The proposal is now official and here it is. Please lets discuss the merits and personal views on this matter and than have the vote in a weeks time or so.


***********************************************

Proposal to adjustments of Formula 16 Rules

Concerns : A new rule.
By AHPC ; Greg Goodall
Date 10 june 2004


Dear Formula 16 class,

As discussed by phone, I hereby submit the official request to create a new rule in de Formula 16 ruleset. In de text below you’ll find the reasoning behind the proposal and the expected benefits. With this I hope the request is complete and sufficient to start the procedure linked to rule changes.

With kind regards,

Greg Goodall


MD Australian High Performance Catamarans


Part 1


Subject : Introduction of new rule in segment 1.2 - Platform Dimensions


Proposed wording of rule :

“The hulls, beams and trampoline shall not be permanently fixed to one-another.”


Explanation ;

It must be possible to fully disassemble the hulls, beams and trampolone from one another to form a more convient sized package suited for shipment using standard sized sea containers and standard long haul trucking.

Reason / benefits :

The reasons behind this added rule are three-fold :

1. International transport by sea containers is the most used transport to events held overseas and delivery to customers the world over. Standard sea containers are 8 feet wide = 2.44 mtr with a maximum inner width of 7’ 8” = 2.34 mtr. The height of the sea containers is similar. These containers will therefor not allow assembled Formula 16 platforms (2.5 mtr overall width) to be transported. Transport by truck is also limited to similar dimensions.

2. In the case of shipping catamarans, the transport costs are determined mainly by how easily a package can be handled by the shipper as the F16 overall weight is often below the bottom threshold. The overall length and the enclosed volume of the shipped package are therfor the main cost increasing factors. A fully assembled platform will therefor be significantly more expensive to transport than a dissambled one. It is also far easier to box in an dissambled platform to protect it from damage.


Both reasons 1 and 2 are very important for future attendence to international Formula 16 events and to stimulate boat sales and class growth.


3. Permanently fixed beams come almost exclusively in the shape of glued in carbon beams. The use of carbon beams without glueing them in is of no particular interest from a technical point of view as weight savings and increased stiffness are marginal. It is my experience in the A-cat class is that the use of glued in carbon beams significantly drives up the cost of a new platform for a very limited gain in performance. I estimate that the difference between the stiffer platforms using permanently fixed beams and non-permanently fixed beams is mostly found on the downwind legs and mounts up to several seconds per normal sized leg. This small gain will convince the top sailor to decide for glued in carbon beams and by their example create a situation were it is perceived that all boats must have glued in carbon beams. It is my opinion that this is detrimental to the Formula 16 class as it makes the boats unnecessary expensive and it creates the problems as discussed in point 1 and 2. I do not think that the gains in performance are needed as we mostly compare ourself to the Formula 18 class who have gone one step further and have banned carbon beams althogether.



Part 2 : Full banning of carbon beams.

Subject : Introduction of new rule in segment 1.2 - Platform Dimensions

Proposed wording of rule :

“The beams shall be made of an alumimium alloy.”

The reason being that the best sailors are also the ones to most likely invest heavily in their platforms and thus to purchase carbon beams. These sailors will win due to the superior skill but quickly the class will view the carbon beams as contributing to the result as well and thus create a situation again where it is perceived that all boats must have carbon beams. This will add alot of cost to the platforms and be detrimental to the growth of the F16 class.

At this time alumimium beams are still 10 times cheaper than carbon beams and they are the most easily acquired beams for homebuilders as well.


************************************


I think Stewart has a thing or two to say about this proposal. And probably some others as well. So lets have the discussion and see if we can agree on an outcome or even a better proposal

Wouter

I would like to agree on the proposed rule changes.
Stimultation of F16 at any stage shoul be welcomed. Keep costs down not only to allow a lower entry threshold, but also keeps running cost lower in case of damage etc.

I would agree to adopt the proposed rule, as it will keep costs of competing sensible.
Regarding the carbon beam issue (Part 2) I think it could be re-evaluated if carbon beams become cheaper in the future, however this will always be region-specific. It may be cheaper in the UK & US than in AUS & SA relative to aluminium.
On the subject of regulating the beams, I`ve had a look at the proposed Tornado class rule changes, they have a MAX. thickness limit on the aluminium walls of their beams, to prevent competitors from making HEAVIER beams, so that they could then build lighter hulls & have the same platform weight, with the weight taken out of the hulls & positioned where you would want it, more centralised in the platform. I don`t know if anyone in the F16 class would go to such lengths to try & gain a small advantage, but perhaps we should look at regulating this as well.
While on the subject of Carbon being expensive, how can the class allow full carbon hulls if one of the goals of the class is keeping it affordable ? Or is it just that manufacturing beams in carbon costs so much, while using it for hull manufacture is not ? This raises the same issue, you can build superlight hulls in full carbon & add lead where you want it, keeping most of the weight centralised, a plywood boat the same weight would be at a distinct disadvantage in this regard. Is this within the spirit of the F16 class & it`s intentions ?
We need to consider these points carefully, or our class will become F16HT very quickly, and the entry cost will escalate. We need to be careful here : one of the main attractions of the class is that you can have similar performance to A-class & F18 at a much lower cost. If the costs go up, the attractiveness of the class diminishes.

Regards
Steve

Greetings,

It seems to me that the real issue behind our current rules discussion is how do we grow the class, encourage creative thinking, and still keep someone with deep pockets from outspending the rest of us? Let me share a few thoughts even if they are as we say stateside “a bit out of the box.”

First, how do we grow the class? While on a recent garage cleaning expedition I came across an old issue of Multihulls Magazine that included a list of cats under 20 feet. In that list there were almost 50 CLASSES of catamarans over 4.7 meters and under 5.1 meters with at least 13.9 sq. meters of sail.

In theory, many of these boats are candidates to race as F16's. By the way, that list did NOT include Taipans, Spitfires, Stealths, or even Mosquitos. Short of finding several thousand new comers to run out and buy Blades, it might be worth our while to identify as many of the owners of those boats as possible, make them aware of the class, and encourage them to get involved.

