First results of C1 group (where the 16ft sail in).
Mind that the results are with rating calculated as the heavier F16 decided to sail this race on handicap, not F16 rating.

More updates: http://www.facebook.com/TheBoatShop.be
Race results first day: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...6845.271892154392&type=1&theater

Falcons taking 3,12,14,15 in top 20.

Gill

This one's a little easier to read - http://www.yccarnac.com/uploads/htm...eurocat%202012/eurocat_interseries_g.htm

Gill - just out of interest, do you what the line honours results were among the F16s competing? Dan

For the buoy racing line honours are more difficult to tell. For some races it didn't matter, but for our 333 youth team, on one race they lost 5 places because of the racing.

For the raid it is a different story.
First Falcon finished just below 2 hours (less than a minute behind Bundy) and clearly 3rd F16, beating the Nacra's and most of the Vipers were some very talented sailors where placed on. Our Swiss team finished in front of Chris&Georgina and the Cirrus Q but ended up 19th, the Cirrus 10th... So here the rating has a bigger effect.

Overall very good performance of all the Falcons there, showing weekend racers can mix it up with the pro's.

Buoy racing results: http://www.yccarnac.com/uploads/htm...2012/eurocat_interseries_g_definitif.htm

Long distance results: http://www.yccarnac.com/uploads/html%20resultat%20regate%20de%20freg/raid_eurocat_2012_g.htm#GRP_2

Regards,
Gill

Any pics of the Cirrus Q?

+1

Some great action pictures available now: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150808071409393.436568.271892154392&type=3

Some Cirrus Q pics can be found here: https://picasaweb.google.com/116154434120608898008/Eurocat2012?feat=flashalbum#

Those are some seriously long daggers on the Q. Photo #359.

Pic

First time I've seen both spin blocks on the front beam. Looks like the blocks closest to the chute's clew can slide independently outboard to "open" up the chute.

Pic

Interesting comparative view of the "R" & "Q".

Pic

You mean like this ?

Full high res version at this link

would having the spin block on the beam like that shorten the foot of the spinnaker?

No most spinny's have now been limited to min foot length by the definition of what is a spinnaker and what is a reaching sail( see SCHRS for definition )ie we are all at min foot length already due to the apparant wind requiring very flat sails. By choice I would be even flatter if the handicap system would allow it.

On the Cirrus I would suspect they have moved the front beam back as per A Class design and kept the max 3.5m spinny pole and thus the blocks have to go as far foward as possible.

This is excactly what I found on my boat which was derived from an A design and was rather unpleasantly surprised to have to move the spinny blocks foward onto the beam. I am looking at chopping the spinny pole some 300mm or so to get some sort slot effect back from the Spinny back onto the main. Do we need the pole at max length on these boats ?

The downsides of moving the beams back are lack of crew operating room and more reliance on volume way back to cover the crews weight,the upsides are less volume needed up front and if the pole is cut, less uplift from the Spinny.

Longer pole = more faster. Always.

Even with my Goodall spinnaker from 2004 I used blocks on the main beam. In the last few years to spi's have only become shorter in the foot.

"Do we need the pole at max length on these boats ?"

Actually, we never did. That rule was only included in the F16 rules to satisfy Texel and SCHRS handicap systems that have some formula that determines max spi pole length.

That formula is a pain in the neck and so I just took the virtual F16 with its mainbeam halfway the hull and worked out that like that we could have a 3.5 mtr spi pole and still not break the Texel or SCHRS rules. At that time, from comparisons to F18's, I already knew that we would be using shorter poles. Mine is actually 3.25 mtr. and seems to nicely balance the boat. I did try 3.5.mtr but the leehelm became a problem. I tried several intermediate positions as well, but 3.25 mtr worked best and then I still have to place my last blocks on the main beam. This does clear up the area around the side stay though (an unexpected benefit).

I'm still convinced that 3.50 mtr spi poles are too long for F16. I mean, you can sail with that, but the optimal length both balance and speed wise seems to be less then that. Remember that our forestays are relatively far back as well, partly due to the use of bridle struts that makes our jib foot come out very low. The slot between the spi and jib luffs is pretty big already on F16's. Equal in size of larger then the ones on F18's.

I recall that Blades, Falcons and others are using less then 3.50 as well.

Wouter

Ok, you go sail with 25cm less pole length and I am 100% sure you will be slower than the full length option.

The helm balance issue is not related to the speed potential, you need to solve that another way. But to shorten the pole because it steers nicer is to make your boat slower.

Come to think of it.

When is that ultimate F16 of yours coming out ?

You have been advising everyone on everything related the F16's over the last ohh 8 years now and up till now that is all that you have done. Talk.

You are proving to be more and more like Douglord with any new post.

I'm kind of busy with a much bigger project...

Well, clearly you are not busy enough. C ya !

Not busy enough it seems.