I would much prefer to not post at all, but as the Chairman I'm obliged to give explainations when needed. So in this point I will directly adress a few points raised in several posts. I'll do my very best to stay "on point" although I really must admit that that will be difficult for me.
So here goes :
How can you "grandfather" in a brand new class of boat?
Well, it can be in the way "grandfathering" is defined in the F16 class rules, this definition may well be different to what people feel when reading this word. As an official I can only go by the official definition of Grandfathering :
7.26 Grandfathering
The allowing of non Formula 16 compliant designs to race against fully compliant Formula 16 designs.
we could have called it "dipensating" and still use the same paragraph 5 and 6 rules to determine which boats can be grandfathered and which do not, but would that make much difference. It is just a word and these rules are indeed predominantly used for older classes.
As the Current Inter 17 EU is grandfathered, can I add a bigger mainsail so that I rate (on SCHRS / Texel) so that I am the same as an F16 and then join the Open F16 class ?
You can then APPLY for a grandfather status, which, if granted, would be yearly reviewed. You can NOT however participate in (closed) F16 events. So it will all come down how an event is declared. I can assure you however that you would be on a full compliant F16 boat within two years. Which is exactly the intend of the grandfather clause. Let people have a taste of the class and boats and let the superior quality and sailing behaviour of the F16's do their work.
I think that the F16 class needs to become a true Formula class and only allow boats that are F16's to play at F16 events. If you want your buddies (or nom buddies) to come and play, run a handicap event at the same time.
Only full compliant F16 boats and the 2 named foundation boats are allowed into F16 events. If an event is declared to be an Open F16 event then the grandfather boats may come and play as well. You are calling that a handicap event but it really isn;t as we will all be sailing first in wins. The difference between my "Open F16 class" and your "handicap event" is just sematics in my opinion.
I can understand at the beginning, you wanted as many as boats at opens, I suggest this is no longer the case ...
In some areas maybe, but not in all area's. We are still not "There" yet in every place around the world.
Allowing the Cirrus in is Bonkers IMO; it was built after the rule, you cannot allow it in.
It is't "allowed in"; nor can it ever be allowed into the F16 class. It can only proof its website claims in declared Open F16 events IF it officially applies for a grandfather status which indeed the builder or any crew hasn't done.
Personally I would love to see the Evolution measure up to the say the Blade F16 knowing that the Blade has a true wingmast rig with 30 kg less overall weight and the same mast length. I think we will see a similar thing happening as at the combined Stealth F16/Hobie FX-one event. That wouldn't be bad promo at all. But on to the next point.
Whilst it is clear from the rules that it is not a requirement that a "grandfathered" boat be designed before the creation of the F16 class, there seem to be a fair few voices on this forum stating that that's how it should be, and that letting in new designs under this rule would be a mistake. ... there are now sufficient true F16s that don't need to include new ones under the "grandfather" rules. Perhaps the time has come to consider a change to the wording of this rule?
In the UK you have about 35 Stealth F16's sailing, maybe the UK can be considered to have sufficient numbers, but there are definately area's where this is not the case. Altering the grandfather rules will strike a powerful tool out of the hands of less developped area's. Is this in the interest of the global F16 class ? I argue that it isn't. Please note, that we still need to find a way into the French catamaran market and I'm open to suggestions.
I couldn't agree more. It is just not fair to John P or Phill or one-off builders who have built true F16s to let Cirrus in with a longer boat with a bigger rig--heck, ....
Spoke to Phill about this and he really isn't bothered at all by this. I think I can say that he even agrees with the beneficial use of the grandfather clause. I have good reason to believe that John P. isn't hung up about it as well. All three withnessed some very compelling reasons to maintain the grandfather clause and use it skilfully to grow the F16 class. And I really means growing the class !
Personally I would like to underline the points Seeker has made, and Seeker has been with us since 2002.
The F-16 did not result by accident, it is a result of careful research, planning and years of work by its founders. ... Where many want to adhere to old methods of class formation, that have lead to past failures, the authors of the F-16 concept have chosen to cheery pick the best features of the past, combined with an eye for the future.
One of the most important realizations is that building and growing a class is possibly much more about how you play the political and marketing game behind it then about garanting that a design stays the same over many years. There are many important factors behind a catamaran class that many people just don't realize. I'm fully convinced that inclusiveness and some flexibility are extremely important is achieving and maintaining a healthy class. I have enough first hand experience at it and time and time again I've seen "close the thing off" mentallity have a noticeably negative impact on the health of a class.
Best example I ever seen was in the Tornado class. I think some 73 % of the Tornado class members voted down ANY modificiation to the classic tornado at the 2001 ballot. Any modification would ruin the class it was argued and scores of sailors vowed to stay true to the classic seup. It took [color:"red"] LESS THEN 18 MONTHS [/color] for 85 % of the Tornado class to convert to a much more radical new Tornado setup then was on the ballot and this new setup went through a total rival. The vows of those 73 % didn't mean %#$@ when push came to shove. And the new modified setup is doing significantly better than the say the classic 1999 and 2000 Tornado class.
We are not talking about any chances to the F16 compliant setups here; just that allowing some flexiblity in who we race in more general events is helping us. And I can assure you that it really does. Openess and flexibility is good. It allows creativity into the class it allows experiments that make us better, keep us at the front of the fleet were we should be. And it keeps us all on our toes, thus being a dependable guard against complacency. Closing off class rules fully is not a receipy for succes.
