The current issue that is up for debate is total
<br>> weight. Ie combined boat and crew weight.
<br>>
<br>> Here's my two cents on the subject.
<br>>
<br>> For example:
<br>>
<br>> Boat Boat weight Crew weight Total
<br>> N6.0 425-440 lbs 325 750-765 lbs
<br>> I20 410-425 lbs 325 735-750 lbs
<br>> H20 375-425 lbs 295 670-720 lbs
<br>>
<br>> Now if we standardize sail area and set a total all up
<br>> weight. Then another manufacturer such as Boyer could
<br>> build a NA F20 boat (he will not build an iF20) that
<br>> is light, affordable, durable and competitive. Then
<br>> as technology progresses the assoc can lower the total
<br>> weight accordingly (several years down the road).
<br>>
<br>> So if you look at it this way every boat can carry a
<br>> maximum sail area of "x" all with standardized width,
<br>> length and mast height restrictions than any boat
<br>> sailing at say 750 lbs would be competitive on any
<br>> given day. And the door is still open for development.
<br>> Realistically how many people sail at crew minimums?
<br>> I know that everytime I hit the water we are between
<br>> 10 and 75 lbs over minimum (on a good day) does the
<br>> extra weight help in heavy air(not really) Does it
<br>> kill us in light (you betcha). If we were all even
<br>> would it matter -- no. With the advances in sail
<br>> design and the ability to work a downhaul anybody can
<br>> be competitive up to survival wind levels -- and at
<br>> that time we should all be on the beach anyway.
<br>>
<br>> The weight we talk about in the boyer example is boat
<br>> weight at 350 lbs plus crew at 380 lbs totaling 730
<br>> lbs. If we got smart about total weights and really
<br>> refined these rough examples than I believe we could
<br>> really make this very level. Leaving only two things
<br>> open to chance.
<br>>
<br>> 1. Best hull shape for the water on that say.
<br>> 2. Skill of sailors on boat.
<br>>
<br>> Which is where we all want to be anyway.
<br>>
<br>> What are your thoughts?
<br>>
<br>> Steve
<br><br><br>

Steve,
<br>
<br>First off I don't know of any H20's that weigh anywhere close to 375#. Mine is a 2000 and it weighs 427#. My guess is they all weigh about the same in the 420# area. At the last Nationals where they weighed boats most came in right around 420#. My thought is that the H20 is about the same weight as the I20 and about 15# lighter than the average 6.0. If you want to take one of the slower boats and try to make them add more crew weight to come up to the other boats you are barking up the wrong tree.
<br>
<br>I think to be successful we need to leave boat weights and crew weights up to the Class Associations.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Mike,
<br>
<br>Your taking this the wrong direction. I'm not looking to make any existing boat add weight. Well, maybe I am in the form of crew. I believe that with open formula rules you can take a H20 and change the mast and main to make the boat more than competitive. Basically, the H20 is a Tornado hull and we all know how competitve the T is.
<br>
<br>As for H20 weight my '97' weighs 384 lbs all up.
<br>
<br>This is part of the problem overall -- no two production boats weigh the same, couple that with the differences in crews and you have a nightmare.
<br>
<br>Basically, if we take a page from the monodullers and weigh both boat and crew for a static minimum it closes the gap some. Do heavier crews have an advantage in heavy air (18-20+ knots) you bet they do. Is it an unfair advantage -- No, not if the lower weight crew learn how to depower. Look at Randy Smyth. He is not a big guy, but he knows how to work the rig. Is it beyond anyone elses knowledge of how to do it. NO! Hell, just ask the man he'll tell you what to do. God knows he's the best person at spreading knowledge and also if he was asked he probably support what I'm saying here for a few reasons
<br>
<br>A. you can make any boat competitive with the right training and sail plan.
<br>
<br>B. Anyone can be fast in larger air if they know how to depower
<br>
<br>C. open sail plans give alot of sailmakers the opportunity to make a living and expand the envelope of design.
<br>
<br>D. Minor changes that we have discussed can be readily reversed for one design class racing.
<br>
<br>Anyone who thinks that we are all going to recut our stock sails is niave. You,I and the rest of us know that we are going to get new sails and keep the old ones for numerous reasons.
<br>
<br>Did you get your main recut? Most of us did. Is that recut class legal for Hobie? NO its not.
<br>
<br>We all just need to throw off the yoke of manufacturers self interests and work together as catsailors to broaden our sport. If we as a group stand up the manufacturers will support us. They have to if they want our money! Its one of the basic prinicples of a free market economy.
<br>
<br>I am all for one design racing but it is sadly dying. We can all enjoy it while its still here and start by planting seeds that enables other future sailors options in what they want to do. The sixties are over! Let's just let the thought processes of that eras sailors go that way also.
<br>
<br>My humble two cents worth
<br>Steve<br><br>

