It's funny how a couple more have joined in with a 350 pound minimum as a class rule.
<br>I thought you guys where trying to create a class when now, you've killed it before it even got off the ground.
<br>I've even notice the excuse of 'we have more sail area than the iF20 boats therefore should have a higher minimum weight'. What happened to the argument that I have heard so many times from so many of you that the I20 has more sail area because of the different wind conditions we are subjected to in NA. When has it been decided that the 20 footers where meant for fat boys only.
<br>Also,If all the rules are being set to satisfy the Inter 20 crowd then this sounds a lot more like 'One Design' than Formula racing.
<br>
<br>Imagine what would have happened to the Tornado 25 years ago if someone had said 'Ok let's set a minimum crew weight of 350 pounds for the crew' ! The class grew for 2 reasons(and it had nothing to do with sponsors)...1.No anal rules that would eliminate over half of the people with interest in racing the Tornado. 2. The boat could and was built by just about anyone. How many of you know of an old wooden Tornado in your area, I just trashed one last spring(I needed the rig) and there are still 2(or 3) more within 300 feet of my club. One of them is in mint racing condition. This is how you make a class happen. No one should be refused the chance to join just to satisfy some few.
<br>
<br>BTW, I weigh 175 and in the last race I attended I raced with another at 195 on a Hobie 20. We raced against much lighter crews and we still had a lot of *fun(and did well).
<br>*That's what counts !
<br>
<br>open to all ...
<br>Marc
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

that is what sailing is about. fun. it does not mater if you win every time as long as you sail your best. and have fun.
<br> make the rules fair to every one. most of the crew marc knows are pushing 200 lbs. but you do not here him calling for this foolish weight.
<br> get your act together or pack it in.<br><br>

MHB
<br>
<br>If you have read all the posts on this forum you can see that the majority have decided to find a niche above the working weight zones of the F18 class so that:
<br>
<br>A. we are not competing directly with another class (a revamp of the hobie/Nacra marketing plan that has just about killed the sport)
<br>
<br>B. Open up a class where it is easier for sailors of all type to find a boat/fleet/area that they are comfortable in competing in. IE small guys in the F18 where they can control it, larger guys in the NAF 20 where the have the power to compete in lighter air.
<br>
<br>Also, the object is to work WITH other classes in order to bring NEW sailors to the SPORT instead or churning the pot of the existing catsailors and competing for this ever DECREASING pool of sailors.
<br>
<br>Please, think about this and I think you'll agree that it is best for all.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Well,,, I was enthusiastic about the F20 concept initially,, but the focus on high crew weight requirements has damped that down for sure. I am not sure that that higher than class weights are needed to control a 20 footer properly (as some have suggested). Many years of winning more than our share would back that up. I find what makes the biggest difference between our team and some others,, is that we sail 4 times as much,, or more.
<br>
<br>When I think about how the dozen or so F20 candidate boats in our area might be affected by the currently proposed limits,,, (now that we have eliminated the lightwieghts,, the wide beams, and the H20's), It occurs to me that we have probably also quashed any interest in the concept, as far as our area is concerned.
<br>
<br>So I would wish you luck with your efforts, and look forward to racing against the F20's, on handicap (that is inevitable, on the local scene). I still plan to cut my F20 jib, as I think it will be an enhancement to the M6 design. After all , a new jib is somewhat cheaper than an F-18 !!
<br>
<br>One final suggestion:
<br>
<br>On the question of crew weights,, consider an F18 style approach, ie: if min. crew weight is 330, then require competators to add correctors equal to half the difference between thier weight and 330. And restrict the spin size to 270 max.<br><br>Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
<br>Alan Maguire

Hi Marc
<br>
<br>For years and years, the builders and classes have set minimum weights in the 300 lb range. They simply tried to grab racers from other classes who wanted more performance or competition and hoped to get them onto their boat and create a dominate one design class. The end result was lots of small classes or regional classes.
<br>
<br>For 2002, growth will be in spinaker equiped boats. The question is how do you organize them. If you use the old model of let the marketplace and fleet structure rule you will get the same result.... lots of small fragmented regional classes.
<br>
<br>We should market a vision for growth to the existing core of cat racers AND to mono hull racers who might look into racing a catamaran.
<br>
<br>F16 HP a spin equiped boat for small teams 330 lbs and under who might also want to race solo on occasion. Will compete boat for boat with F18 's Several import builders have bought into this rule by making minor modifications to their boat.
<br>
<br>NA F18 with an optimium crew weight of 330+ lbs. this boat has at least three NA builders plus any european imports to choose from. The flexible sail plan EXTENDS the competitive weight range from 250 to 350 lbs. There is no 2 man one design class out there that can match this range. The sheet loads are quite moderate compared to Inter 20's or Tornado's The boat should appeal to the average couple team and others. (It is by design a heavy boat relative to the High performance boats)
<br>
<br>the naF20 class is, by design, way overpowered. The optimium weight for the US I20 boat seems to be about 350 lbs. The Hobie fox minium was initially set around 350 (if memory is correct) We should set this minimum... allow teams to add weight to meet the minimum if that is what they want OR... suggest that an F18 is really their boat of choice.
<br>
<br>
<br>Yes... we are trying to push sailors into weight appropriate classes by setting minimum weights. We should not try to have boat builders and one design classes compete for the same pool of racers. We have tried this in the past and it proves to be a zero sum game or worse. Will the 20 fleet be larger then the 18 fleet? Don't really know.
<br>
<br>The key to success will be getting appropriate levels of competition in each class. The size of the class is irrelevent so long as in aggregate more people are sailing in each of the three classes and each class is healthy. If you pit the f18 and the f20 classes against one another for membership I think you will spiral downwards once again. You seem to argue that the f20 class will be decimated if the weight is increased...I would argue that I already know of several teams who are moving down to f18 so they can compete at an appropriae weight/strength level. It will happen... We should look at the big picture and work towards a comprehensive solution.
<br>
<br>btw I sail a Tornado... I don't think that you can argue that the Tornado has ever been the dominant class in the US. It has succeded because it offers the best competition in the world. It maintains that niche because of its Olympic status. Weight is a HUGE issue for the class... EVERYTHING but the sailors are weighed and documented. Crew weight at the world level seemed to be 320 to 330 You know this coming into the class. They tell you the lightest teams are 280 and the heaviest are 340. Setting a minimum weight of 280 or 350 would be silly the boat is not overpowered. There is ONLY one builder of Tornado's now, the class is essentially one design, I agree with you about the class rules. I do think formula rules try to keep inovation in the class much like the tornado rules do.
<br>
<br>Take Care
<br>Mark Schneider<br><br>

MHB
<br>
<br>If you have read all the posts on this forum you can see that the majority have decided to find a niche above the working weight zones of the F18 class so that:
<br>
<br>majority ?? Sorry I don't see this.
<br>There are but a few of us participating on the F20 Forum. I have yet to find someone in my area with a 20 footer who thinks a 350 pound minimum weight rule is anywhere near reasonnable for a 20 foot class.
<br>
<br>A. we are not competing directly with another class (a revamp of the hobie/Nacra marketing plan that has just about killed the sport)
<br>
<br>** What kind of argument is this ? From what I see, people who want to sail a 20 footer do so for no other reason than that's what they want. What has killed the sport is the high prices involved with sailing. It was tough enough for some thinking they would have to buy an extra jib for there Mystere/Nacra 6.0, Hobie 20 and so on, and now you're telling them they have to buy a new boat(18).
<br>
<br>B. Open up a class where it is easier for sailors of all type to find a boat/fleet/area that they are comfortable in competing in. IE small guys in the F18 where they can control it, larger guys in the NAF 20 where the have the power to compete in lighter air.
<br>
<br>** I guess Randy has difficulty controling a 20 footer. Maybe that's why he is so often ahead, he simply looses control and the boat just takes off on him (in the right direction). Oh, and he's not the only lightweight hot shot cat sailor on a 20 footer.
<br>
<br>Also, the object is to work WITH other classes in order to bring NEW sailors to the SPORT instead or churning the pot of the existing catsailors and competing for this ever DECREASING pool of sailors.
<br>
<br>** How is setting a high minimum crew weight "working WITH other classes". So often you will see the same crew competing(sometimes winning) in one Nationnal event only to turn around and do it in another class in the same year.
<br>
<br>Please, think about this and I think you'll agree that it is best for all.
<br>
<br>** Have you thought about it ??
<br>
<br>What are you trying to creat
<br>e ? Do you really think that other 20 footers will have any interest in joining such a class when they don't come anywhere near what you suggest.
<br>What if the class rules went the other way and decided that the minimum boat weight should be 440 pounds(more like many 20 footers) wich is very much in line with the arguments you have given regarding crew weight. Would you be interested in adding 40 pounds to your boat to meet minimum ?
<br>
<br>What is wrong with a weight to sail area ratio ? Are you afraid of fair racing for all ?
<br>
<br>marc
<br><br><br>

Hi Alan
<br>
<br>Do you have any thoughts about how to keep the wide beam boats in the class. The physics just seems to work against us.
<br>
<br>Do you really have any H20 sailors who want to put a chute on their boat for triangle racing? In our area, the one fellow who did add a chute... wound up moving to an I20 a year later. I just did not see a lot of interest there. (Distance racing is a different story) What would a grandfather wavier be to get the boat up to a texel 95 rating.
<br>
<br>Perhaps, the f20 rule should consider grandfathering in older and heavier designs using a combined boat weight /sail area ratio as Carl proposed but ONLY for the purposes of grandfathering existing designs.
<br>
<br>I agree with your proposal of using the F18 corrector weight system.
<br>
<br>The local fleet scene so far is
<br>Chesapeake / Div 11 area
<br>4 or 5 H20's
<br>4 Tornado's
<br>6 I20's
<br>1 N6.0NA no chute.
<br>2 P19 MX's
<br>
<br>New England
<br>4 I20's
<br>20 N6.0's No chutes for triangles
<br>
<br>Obviously, a formula class will not happen overnight so we will be racing portsmouth while we get to a formula class over time.<br><br>