But that still leaves us with the question: how do we encourage growth and development and still keep the costs for boats at a reasonable level?

As someone once said, “There’s no point in reinventing the wheel.” And here we might be wise to take a lesson from our friends who govern car racing.

If there’s one lesson to be learned from the car racers it’s this: high tech or low weight do not necessarily produce spending wars. But combining high tech with low weight almost always does! (Formula 1 comes to mind here.) And as Wouter said recently, some people will always cheat. The trick is to keep the “cheaters” and/or big spenders from dominating the racing by balancing out high tech and low weight.

In the case of the F16 class, the solution already exists. The class already has “optimized” and “non-optimized” F16’s. How about changing the name and refer to those class distinctions as homolagated and prototype.

The homolagated boats: These would be those “classes” of boats like the Taipan, Stealth, Blade, etc. that have been built to conform to the F16 class rules. The only rule we’d place on those boats is that homolagated boats must be structurally the same as the other boats in the class. (ie. if a Mosquito shows up with glued in carbon fiber beams and the rest of the fleet has alloy beams, the new Mosquito would by rule have to race as a prototype!)

This would open the door to homolagating other boats if and when they had reach a certain size. Let’s say 5 people convert Cobras to race as F16’s. We could at that point homolagate the Cobra as a class. And again, the homolagated boat sailors would just “run what they brung” as long as they conformed to the rest of the boats in their fleet.

The prototype boats: The prototypes would be ANY boat that has not been homolagated. In the prototype class, I’d suggest we RELAX the rules to encourage development and encourage participation. The prototype class could probably function with length, fixed beam width, and TOTAL sail area.

And give the local class administrators some leeway. That way if someone shows up with one of the older boats that has hiking racks but OTHERWISE fits under the F16 rules, the class could still allow them to race their boat as a prototype.

BUT (and here’s the key) while relaxing the rules on technology in the prototype class, we would also raise minimum weight for boats that exceed the class rules for homolagated boats.
For example if someone wants to build a wing mast section for a prototype F16, let him or her do it. ONLY raise the minimum weight for boats with wing masts. The following table comes to mind:
1. With 30% wing: minimum boat weight is raised by 45 kilograms PLUS the weight of the mast.
2. With over 30% wing: minimum boat weight is raised by 90 kilograms PLUS the weight of the mast.

AND follow the lead of the car racing groups and give the local F16 committee the power to slap a weight penalty on ANY prototype the “appears” to be capable of sailing beyond the class Texcel rating. And I’m all for making this a bit vague because doing so would help to discourage cheating.

If we set those weight penalties in 45 kilogram steps they would be relatively easy to enforce. (I’d think almost any two of us even after a couple of pints could tell the difference between a 103 kilogram boat and a 150 kilogram boat just by trying to lift the bloody thing off the beach!) And give the local committee the power to slap as many penalties on any given prototype boat as they feel necessary to maintain competitive balance.

That way if someone with an unlimited budget shows up with a real “cheater” and does a horizon job on the rest of the fleet they get slapped with a weight penalty. Simple! Easy to enforce! Effective!

And as a class we don't have to ban materials or construction methods and still keep the door open to innovation, creative energy, and all kinds of designs.

John Metzig

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand…if you start making needless changes… and narrowing the rules that are already in place, the class appears to be unstable from the outside. That has the potential to alienate a lot more people than the idea that we are all going to be beaten by a “rich guy” with a “super boat”.

No one will want to get involved in home building an F-16 when trying to build a compliant boat becomes like shooting at a moving target. The few advantages a homebuilder might have (like making their own carbon beams and gluing them in) to find an equal footing with a professionally designed and manufactured boat is eroded away.

With all due respect… A.H.P.C.’s potential shipping problem (if…a big if… they chose to build an optimized fixed carbon beamed F-16 in the future) is not the burden of the F-16 class to resolve. It is a marketing decision that is for them to evaluate, and determine if such a produce can be built and shipped at a profit.

I think we would all be better sailors if we spent a lot more time on the water honing our skills and a lot less time feeding this paranoia of being cheated out of first place by some “rich guy”.

Bob

In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.


>>There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand…if you start making needless changes… and narrowing the rules that are already in place, the class appears to be unstable from the outside.


{as proxy Greg Goodall} These changes are intended to prevent what happened in the A-cat class where the introduction of various new stuff raised the price of the A-cat drastically. At it stands now the price of carbon beams add a significant portion to the basic price. 2000 Aus dollar per set is normal; alu beams are about 1/10. Therefor carbon beams alone account for some 10 - 13 % of the total price. It is not that these carbon beams are so much faster but the perception that seems to come along with using carbon beams that everybody needs them to be competitive. It is this that is escalating the cost of a A-cat. Right now the A-cat is prized significantly higher than the F16 while featuring 2 less sails and much related hardware.

The F16 using glued in beams have an added drawback with respect to the A-cat and that A-cat just fit inside the sea containers fully assembled. F16's simply do not. It is beyond acceptable to ship a fully assembled F16 at 2.5 mtr width. Greg believes this both a impediment to class growth through reduced sales and problems getting boats to turn-up to international events in the future. Free charter boat at big international events a la Hobie 16 is not an option in the F16 class.

(as a private F16 sailor)

I couldn;t care less about carbon beams. I think them to be expensive parts without significant gain. I found that with a spinnaker the sailing is now more then ever determined by sailing skill & well thought out layout and not so much be perfect trim or a perfect design.

I do see, as an organisor, big problems holding international events when a significant portion of the platforms have permanently fixed beams. It will also mean that builders can only supply local area's. This will be a huge problem in both the USA and EU and effectively could cut AHPC off from the international market as their growth is completely outside of Australia. This is a consideration that goes to the core of the F16 class. I personally don't care for a handfull of ultimate F16's when compared to large fleets of sub-ultimate F16's. Remember we changed our name to High Performance from High Tech some time ago just to reflect this. Ultimate sailor should go to F18HT and A-cat classes. Ultimate balance sailors should go to the F16. I am of the firm believe that the last approach is the winner.