Steve,
<br>
<br>As I stated earlier. If you are going to make me add crew weight to an H20 (slow boat) to match a min. weight on a faster boat I believe you are going in the wrong direction. If anything you should allow an H20 to remove weight to try to get it up to speed. I just don't understand your logic at all.
<br>
<br>You are correct. No two production boats weigh the same. I'd have to see it weigh in at 384 to believe it. Unless you are talking about without the mast and board and rudders and sails then I might believe it.
<br>
<br>On a multihull movable ballast is much more important than on a monohull. Bigger guys do better in heavy air. Just ask Larry Harteck at the last Altercup in San Dieago. He took all bullets after the wind picked up.
<br>
<br>A. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
<br>
<br>B. Anyone can be fast but there is a point where you run out of downhaul and that's when heavier is very slightly faster.
<br>
<br>C. Totally agree. I would love open sail plans.
<br>
<br>D. Yep, minor adustments can be reversed easily.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br>
<br><br><br>

Mike,
<br>
<br>You can buy my H20 if you want to! Just kidding.
<br>
<br>Where in your logic does a boat get to ADD sail area and then remove crew weight??? Is the H20 that bad of a design? Evidently not, we BOTH sail one. I sail my H20 usually at the 345 crew weight range my 200 lbs and my crews 145 lbs. Are we quick -- usually. Would we be quicker if we lost weight -- no! If we added sail area -- Hell yes. After sailing this boat design for six years I would like the ability to soup up this hull shape rather than hop designs.
<br>
<br>This becomes the focus of the issue if you let an engine builder (sailmaker) build the best engine for you and your "car" and you know that everyone else out there has the same basic "chassis". Your still going to kick butt! Have we ever ran out of downhaul (even thought we are team beef) Yes. Have we ever wished for more wind to keep up with those skinny bastards? YES! Total weight combined with proper saildesign makes an even formula. And makes it less a rules play of weight versus sailplan for your weight class == too complex.
<br>
<br>Will somepeople get more than they can handle YES, will they get it fixed after they crash out of control -- you betcha.
<br>
<br>What are the thoughts regarding a conference call for everyone to discuss this issue.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Steve,
<br>
<br>You sail at 345. In 5-15 knots you would be slightly faster at 305. At anything above 15 knots you will be the same speed. Look at H20 Nationals this year. We had a good mix of weights in the top five places because it blew stink all five days without ever a light air race.
<br>
<br>H20 Nationals this year places.
<br>1. Light
<br>2. Light
<br>3. Medium
<br>4. Heavy
<br>5. Very Light.
<br>
<br>These places would have been different if it hadn't blown stink everyday. We would have seen the top five places in the light catagory. I guarentee it!!
<br>
<br>I am open to a conference call on the issue.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791wishing I had a 384# cheater boat .
<br>
<br><br><br>

good discussion -
<br>
<br>-problems -with total weight rules
<br>
<br> 1- when it was upgraded in the future as mentioned it would obsolete the entire existing fleet .
<br>
<br>-2- the same total weight boats with a 80 lb heavier crew on the wire has a huge advantage and some 500 ft lbs more righting moment counterbalancing the wind force and sail thrust.
<br>
<br>-3-problems mentioned with numerous variables in each mfg. boat weight .
<br>
<br>-note -
<br> Once you modify the 20 and add a large chute it becomes a very different animal ,-David and I sailed the Worrell 1000 along with several other very competitive teams at around 400 lbs .
<br> <br><br>