Hi Marc Steve -Allan -thanks ,-we need input from all and to gather all available information to make good decisions. -
<br>
<br>-The only solution to min. weight that all have agreed on and is totally FAIR in all regards is a total boat AND crew weight rule ,---Steve Marc and Allan have mentioned this solution and no one can establish a factual scenario when this would not be fair to all racing sailors .
<br>-It requires added rules and statement of weights labeled on each boat ,builders can publish boat weights and crews can verify this and be responcible for their own weights , mfg and sailmakers can label sail areas clearly on all sails next to their logo at the tack , - this is the correct solution.
<br>-In the previous post , commented and tryed to illustrate how any Formula class is delopemental to some extent . -
<br>-It is to what extent we are trying to define now, and also understanding the degree of developement rules are required to solve the problems defined.
<br>
<br> Existing Formula classes have the basic concepts correct but have only taken a small step to solve proplems of racing cat sailors .
<br>-problem defined -= existing are seperate one design classes which we listed with specifications for each ,that lead to dead boat classes within a number of years continue to become more diverse and spread out in increasing number with new boats and mfg , If all cat sailors could attend regattas and distance races show up and be assured that they would compete in a large fleet of equal performance boats where the first across the line wins is the ideal .-The prospect of not being locked in to one Mfg. and being allowed to purchase sails and modify your boat to suit your own preferances and sailing style up to this class standard or top rating number ,also has great appeal .Open racing in the U S based on averaged times of boat brand finishes does not have this appeal ,with boats all over the course and no one knowing or really understanding who won until hours latter.
<br>
<br>-Another problem already surfacing for the new F-18 Class is the also new F-18 high performance class boats weighing some 100 LBs less . A split proposed already before they begin due to the desire for stricter one design type racing , but allowing some developement in hull shapes , boards and rudders and sail plan and mast to a lesser degree than evan the Euro F-18 classes. --The new 16 H P Class has the same problem in reverse , excluding older 16s from competing equally , but fortunately having an existing base of excellent lightweight cat designs in existance to choose from . It will be the excellence of these designs and their builders that allow this class to become successfull .
<br>
<br>-Back to the crew weight solution ,-and how to propose a broader 20 class rule that will include existing boats and allow new H P lighterweight boats to compete equally and fairly as one F-20 class.
<br>
<br>-It is in a larger sence first having the U S adopt ISAF -or Texel -design measurement ratings for use . Once it is generally understood how designs are rated it becomes easier to allow modification to existing boats and for future designers and mfgs . to target a Max,performance within 20 ft -8.5 beam class structure.
<br> -We have length and beam established for us by other existing accepted class lengths of 16 and 18 ft, -and trailering restrictions of 8.5 ft.
<br> This leaves weight and sail area as variables.
<br> -Ideally we would provide a range of weighs and sail areas in total . --example --A 350 crew on a 350 Lb boat =700 LB total --racing a 300 LB crew on a 400LB boat =700LB -
<br> both cats having equal rated sail area , placed on any 20 platform .-The complexity enters through the variety of boat weights and crew weights in combination .
<br>
<br> Proposed a list of boat weights to sail areas based on existing 20 ft specifications which needs to be refined to fall within ISAF equal ratings and we need to factor in crew weights to the scale . -Will try to propose a scale that falls within ISAF ratings, though as explained some class definition is also required. Would really appreciate some constructive help in formulating this proposed solution.
<br>
<br> Adopting this type of much broader developement rule is the only long term solution . It requires new understanding of design , a new rating system for the U S , and a desire for sailors and builders to work together towards this goal. <br><br>

Hi Mark,,
<br>
<br>Yes,,, we had (3) H-20's add spinnakers to thier boats this last year. The wanted them for both distance racing and they used them in open class racing. Of course they still have the option to leave the chute off and race one-design or as an standard H20 in open fleet whenever they want.<br><br>Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
<br>Alan Maguire

Dear all,
<br>
<br>I feel that mark and Steve have said it perfectly and "we" as one of those named classes will work together with you in a setup like that. This was also our intend from the beginning which one of the first texts put out by the group shows.
<br>
<br>It deals with the concepts of equal performance classes and it also described as the formula of formula's.It will stimulate proper development of a related formula class BUT still allow BLUE SKY development (Carl?) :
<br>
<br>Please take the time to read it it can alsobe found at link(scrolldown halve a page):
<br>
<br> http://www.geocities.com/F16HPclass/F16HP_general_intro.html
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>---Our view on a Formula based catamaran class ---
<br>
<br>We feel that the biggest danger to the Formula scene right now is for the manufacturers and unsatisfied sailors start creating more and more different formula classes eventually recreating the current problem of many small incompatible catamaran classes condemned to handicap racing. Several examples of this can be named, a few brands have already launched their own particular implementation of a so called "F16 boat" even though there has been no F16 framework or association yet. The result is that several designs have been offered with big differences in important performance determining parameters. For example, a weight difference of no less than 55 kilograms between two so called "F16" designs built by two well known manufacturers of beach catamarans.
<br>
<br>We feel that the biggest benefit of a formula class based race scene is to have a limited amount of large fleets of independent but still equally performing designs with a high standard of racing. Therefore the following paragraph explains our views on formula racing as a whole. The F16 HP class will fully comply with the (Equal Performance classes) principle described there
<br>
<br>
<br>---The concept of equal performance classes ----
<br>
<br>The formula concept has already done alot for small catamaran sailing in the EU and is expected to do alot more for it in the future. However the need for a higher and governing formula for formula classes arises, meaning that the relationship between formula classes should be regulated too. The penalty for not achieving this is uncontrolled creation of unrelated formula classes and eventually ending up with the problems of the old, diluted, catamaran scene but with new class names. The following proposed concept is completely adopted by the new F16HP framework, and is even one of its design goals. It is also viewed as the methode of grandfathering in the old, non formula, catamaran designs into the formula scene (and F16HP) thus maintaining the low budget entry in to catamaran sailing for beginners. The last is of paramount importance for maintaining a thriving catamaran scene, even more so now that new designs are getting more and more expensive.
<br>
<br>The proposed formula for formulas should fix a small number of "main performance classes" to which individual formula classes should be assigned. This way, we can have unlimited formula classes and still race together more fairly and "one-design like" in a few main performance classes (meaning fleets). In each of these classes a head formula is appointed and to the actual performance of this formula shall the other classes inside the same performance class be made equal. The last is done by specifying the individual Formula rules in such a way that the framework is forcing the general design into the same (or similar) performance. Old designs are grandfathered in by making small modifications so their performance falls into their nearest performance class. The catamaran design incorporates a few factors that can be used as equalizers; to name but three, Jib size, genaker size and boat width. Notice that the impact of these is nearly independend of eachother. Therefor they are well suited to boost the performance of a particular design on a particular course. For more in dept analysis of the concepts behind this claim go to the main F16HP page and view the mathematical performance comparison pages; the links are given at the top of the page.
<br>
<br>The "Formula of formulas" may well look like this :
<br>
<br>* Performance class 1 (might well be made equal to Hobie 16 performance)
<br> F16 = head class inside PC 1 (F16 does not exist yet)
<br> Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the F16 boats.
<br>
<br>* Performance class 2
<br> F18 = head class inside PC 2 (does exist and is very succesful)
<br> F16 HP (is being formed right now)
<br> Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the F18 boats
<br>
<br>* Performance class 3
<br> iF 20 = head class inside PC 3 (does exist and is growing)
<br> F18 HT (It is hoped that the founders of this class will follow suit)
<br> Open old boat class with modifications equaling them to the same rating as the iF 20 boats
<br>
<br>These three formula's shall coexist with the three main international classes that allready exist and thrive:
<br>
<br>* A-cat class
<br>
<br>* Tornado (International and/or Olympic)
<br>
<br>* True one-design Hobie 16
<br>
<br>
<br>This way we arrive at a 6 fleets catamaran scene spanning 95 % of the international catsailing community. This will mean that tens of boats of different designs and different manufacturers can be raced fairly in a regatta which only runs 6, well filled, fleets. And all boats will race like they were a one-design class in their equal performance fleet. There will ofcourse also be a true open class without any rules and were the big bucks boys can play, but this is not taken up in this proposed concept for these boys will regulated this scene themselfs.
<br>
<br>It would be very smart to define the actual performance of "Performance Class 1" to be equal to the Hobie 16 (with genaker) and make that boat the head class of "Performance Class 1". PC 3 will be very near to the performance of the Int. Tornado or even equal to this. Races with the predecessor of the Int. Tornado, the tornado sport, have indicated this. The regatta fleets can now be descreased from 6 fleets and 6 starts to 4 fleets with 4 starts. The F18HT is put here in the class of PC 3, but at this time it is unknown wether this class is actually comparable to PC 3 head class iF20. We call upon the founders of this class to contemplate this setup and modifying their formula framework accordingly.
<br>
<br>For the equaling of individual classes a measurement system can be used. The obvious choices are ISAF small catamaran and Texel rating systems. Preliminary studies have indicated that inequalities inside these systems and with respected to yardstick systems can be increasingly decreased in size or even be totally cancelled out by prescribing a few simple requirements. Implementing these in various cat designs will disproportionally decrease handicap offsets with respect to true performance when handicap numbers are put closer together. Actually equalling handicap numbers is an extreme case in this respect and then the offsets are expected to be very much less than offsets due to the normal variation of sailing skill, even those of active racers, and things like "sailing in dirty air". The closer the handicap numbers (and the underlying actual performance) are to eachother, the more One-design like the racing will become. When these numbers are actually equal than the fleet is approximating One-design racing as much as can be done without actually sailing in a one design class.
<br>
<br>It must be extra underlined that this formula concept is in no way undermining the true One-design racing scene. Actually, Formula and One-design races are often conducted in one fleet and start together. The individual boats are then named on different finishing lists, that's all. Sometimes individual boats are racing in two classes at the same time. For example : a Hobie tiger can simultaniously race in the F18 and the Hobie Tiger class at regatta's such as Round Texel
<br>
<br>
<br>written by Formula 16 HP class group
<br>
<br><br><br>