I personally have no problem sailing against a carbon masted and glued in carbon beamed F16 as I know already from F18 sailing that skill wins out every time. I am, however, often surprised how many sailors are staring themselfs blind on details. It is this aspect of human nature that we need to think carefully about when deciding on carbon beams and we need to think about the trade-off between class growth and succes when deciding on permanently fitted beams.

I think these two to be two different proposals and the voting with reflect this.

Nothing of this, in my opinion, signals an unstable class setup. Particulary as no-one at this time is sailing with either carbon beams or glued-in beams at this time. So the rule can be changed now without spiking anyboby.


>>That has the potential to alienate a lot more people than the idea that we are all going to be beaten by a “rich guy” with a “super boat”.


(Private sailor) Why would anybody be alienated by it ? What is the reason that they would be when the rule spikes no-one and is possibly accepted before such beams are introduced to the class. Do we really believe that large numbers of sailors are attracted to the F16 class because they can have carbon beams in this class ?


>>No one will want to get involved in home building an F-16 when trying to build a compliant boat becomes like shooting at a moving target. The few advantages a homebuilder might have (like making their own carbon beams and gluing them in) to find an equal footing with a professionally designed and manufactured boat is eroded away.


(private sailor) I think this to be an overstated consideration. Making high quality carbon beams suited for use as a beam is beyond the standard home-builder. Not even AHPC and other builders are CONSIDERING producing these in house when the rule allows carbon beams. Even Phill Brander as our most respected homebuilder is not in favour of homebuilding carbon beams. Carbon booms etc are easily enough homebuild. Carbon beams are less so.

The option we're looking at is : Homebuilder gets alu beams JUST LIKE the professionally build F16's and be equal for low cost and great ease or he has to decide to be less than equal or order carbon beams commercially.

I think limiting all to alu beams is a consideration IN FAVOUR of homebuilders.


>>With all due respect… A.H.P.C.’s potential shipping problem


It is also Stealth, Blade USA and Blade EU problem. These companies have to ship platforms to far away clients as well.


>>>(if…a big if… they chose to build an optimized fixed carbon beamed F-16 in the future)


They seriously don't want to produce a fixed carbon beamed F16 as they feel that the market will not accept such a design because of the cost. Hence the proposal.


>>is not the burden of the F-16 class to resolve.


The burden for the F16 class to resolve is wether we risk an A-cat cost expansion to happen in the F16 class or prevent it while we still can.


>>It is a marketing decision that is for them to evaluate, and determine if such a produce can be built and shipped at a profit.


They have indicated that they think that they can not. I would like to add to this that it is in the interest of the F16 class to keep 3 builders on board.


>>I think we would all be better sailors if we spent a lot more time on the water honing our skills and a lot less time feeding this paranoia of being cheated out of first place by some “rich guy”.


I personally fully agree with that but I also understand from my dealings with other sailors that a significant portion of the sailors do not educate themselfs to this mindset. Are will willing to risk this ?

The answer to this last question is something that we all must decide for ourselfs and must be reflected in your vote on both proposals.

I will do the same with my alloted votes.


Regards,

Wouter

In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.

I will give a few quick replies to your points steve.


>>Regarding the carbon beam issue (Part 2) I think it could be re-evaluated if carbon beams become cheaper in the future, however this will always be region-specific.

(private sailor) This is the case with the non carbon beams proposal but the proposal regarding permanently fixed beams remains unaltered by the fact wether carbon is inexpensive or not as this proposal it fully driven by transport cost and the inability to ship full assembled 2.5 mtr. wide cats.

Again it must be realized that the proposal is two-fold and we will have a seperate vote an each part.


>>It may be cheaper in the UK & US than in AUS & SA relative to aluminium.

Some of us have serious looking into that (myself included) and it is expensive were ever you try to order them.


>>On the subject of regulating the beams, I`ve had a look at the proposed Tornado class rule changes, they have a MAX. thickness limit on the aluminium walls of their beams, to prevent competitors from making HEAVIER beams, so that they could then build lighter hulls & have the same platform weight, with the weight taken out of the hulls & positioned where you would want it, more centralised in the platform. I don`t know if anyone in the F16 class would go to such lengths to try & gain a small advantage, but perhaps we should look at regulating this as well.


(Chairman) if you are serious about this please form an official and fully worked out proposal to the F16 class.

(Private sailor) I really don't see how much more weight can be taken from the hulls now that these are already very lightweight considering the loads the F16 has to withstand. My estimate that the tornado rule is far more driven by one=design considerations than a real danger that such an action would really introduce a noticable performance difference between boats. Please note that 5 kg difference in crew weight will add a bigger inequality in rotational enertia your described action can ever cause. Please do the numbers on that.

(Private sailor and proxy Greg goodall) In addition ; no one can easily tell if a boat has seen such a modification or not. This is not the case with carbon beams; these are highly visible and therefor easily regarded as the cause of any difference in performance even though the cause may be completely different.


>>While on the subject of Carbon being expensive, how can the class allow full carbon hulls if one of the goals of the class is keeping it affordable ?


Carbon itself is not that expensive with compared to glass, the laminating of a hull (labour costs)and other costs related to hull production; Therefor the savings here are pretty minor.

Of course the cost of an alu beam is strikingly low because of the mass production of these standardized items for other uses. carbon beams are by definition custom items as they need local reinforcements in stress points like the maststep and because the demand for standardized carbon tubes is not even close to those of aluminium.

Compare it to CD-rom making. Making 10 CD-rom reader units would cost 50.000 dollars per reader. However producing 1.000.000 of them to a world market allows mass production technics to drop the price to 50 Dollars. (real numbers as this is partly my field). The same situation is applicable to mass production of alu tubing.

I repeat my earlier statement in one other post that no builder (including AHCP) considers building these beams themselfs in house. All have to perchase this from a specialized company. And we all the quality laminate work of AHPC. If they are not considering it them it is serious business.


