his position is a bit different from yours:
"My preference as a builder is to build in gelcoat cause we master this system. We have also build a boat in paint to do a test in our opinion not the best solution"
See extract from the last TC report:
"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"


Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move shows respect to F18 community.

Don't you think so ?

Your hole is getting deeper Franck.... Keep digging and you may find the other side.

You must realise by now that you are the only one in here against painted hulls, there are more and more people joining the conversation against you. When are you going to get it in your head that you are wrong??

Time and again people present clear and logical arguments for paint and you continue to dribble on without acknowledging the facts presented to you.

Do you even know how contradictory your statements are? Or how messed up the latest Tech Com report is? You quoted this: "See extract from the last TC report:
"All TC builders who are using gel coat as the exterior finish wish to continue as they think that it is the best way for the Class. It is the most economical method of production, they have invested heavily in quality moulds to produce hulls with fine surfaces"

Of course they want to continue to use gelcoat!! they have invested in that method!! It is suitable for large production in low labour cost countries! The rest of us don't want to move our production to Asia, we wish to support European manufacturing, and if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so. You have as much knowledge of boatbuilding as my grandmother and she would never dream of telling me the most suitable way to build a boat and neither should you.

This is actually the most touching post, I'v been reading there.
If you do so, for you, I'm sad.

I take this long time to explain a complicate process, in a long term trend.
The only goal is to have a more fun and stronger F18 class.

As this decision is upsetting some builders this thread became far too serious.
Here please pardon my obstination and my poor english, is to give another sound.

Most of people don't give a penny for this issue. They're right. It's boring, not fun and so on.

But all certified F18 sold can race (now the rule is clarified and the already painted F18 can have derogation). No F18 is banned.

And please notice that: the rule can be changed with a vote process and one year delay notice.
Here is the key point to maintain fait competition between builders. They can adapt their process to the new rules.
So the start line is open at the same moment for every builders.

Indeed there is a very simple way to prevent this kind of situation.
If a buider want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
The builder/sail maker ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move shows respect to F18 community.

That's why I propose a certificate of compliance from builders, given with the bill, before F18 certification that transform a 18 feet cats in Formula 18.

Andrew,
I join you in the dark hole and there is light on the other side
So I keep digging.
Remember, you should know that 10 satisfied people make less noise than one unsatisfied one.

Supporting European manufacturing is marketing speech or your own proven technical advice ?
Can you remind me where your F18 sails are product ?
It isn't a shame do not worry.

In European manufacturing when you are not wise enough to ask regulation before launching your production, you're dead.
Ask your grandmother, there is no reason to believe me.

Thank you very much for saying: "if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"
I pay you the beer in Carnac.

Andrew, that is pure wishfull thinking and a key point: builders money interest do not rule F18, for the moment.
F18 rule process involved TC (builders giving advices), WC (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors: making decisions) and ISAF (controling).

And, as a F18 customer, I notice your (excellent) boat with plain finish (18.650 euro ex tax) is more expensive than some gel-coated one (17.290 euro ex tax) http://tinyurl.com/7v3wxst. Those figure are only price list.
But where is the customer interest in this saving of money, you claim ?

I answer all your questions, why you do not give me your opinion on this following proposition:

There is a very simple way to prevent your today situation.
If you want to make F18 with a "brand new process" or service.
Just ask if the rules allow that before.
TC can answer, or if there is no consensus, WC can make a clarification.
It works ! And in this kind of move, you show respect to F18 community (builders and customers).

Franck,

Painted f18's have been allowed in the class for years, we all know it and you keep denying it.

If you want to compare prices I suggest you compare the same spec boats. We offer our boats with full Autoclaved foils that are stiffer and unbreakable (unlike some..) and we also offer our boats with complete tapered sheets and very high quality ropes made to our very high specifications. We also supply our boats with marstrom style adjustable trapeze systems as standard and our boats come with all foil covers and rear hull stands. Our boats are delivered with exactly the same setup as Olivier used to win the European championships so they are totally race ready.

I suggest you go and price any other boat to that specification and then come back here and tell me what is more expensive. FYI the "race pack" on a Nacra adds 1000 Euro and that doesn't include covers for foils or rear hull stands.

Our boats are excellent value for money and you can hardly call them expensive compared with other products on the market. If we had to build in gelcoat then they would be more expensive because of the labour cost increase. So, what is good for the class??? good value painted boats or more expensive gelcoat ones?

Andrew,

You're right F18 painted boat exists for year but that doesn't mean they were all allowed. Just refer to the 2002 class rules.
Some refurbish it's been always class legal, very few home made one shot and more recently Mattia, Windrush and Phantom.
Now the rule is clarified and confirmed by ISAF.

Thanks to that clarification existing and already certified boats can have now derogations (as some Shockwave have for corecell).
Then no protest song in Carnac, but fight on the water that is more interesting.

For info in the swiss link (http://tinyurl.com/7v3wxst) the race pack is included.
Your boat (as any F18) are excellent value for money. No doubt Andrew.

When you're buying a F18 18.600 euros ex tax, it's ok to have 1 or 2 Keuros for gel-coat peace.
Less beer, better health, thank you the F18 class.

More seriously I do agree with Alex Udin when he writes : "You can buy a Hobie Tiger for 3000 Euros these days and it still be very competitive with some recent sails. It has never been so cheap to start F18 !! Mischa Heemskerk won the North American national on a old Tiger, 2 or 3 years ago."

That is the true spirit of F18