As questionable as any advice from staff at West marine is... The grandmother is correct!!

Andrew,

I'm very disapointed that you cannot understand:

1-Builders money interest does not rules F18 communnity. So you do not understand this fact when you write:
"if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"

2-The paint issue from Technical Comittee (pro wich give advices) no consensus, through World Council (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors) last november vote for clarification not a new rule, to last week ISAF interpretation and improving wording is now behind us.

3-Thanks to that clarification process already certified painted boats can have derogations (as for Shockwave)

4-Being serious and pro mean here ask F18 community if a new process is class legal. That is clever and simply respectful.

Again a perfect summary ( I admit I do like it ;-) )

"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"

Thank you very much Kris.
Grandmother actually never lie ;-)
You're right obviously they were ambiguous relative to "paint".
So it's easy to understand that clarification was important.
This clarification was confirmed by ISAF.

Existing ambiguous doesn't allow to cross the line.

That's why I do think that a serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.

Franck, you lost. There is really nothing else to say about it. Anything else you post is just dribble.

Ok gaming zone so dribbling and goal.... the score is 4 for me 0 to U.
Let's review the 4 aces:

1-Builders money interest does not rules F18 communnity. So you do not understand this fact when you write:
"if its more economical for us to use paint then we should be allowed to do so"
In another words the rules won't change only to allow you to make more money

2-The paint issue from Technical Comittee (pro wich give advices) no consensus, through World Council (mostly F18 sailors elected by F18 sailors) last november vote for clarification not a new rule, to last week ISAF interpretation and improving wording is now behind us.
You loose here, because you ask ISAF for interpretation and ISAF confirmed the voted clarification


3-Thanks to that clarification process already certified painted boats can have derogations (as for Shockwave)
No certified F18 ban here, no reason to afraid F18 people

4-A serious technician (and respectful for F18 class rules and community) would have ask IF18CA how to finish wood epoxy boat in order to respect the rule.
That would have been very intelligent and positive.
Existing ambiguous doesn't allow to cross the line without risks

As for the rule you think, you and you only are right to appreciate.

Want to play again ?

Please be serious, if not I used my favourite an perfect summary

Watch this video
http://vimeo.com/17595156
this is what a lot of people see the F18 class as. This is positive. Its stuff like this that brings sailors into the class.

Look at the pages and pages of crap and arguing in this thread..this will help drive people away from the class. Its not healthy or constructive.

There are other options out there. F16 F20C (whatever is picked as the new boat for the Olympics) No one wants to become part of an environment that is a bitter and divided.

now GROW UP AND GO SAILING

You're so right, indeed I was on the water all day long.
And I feel good !

Just came back from the workshop, where cats are build...And you had to name me, for God's sake!

Good to see how everyone arguing with you is just using common sense:
Mini:
"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."

Blog: There is a reason people get banned from forums/discussions, even from 'Sailing "Anarchy"'.
Now the Catsailor community may have a glimpse of why you are the only one banned at CSN.

Regarding the H16,quite funny indeed. I was looking for someone to expose his view in favor of the Hobie 16 and I doubted between David Brooks and you.... NOT

I will leave this thread now so you can continue to amuse the audience.
With that said, please do not name me any further

Best Regards and good winds.
Martin

"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

You say everyone should come to the class with proposals as to what may or may not be included on their boats.

This statement is pure BS.
Paint has been accepted in the class for years. As a new builder, or even an old builder with a new boat, how are we supposed to know what items we should submit for questioning? In the 2010 version of the rules, several items that used to be included in older versions just disappeared. There is no record of a vote or even any discussion, they just went missing. This is not a case where clarification comes into play. How does a new builder know how they should build a boat to meet the rules. Do any owners or builders have to worry that their boats will be the next victim of power abuse when the council decides that they wish to randomly ban something that has been in class already?

Now to make things worse for the class they claim post application for rehab and repair is OK. This is asinine as the door is wide open for debate. Why is OK for a repair when not Ok for a new build. Who decides when a repair was required that needed new paint? This is not defensible

What is even more messed up is that there is a set of minutes (approved) from the 2011 AGM that sets out a whole lot of changes to the rules like limit board length and some other bits and pieces but these changes are not in the recently published rules on ISAF's website. So now what??

If anyone builds a boat with longer than 1400mm below hull boards they are still legal even though there are minutes to the contrary.

This mess just continues on and on...

As always Martin personnal attack is only when you cannot produced any strong arguments.
Thank you to confirm that one more time.

For common sense please consider last world council minutes:
"The hull shells shall have an external gelcoat finish."... "The clarification is passed by majority"

Ooops it seems, the World Council did vote (10 nations representing 74% worldwide F18 members) and this clarification (no new rules) has been confirmed by ISAF and the wording improved (3 files published in less than 24 hours).

Everybody can appreciate the way you report this, breaking the unity of the 2 first texts in order to make believe it wasn't a confirmation of the WC vote.