>>Or is it just that manufacturing beams in carbon costs so much, while using it for hull manufacture is not ?

That is part of the reason.


>>This raises the same issue, you can build superlight hulls in full carbon & add lead where you want it, keeping most of the weight centralised, a plywood boat the same weight would be at a distinct disadvantage in this regard. Is this within the spirit of the F16 class & it`s intentions ?



I refer to my earlier example of a 5kg difference in crew weight. I would like to see anybody proof that such superlight hulls can be build and how much the real gain is before assuming that a ply boat is at a distinct disadvantage. As it stands right now, Plywood hulls are still regarded superior by several to glass hulls. Biggest problem with ply is however that hull designers are limited in shaping a hull. That is a much more significant limitation than any rotational enertia contribution. Please remember that foam itself as needed in glass hulls is not particulary light and doesn't have high compression (dent) resistance. Ply however has a very optimal strength to dent compression to weight ratio.

I serious beleive the described danger to be in the realm of fictional at this time.

I'm however open to fully worked out proposals.


I would like to add that Greg's proposals are worked out and checked out for truthfulness and realisme. (That is what the class does when receiving a proposal; no proposal is automatically garanteed a vote. Several experts have given their opinions on the proposals before such a proposal was publized)



>>>We need to consider these points carefully, or our class will become F16HT very quickly, and the entry cost will escalate. We need to be careful here : one of the main attractions of the class is that you can have similar performance to A-class & F18 at a much lower cost. If the costs go up, the attractiveness of the class diminishes.


I personally full agree with this statement. We have the change now to alter the direction without causing harm to anyone.

Wouter

In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.

Poster: 1863
Subject: Re: Second and third rule change proposal ! =last ones



(Chairman)

>>It seems to me that the real issue behind our current rules discussion is how do we grow the class, encourage creative thinking, and still keep someone with deep pockets from outspending the rest of us?


THis is not really the issue at hand. Somebody can make hulls out of gold for all I care, as they will be heavy as hell , are fragile and generally inferiour in performance. Such as effort can never upset the class even though the owner sinks huge soms of money into that.

So outspending is not the core issue.

The core issue wether a certain aspect convinces other sailors that they must have that aspect as well to be competitive and to what extend such an aspect may be allowed to cost.

In case of glued carbon beams to increase in stiffness and thsu related increase in performance is noticable and may well therefor start of a sequence of events that will result in everybody getting plafform with glued in beams that are as good as impossible to ship internationally and are noticably more expensive as well.

The combination of these two drawback my well break the back of the F16 class. At least that is the opinion of Greg Goodall of AHPC.

I think the next comment is a good one :

>>some people will always cheat. The trick is to keep the “cheaters” and/or big spenders from dominating the racing by balancing out high tech and low weight.


Wouter

As a designer and builder of commercial "off the beach" catamarans for over 30 years, I have seen a lot of classes and size of cats come and go. Also a lot of rules and regulations applied to the different classes of race competitive cats. In the infancy of most class of cats, there generally were very few "rules" governing those classes and the ones that supplied the performances that was expected of them, proved successful in their proliferation. Many a "successful" class, over the years, incorporated more and more rules defining the class in an effort to keep each boat on the water as close to a "one design class" as possible. To a degree this was successful in that objective, but, these classes were gradually overtaken by either newer types of similar cats that performed better, or by existing classes that had the flexibility within their "rules" to smoothly incorporate "new" innovations. If any class is restricted from evolving by carrying the bagage of a "truck load" of restrictive rules that class will die. The problem that I see is that it is easy to incorporate new rules, but it is very difficult to "get rid" of ones, down the track, that are "restrictive" to the growth of the class.
That said I would like to make the following obsevations on the "proposed" rule changes.
Firstly, I have to agree with all that Greg says about the "glueing" of beams, except that I have not found "glued" beams to increase the performance by any "measurable" amount. Any differences that I have seen can be put down to purely the quality of the sailor and "anocdotal". so that in my opinion anyone who wants to waste their money by glueing their beams, has more money than sense.
Secondly the use of carbon fibre. Any one who is familiar with the costs of carbon fibre over the last 15 or so years, will know that it has been one of the only fibre reinforced plastics products (used in "fibreglassing") that has dramatically and consistantly DECREASED in cost. That is why it is being used more and more in the "boat building" industry, not because it is such a better product (which it is) but because the price is becoming more accessable to the general public. This is the trend that can be expected to continue the more that carbon is used. For that reason alone it is imperative that the use of carbon fibre HAS to be allowed full reign for use in the construction of any class that still wants to be around and relevent for this and the next generation of sailors
I think in one of the previous posts a price of $2,000 was stated for the costs of carbon fibre beams for an F16? well I am not sure were that price was sourced from but I purchase beams for an F16 (front and rear) for considerably less than $1,000 Australian, in fact for $1,000 Australian I could retail them and make an acceptable profit.
Carbon fibre, like it or not, IS the future in sailing, and any class that restricts its use is doomed to die.
In the 1970's there were similar arguments between the use of marine ply and fibreglass. Fibreglass was resisted vigourlessly by classes that built in ply and they argued that fibreglass was "to expensive, to heavy, to slow, and was just a passing "fad"! Most of those "ply" classes are now found only in books, and not on the water.
Darryl J Barrett

In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.



>>If any class is restricted from evolving by carrying the bagage of a "truck load" of restrictive rules that class will die.


(Chairman) That is our balancing act. Although the F16 rules are still a far way from "A truck load of restrictive rules". Several rules are even so wide that it is discovered that no design will even go to the max. allowed ; example Spinnaker pole length. Others are general wordings like : The catamaran shall be rightable by any crew in all conditions. The latter will never limit development. There are only a few really restrictive rules and these are length width weight sailarea (Even A-cat class has those) then mastheight, mast gate heights and spi pole length. Of course the A-cat class has no spinnaker or jib so no rules needed for that. The rest are definitions needed for intepretion of the rules or general wordings. If you look at the rules you will see that we are much much closer to the A-cat setup than say the F18, F20's or Tornado classes, not to mention the various one-design classes. We definately have a long way from being "a very restrictive" ruleset. I think it to be a long reach to imply that the current proposals are enough to qualify the ruleset as restrictive if they are accepted.


