It is winter time and that means that the design teams of all catamaran builders are busy working on new projects.

One of the newest is the Cirrus Evolution design.





http://www.wildthing.nl/importeur/energy.html

The accompanying text reads (translated) :




The Evolution Texel rating = 105 (Our F16 Texel rating = 102)
The Evolution ISAF rating = 104 (our F16 ISAF rating = 1.01 if the ISAF comittee ever comes round to correcting their current 1.02 quote)

Sadly the Evolution is not a fully compliant Formula 16 boat. It is too long (by 0.1 mtr), too wide (by 0.05 mtr, and it has too much sail area (by 0.95 sq. mtr. almost 1 sq. mtr.)

But due to its other specifications (mostly overall weight) its performance estimate by virtue of the TEXEL/ISAF ratings is slightly less than that of the F16's.

This means that under the Formula 16 rule 6.1, the grandfather claus, that this design can indeed step up to the challenge as a grandfathered boat. Just as the Hobie FX-one, Inter-17 and Spitfire can (and in some cases have done so already !)

So the Evolution can not become part of the full compliant fleet of F16, but is much welcomed to any F16 event short of a Worlds (if we have one) or any continental. We are pretty much only running "bring-what-you-got-and-race-us-on-elapsed-time" events.

Wouter

Wouter,
Is this something like amnesty? I thought boats were grandfathered in if they were older boats. How can you "grandfather" in a brand new class of boat?

Mary, I wondered the same thing. Wouter conveniently included the rule number so a visit to the F16 website revealed these requirements. Not exactly "grandfathering" in the traditional sense but the result is the same.

Is that a typo? Is this about the Formula 16 class or the Formula 17 class? Why not just include all boats of whatever length if their rating is slower than that of a Formula 16?

Nope that is correct Mary; The F16's will let any boat that rates slower or equal to the F16 into the class as long as it's less than 5.30m - I.e the Inter 17 EU fits in.

Then why is it called a Formula "16" class? I guess I'm not understanding something about the formula. Sorry.:p

I just read the class rules and it says the length limit is 5 meters (16.4 feet). So now you are saying that I can build a boat that is 17 feet 4 inches long and get it accepted as an F16 as long as it doesn't go too fast?

Feels like a slippery slope.

It's not quite that bad, but I agree there is a risk. 6.1 states that this is "at the discretion of the head of a local F16 organisation". So, it's not guaranteed that you get to race. Further, the races are to be described as "Open F16", rather than just "F16". We would do well to keep this distinction clear.

I think it is very useful to have this rule in order to help get numbers whilst establishing the class, but we don't want to be in the situation where any boat with a rating of 1.01 or slower can just turn up.

We might consider requesting that Cirrus update their description to say "Open F16 races" rather than "F16 class", in order to make it clear that this is not fully F16 compliant.

For information, the successful F16 vs FX-1 meet at Datchet last year didn't need the grandfathering clause. We had a single start, combined results, but separate prizes. So, all the fun of racing comparable boats on the water, but no need to confuse the definition of what is F16 and what isn't.

Paul

I'd always thought that the purpose of 'grandfathering' was to allow EXISTING boats to continue 'in class'. In the case of the F16 class this would obviously mean allowing certain existing non F16-compliant boats to be raced alongside new, fully compliant F16s.

I had not anticipated Wouter's interpretation of the 6.1 rule. I do not actually see how allowing NEW non-compliant F16s to race as F16s can possibly benefit the class. In fact, intuitively I would have thought it counter-productive. If they can race anyway, why would anyone (especially the larger manufacturers) bother to build to the F16 class rules?

Without giving away the secrets I can assure everybody that the current use of the Grandfather clause is helping the F16 class very much.

Think : Datchet (UK) okt 2005 after the combined FX-one, F16 event; two new boat sails to Datchet boys, both buying full compliant F16's

Think : New G-cat 5.0 of two years ago being transformed into a full complaint F16 by its designer and vectorworks marine

Think : Cirrus Energy converging to much closer specs to F16 by virtue of the new Evolution. The fact that they mention the F16 class in their Evolution talk-up says something I think.

Think : The best way to show the strong points of our class is in direct comparison on the water. Think Datchet UK again.

Think : South African F16 class; this class is entirely build on grandfathered boats because it is so hard to get full compliant f16's in.

And so on and so on.

The grandfather clause is proving to be one of the more important tools that the F16 class has to grow the class and eventually sell more full compliant F16's = growing the class in the full compliant direction.

Besides what are we all afraid of ? The grandfather clause assured that no other design has an advantage over full compliant F16's so allow the grandfathered boats in is NEVER unfair to owners of full compliant boats !

If anything it grows participation at events that we enjoy ourselfs as well.

No please, lets the clause be as is and let me do my thing. Up till now it has always resulted in a growing class and attracting more builders to our full compliant setup. Something we all appreciate.

Wouter

The grandfather status or each design is also yearly reviewed and so as soon as an unfair advantage is discovered we can correct the situation by not renewing the grandfather status.

This has already happened once and what an effect it did have. Once a builder got annoyed and pretty much assured us that he would set up a rival class and "get us". In the end; he only "got himself" and the builder is now thinking to get back into the F16 class.

Guys, this grandfather clause is giving us as the Formula 16 class a leverage with parties that we would otherwise not have. All by the virtue of the customers really appreciating the fact that they can participate into the F16 setup.

I would seriously hate to loose this.

The grandfather clause is doing us alot more good then it ever can do harm. However I can not explain fully without losing its advantages.

Wouter

No Mary we are not saying that.

