It seems after keeping up with this discussion that there are two schools of thought on this issue.
<br>
<br>School 1: Box Rule, 20ft by 8 1/2ft, 32 ft mast max and some minimum weight yet to be determined or maybe no minimum weight? Proponents: Steve, Carl, Who else.
<br>
<br>School 2: Strict iF20 rules with a couple small variations to include the I20's and allow any boat that is smaller race in the class of course if desired. Possibility of grandfathering in some of the older designs with strict rules as to what is allowed on the older designs like the N6.0, M6.0, H20, ....
<br>Proponents: Mike H., Barry, Who else.
<br>
<br>Which School of thought do you fall into?
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Question, in the box rule, would there be some adjustments allowed to boats such as H20, P19, N6.0 in order to let them compete more equally with boats like the I20 and Fox. This question also applies to the other alternative. I'm not clear on the issue from your summary.
<br>
<br>David N
<br>H20<br><br>

As I see it, the main goal is to get as many cats as possible sailing - right?
<br>
<br>I assume that the basic rule would be box-like in any event: length <= x, width <= y, main area <=z, etc. Of course, any boat within the limit would be allowed.
<br>
<br>In order to get existing designs racing, there 2 options:
<br>
<br>Option 1: Apply the same limits from the basic rule to any existing designs (i.e. P19mx, H20, N6.0 etc would have to be within the same restrictions as the new boats). This would be suboptimal since existing boats were not designed with the basic box rule in mind.
<br>
<br>Option 2: Each specific existing boat could be given it's own set of limits, some of which may be larger than the basic limits (e.g. perhaps H20's are allowed to have a spin larger than the basic rule, or perhaps the N6.0 is allowed to have a larger mainsail than the basic rule, etc). Presumably the Texel calculator (or similar) would be used to choose the limits for the existing boats, so that the calculator rates them the same as a I20/Fox (which would fit the basic rule). The goal is to provide the most performance for the smallest modification.
<br>
<br>I think Option 2 will get more support from people with existing boats, and allows the most flexibility to accomodate different people's concerns.
<br>
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego<br><br>

Box Rule:
<br>Max Length: 20ft.
<br>Max Width: 8 1/2ft.
<br>Max Mast Height: 32ft.
<br>Max Main/Jib sailarea: ??? I20 equivilent
<br>Max Chute Sailarea ??? I20 equivilent.
<br>
<br>Possible to grandfather in boats that exceed the limits on the main and jib sail area such as the 6.0s, H20, P19, .... We would grandfather in these boats based on Texel Rating, Portsmouth rating, and experience as to how they would perform.
<br>
<br>I hope that explains what I meant by box rule.
<br>
<br>Any of the boats we talked about could be made to fit under either school of thought with or without modifications depending on each owners preference. Remember this is to include as many boats as possible.
<br>
<br>Personally, I think we would have to exclude only the wide beam boats such as the Supercat 22 and Tornado (unless they bought 8 1/2 ft. beams for the Tornado).
<br>
<br>These are two very distinctly different schools of thought. It would be interesting to hear which school people thought had more merit.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

WHOA!!! As a advocate of the 'box rule" let me voice my thoughts here. Actually, let me say this first -- Mike I respect your position, your thought process's, your abilities as a sailor, and you as a person. But, I do not feel that setting the limits based upon the I20 platform is a sound decision. I agree with someone elses comment about "if you spec out to I20 formulas --- just go support the I20 class" -- or something along that line.
<br>
<br>I have always agreed that the KISS principle is the best. I would advocate a more broad interpretation of the "box"
<br>
<br>weight minimum xxx (I personally think the boat and crew should be totaled together)
<br>Max length 20ft
<br>max width 8' 6"
<br>Max mast 32ft 6"
<br>max sail area XXXX sq ft. (give the sailors the option of what best fits their ability to control, and whats best for their specific boat design) This also makes this more a thinking man's sport -- will some people buy different jib and spinnaker configurations some will. Hell, I have four chutes now!! But, by and large the competition will be more equal and a crew will be more likely to pick what they can handle over what's the biggest. Also, remember we are talking about a formula that is for both bouys and distance racing. The only thing that I can think of that is difficult is when you try to score a NAF 20 using this rule against another non formula boat. Only time will give us the data to compile a true texel or isaf rating everything else is just guess work.
<br>
<br>This most basic formula leads to innovation, allows new builders to come to the table while keeping our "older" designs competitive.
<br>
<br>One thing we must all face is that our boats have a finite livespan. If we try and keep everything in this tightly controled box then there will not be any new blood either in the form of boats or crew.
<br>
<br>Let me step on my soapbox here for a moment and talk about combined weight. I have had 5 crews in the last 8 years. Most bought their own boat and are sailing but the ones who didn't told me that they could just not compete with the "lighter" crewed boats. Remember that the majority of regattas in the US sail in an average wind speed of 8-9 knots. We always hear that heavy guys have an advantage in "big" air. Well, where in the hell is the big air?? If we looked at combined weight then in the average wind speed it would be very much like restrictor plate racing in nascar. Everybody tight and fighting for position. With that I will step down.
<br>
<br>Whichever way the assoc. goes I will support it. However, I feel that freedom to experiment builds competition and thats what racing is all about.<br><br>

Steve,
<br>
<br>I think you explained the box rule well. I think we have a few minor issues to decide depending upon which way we decided to go. Since I'm not an advocate of the box rule I will leave that one to others to come up with the specs.
<br>
<br>Remember I'm in the other camp of tightly controlled close to the iF20 rules so I won't presume to draw up box rules.
<br>
<br>On your total crew+boat weight issue. The only concern I have is with someone building an ultra light boat along the lines of 300 lbs all up and adding two heavy guys on the boat and being close to unstoppable in any wind condition.
<br>
<br>I've sailed against most all of these boats in distance races and bouy races. The difference in the boats becomes obvious in the distance races. All of the I20's finished a good hour or two before me on the first chute rigged H20 to finish at the Round The Island. Are some of them better sailors than me? Sure they are. But not all of them. If I had to compete against the I20's on a regular basis I would just buy an I20 because my H20 would not be competitive. Could I make my H20 competive with about $5000 in modifications? Quite possibly but again I would just buy the I20.
<br>
<br>I'm just trying to give you some ideas on my thought processes as I sail against these faster boats.
<br>
<br>Under the box rule say just for grins that somebody puts an I20 rig on a H20 and they start winning every race they enter. I'm not saying this would work but let's just use it as an example. Now people start buying H20's and buy an I20 rig and sail on a more costly boat than any that is currently produced. With the box rule you run the risk of it becoming a large money drain class. As new developments are made others would have to incorporate those developement or go to the end of the pack. It's just a risk and one of the reasons I don't advocate the wide open box rules.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Hi Steve and Mike -
<br>
<br>-Trying to open a broader view of what the 20 class has the option of becomming , and set a general class direction before forming working groups ,-but getting more than 3 to agree on any topic or any subject for that matter is difficult .
<br>-
<br>-Will volunteer to help organize , measure boats , and assist as I,m able.
<br>
<br>-Views on class direction -
<br> --We have Nacra with 200 existing Inter 20 s with a 14.5 sq ft larger mainsail . We took basic measurements 2 years ago when we first considered F-20-The headboard and top batten are much larger than existing F-20s along with coresponding roach {trailing edge of the mainsail }.Nacra's goal as with all mfg is to sell boats , the boat dealers are active and do a tremendous amount to help support racing .
<br>
<br>-Hobie has the Fox with comptip . there is no large active Fox class to date.
<br>Both companies goal is to promote and sell their product .
<br>-Mainly because of the Hobie family "{ wonderfull people} " and the early success of the H-16 , The H-Class has maintained the vast majority of the catamaran market .
<br>-Hobie needs to improve the Fox , but there is currently no motivation for them to do so , as we continue to hear directives of Hobie first oriented regattas .The class Assoc. over the years has brought thousands of people into sailing and racing ,and has been great for the sport .
<br>
<br>-The extent of support the new N A Formula Classes will recieve from Nacra ,-Hobie or any boat mfg. will be in direct proportion to the number of boats sold , The real support for the class will be in boat dealers who race themselves and may sell several brands of catamarans , also from the many various sailing clubs around the country , including Formula starts in their regattas , distance races and general organization, and mostly from enthusiastic avid racers like ourselves willing to organize and promote the class ideals and bring new people , new events, and life into the sport.
<br>
<br>-There currently is no way to keep both H fOX and I -20 as they are , One has a carbon fiber mast and larger sail area.One has a comptip.
<br>-We have numerous existing active racing 20 ft catamarans in the U S in ranging weights and sail areas that we can not ignore either .
<br>
<br>-Please propose a comprehensive SOLUTION , because of the existing described set of conditions we have in N A -existing formula rules developed in Europe in 93 will be largely ignored in the 20 ft class ,--
<br>-The 18 Class will have some success due to the Tiger , Nacra F-18 and several other cats developed specifically to the F-rule , Many racing sailors wanting those specifically drafted structured rules will be attracted to that class , It is the perfect size for husband -wife type teams ,and the majority of sailors , now along with a new HT F-16 Class, allowing one up or 2 up racing.
<br>
<br>-Maybe the 20 Class in the U S should take the lead and become more of a combination of Formula and developement class encouraging and allowing faster ,safer , designs to evolve .
<br>It really depends on what type of sailing you personally enjoy . If your perception of the 20 class is a strict type of one design allowing different mfg. that,s great , but believe this leads back to a one design fleet with one mfg.boat dominating the scene with little variation between boats .
<br>-What many others may envision is more of a developemental 20 class allowing more individual innovation geared to racing enthusiasts ,similar in rules structure to the A Class , but allowing more developement through a range or boat weights and sail plan configurations , and also including all the existing various active racing 20s .
<br>
<br>-In the future with increased class partisipation it may require as Hobie used to, an A and B fleet type catagory , though it may be called modified { for older converted designs sailed mainly by newer sailors } and developement , for newer designs , an old concept applied to racing as Wouter mentions in his post .
<br>
<br>Carl <br><br>