>>>Will try to propose a scale that falls within ISAF ratings, though as explained some class definition is also required. Would really appreciate some constructive help in formulating this proposed solution.
<br>
<br>
<br>I can help in this, but you need to ask me.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Thanks ,-did actually ask in a previous post if you would run the numbers ,-the reply was a long disertation on 16 performance ,some 16 testamonials, and stats on 16 prismatic drag ,--understandabley would like to avoid that again . -John P ran some which is greatly appreciated .I will get up to speed on these I,m not a naval architect just an active racer.
<br>
<br>-Applying terms to proposed solutions like {blue sky } ---hmmm -lets just say again they are not accurate , -
<br> much like several aspects of 16 class rules in attempting to really address this problem and goal of including all cat designs within a particular length catagory within a F-Class rules structure , which as noted would encourage over time all to place within these respective length catagories.
<br>-.Wishing this to occur does not provide a realistic or clear means for it to do so . -Establishing a clear formula or ratio allows an accurate means and a defined systematic path for this evolution to occur.
<br> One proposes a defined solution that requires refinement -
<br> Another labels it bluesky then wishes it to occur in absence of proposing any real solution other than open rating and grandfathering ,-unscientifically at their discression.--
<br> not a real solution.
<br>
<br>--The 16 class has a great basis of excellent designs that exist . -
<br> My only comment as the 16 class formed was that it may be overly rigidly defined and structured. Already proving to be true.
<br>-You now already have new designs proposed outside the scope of the 16 class . -Existing heavier designs can not compete equally .
<br> The only apparatus within the 16 class rules to address this is to use the term {grandfathering } -then stating Texel numbers are close enough so sailing skill can overcome the differences in design , - and they can adjust jib and spin size.
<br>
<br>-Why not clearly define these , and at the same time correct the crew weight equalization problem ,--Not by listing extensive corrector weights, sail areas of jib and spin sizes , but by a comprensive total equal list of sail area to weight in an equal ratio scale . -Isn't this the reason we have design measurement .Lets use it to it.s full benifit in forming these classes so ALL designs can race equally , not just High Performance or regular catsdesigns . -
<br>
<br> Carl<br><br>

Hi Carl..
<br>
<br>I understand the formula rule Plus grandfathering system that F16 is using. I understand why NA rejected this scheme for older boats in the US.. (cause they were not gonna measure boats).
<br>
<br>I don't really follow what you mean with this idea.
<br>
<br>Carl Wrote:
<br>-Why not clearly define these , and at the same time correct the crew weight equalization problem ,--Not by listing extensive corrector weights, sail areas of jib and spin sizes , but by a comprensive total equal list of sail area to weight in an equal ratio scale . -Isn't this the reason we have design measurement .Lets use it to it.s full benifit in forming these classes so ALL designs can race equally , not just High Performance or regular catsdesigns . -
<br>
<br>This is just not clear to me what you intend.
<br>Thanks
<br>mark<br><br>

Hi Mark -
<br> Always enjoy the negative reflective arguements we seem to have with P vs ISAF etc ,--you have better debating and writting skills ,-but will try again , debate forces one to clearify their thoughts ,
<br>
<br> Hope you understand WHY I believe the U S should change to ISAF or TEXEL and use a beafort scale and then use porthmouth as a correction factor percentage ,--Believe we wilL see this ,---EVENTUALLY .
<br>
<br> Refer back to the other post --min weight and spin . -
<br> Believe you recognized the need for an added weight catagory to include older heavier existing designs that we listed with their specifications previously ,---Our class goal is to include ,--and provide FAIR sailing .
<br>
<br>-If you can comprehend the need for an added weight and sail ar. catagory for exs. heavier cat designs than the prop/ 388 Inter 20 base class , then expand the thinking to include new high performance --H P designs as well . -
<br>
<br> Again -we have L and B defined , that leaves sail ar to weight in an accurate ratio applied to all designs including factoring in crew weight.
<br> A total boat and crew weight rule .-FAIR for all ,-
<br> -
<br> Sailors will have to determine crew weight in selecting their boat and sails ,-builders may have to provide basic platforms moreso , with sail options ,but this predetermining choice allows all boats to race equally and factors in crew weight equally within the formula .
<br> Again so ideally if both cat designs have the same sail area - they weight in total boat and crew the same . -Otherwise the lighter gives up sail area , it is your choise, some heavy crew teams may actually have a total lighter weight than crews 50 LBs lighter , if they have a 60 LB lighter design , but coresponding sail area trade offs. -
<br>
<br>-Now ask how exactly to propose this rule and market the ideas so all can readily comprehend them ,--
<br> -hope to have some constructive help .
<br>
<br> Carl
<br> Carl
<br> <br><br>

Sorry Mark,,,,
<br>
<br>I gapped 2 other H20's in our locallity, that have spin's as well. That makes a total of 5,,, and they all participate in bouy racing.
<br><br><br>Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
<br>Alan Maguire

STEP BY STEP-
<br>
<br>We have based the class largely on I-20 specs as a base,
<br>-380 min.boat wgt,-208 main 53 jib 270 spin ,-+crew
<br> ISAF RATING =
<br>
<br>-We require a higher weight and sail catagory to include existing iF 20S like the Fox and all existing boats with specifications to a min.410 boat weight and above.
<br> The sail area ,main ,jib and spin to rate equally to ISAF and Texel ratings per weight with the existing Inter 20 -
<br>
<br>-We now have 2 catagories of wgt to sail area that include the Inter 20 and existing designs plus iF 20S,
<br> propose a 3rd catagory to allow boat weights from existing 410 to 380 and now to 350 with sail area that rates equal to the Inter 20 in ISAF and Texel ratings .
<br>
<br>-Also a 4th catagory for HP 20 designs down to a boat weight of 320Lbs --30 LB increments.
<br> this also of course has a proportionately smaller sailplan in accordance with weight to equal the Inter 20 rating according to ISAF and Texel ratings .
<br>
<br>-Adding crew weight to this 4 catagory formula may require sub catagories or 10 even increment catagories of 10 LBs each , dependant on how much weight should be allowed between catagories to provide FAIR sailing . -
<br> --All boat and crew weights in total match sail areas to an equal rating .
<br> The lightest catagory can set min crew weight for that catagory only at a higher percentage of total eliminating the perceived lightweight advantage . This allows all a choise of boat sail and a total weight rule , fair to all.
<br>
<br>-can I get some help with this -
<br> thanks
<br> Carl<br><br>

Hi Alan, Marc and others, I sail a hobie 20 and I weigh 195lbs. I beleive that the minimum weight of 350lbs is too heavy for formula 20 racing and should be down to 330lbs. I usually race at a weight between 330 and 360lbs. I also beleive that weight, light or heavy becomes a slight factor when sailing in different wind strengths but not enough to determine the outcome of a regatta. In the end, heavy or light the sailors who sail well will do well. I also think that choosing formula 18 or 20 may have a slight factor when considering weight but more of a factor when it comes to boat handling ability in heavy air. I am also thinking of adding a spin to my hobie 20, which would make a total of 5 hobie 20's with spin in our fleet, which will be good for open class racing. Sail Fast and Live Slow. Marvin. Hobie 20 #337
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Marvin, MHB, et al
<br>
<br>The point that you all sail H20's is not lost on me as I too sail an H20. However, I endorse the 350lbs rule due to the fact that it levels ALL teams to that minimum. Marvin if you weigh 330-360 when you race on occasion you would have to add ballast to the boat to meet minimum. Is that fair? well, yess due to the fact that it closes the gap between ALL boats on the water. The weight range would in theory be between 350-390 or 40 lbs. At the last 20 continentals the weight was from 295-398 or 103 lbs. It is this difference that the F20 class is trying to close so that we can truly race "heads up" on different boat designs, with varying different sail plan layouts, and different venues. The thoughts are to make the rules inclusive for the "grandfather" boats (H20, P19, N6.0, I20 and the Fox --YES even the I20 and the FOX). The rules are trying to look forward to see what can be done in the future. THe only way to form a class that will revive the sport is the make it forward thinking enough to include new sailors, philosophies, future boat, designs and to create a "fair" venue. Will all the "grandfather boats" be fair everyday? No. simply by the fact that they are so fractionalized in designs and what they where "perfected" for. But, they will be equal everyday and each crew will have to find out what works for them in each race at every regatta.
<br>
<br>What comes down the road over the next 10 years hopefully will be exciting and just like the A class have several quality boats on which on any day any sailor can be the fastest just by their own skill. We are trying to take the checkbook out of racing and make it more of a skill event. It may not look like it right now. But, if you look over all the data -- it becomes real clear, real fast that these proposals are good for the sport and each of us in the short and long of it.
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve<br><br>