Wouter

I can't see it Wouter. If it is so great to be part of F16, why didn't Cirrus build an F16? No, instead they built a boat that's close enough to be ALLOWED to sail with F16s. If there were no 'grandfather' rule that allowed NEW boats to 'measure' in, Cirrus would have had to decide whether F16 was attractive enough for them to build to the box rule.
As it is, a purchaser of an Evolution can now hedge their bets by purchasing from a builder with a proven track record, sail 'Open F16' or OD if it takes off. If this option weren't available that purchaser might have gone and bought a Blade, or a Stealth, or something else completely.

I don't see how it does us any good at all to say "OK, you can play with us" and then turn round and say "Oh, you're too quick, you keep winning, we don't want to play with you anymore". If we've got a set of rules that are in the public domain, and someone wants to build or buy a boat to sail F16 then IT SHOULD MEASURE to the Class rules.

ONLY existing designs at the time of the adoption of the rules should be elegible for 'grandfather' status.

Just my 2 pence worth.........

PS. What's this in the corner of the Evolution pic? :

I'm not getting into details. So lets agree to differ in opinion. Suffices to say that in reality it doesn't seem the work the way you describe. The net effect is slightly different and that effect is beneficial to us.



And that is also not the way it is operated. Sorry.

It is a design based rule, not a crew based rule.





Please everyone, take time to read the F16 class rules and to fully understand them.

It will save us all (and me in particulary) alot of time by not going on wild goose chases

Hints :

Rule 5.1.1

The Formula 16 authority may give dispensations to boats that do not fully comply with the Formula 16 rules. These dispensations are limited in duration and are reviewed yearly. Boats that are dispensated do not become part of the Formula 16 class but of the Open Formula 16 class instead.

Rule 5.1.2

The Foundation boats Taipan 4.9 (with F16 spi) and Stealth (R) have the special status of "Formula 16 foundation boats"; meaning that, despite the fact that they are dispensated for their non compliance, they have become part of the (closed) Formula 16 class. Their status is permanent; althought it is lost when the boat in question is no longer compliant with their confirmed (class) setup as fixed on the date 1 januari 2002.



Therefor a Grandfathered designs CAN NEVER BECOME AN F16.

Some of us are also mistaken "grandfather" status with "Foundation boat" status. Grandfathering is nothing more then allowing certain other makes in our start fleet (when we get those) and enjoy a combined score list as was done at the UK Datchet event. Nobody can't argue that that Datchet event wasn't a succes !

Open F16 class is nothing more then a rule allowing the F16 to eb flexible with start fleet and sharing courses/scoring with boats of other makes. The F16 class is completely reserved for full compliant boats and the foundation boats.





Those are the foundation boats.

Grandfathering is something else. At least it is in our F16 rule set.





That is the mainsail of the SL16 youth boat, also alligible for grandfather status.

Wouter

Then 'grandfather' is the wrong word for this type of status.....

'Associate' would be both more accurate and apt.

Agreed. I'm uneasy about boats designed after the creation of F16 taking advantage of the grandfather clause, but I think the big concern for the class is that such Open F16 boats should not pass themselves off as true F16 designs. Unlike the other grandfathered boats, the makers of the Evolution appear to be making the F16 "conformance" a selling point.

If we are to build the class, we need people to buy true F16 designs, so buyers need to be clear what they're getting.

Paul

Why would anyone buy a brand new boat that appears to be slower than the current F16's to race in the F16 class?

No Wouter, this boat is destine to sail either OD or hanidcap.

It is a very nice looking boat though too bad they couldn't make it a true F16 or F18.

Dave

I'm sorry Wouter, I really can't let this go.



I'm particularly unhappy that just one individual - 'the local head' is able to 'grandfather' a whole class. Rule 6.1 as written is a bad rule. I believe that the intention of the rule as outlined by you is misguided. You can't build a class by just allowing all and sundry to join in. We're either the F16 class and everyone knows what that is, or we're the Open F16 class and noone has any idea what boat is in and what isn't without a ruling from 'the local head'.

I also don't see the introduction of a new boat from a recognised Formula boat builder that doesn't comply with the Formula 16 rules but is very close to them as something to be pleased about. You have to ask "why didn't they build a fully compliant F16, just as they have one of the recognised F18 designs in their stable?"

Do Cirrus not believe in the value of the F16 class? I suspect not. That is worrying. Rather than welcoming such a boat into racing with us we should be seeking to push the F16 compliant boats ONLY. Therefore I believe that we should only allow pre-existing boats at the time of the inception of the F16 rules to be 'grandfathered' as opposed to the 'foundation' boats which will always be part of the class.

In fact I would go as far as to say that the door on 'grandfathering' other classes should now be closed. Rule 6.1 should be scrapped. I still believe that it does nothing to further the (genuine) growth of the class.

This is the official F16 forum, so can we please have a sensible debate on this subject, Wouter?

I know very little of Cirrus, but I would speculate that the reason they didn't build a fully compliant F16 is the same reason that the FX-1 is overweight - re-use of components and techniques from the bigger-selling F18s.



The F16 class certainly isn't well established, but it seems that they're trying to have their cake and eat it using the "Open F16" rules. They certainly see some value in claiming conformance on their web page.



Yes - as I said before, the successful Datchet event didn't actually need or use the grandfather clause.

Paul

Do the manufacturers of the Cirrus even "claim” this cat to be an F16?? Or have they just manufactured a “different” cat for commercial reasons? If they have made this cat for purely commercial reasons without consciously intending it to fit within the F16 formula then all of this is just subjective debate by F16 interested parties.