Carl,
<br>
<br>Just to let you know. The Hobie Fox and Tiger is now being sold in the US with a solid Aluminum mast as offered by Hobie Euro. As I understand it you actually officailly buy your mast from Hobie Euro seperately. Hobie also is offering a very attractive tradin on any previously sold comptip mast from the Fox and Tiger. I am glad they made the change and we now have an iF20 boat and an F18 boat right out of the box and ready to go in the US. I recieved this information from a Hobie Factory Rep so I believe it to be accurate.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Thanks Mike -
<br> also thanks for the offer to help organize a distance race in MI again , -it will have a FORMULA class .
<br>
<br>-Good news for the comptip guys ,
<br>-Have heard that all F-18s are going through extensive improvements and are on their 3rd or 4th versions in the factories attempts to make them the top boat ,--Nacra has refined their 18 hull shapes , and the Tiger keeps updating ,-I saw my first one in the 98 Worrell 1000 ,-it is a very nice looking cat. -
<br> It is amazing what equal competition will do for the quality and performance of boats .
<br>
<br>-Believe if we look ahead and specify lighterweight boats being allowed to race equally, in several years time we will similarly have a number of excellent higherspeed lightweight designs in the 20 class ,-just as a group did for the 18s in 1993 when Formula was started in Europe.
<br>-Eventually the 18s will have to also update to the lighterweight design technology and building techniques.
<br>
<br>-Saved this post from a noted catamaran designer on weight - this may be a good place to add it to the discussion with a few comments after .
<br>
<br>-The parameter that will bring this discussion on crew weight to focus is "overturning moment to righting moment ratio". The overturning moment corrilates with sail area times the height of the center of effort above the center of bouyancy of the burdened hull. The total righting moment is the sum of the boat righting moment (boat weight X boat width/2) plus the crew's righting moment plus the skipper's righting moment. This ratio tells the tale as to the optimum weight for the boat. Boats designed with a larger number (ratio)favor larger people and boats designed with a smaller number (ratio) favor smaller. Boats designed with a larger number tend to become overpowered sooner (less wind) and boats with a smaller number are more controlable in stronger winds and will excell in stronger winds.
<br>Designers have gradually increased this ratio in an effort to build faster boats at low cost than the competition via higher sail area to weight ratio. This doesn't work if you can't hold the boat down, does it? Remember the recent Olympic catamaran selection trials? The old boat 10ft wide with 237sqft of sail area beat all the new designs with more sail area including spinnakers but only 8.5ft wide. If you don't go up in righting moment as you go up in sail area, then you can't drive the sails to their capability and the boat moves out of the competitive weight range for normal weight people and it won't perform well in strong winds. How do you go up in righting moment? Make the boat wider! My first beach cat was 12 feet wide with 275sqft of sail area and it dominated the 20ft beach cat class for many years. It is as simple as this: To increase performance, the sail area to weight ratio must increase. Solution add sail area. Answer WRONG! Add sail area and width in a coordinated fashion to achieve higher sail area to weight ratio and hold overturning moment to righting moment ratio. The only other way to increase sail area to weight ratio is to reduce weight. With this approach manufacturing cost takes off like a rocket and the light weight boat is very fragile. What I'm talking about here is building two hulls for the weight of one. The low cost way to acheive higher sail area to weight ratio is to add sail area and width in a coordinated fashion. What's happening with the 'new boats' they are powered up with more sail area and no improvement in righting moment and the big people are favored.
<br>Good Sailing,
<br>
<br>-These are always great posts , greatly appreciated by many of us ,
<br> We do now have several examples of lightweight cats available at reasonable cost , would be the only minor point of different opinion.
<br> The only way to equalize this described advantage if a total boat weight and crew weight rule were to be implimented as Steve would advocate would be to add adjustable or telescoping racks or wings to the hulls ,-Like the H-21 -17 OR Mystere has available . This would allow lighter crews a proportionally longer lever arm option equalizing weight at the point out from the center of effort on the sail plan with a measurement from the leeward hull .
<br> If someone can design a lightweight inexpensive c f rack we can all add to the 20s I.m all for the equal boat and crew rule .
<br>maybe 10 lbs each -
<br> If not then we need to state that all crews are responcible for maintaining their own ideal crew weight at min 325 .
<br>
<br>-The other option used of carrying weights and various jib and spin sizes for crew weight that particular race weekend seems overly complex , inflexable and adds burden to sailors and measurers , also never liked the idea of carrying added weights though have in years past , and really does not equal the playing field as accurately as racks would achieve .
<br>
<br>-Carl
<br>
<br>-.
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

I like magsteve's idea of a total sail area (main+jib+spin) limit, as it allows for more flexibility and development and continued improvement of the sport. The one problem with any one-design rule (which a very strict formula rule is similar to) is that it stops cold any innovation or evolution. I would like to see boats continue to become more fun to sail as people improve the design and manufacturing process.
<br>
<br>Put me firmly in the box rule camp.
<br>
<br>I also like the total weight concept. The main reason I got out of P19 racing is that we did OK getting to A mark, then got killed going to C mark 100 lbs overweight. It just wasn't fun. (I also saw this from the reverse side a few times I solo'ed the P19, getting to A mark late but catching and passing 2-crew boats downwind). Yes, having a higher proportion of movable weight is a small advantage sailing upwind, but the magnitude of the advantage is limited by having a constant sail area. Also, downwind the movable weight doesn';t provide any advantage at all. Since the cost of a 300# boat will be much greater than a 400# boat, I don't see many sailors going this route. It would only pay off (and only al little) if you had a very heavy crew AND a lot of extra money to spend AND a high wind race. Those 3 things don't happen simultaneously very often.
<br>
<br>Another advantage of the combined weight rule is that it would allow mfg's to slowly reduce the weight of their boats as better materials and manufacturing processes came along. I have been sorely tempted to explore the T4.9, Mystere 4.3, and the A-class just to get a boat that is easier to move around by myself (or even with a helper). This is also a major complaint I hear from Laser sailors - cats can't easily be moved around by 1 person, even though the wind is usually not too strong to sail them solo.
<br>
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego
<br>
<br><br><br>

