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>