But few people know how, you do consider F18 members. As you feel superior, you dare write (I put double quote because this phrase stinks some very bad thinking):

"" Quantity is not equal to quality or having a more rightfull opinion than other countries with less members.""

No kidding ?
F18 members from France, Italy, Germany, Holland and so on will appreciate their lack of quality you claimed.

Indeed I do not care that you cannot face my arguments and being afraid by contradiction.

And yes, your today post is funny, may be you should have replace your phrase: "" Quantity... "".
I hope your hat was tasty...

First just take five minutes to read the WC minutes, second if you want to test the limit go for it and as you continue this silly game you win my favorite quotation:

"Max Catsailor said...

So for nearly 20 years every F18 sailor and builder has been wrong!?! Grow up Macca, you sound like a cheap lawyer!

If everybody else got the meaning, but you didn't, then surely the class just asks ISAF to correct an error in the text - no big deal. It all just depends on what was intended when the rules were written. What do the class say that the rules are supposed to mean?

After all, if you listen to every idiot who finds a loop hole then why bother with class rules!"

The extract from the WC minutes:

The WC received the report from the Dagger Board Working Party, Chaired by Greg Goodall. The President thanked them for their detailed work.
Proposal :
To update class rules by adding :
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

"with their recommendation: 3 words you do not read.
Trying again to attack F18 community work is becoming grotesque.

Franck, read the 2012 class rules as published on the ISAF website. They are dated 21.2.2012 So any changes made prior to that date should be included in this version of the rules. But all changes noted in the minutes from the 2011 AGM are absent from the 2012 rules.

How the hell are members supposed to know what is going on with the class rules if the ISAF published version (the only true record) are in contradiction to the AGM minutes?

And please stop the copy and past crap, we are all sick of it, you bring nothing new to the conversation.

So how I am supposed to read this? The WC discussed and agreed it was a good idea to put a maximum on dagger board length? That's it? Just some discussion and some nodding - but nothing more? No actual decision to change the class rules?

I have often struggled to understand the minutes of the WC meetings. But on this one it strikes me as particularly odd if I am supposed to believe that the WC did not actually decide to change the rule as per 31/12/2011.

It seems time is overdue for investing some money in the F18 class infrastructure.

Ad
NED15

You opened Pandora's Box again. This is Wikileaks copy-paste third party mails F18 WC?

I stand 100% on that statement taken from and official third party (mine) quote of my mail to the IF18CA World Council you have just published.

The quality is referred to the actual WC members and the voting system dominated by only 4 countries, members of the WC holding an unbalanced and uniformed biased power, this being YOU specifically, not the sailors you represent so well banning the boats they buy!

But I'm glad you are here arguing the actual sailors, as the can have a glance of what is discussing with you at the WC.

You challenged me once to publish info on the blog and I did it wide openly for the first time in 4 years.
And I take full responsability of what I did.

But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did.
Already wrote to the IF18CA mangement, you are copied of course.

Just say whatever you want but please do not copy-paste third party WC mails (not belonging to you) any further, I don´t want to enter this thread again and start doing the same quoting you.

Best regards.
--------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

Mr Vanzulli,

During the 4 past month you spit on F18 community work at least once a week.

The way you treat F18 community work on your blog is not acceptable.
Publishing one ISAF text and forgetting the other which is complementary is a poor tricky way to mis-informed people.

But nobody complaign, not a word. Is it really so important ?

You're writing a kind of phrase my father heard many times in Buchenwald said by his guards.

"" Quantity is not equal to quality or having a more rightfull opinion than other countries with less members.""

Mr Vanzulli please insult no more french, dutch, italian or german F18 sailors.
One of this sailors, human being by the way, is the equal of one of the rest of the world. Not more and not less.

You should apologize, instead of that you dare write "I take full responsibility."
In France with this kind of phrase your responsibility make you possibly go to jail.

And now you're complaining, poor little bird, because I spread your stinking thinking.
You're embarrassing yourself one more time.

More than this you threaten me and/or (?) the association and in the same time you want to give moral lesson.
Are you kidding ?

"Cause I have plenty of material for sailors to be aware off"…"Just let me know so I decide how to proceed."
You try to blackmail the association. It's miserable.


Franck Tiffon-Terrade

Just edited above.
Stop Lying Terrade.

"You challenged me once to publish info on the blog and I did it wide openly for the first time in 4 years.
And I take full responsability of what I did.

But I have never ever published actual WC third party text as you have just did."

haha Blackmail... I want an official GO - No GO, to publish your own WC quotes.
Thanks Franck!

--------------
"Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?"
"Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?"

WC minute:
“ The maximum length of a dagger board protruding from the bottom of the hull shall be 1400mm.” The WC agreed unanimously with their recommendation for application 31.12.2011.

Andrew, for you what does mean "with their recommendation" ?

For me it is not mandatory. So no particular surprised that this rule will be apply next.

In the same way as for paint, as a wise builder, you'd better ask before building daggerboard > 1400 mm under the hull.