Thank you Alan for the support.
<br>
<br>If righting moment is such a major issue then why does randy smyth and bob curry always seem to be in the front at every point on the course? They are always sailing at or within a few lbs of minimum. Why you ask? because they have learned to tune, depower, bleed off, and control their "engines" which makes them always in control and sailing efficently. The use of downhaul as an active control was pioneered by these two guys. By the way for those of you who have never seen these gentlemen. They weigh in around 150-160 each.
<br>
<br>You guys who scream righting moment should post your body weight when you talk about this issue. I have not made any attempt to hide that I weigh in at 205 lbs. The question I have to ask is how many 120 lbs people do you know that can handle a 380 sq foot spinnaker in 15 knots of wind? So when you guys look at the crew weight issue it is more than just weight it is also an issue of two 150-160 lbs people versus one at 200 and an other at 125. (If both boats sailed at minimum.) By combining the weight of boat and crew I believe that we will see a shift in crew philosophies. No longer will we be looking for the lightest crew but the most capable crew.
<br>
<br>I know that I could bring in a ton of monohull sailors who are tired of dealing with finding 4-5 people who can sail competitivly so that they can race. A cheap boat (10,000 - 16,000) coupled with only two crew, no dockage costs, portability, and the ability to race a spinnaker. Becomes a real attractive package for these monodullers. Has any of us ever thought about recruiting "sailors" into our sport? I know up to about a year ago it was taboo to talk about catsailing at a yacht club. But there has been some great press about cats in general from the race to reviews in the "traditional" sailing press and on and on and on. If we adopt a few basic rules that everyone can play in then we will increase our "total" number of sailors not just rearrange our existing group of catsailors by bringing in a more diverse group of sailors from all catagories.
<br>
<br>If you took a crew of a J24, sold the boat and bought "formula" cats, you would have 2 cat teams racing with a savings of about 10k. Lets really visit this basic box rule. If we can prove to the manufacturers that they have a monetary advantage in supporting this formula then it WILL grow. PWC (jetskis) are becoming illegal on more and more lakes. Where will these people go? Hopefully, to catsailing if we can make it attractive enough. Remember our side of sailing is where all the adrenaline junkies go!
<br>
<br>I have approached US Sailing and have talked about how we can work together in expanding this class, our sport, and ideas within the existing parent body. US Sailing has an incentive for us to succeed. With them in our corner then the manufacturers have to listen to us.
<br>
<br>Thanks for letting me state my two cents worth
<br>Steve<br><br>

I am undecided... I would like to see the impact of both types of proposals against all popular boat types before making any decisions. I still will prefer class racing when a fleet exists. I see this as a possible alternative to portsmouth but not a replacement for fleet racing. As an I20 sailor, I will also add that I will not be lifting another aluminum 32 mast... ever... and I will not be cutting my new main with zero races on it. I would probably have trouble doing the same with the 2 year old main.<br><br>Mike Teets
<br>Dublin, Ohio
<br>I20 #246
<br>M4.3 #59

I agree with Mike that I won't ever go back to an aluminum mast (it's almost like sailing with a spinnaker - once you try it you just can't go back...). I didn't even like lifting the 30' aluminum mast on my previous P19, much less one 2 feet longer.
<br>
<br>I don't think this should be a problem, though, since even the EU iF20 rule allows carbon masts as I understand it.
<br>
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego<br><br>

Guys, iF20 ALLOWS carbon masts; Hobie has a alu (porbably) because their designers decided that the benefit of a carbon mast is not convincing enough under iF20 rule where taper is not allow nor masts (blanks) that are lighter than 18 Kg's.
<br>
<br>This is ofcourse the freedom designers under iF20 have. Is the fox slower because of this ? I doubt is because the I-20 mast are not comparable to carbon A mast which have taper and non prismatic features induced to alter it's behaviour. The I-20 is prismatic and doesn't have these aspects that put carbon ahead of alu in classes like the A's.
<br>
<br>About I-20 mainsails. Who talks about cutting their new sails. But secondhand in Eu or order a EU new main for USD 1500,-. This investment is the same as P19 need to go MX and N6.0 crews need to go genaker etc.
<br>
<br>If I-20 crews don't want this then forget about them for than they will not support ANYTHING other than a covert I-20 class where others (designs) will only function as easy prey which I-20 can hunt without much danger to itself.
<br>
<br>Their support is very doubful than, to say the least.
<br>
<br>Please correct me if I'm wrong.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Wouter<br><br>

her , behind (wouter) my replies.
<br>
<br>
<br>-Believe if we look ahead and specify lighterweight boats being allowed to race equally, in several years time we will similarly have a number of excellent higherspeed lightweight designs in the 20 class
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Wrong, It is far easily to optimize an existing platform with respect to handling and sailshape than it is to redesign the whole platform to a ligther one. The costs involved are very different and everybody can easily upgrade to the optimized setup but not as easily to a foundamentally redesigned platform. Cat builders will not put out several different designs for the same class. They will put out alterations to the existing platform.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>-Eventually the 18s will have to also update to the lighterweight design technology and building techniques.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I doubt it. F18 works in its current configuration, just as the H16 does. As long as the class has active fleets it will not feel the need for lightweight.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The parameter that will bring this discussion on crew weight to focus is "overturning moment to righting moment ratio".
<br>
<br>(wouter) Wrong sentence should be "overturning moment to righting moment ratio when wind is stronger than start of double trapping". The last is probably somewhere around 10 15 knots.
<br>
<br>>>>Designers have gradually increased this ratio in an effort to build faster boats at low cost than the competition via higher sail area to weight ratio. This doesn't work if you can't hold the boat down, does it?
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Indeed, anybody wants a US I-20 ? This width, forced by trailorbility is the achilles heel of every cat. And the main reason why F18's beat iF20's on elapsed time in the stronger winds. Having said this, it does work in conditions with windstrengths below double trapezing.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Remember the recent Olympic catamaran selection trials? The old boat 10ft wide with 237sqft of sail area beat all the new designs with more sail area including spinnakers but only 8.5ft wide.
<br>
<br>(wouter) yeah well not really unexpected considering this boat is also 13 kg's ligther and the other boat only had 15 sq.ft. moresail area. Look about just right to cancel eachother out. Now I'm not sure who sailed the boat but I consider Tornado crews to be the best in the catamaran world. I doubt if this all can be put down to width.
<br>
<br>
<br>>If you don't go up in righting moment as you go up in sail area, then you can't drive the sails to their capability and the boat moves out of the competitive weight range for normal weight people and it won't perform well in strong winds.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Indeed, STRONG winds. An important sidenote.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>> The only other way to increase sail area to weight ratio is to reduce weight. With this approach manufacturing cost takes off like a rocket and the light weight boat is very fragile. What I'm talking about here is building two hulls for the weight of one.
<br>
<br>
<br>(Wouter) Stealth, BIM, Taipan, Spitfire, A-cats all boats very much cheaper than this designers boats and also F18 and iF20's. many times it was predicted that these boats would break the second you sat on them. That is if you had not looked at them before that time because that would break them too. Obviously the wrong in this point has been extensively proven.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>The only way to equalize this described advantage if a total boat weight and crew weight rule were to be implimented as Steve would advocate would be to add adjustable or telescoping racks or wings to the hulls
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) Wrong and VERY misleading. Racks eqaulization would only work AT ALL in STRONGER winds, and NOT AT ALL at below double trap winds. This system is therefor one of the worse equalisation systems that you can think up. Furthermore because the righting ratio advantage isn't a fixed ratio but proportional to windstrengh. What are going to do rule different wingwidth with respect to windstrength AND crewweight AND crew height ?. I've looked at this for the F16 HP class but have dropped it completely.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>The other option used of carrying weights and various jib and spin sizes for crew weight that particular race weekend seems overly complex , inflexable and adds burden to sailors and measurers , also never liked the idea of carrying added weights though have in years past , and really does not equal the playing field as accurately as racks would achieve .
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) The last claim is very blunt and ambitios to say the least sorry carl.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Hi Wout -
<br>
<br> We all post and bring our personal human bias and offer opinion sometimes based on limited experience .
<br> -Having not raced many 16s HP cats , I felt the basis of experience I had on them limited the effective constructive input offered .
<br>
<br>--My experience and bias with 20s may be towards distance races , attempting to include all existing designs allowing higher performance modification to them and the understanding that the class needs to allow updating to develope with respect to boat weight , something as we look back at history of cat developement , and great designs like the Tornado ,understand that they would have vanished like so many others without allowing this developement to occur .
<br>
<br> You have a bias towards the 16s -promoting it as the lightweight quote "giant killer " --
<br> Also the always present anti U S --Euro first perspective ,--We all have to follow existing iF 20 RULES ,--regardless of very differing set of circumstances ,--and your quote to the effect above -{-the I-20 Class sailors are not going to support this } --I-20 sailors are the large part of existing posts and interest ,---Your comments like these are counter productive , and clearly demonstrate your own personal bias .
<br>
<br>--Will address the design points -for 20 CLASS reference
<br>
<br>-1-your assumption that boats should only be modified -
<br>
<br> We can of course allow both to occur ,-existing modification and new developement ,--
<br>
<br>-2-Your comment that heavier 18s will not have to update ,-
<br> again look at cat developement ,--Should lighter weight boat weight considerations only be allowed to develope in 16s -
<br>
<br>-You go on offering your opinion out of context to a designers post on the Tornado cat and weight effects . -
<br> You offer opinion on crew performance guesses rather than fact , equate these posts due to personal bias .
<br>
<br>-Briefly -ADJUSTABLE -racks would equalize crew weight effects and would have to be a part of a total boat and crew weight rule to be FAIR . OBVIOUSLY RACKS are not used BY ANY IN LIGHT AIR ,
<br>
<br>-Again posts are from a perspective of 20 Class racing in application of theoretical rules and there longterm effects .
<br> The sail area to boat weight scale ratio allows existing cat designs to modify to LARGER sail plans and spin areas .
<br> If we look at the weight of winning crews in National championships and races like the Worrell 1000 we see crews averaging around 350 and some above 400 on these large powerfull cats , now proposed to be more powerfull .
<br> The general concensis of top sailors in the class are that higher crew weights are required to race .
<br> We can always add a weight compensation rule if the majority of racing sailors believe it is needed ,-but after a year of racing this more powerfull breed of cat doubt that this will be required.
<br>
<br> -Did not sign up to get in personal opinion duscusion -
<br> my opologies if I have offended any , but this class will not be successfull if we adopt existing I-f-20 -no I-20S will partisipate per posts as we see ,--If we adopt I-20 sail areas no others will partisipate . -
<br> We are forced to create an innovative solution and hopefully something better will elolve from our efforts that may become the model for others.
<br> Carl <br><br>