The writers of the rules (not just me) did put a considerable amount of thought in these class rules and we didn't include any rule lightly. In specific the grandfather clause still has some very attractive uses with attractive being defined as growing the class, making us healthier and stronger. I really don't see how anybody can not agree with that.
Wouter has faith that the concept of an affordable, light weight, easy to manage (on and off the water) catamaran, with superior performance, can, and will, stand on its own merits.
You are darn right about that. I can assure all of us here that it will not be an easy trick at all to surpass the full compliant F16 designs by abusing the grandfather clause.
I can also tell you that our most experienced class member Phill Brander sees it in the same way. And there is a very ellegant trap included in the grandfather clause. Any non-compliant design that does look to sneak up on the F16's can really only do so by converging onto the full-compliant F16 setup. Meaning that a customer will ask, "why not full-compliant" or "what advantages are there to convince me that I should buy a non-compliant boat when the differences are so small ?"
You have an individual at the helm that has pretty much built the last few years of his life around the idea and implementation of a F-16 catamaran class concept, you might want to put a little faith in him
And I'm saying; leave this rule alone it is certainly still of much use to the F16 and will remain so for a while.
All that we're looking for is the ability to have an open, reasoned discussion about an F16 class rule in the official F16 forum. Why is that a problem?
Not a problem, but I only ask that everybody researches the matter more thoroughly before lining-up behind revoking this grandfather clause. An additional problem is of course that we had our class rule review and we also agreed to maintain the current rule set as it is for quite a sizeable future. This pretty much means that this discussion can not really result in any changes in the short term anyway. Another complication is that not everything can be discussed in the public sphere. Have some confidence in the skills and judgement of the class officials.
I'm staking my reputation on maintaining the grandfather rule and considering my past work for the F16 class and the fact that is was build up from scratch to what it is now, does say something.
Regarding copying features of the past: those who have expressed an opinion would like a change in the rule to make it closer to the F18 ruleset. Last time I checked, that class was doing pretty well, so yes, I want to do it the same old way and succeed.
I'm most strongly against making our class rules closer to those of the F18 class. This will be bad ju-ju for us in more than a few ways. Currently the most active members of our class are in the F16 setup because they have gotten really pissed by the F18 class tendency to make rules for every little detail. Others really don't feel that good about designing/building/promoting a pretty unimpressive design/class (their words). Other statements include :"F18 could have been so much better still". When they talk about F16's their eyes start to sparkle again. These are the guys giving us class growth, given us new design like the Blade, who are actually building or marketing the F16 designs, etc.
I would hate to loose these persons. In addition if the F16 rules resemble in on the F18 ruleset much closer then I will leave this (new) F16 class myself and continious in its old (and current) direction.
It will be fun to watch how such a new F16 class will fare. In such a case I will assign alot of predictive value to the earlier Tornado class example.
We must all remember that while we are not unlike the F18 class we were founded and build on a different mindset.
Examples :
We say lightweight boats are both very affordable and dependable in harsh conditions. Classes like the F18 differ in opinion.
We say slowed down development is good for maintaining a healthy class. F18 used to say that but has now more and more "retreated behind the walls". Think clearly guys, Taipan had a wingmast rig a decade BEFORE the F18 is discovering the advantages of such a profile. Slow development means that sailmakers and builder can continue to earn money while it creates a secondhand market for sailing looking to buy into the concept on the cheap. See Blade F16/ Taipan 4.9 situation in Florida.
We say carbon usage can both be very benefical and inexpensive. F18 believes carbon is the devils invention. Look at teh Stealth F16 design. Most carbon use of nearly any boat outthere except the A-cats and M20 while being one of the most affortable cats around. It is even cheaper than a race ready Hobie 16 for crying out loud !
We say inclusiveness is good it opens peoples minds and makes them concentrate more on improving sailing skills and enjoying sailing in what ever form it comes (Class fleets or handcap fleets). This has lead to a small line of people that have sold their old boat in favour of a full compliant F16. Among these are owners of F18's, I-17's, FX-one's and even A boyer mark 5 A-cat. Gary maskiel coming of the Mosquito F16 and now sailing Altered with good results is an excellent example of this. It has even lead to some events that otherwise would not have been organised. : Combined A-cat/F16 regatta at Tampa (twice now), Both NSW and Victorian F16 championship (both small but it was a start), Datchet FX-one/F16 even.
F18 rules specify that a daggerboard needs to be at least 3 kg heavy, because somebody thought that a lighter board would be unfair somehow. A complete daggerboard/ruddersetup on an F18 weights 20 kg's ! My F16 setup only weights 8.5 kg's and is holding up beautifully considering the abuse I give it while sailing. Now I much rather carry 8.5 kg from the sail shed to my boat then 20 kg's. Anybody else ? Such F18 rules are simply non-sense from a performance point of view, it is just because somebody with insufficient scientific knowlegde got scared and wouldn't put faith in more knowlegdeable people. Or even put faith in the concept that a class will most certainly survived small differences between boats if the speed of change is gradual or when the class is strong on participation and attractiveness.
Lets face it guys; sailor skill is 95 % of your end result, having the best platform for the conditions is never more than 5 % of the end result, and that is when making a generous estimate. Many will stare themselfs blind on those 5 % and totally forget about the much more important 95 %.
Penny wise - pound foolish.
Wouter
Wouter