I agree that in some cases there will be an advantage but when you look at how many days/regattas are sailed in certain conditions the heavier crew is only at a slight advantage about 3-5% of the time. Versus the opposite end of the weight equation.
<br>
<br>If we always sailed in extreme conditions such as the worrell (on certain days/legs) than it would really be an issue. Since we do not than it is not.
<br>
<br>Do we as an assoc. say "when the wind is above XX knots there are no races"? From a legal standpoint YES. From a sailing aspect MAYBE.
<br>
<br>There has been many times when it came down to sailors discretion if a boat should race. I can remember 96 hobie 20 nationals as a good case when a part of the fleet raced and the rest sat on the beach. One thing we must consider. Some day someone is going to drown at regatta. When it happens, all hell is going to break loose with the regatta staff, sponsoring club, the assoc. and the manufacturer of the boat getting sued. (thanks lawyers)
<br>
<br>If we place a clause in the bylaws that state "any race should not start when the winds exceed XX knots" and "if the wind builds beyond that after the start than it is solely the discretion of the race TEAM whether to continue" then the assoc. has cleared itself of any legal challenge.
<br>
<br>With the top out of the way than it becomes a "restrictor-plate" issue. Keep everyone at the same basic speed. Then let skill take over.
<br>
<br>I do agree that a spinnaker changes the mindset of a boat. But so does a "hooter". I have won regattas because in light air I flew a hooter up and down the course. Is it legal? YES should it be legal? YES. Is it innovative? You betcha! Was it fun? F'n A right it was!
<br>
<br>Thats one of the reasons that I speak so loudly about basic rules and lets innovate. Remember back before 96 when the Worrell was still dead. NO ONE sailed a spinnaker on a cat, or a hooter, or god knows whatelse. Say what you may about the "bring what you got" school of racing which was the first few years of the Worrells comeback. But, it brought alot of new thoughts to the sport that we take for granted now. Every I20 sailor should thank Mike Worrell and those few sailors that ran the race in 97 and 98.
<br>
<br>Next person for the soapbox?
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

-Hi Steve -
<br>-Another major problem with the total boat and crew weight prposed rule would be -getting an excellent boat builder or mfg. to produce a lightweight cat and only having a buying market of 380 pound people -200 and 180 to sail it ,---no builder would be interested .
<br>
<br>-Also unless we can allow ALL designs equal upgrades and modifications it will be percieved as bias to individuals special interests.
<br>
<br>-The Worrell varies from year to year in weather and sea conditions ,-on average 70 % is sailed in light to medium wind conditions ,--Generally the mornings start off very light ,-sometimes starts are delays untill the sea breeze effect starts ,-by afternoon hopefully it kicks in ,--The exception is when a front is in the area effecting local conditions ,--as in the FL legs last year ,--the rest was unusually light air .
<br>-The perception that the Worrell is about heavy air is from the extensive media coverage and great photo opts of heavy air sailing .
<br> Again -as with all regattas ,-most are sailed in light to med.conditions ,-with 400 lb crews competing equally with some of the best ,-
<br>-I have not sailed or raced the H-20 extensively ,--it may be a crew weight censitive design with many boats being heavier than original design specs and volume calc, and its narrow bow sections which are very effective in waves and chop .
<br> One suggested modification to the H-20 ,-A foam core open type V stern extention could be glassed in to bring it to 20 and existing hulls could be refinished inside and out removing excess glass bringing the hull weight down to original designed weight.
<br>-Further modification may be a carbon mast and new sq top main ,-self tacking jib ,with large chute ,-{made as flat as you would like it } -With these modifications believe you will realize a much smaller effect of crew weight in total performance over what you are used to on these larger more powerfull cat designs .
<br> All the best -
<br> Carl
<br>-<br><br>