Hi Steve -
<br> It is great to see the commitment towards forming this 20 class, my apologies if I have offended any, Steve -Barry or any, the written word often reads more harshly than is ever intended, I’ve been very interested in helping form a 20 class for 3 years, It was very disturbing to learn 2 years ago the difference between the Inter sail plan, this after I purchased one to race the Worrell 1000, -This class has become the most popular spin 20, --If it was the same we would be set to go on F-20.
<br>
<br>-For the record in responding I’m 6’4 and 225 lbs -
<br>but concerned that the class be FAIR to all, and that we find solutions to include all existing cats raced and allow innovation and look to the future of the sport rather than our own individual experiences and racing preferences only .
<br>
<br>-Not many of us finish ahead of Randy or Bob ,or several others I can think of that you may equate as a professional, their commitment and time given to the sport and skill level is such . These guys can hop on any cat in any race and finish ahead of most regardless of boat differences or weight.
<br>
<br>-If several believe in the total boat and crew weight rule, then define the top end boat weight and bottom along with total target, as applied to existing and new future boats. -
<br> -
<br>-We should together run through the process of how it effects each, and the long-term effects on the class and how it will evolve with this rule.
<br>
<br>-Some problems listed
<br> 1- no manufacturer will build a lightweight cat with only a buying market of 360 plus weight crews. -may want to ask several their opinion, without their support this rule will not work .If we get commitments from any for this then lets enact it , along with working out these other potential problems -
<br>
<br> 2-Existing 420 LB boats with 2 big guys that want to race -their combined weight of 800 lb., --How do they race competitively against new lightweight boats with the same size crew. -
<br>
<br>-#-3-fair sailing for all. -
<br> Do understand the ability to depower sails, You can crank down the Inter main until its flat as a board and twists off at the top without releasing the mainsheet. -
<br>
<br>-Posted the designers comment previously to indicate that the 20s with their huge sailplans are overpowered.
<br> I race the 20 single-handed occasionally; it is nice in light air but am flying a hull with my 225 lb. at 6 to 8 mph winds.
<br>
<br>-The proposed Weight to sail area ratio scale rule would increase sail area on all boats, making them even more overpowered. -Up to a total of 610 sq. ft plus on some.
<br>-Historically we can look at some classes that have huge proportional sailplans and see the long-term effects.
<br> The Olympic Finn and former Soling classes for example. To race a Finn you needed to be around 200 lb., -The Soling crews are usually 3 guys around 250 lb. each, this is required to sail these boats with huge sailplans in top competition.
<br>
<br>-We can set a min 330 for the class , if your 350 to 360 it is not going to be a measurable difference ,or even 400 , it will not be the proportional effect that occurs on smaller underpowered craft.
<br>-
<br>-Received this e , thought Id post it for those that hav, nt seen it to provide some historical context –
<br>
<br>-Mark Foy
<br>The birth of 18ft Skiff Racing as we know it today occurred on Sydney
<br>Harbour on 26 January 1892. The father was Mark Foy.
<br>Foy was a local businessman who loved sailing and believed Sydney
<br>Harbour to be the world's best aquatic playground, and was
<br>disappointed that, unlike many other sports, sailing attracted
<br>practically no public interest.
<br>He was quick to realise that the sailors themselves were responsible
<br>for this lack of interest as they made no attempt to cater for the
<br>public.
<br>* They raced over a 12-mile course and were out of sight for up to
<br>two hours.
<br>* A complicated handicap system caused a further delay while the
<br>winner was being determined later in the clubhouse.
<br>* There was no attempt to entertain spectators while the boats were
<br>out of sight.
<br>Determined to change this situation, he discussed the matter with a
<br>few close friends and came up with a series of initiatives which he
<br>believed would popularise sailing as an exciting spectator sport.
<br>His plan was split into three simple steps:
<br>1. Racing must be exciting and faster.
<br>2. Boats had to be more colourful and more easily identified than by
<br>a number on the Sails.
<br>3. Race winner should be decided on a first-past-the-post basis.
<br>The major problem with Foy's plan was producing a faster racer, but
<br>he solved this with the first of the 18-footers, which was an open,
<br>centreboard boat with a very light hull, an 8-foot (2.4m) beam and
<br>only 30 inches (76cm) amidships. It carried a crew of 14 (compared to
<br>the previous boats with 25 crew) and had a huge spread of sail which
<br>gave it a sensational aquaplaning speed downwind.
<br>Foy's original idea of having striped sails to identify each boat had
<br>to be abandoned due to the excessive cost of manufacturing varying
<br>designs for registration.
<br>His alternative was for each boat to have a colourful emblem on its
<br>mainsail - a tradition which continues to this day, although the
<br>colourful emblem is now almost exclusively the logo of a corporate
<br>sponsor.
<br>When Foy tried to enter his boats with the Anniversary Regatta
<br>Committee of 1892, they were rejected as the committee believed
<br>that "such badges were not in keeping with the dignity of the oldest
<br>regatta in the southern hemisphere".
<br>Foy was furious and announced "we'll run our own regatta on
<br>Anniversary Day. I'll pay for it and we'll give the public what it
<br>wants".
<br>High-pressure publicity given to Foy's plans paid big dividends. On
<br>regatta day, Clark Island (Sydney Harbour) was packed to capacity,
<br>while moored ferries and jetties provided additional accomodation -
<br>as did every vantage point along the foreshores of Sydney Harbour.
<br>The crowd was without precedent in Australian yacht racing although
<br>most of these spectators knew little about the sport. The vast
<br>majority were there to thrill to the excitement that Foy had promised.
<br>A triangular three miles course was plotted and a "staggered" start
<br>introduced (where the best boats started after the slower boats) to
<br>bunch the fleet for a spectacular, downwind run to the finish at
<br>Clark Island.
<br>At the start there had been less than three minutes between all boats
<br>in the fleet. At the finish there were a dozen boats racing for the
<br>line in a bow-to-bow finish.
<br>The public got its moneys worth and the coloured badges of the 18-
<br>footers were an instant success.
<br>Foy had demonstrated that 18-footer racing was the most exciting
<br>sport ever seen on Sydney Harbour - a status that has never been
<br>seriously challenged.
<br><br><br>

