how do you suggest fastening non-fixed carbon beams without putting holes in beams?

If we accept the second.. Then we may as well go and restrict all the materials to those used in hobie 16s..

Stewart,

Be inventive !

Dart 18 doesn't have bolts !

Topcat do not have them either.

Then of course the A-cats had bolted carbon beams before some-one realised that they could be glued in. If A-cat builders managed the hold these down with bolt than we do you think that we can't do that.

Ventillo F18HT has bolted carbon beams as well.

Besides alu beam without reinforcements or other designed feature to prevent it riding in the bolt will wear their bolt holes very quickle as well. I don't hear you yell in dispair about how we are going to use bolt in combination with alu beams as well.

So be inventive and look how many before you were succesfull at it

Wouter

"how do you suggest fastening non-fixed carbon beams without putting holes in beams?"

We fasten carbon and/or aluminum beams down to the hull mouldings using bolts tapped into inserts in the hull with the bolts fitting inside "compression" loaders through the beams similar to the way that Marstom fit their carbon beams to their carbon hulls, (I think you will find that this is the normal practice and not the exception) The Australian "Flyer" uses the same system with carbon. (I don't relly understand why the question??)

Yes, bring on the vote!

Forget the technical the financial issues. I like carbon beams and masts because they look sexy, are nice to touch and make the boat look good overall. If I could have them on my taipan I would.

Phil Edwards

YES nothing better than going out to the shed at night when the wife insists that the TV stays on the "chick shows", rubbing you body up against your carbon fibre "parts" and, (looking like Homer Simpson) going AAAARRRRRHHHH as a small amount of drawl slowly runs out of the corner of your mouth.
WOULD ANY ONE HERE DENY A SAILOR THAT PLEASURE??????

When it comes to the sensuality of carbon fibre I am more like Tim the tool guy in that old American sitcom getting off on one of his supercharged 10 forward, 3 reverse speeds drills.

ARF; ARF; ARF; MMMMM, mo power AHHHHHhhhhhhh

Okay okay ! Guys ...

I wrapping up some DDC business here (only 2.5 weeks to go) than do some private life work that I left for some days, work my own boat (Only 2.5 week till it needs to be ready) and than I'll create the vote.

ATA is after the weekend, somewhere in the coming week.

I'll take it that nobody has an issue with the wording of thep proposal in themselfs. Indepedent wether you agree with the proposal or not of course ?

If so (no reply back to this within the next two days) than I'll start up the final sequence.


Wouter

Just don't write it in "Dutch" Wouter, or worse in Friesland high Dutch (Only joking only joking)
Darryl

Wouter

A reminder of the proposals.

These two proposals are seperate and independent of eachother.

Please punch in your vote in the other post.

Wouter

It is time to punch in your votes on the last two remaining proposals. This will conclude the proposals for this year.

I would like to stress again that the proposal about non-permanently fixed beams etc still allows all materials to be used in construction while the other proposal only limits the material of the beams to aluminium. For this reason the two proposals are independent and distinct. Voting approvingly for one proposal DOES NOT implicetly approve of the other.

Please familiarize yourself again with the discussion around this vote.

Summary :

Proposal 1 : "The hulls, beams and trampoline shall not be permanently fixed to one-another."

Proposal 2 : "The beams shall be made of an alumimium alloy."


Reasons proposal 1 = avoiding problems with international shipping/ shipping to customers and preventing inequality between boats that are shipped in dismantled and boats that are local to a great venue and can have their beams permanently fixed and win some stiffness that way.

Reasons proposal 2 = Prevent the "must have carbon beam" positive feedback loop that has occured in the A-cat class and has driven up the costs of the boat beyond proportion and can drive the F16's out of reach of the target group for the F16's.

The proposals were entered by AHPC and achieved support by other builders as well.

The vote will run till 1 september 2004.


The vote :



Wouter

Formula 16 class chairman

The options are a little confusing Wouter??

Of course we had this vote about the beams of F16 cats.

here are the results :

Page containing the full results

Summarized it comes out like this :

Total 24 votes counted :

In favour of banning permanently fixed beams = (7+10)/24 votes = 17/24 votes = 70.8 % (6/24 = 25 % against, 1 blank vote)

In favour of forcing the use of aluminium beams = 7/24 votes = 29 % (16/24 = 67 % against, 1 blank vote)



Therefor the Formula 16 class accepts the addition of rule 1.2.4 (banning perm. fixed beams) and rejects the forced use of aluminium beams.

The Formula 16 class rules have been modified and the rule changes are effective since 1 september 2004. Any craft currently in conflict with the new 1.2.4 rule and that was completed before 1 sept 2004 may request dispensation. Contact the F16 class at Formula16class@hotmail.com for this.

Wouter

So in simple words.

The F16 can use carbon beams that are NOT permanentley attached to the hulls.

I have been trying to find anything related to the mast Wouter. Can the mast be made out of carbon, or striclty aluminum?

Robi,

>>So in simple words.
>>The F16 can use carbon beams that are NOT permanentley attached to the hulls.


Indeed, choice of material is still unlimited in the Formula 16 class. In any respect.

This answer your next question as well.

>>I have been trying to find anything related to the mast Wouter. Can the mast be made out of carbon, or striclty aluminum?

You can even make it out of bamboo or timber if you want to. As of yet (and most likely to remain this way) there are NO material constraints in the F16 rules AT ALL. This of course includes the mast.

With some pride I notice that the F16 rules still limit mildly shapes, dimensions and way of operation. Nothing else. It is therefor still very pure in its formula format.

Wouter

For the complete F16 rule set go to :

http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/F16HP_class_rules.html

Note the rule :

1.1.2

For the construction, all materials and all methodes of construction are allowed when these
do not imply an unacceptable increase in risk of bodily harm or imply the operation of an unsafe craft.

This rules lets us be free but allows the F16 class to ban excesses like netting for trampoline that has a high risk of breaking fingers when the mazes are to large. In principle we are very open to doing things differently but as a designer you are required to design a SAFE craft.


The mast is totally governed by paragraphs 1.4 and 1.7 in total there are only some 7 general shape and length rules.

I hope this answers your question

Wouter

HMMMMMM bambooo mast sounds interesting. I wonder if it will work!

Yep your answer is pretty cut and dry.

Thanks

I think bamboo should be banned - it would give an unfair advantage to far eastern countries in manufacture