Weight on a cat does have an effect, there is no doubt about that. The effects are different in different conditions. If the wind is steady and the water flat, the light weight guy who can tune his sail will have an advantage. In gusty conditions (especially prevalent where I sail) the heavier crews gain a significant advantage. In short chop and boat wake, the heavier crews drive much easier also. Either way weight placement is critical to how the boat really performs. Having a light crew fix dead weight adjustments to their boat is somewhat double jepardy. Not very many people live where the wind and wave patterns are the same every time we race. Who has the advantage over the season is still outweighed by skill of those driving. The argument over weight has become the cat sailors crutch and I see this as being the biggest hurdle to overcome on choosing the formula.
<br>
<br>I disaagree that it can be changed in the future. If the formula class is truly viable then maybe when there are sufficient people to intriduce a new "higher performance" class the parameters can change. The short term goal is to just get it started.
<br>
<br>The other issue here is Mikes discussion about the H20. Most Hobie sailrs race Hobies not because it is the best boat but it is an active one design class. The H20 is fast but putting it on an even keel with the I20 will take more than just a recut main. The boat was not designed for spin racing. You can put one on, but the boards and ballance are not right. Race down wind on the I20 with out the chute. The boat doesnt drive nearly as smoothly.
<br>
<br>I am 100% in favor of having a development or formula class started in the US for the 20 foot boats. I just see too many hurdles to overcome by creating a class around the I20 and expecting everyone else to change their boats. As I said the goal has to be just get it started. Look at the formuls sucess in Europe. They did not create their formula around 1 boat. It was a compromise to include the most people. Formula racing is an attempt to create a one design atmosphere while including many builders. Hobie and NAHCA are the only current long term organizations in the US. They have to be a pretty good model for what the new formula class need to do.<br><br>

Matt,
<br>
<br>I agree with you. And I agree in part with the other posts.
<br>
<br>If you look at it this way. We will all one day switch boats right?
<br>
<br>Well, if you can go to the best hull design for your area, weight, wind conditions etc. Then have the ability to choose your mast and sail configuration. AND THEN race heads up with who ever else comes to the show. Isn't it all then even and the arguements over who's boat gets what is moot.
<br>
<br>I sail an H20, love the boat, love the hobie fleets I have had the pleasure to sail with. I have also sailed in most of the country. Do I think the H20 is the best boat --- NO. But, if I could change the mast and sails it would be faster. Does it handle well with a chute? About as good as a 6.0NA. Is it an I20? NO. Could it beat an I20? with the right mods -- YES. Any boat can be beaten in the right enviorment and with the right crew/training. We see that at every race we go to.
<br>
<br>Basic open formula works. Just look at the A class. What I'm really tired of is buying a new boat every few years because of poor workmanship and materials. A formula class after time will force builders to build quality due to the level of open competiton. The bad thing about one design is that you have to go back to the source to buy that design. Plan obsolesence -- didn't work in Detroit -- shouldn't work in catsailing.
<br>
<br>Total weight just levels the field on most days. And on light days a crew weighing 295 lbs on a 400lbs boat is faster than a 380 lbs crew on a 400lbs boat. -- Thats the facts. Are these crews that much different in medium air -- nope. In heavy air? well, we are all just hanging on then anyway.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

I don’t think your right about the Euro F20 rules. The rules were tailored to the I20. The I20 measures to the maximum on almost all dimensions. Look at who started the rules, Nacra sailors. Hobie built the Fox to compete against the I20 using the new rules. How many, non-I20s, were racing under the F20 rules the first year? None. Foxes arrived on the scene last year. If the Euro F20 is a good model than then why wouldn’t we follow their lead? Take what is good about the class and change what hasn’t worked. If it is all working well than we should take the Euro rules and add a rule to allow the snuffer and go with it. I am personally willing to buy a 18sqm. main but many are not. So do you tell the 200 inter sailors to cut their main down or do you make the rules so they all fit. It’s an instant class. That’s what happened in Europe. They had about 4 F20 races the first year and the Inters raced on their own the rest. Remember that the I20’s would have to add weight to get to the F20 class minimum if the Euro rules are used. I weighed my boat and it came in at 388. That’s a ton of weight to add and reduce sail area at the same time.
<br>It’s not like we as I20 sailors aren’t “giving up anything”.
<br><br><br>

Hey guys lets table the topic of cutting sails for right now.
<br>
<br>Lets figure out weight formulas and then go on to modifications to comply.
<br>
<br>Or lets get an idea of how basic we want the rules first.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