Well, as always I came on a bit strong. My blunt responses were more motivated by frustration than by biases like EU vs US and F16 HP. Frustrations that many points raised by others were raised many times before and adequately answered to, but never seem to be resolved.
<br>
<br>It would have been wiser of me not to let this guide my actions.
<br>
<br>My further replies behind (wouter)
<br>
<br>>>You have a bias towards the 16s -promoting it as the lightweight quote "giant killer " --
<br>
<br>(wouter) I've never used these world although the name David and Goliath cup will give just this impression. Now, I'm careful not to include the F16 in the posts I make on this F20 forum. For obvious reasons. However, a substantial part of my knowlegde comes from analyses made with respect to this class. I would like to pass the things I found on to you, the F20, so that you don't have to waste time on discovering these things yourself.
<br>
<br>>>Also the always present anti U S --Euro first perspective ,--
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) What did I say ? I'm not denying that I'm know for this kind of behaviour but I fail to see it in my post with respect to F20. Please note that I would have said exactly the same if this group was based in Japan.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>We all have to follow existing iF 20 RULES ,--regardless of very differing set of circumstances ,--and your quote to the effect above -{-the I-20 Class sailors are not going to support this }
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) I'm sorry but this is a oversimplication of the situation. I wanted to point out that iF20 is the obvious and easiest way to go F20 in the US. You have two builders and dealornetwerks aready selling iF20 boats. And US I-20 is really a iF20 despite it's sligthly expanded mainsail. So hte choice will be either this or a completely new class just as Maurizio said. Anything in between will be jus that a in between class and I really doubt wether baotbuiders are interested in that.
<br>
<br>My comment about the I-20 sailors is that they don't seem to want to give an inch to the other classes. Now when a group this large doesn't want to work towards a compromise (which is the basis of a formula class) than you don't really have a basis to form a formula class on. You than have a basis to form a US I-20 class. The other part of the comment was that nearly all people will agree to anything and say "they support it" when it doesn't costs them anything, it is a completely different story when they need to invest. The first is just saying stuff the last is what is really meant by support.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> --I-20 sailors are the large part of existing posts and interest ,---Your comments like these are counter productive , and clearly demonstrate your own personal bias .
<br>
<br>(wouter) Somebody said a while ago that I should ask more questions so her goes. How do you propose to attract H20, N6.0, Mystere 6.0, Prindle 19 sailors to this class which is effectively as US I-20 class. What are you going to tell them to convince them that it is in their interest and entlargement of sailing joy to participate in such a class on a NON US I-20 boat.
<br>
<br>I wish to underline, that when you can't formula a really catchy answer that this point will proof to be the stumbling block over which this F20 group may fall.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

-Hi Wout -
<br> thanks for the info .
<br>
<br> It is a frustrating situation , Inter introduced a better 20 design with carbon mast and more sail area in NA , it is established , accepted ,and popular . -
<br> -We would have formed a F-20 Class 2 years ago if it were that simple .
<br> Nacra Hobie and all mfg. in N A have agreed to build cats to the F-18 , we will see the NA rules soon , -we will see how it progresses .
<br>
<br>-You seemed to miss the concept of total boat and crew equal combined weight being proposed by some ,-
<br> The total crew and boat weight equalizes light wind conditions , - the adjustable racks equalize ft lbs of righting moment from the center of effort . {sail plan } measured in total distance from the leeward hull . -
<br> When it is higher wind conditions the lighter shorter crew is allowed a proportional extention of the rack { fixed per weigh in of crew } -equalizing all crews righting weight against the force or thrust of the sails . -
<br>-Again -the total crew and boat weight equalizes light air sailing , now in some conditions heavier crews are sitting in or have one on the wire in mid range wind conditions , while lightweight crews are out on the wire , this would not occur with equal crew and boat weights , all crews would be getting out on the wire at the same time and wind strength , which is around 8 mph winds when powered up on these larger more powerfull cats . -not 15
<br> variable wind strength would not be the factor involved in the equation ,-only equal ft lbs of righting achieved closely though not perfectly on each boat .-crew height would also becpme a factor with weight , also the distance of the heavier boats hull being more inboard would require a % factor in the total equation as well.
<br>--If any could design lightweight inexpensive racks we could all bolt on I would be all for this type of rule , we could then all add even more sail area in proportion to the added righting and sail capasity.
<br>
<br>-from wout above -
<br> {nearly all people will agree to anything and say "they support it" when it doesn't costs them anything, it is a completely different story when they need to invest. The first is just saying stuff the last is what is really meant by support. }
<br>answer --Agree -the active racing 20 sailors in N A . ARE THE ONES WHO WILL HAVE TO INVEST THEIR TIME EFFORT AND ENERGIES TO MAKE THIS CLASS WORK .
<br> we need to make this as simple and inclusive as possible with min. investment to all . --Just get out , race what ya got , max. it out to the rule if you want over time ,-and have fun.
<br>
<br>-wout - How do you propose to attract H20, N6.0, Mystere 6.0, Prindle 19 sailors to this class which is effectively as US I-20 class. What are you going to tell them to convince them that it is in their interest and entlargement of sailing joy to participate in such a class on a NON US I-20 boat.
<br>
<br>I wish to underline, that when you can't formula a really catchy answer that this point will proof to be the stumbling block over which this F20 group may fall.
<br>
<br>-not a catchy answer but an honest logical one ---
<br>-Proposing an Inter 20 based class will not work , it will alienate all others including all other existing active 20 N A cats listed .-F-20 WILL alienate Inters and many others .
<br>-A boat weight to sail area rule proposed and as applied to all cat designs listed allows all existing active 20 racing sailors in N A to be able to race their boats just as they are if they wish , --they can add a large chute , --they can latter add a new larger main ,--or evan a new mast , or preferred larger rudder system ,-to go along with that new mast with more rake and larger sq top sail next year , --creating new performance never thought possible on an older design ,-using {shared lift concept } and balancing helm with the chute .--creating a cat using any combination of hull boards rudder mast and sail plan to your own personal preferences .
<br> NO MORE DEAD BOAT CLASSES --
<br> -Sailors wanting newer developement and lighter designs can do so ,--their existing converted 20s will be in demand by new and younger sailors who want to give this type of racing a try . We may eventyally have A and B fleets --called modified and developement for different levels of boats and sailors .
<br> Again ALL existing active racing 20s in N A automatically qualify to race as they are ,--no investment is required ,-they do not evan need official measurement to get started except stating accurate chute size . -Just race and have fun .
<br>
<br>-potential criticism =
<br> won,t some people just race in open catagory -?
<br> Yes -some will not race with a chute , but why buy a 20 ft cat if you don't want to go fast , --this is o k , open class racing will always be there per race organizers and clubs more so for beginning sailors .
<br>-#2- With this larger expanded aspect to the 20 class rule allowing different weights of boats and coresponding sail areas won't this create a bigger difference in boat performance .?
<br> YES -older boats with larger sail areas will have the edge in lighter air conditions while the newer lightweight cats will have the edge in heavy air ,--The interesting aspect and draw to the 20 class will be finding and developing the exact right combination for YOU , your own preferred sailing type and average conditions you enjoy sailing in.
<br>
<br>-I now enjoy the Inter 20 but believe there are much better combinations of existing boats possible that will finish ahead of it in many conditions , and newer much better designs and cats ready to be developed and built for us , as we are already beginning to see .
<br> We can easily start this class ,--all are included ,--once established we can then let the class vote on it's future direction to more of structured one design like existing F , OR CONTINUE as more of a developemental class ..
<br>
<br> -constructive specific responce is appreciated .
<br>
<br><br><br>