Sorry Steve but Marvin is the only one who owns a Hobie 20 here.
<br>
<br>Al has a Mystere 6.0 and I have been sailing a SC20 but will have a Beaum F20 soon(providing no one screws up the rules).
<br><br><br>

I also sail an H20. I have sailed an I20 on occation and really like the boat. I believe it is a two man boat as demonstrated by the Alter cup with only two guy girl teams out of 20. These two teams did not place very well despite being very good sailors. How many guys do you know you weigh under 175. Not many I bet. Now 175+175=350. I believe the others are right in that smaller crew weights should look to the F18. If they want to race F20 they are welcome to add the weight of course. This seems like a fair deal to me.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br><br><br>

Thanks for the endorsement Mike its good to hear a fellow H20 sailor chime in that the weight under 350 is too low.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

-Hi guys
<br>
<br> I,m still open , but would ask for complete logical answers to the following questions as they apply to the class goal of EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,--
<br>
<br>-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .
<br>
<br>-2- We have existing boat weights ranging 30 40 50 LBs and potentially more , -are you saying 50 LB boat weight differences are ignored under your proposal ,---
<br>
<br>-How are boat weight equalized ?
<br>
<br>-Why elimate new lighterweight HP designs from the class ?
<br>
<br> 4-If a total weight is applied how do you provide FAIR sailing through this boat weight and crew weight range , -A 400 LB team on the heaviest boat would be more than 100 total LBs heavier with the same sail area in accordance to your proposal , --How can this possibley be marketed ,-accepted or in any regard construed as FAIR ,
<br>
<br> 5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -
<br> how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }
<br>
<br> Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?
<br>
<br>-
<br>-If you can answer these logically and completely as applied to FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,-then please propose this rule in its entirety for review -
<br> thanks -
<br> <br><br>

>>I,m still open , but would ask for complete logical answers to the following questions as they apply to the class goal of EQUAL FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,--
<br>
<br>
<br>Okay
<br>
<br>-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .
<br>
<br>
<br>With a 300 lbs minimum the 400 lbs crew would be at a 100 lbs disadvantage. And no, I haven't overlooked your combined crew + craft weight proposal that NO other formula class has except ... well .. lets call it the smallest formula in existance. That proposal doesn't really work for you don't have any lightweight designs that would make a 400 pound crew equal in combined weight to a 300 pound crew. Not are builders likely to make those.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -
<br>how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }
<br>
<br>
<br>The answer is simple to this. Because these groups are not serviced by a 20 footer. I would like to see you put two youths on I-20, after the first gust you can be assured that they will never set a foot on a catamaran again. Same goes for women.
<br>
<br>And honestly why are you shooting among another class's pigeons ? The F18 and that other class are happy to let you have the upper spectrum of the weight range, now in return leave them the mid and lower weights or you're heading for a conflict that will hurt us all.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?
<br>
<br>Same question worded twice.
<br>
<br>Because they are not your target group. And let the F18 and other classes have their piece of spectrum.
<br>
<br>
<br>-If you can answer these logically and completely as applied to FAIR SAILING FOR ALL ,-then please propose this rule in its entirety for review -
<br>thanks -
<br>
<br>You're welcome
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

The spin sheet of a 24 or 25 square meter chute in a breeze is substantial.
<br>Setting aside the crew weight issues or boat weight/sailarea calculation solutions for a moment.
<br>
<br>How many teams on the I20 are/were competiive with women crew last season?
<br>
<br>How many Tornado teams are competitive with women crew now?
<br>
<br>Not many... I doubt that its over 20%of the I20 fleet and I can think of only one team in Miami on tornaod'os (Scace and Scace)
<br>
<br>This is not to say that women can't or should not compete here but to simply observe that they are not choosing to compete in these classes now. The F18 sheet loads are much less and sheer upper body strength is not at the premium as on a 20 footer. I( already know of at least one very good team at 325 on an I20's considering a move to an F18 because of this issue).
<br>
<br>Why should an iF20 class try to be all things to all people?
<br>
<br>With a 350 minimum light teams can add dead weight and race if they choose. Heavy teams must change personel to race.
<br>
<br><br><br>

Hi wout -you wrote -The answer is simple to this. Because these groups are not serviced by a 20 footer. I would like to see you put two youths on I-20, after the first gust you can be assured that they will never set a foot on a catamaran again. Same goes for women. ---oh wout ,--whewww
<br>
<br> this is silly ,-people will choose a boat brand type style size {mono}-cat they like mainly because of availability , and friends relatives sailors in their area encouraging them to sail , or an active fleet in their location .
<br>
<br>--As to the other comments -Women won,t sail 20s --
<br> there have been 6 women in the Worrell , I raced it in 2000 with Sandra , who could most likely kick your a## - and races a 20 ,currently .
<br> I often sail with one of my 3 sons ages 10 -7 and 5 who always have a great time on the Inter 20 w chute, though they steer while I raise and snuff it. -
<br>
<br>-I think the 16s HP are great cats , I would love to race one {singlehanded } and I,m sure fly by many 18s and 20s , -
<br> I have tryed to be positive and would be happy to help support F-16 ,-,----but this again is not the way to promote the 16 class . -I will help with the 18s if I can ,--Matt and Tom that wrote a good part of the rules are good friends . They did a great job .
<br>
<br> If this total weight to sail area is enacted and becomes as successfull as I believe,-- it can easily be applied to all Formula classes , still maintaining ones within if desired ,--
<br> In discussing this concept over the last 2 years understood this was the real goal ,--A comprehensive FORMULA system in 3 Length catagories that would include the vast majority of cat racing sailors. ----we just have different concepts ,--
<br> Lighten up .
<br>
<br> The best aspect of the 20 rule is allowing entry level racers , who will most likely begin with stock older less expensive boats with smaller sail areas , --Once they get better skills they move up . --This is how we begin to grow partisipation in the sport .
<br>
<br>-Let me know how to help wout ,--continueing this type of diologue is childish .
<br>
<br> regards
<br> Carl<br><br>

Wooter you're such an idiot.
<br>I understand that English is not your first language but it isn't mine either.
<br>
<br>If you understood the sail area to weight relation proposed you wouldn't make such erroneous comments regariding 400 pound teams being at a 100 pound disadvantage over a 300 pound team.
<br>
<br>You continuously offer extreme and most of the time unrealistic examples like your 'two youths' argument and then you so often back things up with flawed mathematics. And, if you don't like women, that's tough.
<br>
<br>What do you see wrong with the iF20 rules principle.
<br>
<br>marc
<br><br><br>

-The lack of logic here and common sence is a bit much ,
<br> excluding 3/4 of sailors , never allowing them to partisipate ,
<br> what are you thinking ?
<br> -We want people in the sport not exclude them from it .
<br>
<br> Is it the old addage ,--what fun is it having a club or class unless you can exclude people from it ? -
<br>
<br> Mike Worrell is getting more female partisipants and iquiries each year. -We need to encourage this , this is good for the sport , ---My son Kyle and I won the second leg of the Red Fox this year in blustery conditions over an excellent field of 35 cats , several natl, champs inc with CRAM . uNDER YOUR RULES VERSION WE WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM EVER PARTICIPATING , !!!
<br>
<br> sheet lines are not a problem , you can switch off skip and crew with spin and traveler , -you can add a two to one easily , -
<br>Sailing cats requires some athletic ability , its not monos sitting around slugging down beers ,
<br> You and wout are really offering some obscure silly arguements , --therefor we must be on the right track !!!
<br> just jokin with ya -
<br> I've seen you sail so don.t think Sandra can kick yours , pretty close though .
<br> any others today ,-have fun
<br> Carl<br><br>

Mark,
<br>You'd be surprised how many people(men) I know who are under 175 pounds.
<br>Handling spinakers ? You should ask Karen-Ann Xavier what she thinks. She has been sailing with Al Maguire for some time now flying a chute. I am not sure if she hits 125 on the scale.
<br>I also know of people sailing 20' cats considering moving to an 18,including myself. The reason is not a question of not being able to handle the 20 but looking for a lighter boat to tow around on a hitch and on the beach and also because of the potential of the class growth.
<br>
<br>"Why should an iF20 class try to be all things to all people? "
<br>
<br>To be fair.
<br>
<br>With respect
<br>marc<br><br>