If US I-20's don't want to cut their mains, okay then let them have their mains and cut their genakers. Use ISAF rule calculator to find out which size they need to rated back to the other designs (iF20 rating?)
<br>
<br>Something has to be done Matt Mhas a very good point : if the I-20 sailor can keep their complete rigs (And thus PC will win with their marketing ploy they've started 2 years ago about the enlarged US inter rig) than I don't know how you could argue your US F20 case to sailors of Hobie 20, Nacra 6.0, Prindle 19, Tornado's, Mystere 6.0's and Hobie Fox. I guess this list ALSO contains about 200 or 300 crews !
<br>
<br>How can you forcethem to heavilyinvest in mods when I-20's don't and under a ruleset that obviously is tailored to the PC US I-20 anyway and thus arguably favours that the US I-20 setup.
<br>
<br>I must be really mistaken if a skewed setup like this will work. And I don't see why the group of Hobie 20, Nacra 6.0, Prindle 19, Tornado's, Mystere 6.0's and Hobie Fox can't created a viable F20 based on the iF20 without the I-20. Will this exclude the nacra sailor who want a new boat ? No, for they will just buy a I-20in the iF20 setup (which also has goodies like carbon mast etc) Eventually that group of 200 (?) US I-20's will die out in time without must harm done.
<br>
<br>My point is here that this group of US I-20 may well not be that much of a power as they would like themself to be and Im certain that a viable iF20 in the US can be setup without them and I think they should be made aware of that.
<br>
<br>If the project group doesn't do than they will control eveything completely using the same argument and effectively make a US I-20 class under a different name to which Hobie unlikely to join. Hobie will loose to much if they did.Withoutout hobieonly Mystere is left and mystere is more involved in Eu than US already so they won't be really umping to join the US F20 (US I-20 class)
<br>
<br>Just my analysis, no personal offense intended
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

The Equal Performance class rules option proposed ALL designs being rated higher than existing -meaning ALL existing designs may be modified or upgraded in performance levels equally {inc .the i-20 }-slightly larger chute ,and also to include existing N-6/0 S with larger chutes ,---EVERYONE MODIFIES AND UPGRADES if desired.
<br>--Some exs. designs will adopt to chutes better than others , there are always coresponding design modifications that are required to any design. -
<br>
<br>--{looking for exact specs on those E-Coast N 6/0s -chute -pole jib and main sizes ,-with exs.{heavier } mast weight }-
<br>--
<br>
<br>--Setting a higher max target rating in ISAF -Texel -allows us to use and adopt existing accepted means of design calc. and measurement and also gives a max. rating -{again higher than exs. }---we should list all specs in Impl and metric ,--we can model or propose modifications to each exs.cat design to this max.rating inc. exs F-20 designs and allow new H T lighter 20 designs with proportionally smaller more efficient sail plans {equal performance } to evolve -
<br>
<br>-note -The last thing any of us would want to occur in this new 20 class is 16 and 18 ft designs sailing by us at higher speeds.-Several top sailors who have sailed the new 18s are already claiming that they are faster in certain conditions .
<br>
<br>-Crew weight -always contriversial ,--{remember fat boy allowances }--In establishing the class we need it as inclusive and simple as possible ,--we can add complex crew weight factors into class rules if they are deemed necessary in the future based on race results . -They are not required to get this going and eliminate pages of rules specification and elaborate measurement verification with various jib spin and weights required dependant on who your crew is and what your crew weight might be that particular regatta or distance race weekend .-
<br>-As Steve mentioned the KISS principle should be applied when possible -
<br> The proposed design formula EP20-C would only require one boat weight and measurement check, a certificate and sail sticker could be issued ,builders could publish specs and recieve a class sail stricker or emblem,
<br>
<br>-Please take a look at this concept proposed .
<br>-
<br>Please excuse my poor eyesight combined with typos ,
<br>-Thanks
<br> Carl<br><br>

