New Development Classes

> I would like to take this further

An interesting challenge...

I'd probably start by creating a vague sketch of the likely rule set area as a basis for discussion, but not as something to get set in stone. I'd also want to make serious friends amongst the Formula 18 Cat people to find out the ugly part of getting and keeping it working beyond the hapy shining public face.

I'd consider talking to the RYA technical committee, not sure if I know anyone there know although I used to. They could probably provide help with frameworks - things like the RCD standards and the proposed ISO standards for small boat construction.

Then given a framework and, if not a business plan per se at least an evaluation of the possibilities, I'd approach the suppliers. Getting the RYA technical committee on board early would be enormously helpful.
It would be an enormously political exercise, and probably take a couple of years at least.

Then of course you could also consider involving ISAF!

You've also got the problem of all the classes that would see this as a threat and campaign against it...

On offers of help, I'm no political manager, I don't mind helping draft a preliminary rule though.

Unless people are very smart with rules open development on the hull will lead to fast but extreme designs which will limit the appeal of the class.

Surely the way to go is to fix the hull shape and allow innovation in the other areas. Maybe to get some initial numbers selected SMOD hulls could be grandfathered into the class?    

Originally posted by JimC To have a one design hull would miss the point completely, and you'd have zero chance of getting multiple builders on board which would be the point of a formula class.

I think you are missing the point I have been trying to make. The hull design would be owned by the class - not a single manufacturer. Therefore several manufacturers could build class hulls. For people that wanted an off the shelf product the manufacturers could differentiate themselves by the innovations they brought out in other areas of the boat - rigs, foils, control lines etc. 

Originally posted by JimC The point about a formula class for a large manufacturer is that there'd need much less work in the marketing to build a new class, and, once the class is started, much less risk of an abject failure than trying to build a new class. Hopefully too the total market would be bigger - maybe our two suppliers each only sell half of the new boats in a class, but a popular class could have ten or twenty times the numbers of one that doesn't come off. Better to have 50% of 200 boats a year than 100% of 20... And I bet the marketing component of the price of a boat is pretty signifcant - I know at the height of the Sailboard boom it was 30% plus of the price of a board...

All of these benefits apply to the model I have proposed as well.

Originally posted by JimC The formula 18 is one of the most popular Cat classes in the UK, the concept must have some legs...

 

The F18s are very popular here in OZ as well. I agree it is a good concept as long as the rules are framed strongly enough to prevent extreme designs emerging which discourage the average sailor. I just believe my proposal makes it easier to control the class - with the downside that ultimately the hull design will date    

Originally posted by swiftsolo.org [The hull design would be owned by the class - not a single manufacturer. Therefore several manufacturers could build class hulls.

But there's about 99 classes like that already...

Sorry SS, I see where you are coming from, but I agree with JimC on this. There's only so much rig innovation that can be applied to a single hull as the mast and centreboard positions are fixed. There is less incentive for Topper and Laser (for example) to make identical hulls and leave it to the mast makers and sail makers to innovate.  You end up with the fireball, 47o etc.

Some restrictions I would like to see include banning fixed rudders, limiting the rig to a single set of spreaders (maybe diamonds as well), and limitations on the depth/aspect ratio of foils.  I also agree with earlier comments that excess tippyness should be avoided, perhaps by setting a minimum waterline beam or metacentric height (which is a function of beam squared and is indicitive of initial stability).