-1-How is a 350 rule fair to a 400 LB team ? at a 50 LB DISADVANTAGE .
<br>
<br>Well this is better than sailing against a team with a Min. at 325lbs where the difference is 75lbs. So I would think it would be a positive step for a 400lbs team. Minus racks or a total boat+crew weight answer I don't see anything else that could help a 400lbs crew.
<br>
<br>-2- We have existing boat weights ranging 30 40 50 LBs and potentially more , -are you saying 50 LB boat weight differences are ignored under your proposal ,---
<br>
<br>I seriously doubt there are 50lbs boat weight differences that are not due to water weight or 1/2" lines used all around. However i am assuming most factory boats would weigh in within about 25lbs. The weight of the hulls is about 100lbs each. The rest is in fixed weight pretty much. If I water logged my boat for a week and got it weighed and then dryed it out how would you stop the cheating.
<br>
<br>-How are boat weight equalized ?
<br>
<br>They are not equalized. Buyer beware.
<br>
<br>-Why elimate new lighterweight HP designs from the class ?
<br>
<br>They don't fit in with the other designs. However the class is going to continue to move in this direction by lowering the min. weight over a period of years to keep older boats competitive.
<br>
<br>4-If a total weight is applied how do you provide FAIR sailing through this boat weight and crew weight range , -A 400 LB team on the heaviest boat would be more than 100 total LBs heavier with the same sail area in accordance to your proposal , --How can this possibley be marketed ,-accepted or in any regard construed as FAIR ,
<br>
<br>This is not about completely fair racing. There are numerous issues that have nothing to do with weight that make this racing unfair. Such as sailmakers cutting different sails and using the best one for expected conditions for the regatta. Another example would be the home builder that comes up with a superior hull design or board design. Or the guy that shows up with new sails at every regatta. It just isn't fair!!! Life isn't fair .
<br>
<br>5--Why unessesarily eliminate 3/4 of the potential racing sailors from the 20 class ,--including junior sailors , needed to revive the sport . -You are eliminating most all father son and daughter teams not to mention most all women sailors -
<br>how does this play to sponsors advertisers and the general public ,--{the chovenist fat guy class ? }
<br>Why tell 3/4 of potential racing sailors to go somewhere else ?
<br>
<br>Not marketed too the smaller sailors. They already have an F18 class or numerous others. Nothing fat about two 175lbs men. Do we want to continue this quest for 150lbs guys that are interested in sailing and know how to sail. Most of the guys I know that weigh 150 are long distance runners without the time for sailing.
<br>
<br>I tried to be logical and complete, Carl. Not sure if I was successful. I'm not sure this is the right road to go down but am still waiting to hear a more logical direction. And I have read all of your posts Carl and respect your opinion greatly.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Hi Mike ,
<br> having fun ,
<br> You seem to be missing the basic concept Mike ,
<br>
<br> The proposed rule is a total weight to sail area Formula -
<br>
<br>-If you have a 30 LB heavier boat and are 20 Lbs heavier than av then , according to the comprehensive formula chart you can sail with proportionally more sail area than the 50 LB lighter team ,---
<br> With example numbers of 1 per jib -3 per main ,and 10 per spin , in 10 LB increments , the 50 LB total more weight team would be allowed 5 more sq ft of jib,--15 more sq ft of main sail area ,--and 50 more in spin area, --again these numbers need some refinement and should rate equally through the entire range in ISAF -and Texel ratings as a check , -but also adding some class rules due to additional definitions required .
<br>
<br>-Not sure what your post is referring to, hope this helps ,
<br>
<br>-All formula classes require some weight to sail area trade offs ,-this total boat and crew weight formula is more comprehensive , and can include lightweight boats .
<br>
<br> A heavier boat team with proportionally more rated sail area than a lighter team should have the opportunity to be equal and fair , -
<br> do realize the world is not ,--thanks for clearifying that ,
<br> jokin -
<br>
<br> W F is promoting the 18HP Formula Class -even before regular F-18 has begune. -18s will be splitt again , We had better find some comprehensive solution to allow all to race equally together , -
<br> -HP 18S- have no jibs and taller masts,but believe areas can be traded off and rate equally , -sail areas are smaller on this lighter version , so are sheet loads ,--which they would also be in the proposed 20 class. -
<br>
<br>-Getting a handle on the bigger picture ,then comprehending all the problems clearly is half the battle ,---
<br> a comprehensive long term solution with the goal of FAIR sailing ,-{or providing the opportunity for it } is then the class objective .
<br>
<br> A total weight to sail area rule provides this ,
<br> a 350 Lb rule does not ,
<br>
<br> If you are 50 LBs heavier is there some objection to a 50 sq ft larger chute ,-15 sq ft larger main ,-and 5 jib , -{example #}
<br>
<br>-Please state how this could be construed as not equal ,-
<br> Your choise of boat and weight and set up any way or combination you prefer.. -
<br>
<br> thanks
<br> Carl
<br> <br><br>

.... would be happy to help support F-16 ,-,----but this again is not the way to promote the 16 class . -I will help with the 18s if I can ,....
<br>
<br>
<br>Than please avoid conflict and leave these classes their part of the weight spectrum. That is the best help we can get.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>If this total weight to sail area is enacted and becomes as successfull as I believe,-- it can easily be applied to all Formula classes , still maintaining ones within if desired ,--
<br>
<br>
<br>Well, I understand that system. I wish you luck in selling the concept. I had already a difficult time selling the simplified concept of smaller is equally fast. I got there, but a I doubt wether I could have sold a more complex system. Maybe you can however.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>In discussing this concept over the last 2 years understood this was the real goal ,--A comprehensive FORMULA system in 3 Length catagories that would include the vast majority of cat racing sailors. ----we just have different concepts ,--
<br>Lighten up .
<br>
<br>
<br>I think we're still on the same concept and the progress has been very good so far. We're almost there in creating a complete and all spanning formula framework. But formulae are popping up all over the place and try to conquer the same weightranged, this can easily undo all that has been achieved.
<br>
<br>So I ask leave the other weight ranges to the other classes.
<br>
<br>This F20 is a 20 foot class and 20 ft. are more suited to heavy crews than the other classes and vice versa. Now I'm sure that you can sail 20 ft. with your kid and wife, but it is not the class for them. So don't try to make it their class. Else the three length formula framework will be undermined.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>The best aspect of the 20 rule is allowing entry level racers , who will most likely begin with stock older less expensive boats with smaller sail areas , --Once they get better skills they move up . --This is how we begin to grow partisipation in the sport .
<br>
<br>
<br>I really differ in this respect I really don't think that 20 ft. are "the best aspect"of the 20 ft. class. Ask any tornado sailor, ask John P.. They will all tell you that these designs are just to powerfull for beginners. And also too expensive, even second hand.
<br>
<br>No the best aspect of the 20 ft was to cater the adrenalin junkies as was the first intend of the class.
<br>
<br>
<br>-Let me know how to help wout ,--continueing this type of diologue is childish .
<br>
<br>
<br>Indeed, Leave us our weight range. Fill the need at the top end with this F20 class. Leave mid ranges to F18 and the light to mid and solo to F16. Than we'll have a balanced setup.
<br>
<br>If we get into a direct conflict here than we'll kill eachother off for nothing for light to medium crews are unlikely to be really competitive anyway in the 20 ft. range.
<br>
<br>regards,
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Hi Marc
<br>
<br>First point. your comments to Wouter were WAY out of line and were a personal attack. I hope you will apologize!
<br>
<br>I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.
<br>
<br>You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point. The attack by ridicule and insult was pointless.
<br>
<br>Second point
<br>your point about light teams, Women and teenagers racing on 20 foot boats misses the general point.
<br>1) I also know mixed teams that kick my butt. Greg and Casey Scace come to mind. Can Casey out grind my crew on the boat doubtful does she outgrind other crews perhaps. Is it the critical factor... no. Does this debate have any relevance no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.
<br>
<br>I am pointing out the observation that MOST couple teams are not racing 20 foot boats with spinnakers. Apparently, most couple teams are not looking to race 20 foot boats with chutes in the future based on conversations with the local dealer AND by observing the Euro I20 racing at texel. Are some couple teams looking to race 20 footers?. Probably. I pointed out one. You note Alan and Karen Ann. Carl and Sandra raced. The exceptions are not disproving the general point.
<br>
<br>I pointed out one reason that couple teams might not want to race a 20 footer. Sheet loads as one being relevant to racing the boat around triangles where doublers are too slow to jibe and on a closed course crash jibes are possible.
<br>
<br>You suggested
<br>Boat weight.... No... the F18 is heavier by rule then a 390lb I20.
<br>Trailer width. No. 8 feet 6 inches versus 8 feet 3 inches ... Both legal in North America.
<br>
<br>Potential for class growth.... Hmm... Well that is the big issue now isn't it.
<br>Why would they think that the new F18 would be MORE POPULAR then staying in an existing 20 foot type class.
<br>
<br>Perhaps they conclude.
<br>1) their team weight is close to optimum for the class.
<br>2) they can do more then "handle the boat"... they could be competitive at the elite level.
<br>3) Why not on an F20 boat??? Perhaps they will not be limited by some physical factor. weight, strength, endurance, height.. rather they will be limited by their sailing skill. (which is the point after all)
<br>4) perhaps they judge that the Fun Factor is higher on less powerful boat.
<br>5) Perhaps, all their competitors are moving down. so.. they want to join them.
<br>
<br>All are quite plausible reasons.
<br>
<br>My take home point is an obvious one in that the sailors are choosing an optimal design for them. Crew weight is one of several parameters in their decision.
<br>
<br>AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.
<br>
<br>The idea… is that just as in Hobie 16 one design racing.. you can set a floor on weight and Enhance competitive fairness. As wouter cleverly noted… why go shoot at the F18’s pigeons. Why not target a different segment of the market.
<br>
<br>Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.
<br>
<br>Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
<br>There are options of grandfathering in teams, boats etc etc. Right now the debate is over the general philosophy.
<br>
<br>Obviously we disagree. I suggest that we take a measure of the possible f20 sailors and see where we stand.
<br>
<br>Take Care
<br>Mark
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Carl,
<br>
<br>I forgot about the weight to sailarea proposal. I don't believe that requiring many different mains and jibs is appropriate. Possibly we could vary Chute size for weight but this may be tough to equalize. Whatever rule we come up with there will be a perceived sweet spot just as there is now with the F18 class. Max sail area at 340lbs in F18 is thier perceived sweet spot. I am not against this concept but I would like to see some real tank tests/ wind tunnel tests/ real life experience to back up the numbers otherwise we would be shooting in the dark.
<br>
<br>My personal belief is that we are already at a 350 min. That is a good size for two men on the boat (175+175). Some teams may weigh in at (175+200)375 but not really notice the difference on the boat. I've never been able to notice less than 25lbs difference having an effect on performance. So my view is that varying sail area may have more of a negative effect than a positive effect. Of course this also is operating on the premise that teams that weigh less than 350 will be more attracted to the F18 class where it tops out at 340. And also assuming you can add whatever you want to come up to 350 if you would like to race in the F20 class.
<br>
<br>Getting back to boat weight I think it would be too hard to police this issue and we would have people pushing the rules too often causing major discontent among the sailors. In a perfect world it would be nice but you and I both know we don't have time to weigh boats at weekend regattas.
<br>
<br>Carl said:
<br>-If you are 50 LBs heavier is there some objection to a 50 sq ft larger chute ,-15 sq ft larger main ,-and 5 jib , -{example #}
<br>
<br>-Please state how this could be construed as not equal ,-
<br>
<br>Ok, I'll try to explain. Take someone that I regularly beat at a regatta where we sail one-design. He finds a 225lbs crew that doesn't know how to sail and gets the adjustment sails factor. He then proceeds to beat me in all the races. My only conclusion to stay competitive is to buy new sails and get a 225lbs crew myself. Does this seem fair?
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Hi mark -
<br> Because you do not see many female , smaller sailors or junior sailors in your area is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -
<br> This is very faulty logic and again very inconsistant thinking applied , --you can,t have it both ways , ---20s aren.t o k -but 18 H P CATS ARE ? ---lets be honest and realistic .
<br>
<br>-The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD , --Numerous racing sailors are interested , several have posted and stated they will return to racing and many new sailors will begin ,--as I mentioned I have 3 myself,-They need to be able to race in any class , and not be excluded from them .
<br> If your and Wouts philosophy is applied { glass half empty }
<br> and foolish exclusionary rules are put in place it will certainly be a self fofilling prophecy, doomed to fail just as one or the other 18 classes are bound to as they become more diluted. My bet is the heavier.
<br>
<br>-As my 5 year old says ,-{-sink about it }
<br>
<br> take care
<br> Carl<br><br>