>>The problem that I see is that it is easy to incorporate new rules, but it is very difficult to "get rid" of ones, down the track, that are "restrictive" to the growth of the class.


(Chairman) I generall agree that this is the case although I would like to underline that teh F16 class just did away with one rule (1.13.1) because it was obsolete and it didn't strike me as an particulary difficult excersize. The thinking of course is that when everybody percieves that a certain rule is of no particular use or benefit than no-one really cares whay happens to it. However when the perception is that is does matter than the discussion flies high. Sort of like the discussion about beams now. Apparently some have the perception that it does matter. To bring balance to the class we need to talk this one out between ourselfs. It may not be a fun discussion but it is a necessary one.

(Private sailor) I see a very well founded basis to keep the "no-permanent beams" rule indefinately included in the rules as I really don't see international shipping change their box dimensions in the coming 50 years. I don't see how such a rule will impede development, it is almost the other way around. I don't see why we ever want to get rid of this part of the rule in the future if this part was excepted by the class. This underlying cause for this rule will continue to exist as long as standard seacontainers don't allow a fully assembled platform to be shipped. I grant that the discussion about allowing carbon to be used for the beams is a different matter as these can be expected to become cheaper over time.


>>Secondly the use of carbon fibre. Any one who is familiar with the costs of carbon fibre over the last 15 or so years, will know that it has been one of the only fibre reinforced plastics products (used in "fibreglassing") that has dramatically and consistantly DECREASED in cost. That is why it is being used more and more in the "boat building" industry, not because it is such a better product (which it is) but because the price is becoming more accessable to the general public. This is the trend that can be expected to continue the more that carbon is used. For that reason alone it is imperative that the use of carbon fibre HAS to be allowed full reign for use in the construction of any class that still wants to be around and relevent for this and the next generation of sailors


(Chairman) OF course we can compensate the rule to include this possibility. Afterall we are free to propose amendments and one could be that we change the rule to be a temporary one with a automatic ending when the retail price of a carbon beam drops below a certain percentage of the whole boat. There is no reason why we can have this. It will limit costs when the beams are still expensive but the rule will drop automatically out of the rule set when the price drops to within reach of the normal sailor.



>>I think in one of the previous posts a price of $2,000 was stated for the costs of carbon fibre beams for an F16?


(Chairman) As supported by the experiences of some of us who have looked for getting carbon beams for our boats. This included myself and I decided against it as I had to pay about 1100 Euro's = 1900 Aus$ to get a pair of them. Several others have similar experiences. For now this number as quoted by Greg has checked out on several occasions.

Maybe the price of pre-preg carbon is not the dominant cost factor anymore when compared to tooling and labour.


>>well I am not sure were that price was sourced from but I purchase beams for an F16 (front and rear) for considerably less than $1,000 Australian, in fact for $1,000 Australian I could retail them and make an acceptable profit.


(Chairman) Yes I heard about that through my network of informers and I won't go deeper into this one than asking you for the contact detail so I can check up on this claim. I wish to underline that the class checks up on these proposals before they are put to the public. That is what we do in the preprocessing phase. Similar with the sea container dimensions. Up till now the numbers checked out.

Could youn you give me the name and contact info of the company that can supply you with these "considerable less than Aus$ 1000,- for a pair of carbon beams". My next action will be to contact this company myself and inquire about their price for such a set. I will have them confirm it to me in writing with a garanteed "equal or less" price for the coming years to all 3rd parties. I will then get back with this info to this forum and present this to you all as this would be a very important consideration when voting on the rule part 2.

You can send the into to the Formula16class@hotmail.com mailaccount if you don't want to make this into public.


Regards,

Wouter

Wouter,
Thanks for clarification on cost of carbon in hulls vs cost of carbon beams, it`s more the labour cost of making the beams strong & stiff in certain areas, more than the cost of material, which drives the cost up, if I`m understanding you correctly.
If the general consensus is that the advantage of having carbon beams is only fully realised when they are glued in, stiffening the platform, then a rule prohibiting beams from being glued in should suffice, and I would have no objection to carbon beams being allowed. A rule that basically says that the platform must be able to be dismantled for transportation should be enough in that case. I agree with Darryl, no need to outlaw a material that may become the industry standard in the near future. My point on the carbon hull issue was that if we allow full carbon hulls, and carbon masts are allowed, why restrict the beams in material ? The boat still has to conform to the min. weight of the class, it just allows the builder more control over WHERE in the boat to place the weight.
The problem I see with this is that it WILL eventually make the option of home-building in ply obsolete, probably sooner rather than over a long time, since keeping weight out of the bow & stern & centralising it is far more critical than how much the boat weighs, and influences pitching moments far more than crew weight, which you can place where you want it on the boat, anyway.
The mast rule is quite a good way of controlling an arms race, by having a mast tip weight you have ensured that a carbon mast has no real weight advantage over an aluminium mast, so perhaps a min. weight limit can be set for the beams which would keep things in check. While making this point I must admit that I prefer a setup with very few, simple rules that can be adhered to quite easily, lets not get bogged down with one-design-minded regulations.

Cheers
Steve

Steve,

>>Thanks for clarification on cost of carbon in hulls vs cost of carbon beams, it`s more the labour cost of making the beams strong & stiff in certain areas, more than the cost of material, which drives the cost up, if I`m understanding you correctly.


(private sailor) That is the understanding that I have ; combined with the low turnover in these specilized parts. Low turnover means big margins on top of material cost to account for tooling and expertise.


>>If the general consensus is that the advantage of having carbon beams is only fully realised when they are glued in, stiffening the platform, then a rule prohibiting beams from being glued in should suffice, and I would have no objection to carbon beams being allowed.