Sail6000 thank you, you picked up right where my thought processes are. The more you include in the beginning the more voices have an opportunity to direct the future.
<br>
<br>We need more "bring what you got -- all are welcome" and less "well your not legal here and not right there and your boat does not have the right logo". I have never said I want to stop one design racing. More directly I want to give people options in what they want to do. Picture a regatta that you can attend and if its blowing like stink you can race one design (where you feel your more competitive) or if its not you can race "Formula" (where you feel your more competitive). Will it give race organizers a headache? No, because there will be more boats on the water. If we impliment the combined weight rule. I truly believe we can bring in some good talent from the monohull side of the sport. THere are alot of larger sailor who just can't compete against smaller teams and therefore see no reason to come and try. If I (at 200lbs) can bring in a monohuller (at 180 lbs) and we can compete against another boat straight up. Then more than likely we've hooked another convert. When I move up or on to another boat. More than likely I'll sell the boat to my buddy(crew) and extend the love of our sport. Also, the old boat will have some value over a few grand (due to the war between hobie and PC). Breathing new life in to an older design while expanding our numbers thats what it is all about.
<br>
<br>When new lighter boats come out (in a few years) I'll be looking for heavier crew to stay "formula" But also, so will the lighter teams. Which will force those teams to find some "meat" in order to stay formula. Think of it as a recruiting arms race. You have to bring in someone rather than open your wallet to be competive (at the highest levels). Will it choke out the husband - wife teams? No. THey still have options heavier boat, one design, racing in lighter conditions or really a reason to add a few lbs at hoiday time (just kidding). Really, it opens the sport up much more than it closes it. Also, it will bring alot of new ideas as people experiment with new ideas.
<br>
<br>Should racks be legal? I'm really tossed up on that one. Basically, if you make it legal for one you have to make it legal for all. The ideas of formula maximums are to allow what is best for each team. If you let someone cheat around and give them an advantage then someone crys foul. Remember that the majority of the winds are light in the US. So it is very few minutes that righting moment becomes an issue. And in those minutes its the ability to control the sail not hang the weight that makes a difference between first and last.
<br>
<br>Thanks.
<br>
<br>When should we all vote on this issue??
<br>
<br><br><br>

-Sounds good Steve -
<br> We need a more defined proposed set of rules before voting .
<br>-We need a concensis among those committed , maybe starting the e-mail group .
<br>
<br> In adding open developement sail area and weight rules to Formula we may loose several that are committed to the i F -
<br>-Some may go to the F-18 , but think a certain number will regardless.-that's o k ,hope to race it in N A sometime soon also . We have to work with 16 and-18 Formula classes , support them as well ,the 20s in N A will just be more developemental if their is suffecient support to begin.
<br> -
<br>
<br>-MORE DEFINITION -rules
<br> We are still talking about two different rules approaches for the class -
<br> -#1 -A total boat and crew weight ,-
<br>
<br>-#2 Sail area to boat weight ratio rule -
<br>
<br> -the existing F rules allow a larger chute size for larger weight teams ,-{evan more horsepower } -we may set this at 6 % or an extra 20 +- sq ft added to 330 -to a total 350 sq ft of spin for teams above 350 lbs .
<br>
<br>-A min class weight may be set at 330 , and allow up to 60 lbs to be carried to meet min .-A 150 and 120 lb crew could compete , but have a weight carrying disadvantage .
<br> We are already excluding many lightweight teams with this rule at the other end of the scale , we have to be very carefull about only creating a class for {heavyweight big guys } -though the 20 length will automatically attrack this feature with the extra length and volume .
<br>
<br>-The promotional and organizational commitment you have made is fantastic , these will actually be the main factors in getting this class going , -but lets build on a solid foundation of FAIR SAILING ,--of including all existing boats , allowing developement , KEEPING IT SIMPLE , INCLUSIVE, EXCITING , and FUN.
<br>
<br> ALL THE BEST -
<br> Carl Roberts -
<br>
<br> good pic in the caption of Dave and I leading the pack the first day of the Worrell 1000 last year , much to our surprize , you can right click and zoom in a few times , Team Sail for Sight - , we are going again next may ,-we weight 400 lbs --also my 6th , -so the name sail 6000--hopefully the goal anyway !!!<br><br>