Hi Mike
<br> your starting to get there -
<br>
<br> The majority of existing sailors have weighed their boats if you read their posts ,--I certainly trust you to be honerable and the vast majority of people who race , . Again this chart is not that difficult to comprehend ,
<br>
<br>-The tank testing and sweet spot you refer to changes constantly with each different weather pattern wave and current condition on each point of sail differently for the vast array of boats we have and will have in the future .
<br>
<br> Formula racing --all --IS DEVELOPEMENTAL to some degree .
<br> The race course becomes a giant test tank and wind tunnel ,
<br> -At least with Formula we can discover which combinations really do work best in each varying condition, -
<br> THATs the game boat choise modification of your choosing and set up is a part of it . Some will whine , some always do even racing one design as we all know.
<br>
<br>-Your conclusion that you will need heavy crew is interesting , Why would you believe this when all boats would rate equally , the heavier boat with more sail area is not necessarily faster , --Have you ever sailed the same start with an A Class cat , with only 150 sq ft of sail area, ? . -Are you saying ISAF and TEXEL rating are totally innaccurate ?
<br>
<br>-You can reverse your scenario and apply it to one design to min weight , only there you have a ligit complaint as there is no weight compensation to sail area.
<br>
<br> thanks for the input ,--understand Formula is something different that I,m learning most will not understand fully .
<br> For those promoting the Formula Class it will be an educational process to some degree.
<br>
<br> The F-18 High Performance Class sounds interesting , -
<br> If we have a unified large 20 class it may attract the largest partisipation by far for that inclusive quality within the rule .
<br> More open of a race what ya got attitude , Just come out race in one big diverse fleet and have fun , is my vision .
<br>
<br> All the best Mike
<br> Carl
<br>
<br>-
<br>
<br>
<br> -<br><br>

Ok, let me first say this MHB -- you where out of line in attacking Wouter. He is often trying but he does have a depth of knowledge and is try to help. Wouter, I thank you for your opinion.
<br>
<br>Carl, I respect your opinion also, but changing sail plans gets cost prohibative when you look at varying crew weights and formulas inside the class.
<br>
<br>Gentlemen, we need to look at working with other formula classes. We each have a niche to go after. Looking to what is happening in the F18 class with the push for HP -- basically it is self destructing. Is anyone going to move up or down in to a formula class. NOT if we start picking each others bones over trivial issues.
<br>
<br>The basic 350 crew weight minimum with correction corrects every male/female H20 team that I know of. SO that arguement atleast in this area is mute. Do we want junior sailors in what is suppose to be the premier F class? No, we need to use F16 and F18 as breeder classes. Having NAF-20 being the top F class is where we need to be. Having well trained race teams racing over powered boats is exciting to watch as much as to do. THat is our market.
<br>
<br>NAF-20 (the legal class name --iF20 is not) is a marketable venture when you address the basics and place an eye on what can happen a few years down the line. Are there better boats in the world? Yes. But, who is racing them? And why would everyone of us go spend our hard earned dollars to have one right now? What we need to focus on is getting people back on the water in an inclusive format -- (everyone that can meet the minimum requirements). Hell, its kind of like joining the ARMY (no offense intented) We take eveyone as long as they can meet the minimums OR correct to them.
<br>Will new boats come along? YES. SHould we embrace them now? NO!
<br>
<br>Look at the Mhullers. A few years ago a hot new boat came out -- the viper 830. God was it fast, light, strong, kick the crap out of everything on the water. Did it sell?? HELL NO! TOO much money getting rid of the old boats! Are the J's still around? Yep! because it is CHEAP to race and there was alot of them. SO the builder is making a smaller version called the Viper 640. THe J guys use them to train new crew!!
<br>
<br>History has a funny way of repeating itself and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
<br>
<br>Gentlemen, 350 crew weight works. As does boat minimum of 385. Sail area needs to be capped somewhere lets look at that instead of trying to revisit the weight issues. THe question you need to ask is what SA is fast for a crew weight range of 350-400 lbs + a boat of 385?
<br>
<br>Hobie, PC, and Mystere have agreed to configure a boat in the 550sq ft area. Do we want this across the board or is this TOO MUCH SA? No different amounts allowed by class rules. But, if you want to race less than thats ok. Also, the class needs to agree that the mast and sails can be bought from any NAF20 class approved sailmaker. Let the sailmaker be the measureres of the sails.
<br>
<br>Please think of this.
<br>
<br>Respectfully
<br>Steve
<br>
<br>Oh yes MHB, apologize to wouter and I am sorry if I bit you on the other board.<br><br>

To all,
<br>
<br>>> I understood him to mean that a 400 lb team on a 295 min boat like a H20 would be at a bigger disadvantage then on a H20 with a 350 lb minimum. That is it.
<br>
<br>
<br>That is exactly what I meant. In light air there are hardly any limiting principles like righting moment and than the lightest crew with respect to sail area will win. Min. overall weight is intend to address this equality problem when sail area is fixed at one size for praticality.
<br>
<br>In this respect setting a normal minimum is very instrumental in stimulating fairness in all conditions including light air. Without it heavy crews will alsway loose out in light air.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>You may agree / disagree or ask him to clarify his point.
<br>
<br>My clearification is above.
<br>
<br>
<br>>> no.. Attacking the general argument with an example is trivial.
<br>
<br>Agree. And that applies to me too. So here guys; here I offer my hand.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>> AND…Most importantly... CREW WEIGHT is one of the things that a class can control easily.
<br>
<br>I second that.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>> Finally, What is to stop Alan and Karen Ann from adding weight to their cross bar and racing at 350… are they more or less at a competitive disadvantage as a team at 400 lbs in the proposed if20 class with a minimum at 350.
<br>
<br>
<br>Good point Mark !
<br>
<br>
<br>>>Fairness is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
<br>
<br>Ohh yeah, and not always are these confirmed by numbers. And vice versa.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

I agree with all of Steve's points above:
<br>
<br> 1. Keep it SIMPLE (or people will ignore it)
<br> 2. 350 lbs min crew weight works
<br> 3. 385 lbs min boat weight works (with periodic reductions)
<br> 4. Some SINGLE limit on SA.
<br>
<br>Just making these simple limits work and getting the class off of the ground is going to be hard enough! If we try to add special cases, exceptions, options for this, variations for that.....the whole thing devolves into a mess that is even less attractive than Portsmouth!
<br>
<br>Sail fast and have fun,
<br>Alan Thompson
<br>I20 - San Diego<br><br>