(private sailor)yes that would be a fair descibtion on the assumptions you state. Hence two approach to split up the proposal in two different votes.


>>I agree with Darryl, no need to outlaw a material that may become the industry standard in the near future. My point on the carbon hull issue was that if we allow full carbon hulls, and carbon masts are allowed, why restrict the beams in material ? The boat still has to conform to the min. weight of the class, it just allows the builder more control over WHERE in the boat to place the weight.


(Chairman) The current low weight of the F16's makes significant redistribution of weight practically impossible. We are only 30 kg heavier than A-cats and we put the platforms under loads at least twice as high, sometime 4 times as high due to heaving a jib and a spinnaker. The jib and spi gear themselfs add at minimum 8 kg to the setup. Any realistic carbon mast for F16 must weight 4 kg more than an A-cat mast. Meaning F16's have only 20 kg to beaf up the platform to withstand the significantly loads due two the sailplan, doubletrapezing and the extra width. Contrary to common beleive ; this is not alot of margin.

For this reason I estimate that the benefit of redistribution is very limited if existant at all.


>>The problem I see with this is that it WILL eventually make the option of home-building in ply obsolete, probably sooner rather than over a long time, since keeping weight out of the bow & stern & centralising it is far more critical than how much the boat weighs, and influences pitching moments


(private sailor) Home building in ply was going out far more because of the limits to the hull shape one could build this way. Phill solved this problem. I really think that your fear is splitting hairs when compared to other far more dominant factors



>>far more than crew weight, which you can place where you want it on the boat, anyway.


(Chairman) Not correct. Crew position is fully determined by wind condition and seastate. Typically when there are enough waves to possibly make a difference when redistributing weight the crew is at the back of the baot compensating for big wind or negociating chop.

In light airs the crew is far forward to level the boat but here the water surface is almost always very flat making weight distribution differences unimportant.


>>The mast rule is quite a good way of controlling an arms race, by having a mast tip weight you have ensured that a carbon mast has no real weight advantage over an aluminium mast, so perhaps a min. weight limit can be set for the beams which would keep things in check.


(Chairman) won't be a very effective rule as carbon beams are hardly any lighter than alu beams. The gains are stiffness and the fact that you can glue them in. Weight saving are negelectable.


>>While making this point I must admit that I prefer a setup with very few, simple rules that can be adhered to quite easily, lets not get bogged down with one-design-minded regulations.


(Privare sailor) to that I agree personally.

Wouter

There are so many trains of thought on the matter of beam in general, not just the beams themselves. Many have expressed the view that in their opinion, having beam in excess of 8’ is a waste, other, like myself wish there was no limit on beam at all. By outlawing glued in carbon beams you have taken away an option to one who wanted to make a 8’ wide platform with glued in carbon beams…If I understand the size restrictions that Greg was talking about, a 5 meter X 7'-8" wide with glued in carbon beams would fit into a standard shipping container…but by changing the F-16 rules we will eliminate this option.

The fewer and simpler the rules the better…I totally agree with Darryl’s comments on carbon fiber…

Bob

Dear Wouter and the rest of the F-16 world,

I've been sitting quietly observing the proceedings from the little outpost known as South East Asia and am enjoying the sci-fi levels of discussion, but I think it's time I throw in another view.

Admittedly, we are comparatively small in terms of the catamaran world at large but we did host the last Tiger Worlds in Singapore and we've just spent the last 2 years building up the "world's biggest Taipan club" (Slimy's words) in Singapore where we now have 18 of the little cats buzzing around.

From the onset, we established that all our cats would be spinnaker equipped i.e. F-16, even though at that stage the factory was not that convinced we should!

My bug is this:

I hear what the 'developed' world is saying but if you listen to yourselves you are talking about escalating costs, period. The F-18 was setup with a high platform weight to discourage hi-tech and keep costs down. Unfortunately it's so heavy that manufacturers have to put in more material which requires man hours and the cost therefore rises!

Bear with me.

In our case, we have to import from Australia but I'm sure our masts originate in USA. I've been told that even Australia cannot make the alloy wingmast to the same level of specification as USA. And I believe it after having 75% of our Nacra Inter 17s (Aust. built masts) come crashing down!

So for us here in Singapore, our masts come to us from USA via Australia - we suffer 2 exchange rate knocks, plus the import expenses of freight etc...

If we were to make our own carbon products here in S.E Asia, we could probably get them for the same as or maybe even less than what we pay for the alloy one. You might be surprised but many of the Carbon components for Boeing are built in SE Asia. To us, carbon is going to make the F-16 Class here more viable. And isn't that what you want - it's certainly what we want.

CARBON is not the question, it's the entry price. Unfortunately the entry price is controlled by factors/factories and demand. Having this level of debate is great as it shows strong interest in the Class.

My view is that Carbon should be allowed in masts, beams, booms...fishing rods, tennis rackets and toilet roll holders. As the base weight of the F-16 platform is going to mean that beyond a certain point, it'll be a pointless exercise to save all that weight and then add lead!

CARBON BEAMS. I can quote you exactly what it costs us to replace an alloy beam/mast from AHPC here in Singapore - but I won't. I will say I've done the exercise and to build an equivalent here will be cheaper in CARBON. Any designer will tell you that the material cost of a carbon component is negligible these days. It's the manhours required to put it together.

AS FOR GLUED TOGETHER BOATS. If a chap wants a glued-together boat, let him. When he has to ship as deck cargo to a World Championship on the other side of the world - he probably can't afford to and so won't show up anyway. And if he can't show up, he can't win! There's really nothing to stop anyone gluing a boat together now anyway. We used to glue Hobie 16's together 20 years ago - so it's nothing new.

One of the comments likened the scene to Formula 1 (heaven forbid, as 'real men' race motor cycles). If you followed one Valentino Rossi's performance in the MotoGP, you would observe something very interesting. He developed the Honda to an "unbeatable" level. Now he rides a Yamaha that was lowly ranked - and still wins!!! It comes down to the nut behind the wheel.