I will reply in short comments, for I'm pressed for time, sorry.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>You seemed to miss the concept of total boat and crew equal combined weight being proposed by some ,-
<br>The total crew and boat weight equalizes light wind conditions ,
<br>
<br>Only when sailarea and mast height are equal in this situation too. Now as far as I can tell US I-20 is both the lightest boat and the one with the most (effective) sailarea. So yes, your combined weight proposal is good in principle but maybe impractible when it comes down to modifying Hobie 20. This boat will have to be sailed by a pretty light crew than. But your right that racks can go some way in correcting this in the stronger winds. However I doubt it very much wether current H20 crews are that light and these crews are than simply "Out of Luck" partly due to the inflexibilty of the dominant US I-20 group. Well, I'm not a participant in this group so I will leave it at this.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>which is around 8 mph winds when powered up on these larger more powerfull cats . -not 15
<br>
<br>
<br>Ohhh, Okay.
<br>
<br>
<br>variable wind strength would not be the factor involved in the equation ,-only equal ft lbs of righting achieved closely though not perfectly on each boat .-crew height would also becpme a factor with weight , also the distance of the heavier boats hull being more inboard would require a % factor in the total equation as well.
<br>--If any could design lightweight inexpensive racks we could all bolt on I would be all for this type of rule , we could then all add even more sail area in proportion to the added righting and sail capasity.
<br>
<br>
<br>(wouter) You're going to end up with pretty wide boats ! =)
<br>
<br>
<br>-wout - How do you propose to attract H20, N6.0, Mystere 6.0, Prindle 19 sailors to this class which is effectively as US I-20 class. What are you going to tell them to convince them that it is in their interest and entlargement of sailing joy to participate in such a class on a NON US I-20 boat.
<br>
<br>I wish to underline, that when you can't formula a really catchy answer that this point will proof to be the stumbling block over which this F20 group may fall.
<br>
<br>-not a catchy answer but an honest logical one ---
<br>-Proposing an Inter 20 based class will not work , it will alienate all others including all other existing active 20 N A cats listed .-F-20 WILL alienate Inters and many others .
<br>
<br>
<br>(Wouter) yes, that was the core of my comment too.
<br>
<br>>>-constructive specific responce is appreciated .
<br>
<br>(wouter) Indeed, well go for it and I hope you achieve your goals. I really do. There is nothing more I would like to say as a reply to these points you raise.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Ok, let me go out on a limb abit here. Here are the numbers for the most common boats here in the US as we talk today all data is directly from the company's websites so don't shoot me if its wrong call them up and chew on them.
<br>
<br>Boat
<br>I20 390 lbs, 193sq ft main, 53 sq ft Jib, 270sq ft spin. total sq ft 516
<br>
<br>N6.0 na (worrell rig) 420 lbs, main&jib 264, 340sq ft spin, total sq ft. 604
<br>
<br>Hobie 20 400 lbs, main & jib 250sq ft. Total sq 250
<br>
<br>Hobie Fox 419 lbs, main 194 sq ft, jib 52 sq ft, spinnaker 269 sq ft, total sq ft. 515
<br>
<br>P19MX 385 lbs, main and jib 247, total sail area 247.
<br>
<br>
<br>As you can see the N60 na worrell rig has the most sailarea. Now basic logic would say that this boat has to be the fastest boat. Is some cases it is in most it is not. Here is the real meat in the formula issue.
<br>
<br>What I propose is in a basic manner. We say weigh everything for combined weight. Lets figure that 350 is a fair crew weight (I got there from alot of post saying we weigh 390-420 plus and dividing it by the list of 325 and under crews. Plug middle is 366.4 but for the sake of arguement and the fact that the light weight guys are really afraid of this I'll call it 350) Take that with the average of the boat weights at 402.8 (we all know they lie about it so lets call it 410) so you get a combined weight of 760 lbs.
<br>
<br>Ok combined weight 760 lbs all up (weigh everything including safety gear, vests, and harnesses) No camelbacks, or other "variable" ballast to be weighed but if your thirsty carry it!
<br>
<br>Now for the weird part --- total sail area. HMMMM! Lets call it 550sq ft. (measure everything main, jib, spin/genn) for this number. Before all you guys start to go nuts about measurements. Here is how we tackle this. Everything stock is assumed to be "factory class legal" and will get a NAF 20 sticker affixed to it with the class legal sail size written on the sticker. Now for every new sail we have the sailmaker affix a NAF 20 sticker on it with the sailarea written on it by the sailmaker, the owner of the sail must provide an invoice if protested that the sail is as stickered. At protest the committee can measure the sail and if it is not the sailor is fined and the sticker removed from the sail. Remember we are suppose to be "honorable" about what we sail (every class rules assumes this honor)
<br>
<br>SO if you walk by the boat it will have a NAF 20 sticker saying that it weighs XXX (from the manufacturer). You have the crew weigh in full gear ( the regatta officials write that weight in) and you have basic math.
<br>
<br>Hobie 20 used as example boat
<br>weight of boat 410
<br>Crew weight 350
<br>
<br>Total weight 760lbs
<br>
<br>Sails
<br>
<br>Aftermarket Main and stock Jib Totaling 265 sqft (15 sq ft over stock)
<br>
<br>Spinnaker 285 sq ft.
<br>
<br>Total sail area 550 sq ft.
<br>
<br>Easy format, enough sail area for power against the I 20 and a basically even format. New mast? Nope total cost of upgrade? About 1500 - 2000 dollars (includes main, spinnaker, spin pole sheets, blocks, and misc hardware-- remember a stock 20 is not a spin boat). This is if you wanted to go full tilt boogie. Personally, I'd take a hit in the spin area and put on a 210-230 sq ft gennaker and pray for moderate air. Remember in light air we'd all be equal, Moderate air we'd be experiencing our own mods, and I'd be praying for the ability to sail the gen up and down the course.
<br>
<br>You notice that in this formula the I 20 can get away from snuffer and sail a bigger chute. Would make it stronger in distance races. Even the NA 6.0 gets the benefits of a different main and a smaller chute. God knows it would be easier to handle for medium and smaller crews.
<br>
<br>I feel that this is very equal and only people who feel that more is better are forced to go that way. How many days have you sailed with the spinnaker still in the bag? I know I have alot. So with that out of the equation the boats would be more equal all the way around the course. Not just a bigger spin for heavier crews (which I think is moronic). But, gives you more all the way around.
<br>
<br>Thanks for the forum.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Hi Steve -
<br>
<br> We will be working with sail makers ,--boat designers ,--and boat mfg. Companies --people with technical backgrounds that will want exact written definitions of all rules ,--it is a difficult task ,---
<br>
<br>-Open to all proposed rules ideas ,--but as I,ve been told many times by others in rules discussions ,{-the devil is in the details }-
<br>will try to walk through the total boat and crew weight proposal -
<br>
<br> Total weight -760 -combined boat and crew
<br> Total sail = 550 sq ft ----any configuration -
<br>
<br>-Is there a max amount of weight a crew can carry ?
<br> sail area ,--is there a max or min mainsail ? -
<br>A max or min boat weight ?
<br>
<br>-Could a team build a boat with 550 sq ft main and jib ?
<br>-A 400 sq ft main ?
<br>
<br>-Would all boats under this rule soon adopt huge mainsails with reef points and large furling hooters only ? ------
<br>
<br>-If a mfg builds a beautifull lightweight 330 lb boat ,-
<br> it would require a 430 lb crew , -
<br> Would any manufacture this cat for only 400 plus lb crews ?
<br>
<br>-If a team wanted a 350 lb boat but weighed 300 would they be allowed to carry 110 lbs of dead weight ?
<br>-
<br>-Again it is a difficult task , not trying to be negative , or discourage efforts by any , but we will have to answer all these questions and many others with any rules proposal, it can be a frustrating process, but one that we have to place our personal interests aside to some extent and endeavor to insure fair sailing for all .
<br>
<br>-In looking at the existing state of 20 racing in N A over the last few years , and seeing developement and desire for new developement in cats , per A Class and other excellent lightweight durable designs ,believe the best option is for us to adopt the basic Formula concept establishing length and beam , with similar componate definitions , and then allowing the sail area to weight ratio scale which adds the developemental aspect . It is fair across the board , but may favor heavier teams slightly.-min 325 or 330-
<br>
<br>-Crew weight becomes a much smaller proportional issue
<br>.
<br> Crews can deside for themselves what ideal weight they would like to be racing cats with up to 360 sq ft sail plans already overpowered flying hulls in av 6 mph winds.
<br>
<br>--Carl <br><br>

Carl
<br>
<br>You bring up some good points and I agree the devil is in the details.
<br>
<br>Lets go through this as a Q and A. My answers will be anoted with a @
<br>
<br>Total weight -760 -combined boat and crew
<br>Total sail = 550 sq ft ----any configuration -
<br>@remember that this is under the assumption that we limit mast height to 31' 6" and that the mainsail can not extend past the 31' 6" height restriction.
<br>
<br>-Is there a max amount of weight a crew can carry ?
<br>@ I believe that the boat should carry no more than 45 lbs of corrector weight and that the crew will not be able to carry any additional weight other than the aformentioned gear. (could you carry a camelback at weigh in? Yes --- if you would write a rule that it was an immediate dsq if the crew emptied the camelbak other than into themselves.
<br>
<br>
<br>sail area ,--is there a max or min mainsail ? -
<br>@ no max or min mainsail all sails are totaled.
<br>
<br>A max or min boat weight ?
<br>@ no but boat and crew must weigh a total of 760lbs or be correctable as described.
<br>
<br>-Could a team build a boat with 550 sq ft main and jib ?
<br>@ yes, but they would have a problem of getting it to fit and then controling it.
<br>
<br>-A 400 sq ft main ?
<br>@yes, but fit and control become an issue. There are alot of these issues that play out due to practicality. Most of these extreme changes just will not work. So basically, these extremes bare no cause for concern.
<br>
<br>-Would all boats under this rule soon adopt huge mainsails with reef points and large furling hooters only ? ------
<br>@no, due to costs and practicality
<br>
<br>-If a mfg builds a beautifull lightweight 330 lb boat ,-
<br>it would require a 430 lb crew , -
<br>@ yes, or a crew that could correct to it.
<br>
<br>Would any manufacture this cat for only 400 plus lb crews ?
<br>@doubtful, most manufacturers are in the business of building alot of boats cheap. So these ultra light weight boats that people discuss will be very rare and would only be suitable for certain conditions and race venues. Most people will just adjust what they have and come to race. Techno geeks will play but by and large the formula is basically sound.
<br>
<br>-If a team wanted a 350 lb boat but weighed 300 would they be allowed to carry 110 lbs of dead weight ?
<br>@No, there has to be some level ground. What I would suggest is these two 150 lbs guys find another good sailor to sail with and expand the competiton out a bit. Think of it in this way. You have the team of Randy Smyth and Jason Sneed (two very skilled sailors sailing together at minimum) If they split and each find a 200 lbs guy you have two boats that can be very closely matched on all aspects creating two things more race teams and better competiton. There are alot of other classes where light weight crews can race and no other classes where heavier guys can race (competitively) We need to all recognize this and try to correct this. DO you need to have a combined weight of 300-325 lbs to race a cat? No, but unfortunatly alot of people think so.
<br>
<br>I think that a variable sail area format as compared to weight is not an equal format and for people that don't have a constant crew makes them invest in multiple out fitting of their boat. When it is much easier to find a crew and add abit of corrector instead if you have to.
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve
<br><br><br>