>>>The other aspect you and wout are touting that we have to swabble over dwindling numbers of sailors , -THIS IS ABSURD ,
<br>
<br>>>>is no reason to exclude them from racing any boat they choose , -
<br>
<br>
<br>The reason to haggle over these weight spans is equality and fairness of racing while keeping costs acceptable.
<br>
<br>I will put it into a question :
<br>
<br>On a nice warm day with a 5 knot wind I bring my regular crew of 400 lbs. You look at the weather and decide that the winds are light enough to bring your little nethew. How can you explain to me that this racing is still fair ? Fair as intended in the formula class.
<br>
<br>Now you could reply to my question by saying that you will just pick the smallest of those 5 spare rigs (main, mast, jib and genaker sets) that you always cary around in your modified trailor. But how can you sells this to a crew starting out in the class and that can not buy 5 complete rigs of different sizes ?
<br>
<br>The Only you can do in that situation that would be fair is to take along all your nieces and nephews untill you make minimum. you can still race with your younger familiy members and I don't have to give you a 180 lbs weight advantage. and thus practically give you the line honours and the price of the day.
<br>
<br>That was talking about your class. Now move down to do smallest class.
<br>
<br>There, there is no minimum and you can sail solo with nephew and even with you wife. And no heavy crew can complain to you that you are unfair by being so light. Why because there are no teams in that F class that are heavy enough to notice a real disadvantage. Even a adult with small kid will weight in at at least 240 lbs so the biggest weight disadvantage will be 90 lbs. Also way less than the 180 lbs in the earlier example. No solo sailors are lighter but are also at a disadvantage with respect to handling.
<br>
<br>Now look at the mid range class lowest is 310 and highest 350. Only 40 lbs difference. Now this must be the class with the closest racing !
<br>
<br>So everyboy is catered and not subjected to accusations about unfairness.
<br>
<br>And this is the strength of a three length formula framework.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Hi wout
<br>
<br> All formula classes are developemental to some extent --
<br> This means variables in sails and overall design features as defined within limits per class definitions .
<br>
<br> Existing Formula classes use various jib and spin sizes to adjust for crew weight .
<br>
<br> This proposed 20 rule combines total weight to a sail area formula ,-{more comprehensive approach } -\
<br>--
<br>-You provide extreme examples , ignore the same effects on existing Formula classes , jump to false scenarios , -mislead , then state how wonderfull you believe 16s are .
<br> Racing sailors are smart , they can deside this for themselves , based on the excellence of design and their requirements .
<br>
<br>--Sails --All Formula class racing sailors if they change crew would need different spin and jib sizes to max. allowed in the rules .
<br>
<br> New 20 rules proposed are no different , --roller furling jibs are allowed ,--changing sail area ,--reef points on the main are allowed ,--2 spin sizes for each team are allowed ,--and in the 20 class 2 mains labeled and approved would be allowed .
<br> I would remind you that any Formula Class inc 16 could have a full main built and a flatter main built , both within the limitation of class rules and choose the one that best fit the weather forcast for that regatta weekend . -
<br>
<br>-In the 20 class sailors that modify existing boats to max allowed sail area per rules would of course keep their older smaller main , and potentially use it , along with their roller furling jib if it was in the above 20 wind strength that weekend ,--This adds an element of seamanship along with furlers and optional reef points in the main that I wish we had available during the Worrell 1000 races . -
<br>
<br>-In allowing sailors to go to any sail maker for their sails is there the potential for some to buy speed , --yes , true for any developemental class , but sail areas are all equal along with total weight ,
<br> This is not complex or difficult to comprehend .
<br>
<br> Your objections and extreme scenarios are based in fear that the 16s will not be accepted . --Again these are excellent designs that will attract numerous sailors ,
<br> What I,m politely trying to say is the extreme examples and insistance on rules for other classes you do not intend to partisipate in , but post with intent to promote 16s ,actually has the oposite effect and result , and is not constructive or helpfull to ANY formula class .
<br>
<br> Do appreciate the efforts and hard work you put in the 16 class and have stated so numerous times on the various forums as you know -
<br>
<br> All the best -
<br> Carl<br><br>

Carl,
<br>
<br>I'm starting to agree with you again! just joking have always admired your points if I have totally agreed or not.
<br>
<br>I see your points on different sail areas for crew weights. It does have merit. However, I ask this question.
<br>
<br>If we set a sa cap. then won't natural selection find what is best for the sailor/boat combination?
<br>
<br>Will it give lighter teams an advantage? slight one in light air. But also a slight disadvantage in heavy air. It is this trade off that the light crews have to make before the regatta. I have been at tons of regattas where one day it was 5 and the next it was 25. Hell, I've seen it happen in a few minutes.
<br>
<br>When we close the gap at minimums then your only talking about a 50lbs spread between boats. We are all use to seeing 100-150 lbs spreads between the boats. I think we should just cap it and go forward because this difference is small and to try and correct it only complicates the ability to run the formula at the regatta site.
<br>
<br>If you show up and have your class endorsements than all the RC has to do is figure where to start you. Simple.
<br>
<br>Light crews have to be aware that if they are weighed and the boat is not corrected (with weight) than they risk being DSQ from the class for the season. I think this should also be in the rules for all violations. Basically, if you cheat and are caught there are consequenses. Whether DSQ or a fine is levied remains to be discussed but, lets make a penalty and set a presedense.
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve (my spell check is not working)<br><br>

Hi Steve , -
<br> -The problem with the natural selection theory is if you set a 50 LB range between boats then set a 350 crew weight min ,
<br>
<br> tHE NATURAL SELECTION IS OF COURSE narrows only to THE LIGHTEST BOAT AND 350 LB CREW .
<br>
<br> All others are at a disadvantage or eliminated from ever partisipating ,--If you are 350 and have a light boat ,---{ like a lighter H-20 } -as example ,--You like this rule written to suit narrow specific needs ,--350 and a lighter boat ,-all others that do not will not partisipate ,--
<br>
<br>How many fit this ,-and is this fair equal sailing for all ?
<br> Think we can set a higher class average as a target -330 ,-but still allow all to race equally ,--Again under a sail area to total weight rule the heavier team is well compensated in sail area ,--a huge plus in light air ,--this is the best solutution ,and is no more complex than other formula classes , but much more comprehensive and inclusive ,-helping insure large partisipation and a successfull class.
<br>
<br>-One great difficulty we have is discussing one rule aspect ,with out the other coresponding rule aspects in place ,--polls and the rest are useless if no one understands basic concepts and all options available to solve these complex problems and existing conditions handed us ,in the best methode .
<br>
<br> Will try a FOX to INTER 20 comparison under the proposed sail area to weight rule ,--maybe this will clearify and demonstrate to attributes of it.
<br>
<br>-Any help with the Worrell effort in any sponsorship is greatly appreciated , we are seeking travel expences for the ground crew ,--and are completely open to any assistance at this stage -
<br> Though would not want it to conflict in any regard with this class ,--but do hope the Worrell would be run under 20 class rules in the future ,--Mike is currently considering FORMULA and will announce it in spring of 02 .
<br> Carl
<br> Carl<br><br>

Car; how many different sail sizes are you suggesting (main and jib) for the class?<br><br>

Whoa, I'm having problems here! I posted a response that did not update. So I'll try again.
<br>
<br>Carl, we are the ONLY formula class that is looking into grandfathering old boats. For this conversation lets not even think about the "new" I20 and Fox.
<br>
<br>As for the dead boat club. We are looking at seperate issues. Crew weight and boat weight. Boat weight 385 Minimum and crew weight 350 minimum (unless corrected to)
<br>
<br>You my friend are looking at this as the glass half empty.
<br>
<br>If you have a 405 lbs boat and weigh in at 330 then your ok to race. Your boat is a natural corrector. Will this bring in alot of existing sailors? YES.
<br>
<br>The rules are proposed to get the class down to the boat weights that you not so long ago where in favor of.
<br>
<br>The rules are also proposed to get the formula assoc's working in concert. SO that F16 will feed F 18 and then NAF20. Will people try to get to minimum weights. YES. But they already do! This just evens the racing out in to a sane area.
<br>
<br>The reason that most CWM's are in the 295-325 range is due to marketing. (Remember Carl this is my fort'e) And where set there to pull people off the H16's. Hell Hobie admits this.
<br>Is there any basis in what it takes to sail these boats? Nope, nada, negative, -- NO.
<br>
<br>If you layout several regatta lists and figure boat weights and crew weights you will find out that people on the average are already at what we are proposing when you look at spinnaker equipt boats. You can not quote the H20 weights because most H20 sailors do not sail a spinnaker and when we do we go with larger crews.
<br>
<br>Will the H20 have a weight advantage? No. since it still has to meet BOAT Weight minimums just like everyone else.
<br>
<br>If the boat weighs more than you can figure that into your crew correction. If it weighs less and you weigh more -- too bad add weight to the boat and go on a diet if your upset about it.
<br>
<br>350 (CWM) gives two 175 guys an even break on a 385 BWM boat.
<br>
<br>330 (CWM) gives a team an even break on a 405 BWM budget boat.
<br>
<br>This is still skewed towards the lighter teams but it is the fairest, cheapest, and easiest to regulate compromise that I have ever heard of.
<br>
<br>It makes since to the RC to have very little headache other than just starting and scoring. And all they have to do is carry a bathroom scale at a race to weigh crews at check in. As for the boat it should be weighed by the class anyway. How? well lets talk about that after we get to rules committee.
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve<br><br>

Hi John ,
<br>
<br> Please excuse all the infighting here , different diverse customs ,--We do all actually sail and race and have a good time .
<br>--It is open , the total boat and crew weight to sail area scale would ideally be in increments small enough to be fair ,--maybe as low as 10 LB between each ,--or as high as 30 for more simplisity. -
<br> You are more qualified than I also to establish the amount of sail area of each main -jib and spin .
<br> tryed 1-jib 3 main and 10 spin per each 10 Lbs of total boat and crew weight. as an example , believe this is close based on existing designs but need to be revised and corrected to ISAF rating numbers consistant for a class .
<br>
<br> I do not believe it is enough just to have them rate to an ISAF or Texel number as we are setting higher crew weights generally , and more sail area ,based on the U S version Inter 20 ,-which has 15 more sq ft of main sail area . --
<br> Believe they should rate within one point . -but may also run an individual performance prediction of the specific boats with various crew weights at each end of the scale .
<br> Was hopping for a total range from max 410 boat weights down to 320 ,-again in 10 20 or 30 increments ,--using an average 330 LB crew .
<br>
<br>-I design homes, extentions , and small commercial buildings , but am not a navel architect , we do really need someone with your expertise to advise and direct .
<br>
<br>--Thankyou John
<br>-Carl Roberts
<br> crdesignr@earthlink.net<br><br>