Wouter,
<br>
<br>Good points but you miss the most important point.
<br>
<br>If you set up a set of rules that no boat currently adhears to and no manufacture is committed to build too, then who do you think is going to sail in this class?
<br>
<br>Answer is: Nobody.
<br>
<br>You have to start somewhere with a group of committed sailors to the F20 rule. The only group of sailors right now that seem interested are I20 sailors.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Ok guys what about this thought process.
<br>
<br>We adopt a rule set that allows two catagories of sail area. Main/jib and then spin/gennaker. Outline a vague rule that states "the combined sail area shall be XXXX sq foot to be comprised of main jib and spinnaker/gennaker or ANY combonation there of."
<br>
<br>Couple this with a rule that states "the maximum mast height shall be XX , watertight and be built out of any material commonly available"
<br>
<br>Spinnaker poles are class legal but should not exceed XX ft. with any hoist/stowage system being classified as acceptable (pending safety review)
<br>
<br>Safety review --- the assoc. has the sole descretion of decertifing any boat, gear, or sail plan as unsafe to the class, user or assoc.
<br>
<br>If we take these approaches then most of the complicated issues will be worked out on the race course. A few people will try to innovate. GREAT it brings new ideas, interests, and people to the sport. But, most will take minimum steps to modify their boats to make themselves "feel" faster.
<br>
<br>We can run models everyday to try and make everything equal but, at the end of the day there are just too many variables. Wind, weather, sailors, boats, training, wave shape, if the idiot remembered to put the plugs in, etc, etc, etc,
<br>
<br>Lets just make a real simple set of rules that can be gradually added to on an annual basis (with the approval of the voting class) to get this beast started.
<br>
<br>Sponsors are willing to bring dollars to the table which will fund interest into the class. Which in turn will bring sailors and then manufacturers.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Well Mike, is that really true what you're saying ?
<br>
<br>I mean, I'm sure that I can walk up to any Hobie or PC dealor and order a iF20 design. Fox is pure iF20 and apart from the stick the I-20 is pure iF20. Havinf said the last, PC builds also the EU iF20 so they must be in a position to sell that one to a US customer too. I know for sure that they sell the Inter -18 in both configurations.
<br>
<br>So this clearlyare two design that are readily sold by the main dealor networks.
<br>
<br>From what I can tell, the H20 is pretty close to the iF20 rules, not more than 1% or so away on the performance producing parameters. Nacra 6.0 has more sailarea, but also more weight and these two might well cancel out eachother.
<br>
<br>The iF20 rule exist and more manufacturers are committing themselfs too it. PC and Hobie are there already. Cirrus and Mystere are giving it a shot. Tornado sport is only 1 % faster. And the races I've seen in NL the Tornado sport and iF20 are regulary battling it out.
<br>
<br>So the obvious basis is there. Most aother designs (prindle 19, nacra 5,8, etc) can be modified to the iF20 rule performance. US I-20 performance will only be further away if it does have higher performance.
<br>
<br>Who will sail the class. Good question, if it is only the US I-20 sailors than why create a F20 ? Create a I-20 class. Is there any indication that other WILL enter when the F20 rule is drawn up around the US I-20 ? The case for this is just
<br>as weak if your point is true.
<br>
<br>If I-20 sailors are being difficult about costs than just let them have their mains and heigher mast and take their jibs away. No cost ast all and they will be slowest enough but not drasticaly. Set a sail limit that is less than the main and jib of us I-20 together and force this.
<br>
<br>Well this is the last I'll say about this, no disrespect, if it doesn't land now it will never land. And it is not my concern anyway.
<br>
<br>regards,
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Wouter
<br>The mast is the same on all I20. The only differences are the sails. The jib is the smallest under iF20, Spinnaker is the largest under the rule and the main is larger than the 18sqm allowed. Other than that the boats are the same.
<br><br><br>

BTW - Where are the specs on the US and EU versions of the I20 coming from? The PC website lists only 1 set of specs (the EU one?). Has someone measured the boats to get another set of specs? If so, who/when/how?
<br>
<br>Since most of our discussions revolve around sizes, lengths, and weights, it seems we should all have a clear idea of where these are coming from.
<br>
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego
<br>
<br>P.S. For other boats as well, has anyone measured them closely to see if they match the mfg-supplied specs?
<br><br><br>