I just had a thought here.
<br>
<br>Could we write a "mark down rule"? I think so. Basically, a format where say your 35-45 lbs under after the corrector weight is added. If you lost sail area after this was taken into account say from 550sq ft to say 500sq ft. then you could aslo correct that way also to allow for truely lightweight teams to race with the same basic penaly that a heavy crew would automatically have in a one design formula.
<br>
<br>Just a thougt not really a suggestion.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

It preserves flexibility, allows existing boats to be sailed as their owners see fit (more or less), and provides for growth and evolution of the class.
<br>
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego<br><br>

-Maybe your on the right track here Steve ,--combining the two rules with total weight AND progressive sail areas to that weight . --Maybe we can have the best of both rules.
<br> Will try to find and propose a scale , we do need to include more than the existing proposal would allow --
<br>
<br> -some reasons listed -
<br> -potential problems with existing total weight rule as proposed--
<br>
<br>-Total boat and crew =-760
<br> boat av 410 +350 lb crew
<br> crew could carry up to 45 lbs -
<br> All crews min 305.and up or they are excluded from sailing .
<br>-Any below 350 would be required to carry dead weight .
<br>
<br>-example -I-20 CREW =min weight 370 or they carry dead weight ,---add 45 dead lbs to min 325 --all crews below 325 are automatically excluded from I-20 racing .
<br>
<br> Teams wanting to race lighter boats would gradually in increasing percentage would be unable to meet weight requirements
<br>
<br> as boat weight is reduced ,-required crew weight is increased -320 boat would require a min.440 lb crew -or 400 lb crew with 40 + lbs of dead weight .--
<br>
<br> the rule would exclude a large percentage of existing sailors ---How many of us are over 200 ,--should we have a 20 class only for big 200 plus guys.
<br>
<br>-everything is open with sailplan -
<br> limits are capasity of a 33 ft mast -
<br>
<br>-most would choose huge main and large furling jib --
<br>
<br>-The performance of this rig in light air would walk away from everything existing , ---existing boats not converted would not be competitive in av 8 mph winds Barry stated as the season average.
<br>
<br>-All boats would adopt huge mains , or be left behind , check with any who have done this with existing boats and raced open , they are conciderabley faster in light air , ----the main problem we are trying to avoid with this rule , --light air advantage by some , -
<br>
<br>-What we are pondering here is an open rule , the only class limit is Length mast and total weight , --most will not weigh enough or be forced to carry 45 pounds or less of dead weight , -
<br>--There is no market or motivation to develope lighter better performance designs .
<br>--Lets work on this ,-and propose a rule that includes all existing sailors , as many 20s as possible ,
<br> Will work on a combination scale -
<br>
<br> Carl
<br><br><br>

Carl
<br>
<br>The one thing your missing here is mass. As in mass of sailors. The more sailors in the more that can compete in future variations on future boat designs.
<br>
<br>Basically, we are creating a "grandfather" class that gets all existing boats competing against each other.
<br>
<br>Now to do this you make a level field for all manufacturers to compete against. Now will manufacturers build a lighter boat? History tells us no. Basically for cost concerns. Is it cheaper to build a heavier boat in mass production? Yes. If we have a formula that will set a presidence for a bunch of new designs that all weigh in around 400lbs we are sure to get that from the manufacturers. Alot like nascar -- it did not really take off until the governing body made all things equal. Then manufacturers started making race cars to compete head to head. If you live in florida go to Daytona's speedway and go through the museum. They really play this point home!
<br>
<br>Will we fat our way out of a class? No, we bring a class format that can bring sailors from other boats to race on cats. I really in my heart of hearts believe this to be true. We have formula classes for all types of people if your under 325 then go race formula 18. It best suits your physical size. The Formula 20's give the other teams a good playing field. There are a whole lot more teams that are over 325 than under. And if we basically set rules that say this is the leveler than we can recruit to that standard. For new boats that is. Really, 325 is light when your talking about that much sail area.
<br>
<br>Now, about the main and jib comment. Barry I know you have sailed a nacra 6.0 na worrell rigged boat. Would you put a larger main and jib on that boat? No you wouldn't. Maybe a slightly bigger main (squaretop -- which is easier to control) and the stock jib (on a roller furler -- sure if thats what you want to better control the boat). No boat in F20 would compete without a spinnaker or reacher. NONE, first off it would make you last everytime and second class rules would state to be comprised of main/jib ( and/or any combination there of) and spin/reacher not to exceed 550 sq ft.
<br>
<br>Mast height should be limited to 31'6" which I believe is the longest mast in the "grandfather" fleet. If it is 32' then thats the tallest mast. And a rule should read that the main can not exceed the 31'6" or 32' (which ever is the longest mast as mentioned) height. This will allow boats like the fox and H20 to "notch" their headboard to make the squaretop main extend upto 6 inches taller than their mast which would make the sailarea the same size/height as the I20/n6.0 NA.
<br>
<br>The assoc. will have to address the future boats as they get here and deal with what exists now. If in the future it becomes cheap to build carbon boats that weigh 190lbs then and I mean THEN is the time to address that. AND at that time we could make an "HP" class that will eventually takeover F20. And I mean YEARS (5-10) down the line.
<br>
<br>For further clarity:
<br>THe basics are:
<br>
<br>Boat and crew combined weight = 760lbs min (unless corrected to)
<br>Total sail area = 550sq ft (max. -- less is legal)
<br>Corrector weight = 45lbs max -- carried on boat. (If the crew is light a couple of pounds (they can carry a camelbak but must maintain the water in the pack or in thier bodies and I mean a couple 1-3pounds)
<br>Mast height == 31'6" max (unless 32 is the tallest mast in grandfather fleet)
<br>
<br>Grandfather fleet consists of , Hobie fox, Hobie 20, Prindle 19, N6.0 Na, Mystere 6.0, Inter 20 -- these boats represent the majority of manufactured boats available in the US.
<br>
<br>Any other boat that meets the following basic rules:
<br>20 foot length
<br>8'6" beam (max)
<br>31'6" mast (max)
<br>total sail area 550 sq foot consisting of main and spinnaker/gennaker or main/jib and spinnaker/gennaker
<br>Snuffer -- legal
<br>Roller furling -- legal (jib and gennaker)
<br>Spinnaker pole (undetermined length legal)
<br>two or three man crew legal (concession to the skinny fleet)
<br>safety gear onboard at all times
<br>vests must be worn at all times
<br>masts/rudders/daggars/ and spin pole can be made out of any material as long as boat/crew meet weight minimum
<br>Masts must be water tight
<br>
<br>
<br>Thats the basics
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

-Hi Steve -
<br> Believe a little more refinment and input from many other active 20 sailors is needed .
<br>
<br> Again on the I-20 at 390 lbs ,--32 ft mast --for example --
<br> NO crew under 325 lbs would be allowed to race --
<br> 370 lb crews are the min. for the I-20
<br>
<br>-350 lb crews are not going to be happy at the prospect of carrying an additional 20 pounds of dead weight ,-
<br> -afraid this will deter most from 20 racing -
<br>
<br> May be best to get numerous other direct opinions from existing racing 20 sailors ,-sailmakers ,-some builders , and others with long term experience with rating systems and class racing in other types of fleets .
<br>
<br>-In 88 raced in Prosail and the Ultimate Yacht race events on the then new Hobie 21s , along with the FORMULA 40s in Prosail , and J-24S and open 30 ft monos in the Ultimate Y R events , We were on NBC Sports ,-it was exciting .
<br>
<br>-I don,t envision this type of more exclusive racing for the 20s of only top sailors , the existing F classes may become this ,
<br> Excluding all under a certain weight and making most others carry weights up to 370 , --again try this out on others ,
<br>-
<br>-One other option is just to let all 20s rate to a higher ISAF rating number by an established open rating design measurement system and set a min. crew weight , but being set at 350 believe the vast majority would by either not weighing the min 325 and not being allowed to race , or not wanting to carry weights , just prefer to race as they do now.
<br>
<br>-Having some negative experiences and slower speeds in H-20 racing and equating this to reasons of crew weight and then desiding to form a 20 class based on this crewweight conclusion , then desiding all crews should weigh 350 or more may not be the best solution .
<br>-just my 2cents -
<br> get some other input
<br>
<br> All the best -
<br> Carl <br><br>