I ask the question how many diferent sized mainsails and jibs will be legal because it seems that there will be a lot, it is quite dificult to get accurately made sails to a specific area.
<br>
<br>we have just made the new f16 sails, they are computer generated, but the computer programmes are just not that accurate at measuring sails the way ISAF do it, so we had to have paper sails made first, then measure these, adjust the programme and cut the proper sails.
<br>
<br>All expensive and time consuming, add to this the fact that the luff of the main will shrink by about 1-2% after its been used a couple of times and I think that you may have dificulty in getting loads of differnt sized sails made. these will then need to be measured by a measurer. the cost will be high and policing it will be hard.
<br>
<br>If somone buys a suit of sails to suit an all up weight of say 700 lbs can they only sell this boat to someone else of the same weight? Of course not, they'll seel 'em to whoever turns up with the cash and that person will expect to be able to race without buying a complete suit of sails.
<br>
<br>I agree with your idea of an all up weight for crew and boat, but I think you need to simplify the weight correction and to have about 3 or 4 maximum bands, I would also leave all the boats with their standard mains and do the correction on jibs, and maybe have 2 spinnaker sizes.
<br>
<br>If you want to keep the 20s a lot faster than the 18s and 16s then you may need to have a separate class within the class.
<br>
<br>You could have standard NA20 based around inter 20 and NA20 turbo or whatever based around an boat that will outperform the 18s etc by about 6 or 7%
<br>
<br>I just think that you are trying to achieve too much in one hit.
<br>
<br>john
<br>
<br> <br><br>

Hi Steve
<br> Think the best vehicle for top level sponsored racing that is easily understood by the general public is one design ,
<br>
<br> This is how Prosail was run ,--on Hobie 21s ,--great fun ,
<br> the olympics are one design ,-and of course the Worrell has been one design , it eliminates rule problems ,though in this case for your purposes you would change the class min. to 350 LBs .
<br> The Inter 20 is ideal for large crews , and as posted under Inter 20 crew weight in several posts that refer to the Worrell and designers comments on how these cats are geared for larger crew you have the ideal vehivle for this purpose .
<br> More than 200 are in the U S sailing ,--all past and present Worrell teams have one .
<br>
<br>-Trying to force a 20 developement class to fit these needs leads to the rules complexity and comprehension problem the general public has as you,ve mentioned .
<br> To meet sponsors requirements lets just propose I-20 races at the breeziest venues at the right times of year for them , guarenteeing flips capsizes and crashes , again just as we did in Prosail . The fleet already exists of excellent top level sailors , we can potentially tie in the Worrell 1000 as one of the events as mentioned .
<br>
<br> Formula will really take a few years to get into full swing ,
<br>
<br> This should be a class for all people and a wide variety of 20 ft boats to race , -please look at the handwritting on the wall ,-F-18 vs F-18 HP ,--16 hp -16HT - WE NEED A COMPREHENSIVE INCLUSIVE 20 CLASS.
<br>
<br> Carl
<br> <br><br>

Thanks John
<br> Appreciate the imput , -The characteristics of the new sail material shrink the luff 2% , it must be difficult to design the ideal shape antisipating that shrinkage , only along the luff bias ,or all directions .
<br>-Hope the 16 is very successfull .
<br>
<br>-On the 20s we have the Inter at 388 Lbs , and some existing classes at 418 ,-a 30 Lb difference ,-one added weight catagory - 30 to a total of 3 weight catagories may be understood . --410--380 and 350 boat weights .
<br>
<br> The only other sailors who even comprehend the sail area to weight rule so far have been you and Marc , in the boat biz with design backgrounds .
<br>
<br>-I see F 18 , and now F-18 HP appearing and proposed for the U S market,--I would much rather own the 100 LB lighter better performance F-18 H P ,
<br>
<br> High Performance 20s can not be too far behind , though if a new 20 class is formed it should have larger beam or wings , - We need the increase of righting moment and better overall performance . -I would like a class that would include these and progress , but you are of course correct , one step at a time , maybe propose 3 catagories with a potential 4th in 2003 , but then again why not just include it now .
<br>
<br> Happy Holidays John
<br> Carl <br><br>

Carl,
<br>
<br>I'm going to go over this just one last time. I understand the weight to sail area formula completly. Hell, I understand it better than you know. I also jump (as in out of airplanes) as a hobby and have custom chutes built all the time. Since the formulas translate evenly. Actually, if you want to get in a conversation about lift, drag and bernoulis principle I could probably spend hours bending your ear about the benefits and detriments of adding/subtracting SA versus performed weight.
<br>
<br>The thing that you don't quite get here is this FORMULA IS FRICKIN' ONE DESIGN!!!! Just as much as America's cup boats are ONE DESIGN. I bow to your experience in the sailing world. However, I do not bow to your experience in marketing, business development and sponsorship presentation.
<br>
<br>If you really want to make formula simple -- you toss out every other boat except the TORNADO. YES you got it the TORNADO. It is the only boat that will perform the way a HT 20 should due to its beam and participation of sailors. Also, it does not have all the BS from PC and Hobie. The years of brainwashing and lax business practices. Also, then you build a development class around that boat as the "grandfather" boat.
<br>
<br>JESUS CHRIST you guys this is not brain surgery here. There are so many opinions and agendas here that you can't swing a dead cat (animal or sailing vessel).
<br>
<br>The box perimeters that have been layed out are fair, inclusive to all designs, and economical to start. They also move the class in a direction that allows all owners to get the invested dollars out of their boats before they fall apart. A 2001 boat only has three years of life before it needs to go to that big boatyard in the sky. FACT. Will 100 sailors go out today and buy a new HT 20 cat. F#@$ NO! Anybody that dreams tomorrow the sun will rise and we will all be sailing 300lbs boats needs to wait for the guys in the white suits to come and take them away.
<br>
<br>If we can field tons of boats that race a box rule NOW. Then in 3-5 years we can by attrition upgrade to the 300lbs boats and worry about how to equal crew weights then. At that time maybe we spin off the HT class for high performance sailing and use NAF20 as a feeder to that fleet.
<br>
<br>We need to get something moving and endless discussion about what if's is not going to accomplish anything.
<br>
<br>I will say this the next time someone suggest one design to me is going to be really pissed when we walk this hardwork over to a single manufacturers one design class and All sailing will suffer.
<br>
<br>Tired of all the Rhetoric.
<br>
<br>Steve<br><br>

Ok I'm sorry I told him he is an idiot. :-) :-)
<br>
<br>Wouter should have "a depth of knowledge" he is studying(maybe done) to be a naval architect.
<br>This frustration builds up from reading 2-3 years worth of 'Wooter posts' and if you have noticed he has been attacked many times by many but never by me before. The rest of my statement still stands.
<br>
<br>I applaud his enthusiasm and effort.
<br>
<br>Ok maybe he can help me with this ...
<br>
<br>Dear Wouter,
<br>
<br>Following the link that Carl gave me, I had a look at the Word document named 'ISAF_SmCat_Rules210501.doc". I am creating a program that will give an appropriate sail area per weight graph for NA F20 using the ISAF system of equations.
<br>
<br>The problem is that one of the variable I came accross is undefined and unclear.
<br>Under section :"C.3.3. Corrections and Penalties" there is an equation as such "BR = VLB2 / MAB".
<br>
<br>My question to you or any that can help is ...
<br>
<br>What does the variable MAB stand for ? And how is it calculated ?
<br>
<br>My guess is that it is "maximun authorized board area" or CB.
<br>
<br>chillin
<br>marc
<br>
<br><br><br>

im i reading you right? are you calling the iacc boats a one design class?<br><br>

To show you I'm a nice guy despite everything else
<br>
<br>BR = VLB2 / MAB".
<br>
<br>Board aspect ratio = Vertical length Boards squared / Mean or main area board..
<br>
<br>This equation can only be one thing and that is the calculation of the board aspect ratio that is used to determine the effectiveness of the total area.
<br>
<br>Compare it to the similar calcs performed on the sail area.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

What a guy ! - thanks wout ,--and thanks Marc for working on this sail area to weight formula and much needed valueable information .
<br> One huge problem we are facing here in the U S in promoting ALL formula classes is as I,m more readily understanding each day is a lack of general knowledge on catamaran design.
<br> People will not be likely to become interested in something they do not understand . There is no readily available information on cat design elements , or how they effect sailing performance . There is no readily available easily understood articles or information on ISAF rating , -though there is a brief explaination of Texel .
<br> We need some good articles explaining design elements and how they are measured . The board ratio calc . is a good example , most will not understand why a board calc. would be needed or how different a Hobie 18 board is from a more modern Inter 20 board , wetted surface areas their effectiveness , cord section etc .
<br>-I,ve build one cat and have a basic understanding of design , though do have an extensive cat racing background for practical application ,
<br>
<br> Promoting the formula classes will involve an educational process , the U S has used Portmouth rating ,--an average time system , they have added design modification factors in an ever growing list . --The rest of the cat sailing world uses ISAF -and Texel design measurement ratings so naturally people who are accustom to design elements as a basis for rating are more familiar with what aspects make a good fast seaworthy cat design.
<br>
<br> -Lets all try to work on making all information readily available for all formula cat sailors.
<br>
<br> Carl<br><br>

Thanx Wouter,
<br>
<br>Always thought you where a nice guy and I never said any different.
<br>
<br>VLB has already been defined as:
<br>
<br>"VLB = Maximum board depth below the hulls"
<br>
<br>in the very same document.
<br>
<br>You claim that 'MAB = Mean or main area board'. Would you say that this is the underwater surface area of the board ?
<br>
<br>I will have a look at the calc for sail area as you suggest.
<br>
<br>cheers...
<br>Marc
<br>
<br><br><br>

Wouter<br><br>

Only put in the surface area of one side of one board<br><br>

John,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the great input. Some new facts to mull over.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br><br><br>