And so finally in conclusion I'd add this curve ball from the outfield - the entry price is the problem, not the material!

In the parameters of the box rule, stipulate a maximum for a manufactuers retail price - that's the only way to control the price issue.

But just as F-1 remains the pinnacle of 4-wheeled motorsports, there are many 'entry-level' car classes. And while MotoGP is the pinnacle of motorcycles, there are plenty of bike classes that limit the amount of money and modification to be competitive - but somehow everyone aspires to reach the pinnacle anyway.

So are we a Formula or an Entry Level? I'm a Formula but cap my own spending and encourage those in our fleet to do the same. I'll soon be launching a wood-epoxy Taipan against all the Kevlars. Then we'll see whether it's really a material race or not.

I know the answer anyway but would be as keen as mustard to meet this chap who is going to spend a million dollars on a 16' cat and win every World Championship!

Scott

Darryl,

I have been trying to find someone to build me some Carbon beams for my mutant Taipan 5.7, it is bloody hard to even find anyone with the required tooling and when I have found them the costs have been well in excess of $1000 for the set, in fact they are around that much for each of them (as blank sections) If you can get them cheaper then I would be very interested in hearing from you.
As for not much gain in stiffness by glueing the beams in I can confirm that the single biggest factor in platform stiffness (apart from having a basicaly good beam design) is the quality of the beam mounting to the hull, this is best demonstrated by the difference in Tornado platform stiffness. A Reg White boat that has Marstrom Beams fitted is no where near as stiff as a Marstrom boat with the same beams fitted. The only difference is the beam lands and the structure around the beams. builders are better to spend their time developing this area than anything else.

Macca

Wouter, Macca, etc. The carbon beams that I am using are virtually the same as for the "A" class with the exception that I negotiated for beams with an external diameter of 3" (the outsides are round). The commonly used ones for the "A" mostly come from Austria and are 3" internally with the external being eliptical as they are "filiment wound". mine are made inside a mould so the strengthening area's top and bottom makes the internal eliptical. The equipment and tooling for moulded beams is much less than for "wound" so I have been able to negotiate with a good builder in Victoria for, what I consider, is a very good price. The main reasons for my prices are that I will be useing the same profile beams front and rear for both our 4.3m cat as well as our 5m cat. This has given me a lot more advantage than for some one going and ordering a "one off" set of beams. Return business for manufacturers is obviously better and lest expensive than "one off's" and this will always be reflected in the prices.
On the subject of aluminum from Australia, the quality of the product has always been equal to any thing else available in the world. If there has been a problem it has usually been with the specified wall thickness and profile of the section as well as the specified "T" strength hardness. These problems are not of the manufacturers but more so of the specifications. It wouldn't surprise me if Boyer and Goodall are sourcing their mast from the USA, not because of the quality but for price! I have decided on "all" carbon fibre because I can source my supplies of components ie masts, beams, booms, spinaker poles, tiller arms, cross arms, etc, in "reasonable number". If I was to use aluminum, I would have to take from the only supplier - Capral - a production run of each profile that I needed. Some years ago a production run was extruded from a small ingot af aluminum pushed through a die using a small press and the number of masts that I would have to hold in stock at one time was about 14 to 17, now they will only push a large ingot through the big press which means that for me to have one mast, the production run that I would have to hold in stock would amount to over 176 mast sections. The same applies for every extrusion. The outcome is that to hold aluminum for one cat I would have to carry in stock nearly $500,000 worth of aluminum. This is why it makes more sense for me to go all carbon fibre. (It doesn't help when the price of aluminum in Australia since Capral obtained a virtual monopoly, has doubled at least 3 times in the last 4 or 5 years). I looked at moulding our own masts in carbon fibre and I came to a cost that was only 4% higher than the retail price for the same section in aluminum, but for us to make our masts "in house" at this time is too inconvenient, it is better for us to source them from some one already set up for which we pay a higher price but a price that is still quite acceptable.
These are the main reasons that we have gone to carbon fibre. The only advantage (which is still debatable) with useing carbon fibre beams, is that we have done away with the dolphin striker on the front beam which leaves us a few options for the spinnaker that we dont have with a dolphin striker. As far as weight is concerned between carbon and aluminum for beams, they all come out at about the same weight, so there is no weight saving by going to carbon beams.

And Macca your right, the quality of the mounting of a non glued beam is in the quality of the way that it is mounted to the deck of the hull. We have always moulded the recess for the beam mountings into the hull mould using the actual beams, and used an internal method of restricting or completely stopping any distortion of the beam at that moulding/mounting point. If this is done well there is no (or only minute) movement/twist at the mounting point. The only twist/flex in between the hulls then is from the twist/flex in the actual beams themselves. This applies equally to whatever material the beams are made from. If you want to see an excellent example of how a beam should be mounted, take a look at the way that the beams are mounted on the marstrom 20

Yes Wouter...

No to both.

All comments as Chairman of the F16 class !

>>I have been able to negotiate with a good builder in Victoria for, what I consider, is a very good price.

Name and contact info please.


>>>It wouldn't surprise me if Boyer and Goodall are sourcing their mast from the USA, not because of the quality but for price!

Leaving aside that this is a very good reason I must also express that quality of the final product was also an important consideration. Noteably to quality control with respect to margins in production. The LA yard proved to be able to produce product with a more constant dimensions and smaller offsets.


>>I would have to hold in stock would amount to over 176 mast sections.

176 section of about 13 kg equals 2275 kg of total batch job weight. In my experience this is a very significant batch job size. Most extruders have a minimum batch job size of 500 kg's = about 35-40 masts per batch.


>>The outcome is that to hold aluminum for one cat I would have to carry in stock nearly $500,000 worth of aluminum.

