2007 Uk travellers trophy – catsailor.com forums c gastronomie brignais


Colin and I have discussed this issue at length over numerous beers and decided it wouldn’t be in the current F16 ethos if we prevented people changing from solo too two up during an event. However, it does seem reasonable to declare the changes well prior to the event as in this instance so crews aren’t just dumped gas after eating on the shore due to light conditions or vice versa you take a crew on because the wind has increased.

I think if declared well in advance (say +1 month) so there can be no real posibility of a weather forcast being used then I would be OK with this, but if people were to make these decisions a few days in advance, or so I would have a problem with this. Problem is that IF we were to allow this we would need to write the SSI’s in such a way as to ALLOW it. There is a change of crew going on, and this needs to be allowed by the PRO, SSI’s etc and they need to be documented, standard SSI’s do not allow a change of crew except in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps on the entry form there needs to be a On entries RECEIVED up to 1st April 2007, you may declare Who (and not just helm+crew or helm) will be sailing the boat on which days. This will ideal gas kinetic energy be BINDING.

As far as I can gather the reason why Discards were introduced in to the scoring mechanism of sailing was due to the prolific increase in the sports popularity in the 60’s and early 70’s. New designs which adopted sheet ply materials made it alot easier for home builders to build their own boats in their garages and in some cases front rooms. However, in certain Classes almost 1000 new boats were being produced each year during this period and the craftmanship and attention to detail did cause above average breakages. So as not to deter homebuilders and the subsequent growth of the sport Discards were introduced. Nowadays there are far less homebuilds and the materials used have developed some what but we have still been left with the Discard legacy. The ISAF could be seen to have noticed that too many discards in a series of races isn’t the best way to justify a competitors or teams efforts. I think the times are a changing in this respect and the format for next years Olympics are testimony to this. F16’s are a new breed of Cat which should electricity 80s song be marketing itself as a modern class adopting modern ideas (i.e Medal Race, windward leeward courses with gates and a high number of races per event)

I think removing discards is a bad idea. Sailing is an equipment sport, and equipment will break no matter how well done your maintenance program is. Just this last Tornado worlds Bundy/Ashby had a jib halyard snap, dropping their jib. Last Miami OCR the then T worlds champs had their mainsheet cascade blow up. Pre olympics in Athens, the british T team ripped their mainsail from leech to luff during a gybe (just some of the examples I could pick from the top of my head). These guys are not slackers when it comes to maintaining their gear. I am pretty sure most of us have had gear break at the most surprising times. I know I have had my share..

Regulating the format for international events is something the class will have to do eventually, to keep the competitions level and fair. Knowing what electricity 4th grade worksheet to expect is a good thing when you travel abroad for an event. I dont like the extra bureaucracy and limits it puts on organizers tough, so waiting as long as possible before it is done might be the thing to do.

The 800 mm will force different pole length to different boats within a Formula class. If your beam is relatively far forward as on the Stealth F16 then the SCHRS / TEXEL 800 mm rule will force you to sail with a 200 to 300 mm shorter pole then crews sailing for example a Blade F16. In effect the spinnaker will be much closer to the jib luff and the spinnaker slot will be about 20 % smaller. The spinnaker will breath less freely.

Pretty much I made a model of a typcial F16 boat and I used that model to run performance numbers on when optimizing the boat and the class rules. This boat had the mainbeam exactly halveway down the k gas station jobs hull which is where most designer try to place the mainbeam. Then used the calculation method as supplied by Geert in a earlier post and rounded off the number downwards to one decimal. The end result was 3.5 mtr (from 3.53 mtr). This was an excellent result as the cube-square law predicted full equality with the F18 (spi pole typical F18 = 3.80) when the F16 poles were about 3.44 mtr length. I split the difference so to say.

One additional quirck b games zombie of the 800 mm rule is that for example it allows 17 sq. mtr. spis on both a 18.99 ft long cat as well as a 16 ft long cat, but doesn’t allow these boats to use the same spi pole length. Then how on earth is the 16 ft boat ever to fit that area of spi to its platform ? especially when it typically also has a significantly shorter mast ? Afterall you have taken away a large portion of its foot length (distance pole tip to sidestay).