Humm, 500,000 / 175 = 2857 Aus$ per mast = 1714 Euro / mast

I think this claim to be ludicrously off the mark. I've been involved in a mast production for the Blade mast and know exactly the pricing of extruding. But let me describe it this way. My own mast bought from AHPC 18 months ago was produced, anodised, shipped to Aus, got AHPC profit margin added, than after staying in Aus for about 12 months shipped to Europe, increased with 20 % tax and another 15 % Dutch dealor margin and came out 880 Euro in total. Now do you really want us to beleive that your masts cost 1714 Euro per mast (twice as much) just to have them produced in Aus ?


Darryl, I'm really sorry but this data you supply simply does not check out. And again we're not talking quotes here but an actual production run of which the mast will arrive in EU this weekend.


>>As far as weight is concerned between carbon and aluminum for beams, they all come out at about the same weight, so there is no weight saving by going to carbon beams.

To this claim we agree.

Wouter

In commenting on various post I will switch roles from time to time. Some comment I make as a chairman of the F16 class and others as a private F16 sailor. Yet others again as a proxy for Greg Goodall as he is unable to reply himself with current preparation for the F18 worlds that is on within a week or so.

I will denote my role by naming it between accolades.



>>but I think it's time I throw in another view.

Please.


>>In our case, we have to import from Australia but I'm sure our masts originate in USA.

(Chairman) They do.


>>>If we were to make our own carbon products here in S.E Asia, we could probably get them for the same as or maybe even less than what we pay for the alloy one.

(Chairman) If you want can you send me the cost of carbon masts by private mail. I know the ins and outs of the alu masts so I can compare the two and see how the situation is. If anything the class would like to find a good carbon mast builder to service all F16 builders. That in itself would be a great development to propel the F16 class.



>>To us, carbon is going to make the F-16 Class here more viable. And isn't that what you want - it's certainly what we want.

(chairman) There is no proposal on the table to ban the use of carbon fibre, please take note of that. Only to ban permanently fixed beams and a additional one to ONLY ban carbon from use in beams. In all other applications like masts, boards, hulls etc the F16 class will continue to allow the use of carbon.


>>>CARBON is not the question, it's the entry price. Unfortunately the entry price is controlled by factors/factories and demand. Having this level of debate is great as it shows strong interest in the Class.


(chairman) that is a correct describtion. However the going is the going price no matter it is artificially kept high or not.


>>>My view is that Carbon should be allowed in masts, beams, booms...fishing rods, tennis rackets and toilet roll holders.


(Chairman) I wish to underline that ONLY the use of carbon in beams is proposed to be banned in the second proposal. All other uses of carbon remain allowed.


>>CARBON BEAMS. I can quote you exactly what it costs us to replace an alloy beam/mast from AHPC here in Singapore - but I won't.


Please do it be private mail.


>>>I will say I've done the exercise and to build an equivalent here will be cheaper in CARBON. Any designer will tell you that the material cost of a carbon component is negligible these days. It's the manhours required to put it together.


(chairman) That I know but up till now no beams could be source for under 2000 Aus$ or equivalent in other currencies. I'm very interested in what you guys can do with regards to other costs.


>>>AS FOR GLUED TOGETHER BOATS. If a chap wants a glued-together boat, let him. When he has to ship as deck cargo to a World Championship on the other side of the world - he probably can't afford to and so won't show up anyway. And if he can't show up, he can't win! There's really nothing to stop anyone gluing a boat together now anyway. We used to glue Hobie 16's together 20 years ago - so it's nothing new.


But then again the Hobies were shipped disassembled; glueing is not ONE-DESIGN in H16 class and you would be protested out of any major event and Hobie corp supplies boats to big events.

(chairman) the problem refered to by Greg is not the lone single guy looking to glue in the beam and not being able to come out but the top notch sailor bringing in a boat with glued in beams winning a hole series due to skill and than create a want in the class to have glued-in beams on all boats. We can miss the single guy but not a whole group of them.


>>One of the comments likened the scene to Formula 1 (heaven forbid, as 'real men' race motor cycles). If you followed one Valentino Rossi's performance in the MotoGP, you would observe something very interesting. He developed the Honda to an "unbeatable" level. Now he rides a Yamaha that was lowly ranked - and still wins!!! It comes down to the nut behind the wheel.


But I bed that Honda sales went up as a result of Rossis result even though your example suggest their is no reason to favour the honda over the Yahama. This is of course perception at work. We both know it is the nut behind the wheel buit do many share that view ?


>>And so finally in conclusion I'd add this curve ball from the outfield - the entry price is the problem, not the
material!

(chairman) Indeed; Hence the seperation of the two proposals. Note how proposal 1 does not limit use of any material in any way ?


>>So are we a Formula or an Entry Level? I'm a Formula but cap my own spending and encourage those in our fleet to do the same. I'll soon be launching a wood-epoxy Taipan against all the Kevlars. Then we'll see whether it's really a material race or not.

(Private sailor) I know the answer to that one already as do you.


>>I know the answer anyway but would be as keen as mustard to meet this chap who is going to spend a million dollars on a 16' cat and win every World Championship!


Again, the question is not really about the single rich guy but rather about the perception that brings everybody to want to be a rich guy to have those carbon beams. At least that is Greg reasoning. Afterall these are his proposals and not mine. I'm only defending them in his place as he is unavailable due to F18 worlds and because I'm guiding the discussion as a chairman of the class.

My own views I keep to myself and will express them only in the vote on both proposals.

Having said all this I note how several poster read these proposals as general limits on the use of materials. This is NOT the case. Proposal one does not ban any material and even proposal 2 only proposes to enforce the use of Alu beams; it leaves all other carbon uses (mast boards etc) as they are now.

These proposals are also no first step to more proposals banning the use of carbon. Both because Carbon rudders , baords and daggers both from AHPC and others like McKenzie are cheaper than glass products of Hobie and Nacra already (=no need to ban them) and because carbon masts are extensively used on Stealths already. We all know the Stealth to be the cheapest F16 around. Please note however that even Stealth marine is not planning to use carbon beams on their boats; there is some difference between the use of carbon masts/carbon hulls and carbon beams.



Wouter