F18 Rules Fact Sheet: Two Cloths
This is quite simple too:
April 2010 Published Rules www.f18-international.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=5:2010_f18_class_rules&Itemid=50
—–
G.3.4 CONSTRUCTION
(a) The construction shall be soft sail, single-ply sail.
(b) The body of the sail shall consist of the same woven and/or laminated ply
throughout with the exception of the window which may be different.
—-
Almost nothing to argue here, a clear rule stating that the body of sail must be made of only one type of cloth, for ie “Apen 06” pentex
After the 2011 Worlds mess on PSA, and after a list of SI sails were rightly banned, a second complaint started to circulate in the WC: That SI Main sails were illegal for using two cloths on rule G.3.4.b
Take account that I was the one reporting and confirming that the 2010 world champ sail currently in Argentina had two cloths too.
– The big question mark here again was: Why if some on the class knew that these sails were illegal since Erquy (remember I’ve been told that SI was warned even before 2010 Worlds) only acted one year later letting the sailors buying illegal stuff for that period, including two Arg sailors that bought two sets on the spot after the 2010 champs were crowned.
So a vote was proposed on the WC to ban or grandfathering Two Cloth mainsails and these facts were evident, plus the sails were certified by measurers for a whole year and the builder stamped the two cloths specs on each sail not hiding the fact that it was made of two cloths.
The sails were illegal but it wasn´t that simple as described above.
Some additional details pointed by the chief measurer like the wording on G.3.4.b (above) where it says “….same woven and/or laminated ply”
AND/OR being not applicable as if the sail should be made of only one cloth you can´t have that wording!
But this is a minor detail , plus new waste of time now on the meaning on the word “ply” (will attack that later)
So when I first knew about this two cloth issue I said and wrote to the management: “This guy Udin is playing with us , he needs the axe over his head immediately.”
But when I start investigating a little further and above facts were known, it was clear it was not all that black/white on the two cloths, and weighting that the class didn´t reacted on time to prevent sailors buying illegal stuff , plus full speculation from others on when to protest or report, plus the sails being stamped and certified measurement I decided that in this case a grandfathering of existing sails was needed.
So again like the Shockwave affair, my main goal was to protect the sailors, the class didn´t look for them, as some knew these sails were illegal and not acted in a timely manner. And who was paying for the class and builder errors?
Just the amateur riders, as the Pros will always get a new set of sails like Backes-Jarlegan use to win the F18 Europeans.
The class targeted one builder, not looking and not caring of the amateurs and acted in a different way compared to the Shockwave grandfathering. Another example of (in my view) biased and unfair actions.
Again: Two cloths mains? who cares now! Only the unprotected sailors that bought in good faith.
And what is the best part on this? A new “clarification/patch” is coming for the jib and spi.
More patches, more loopholes, more mess, more spam reactions.
This is not the way to manage the leading Racing Catamaran Class World Wide.
Martin,
You're very upset because you do no leading the class. Everyone understand that.
But, you should accept (as I do, accepting things doesn't mean be agree with):
-no protest in Erquy
-jury decision in Balaton
-that the last WC (10 nations, 74% of members and 70% of the vote power) clarifiy and confirm what they vote in 2007 . No new rule.
You would have prefer that WC, say "OK, we change our mind, go for it".
And then you can believe that a carbon hull boat will arrive and then, as usual the WC will say;
"it's ok allow carbon in hull"
and so on…
Please consider this aspect which is really the mess
-Considering facts and bonna fide of sailmakers and sailor, Olivier Bovyn, IF18CA creator and chairman, choose the way of exemptions in september.
I share with you the point that exemptions for SI sails should be in the same way that for Shockwave Corecell case. In France we have 10-15 illegal mainsail. The sailors mail and phone to me.
And introduce in our rules: builder or sailmaker compliance certificate with money back insurance in order to protect customer.
To propose solutions is perhaps a wise way to manage the leading racing catamaran class worldwide.
Try to burn the house another way.
I prefer the first one.
jajaaa you are not still getting the point don´t you? who cares about two cloths and illegals spis?
It is about the way this class is being managed that directly hurt the sailors, 1 or 200.
One question, did you owned a Shockwave? And which was your position on the gral Ban of them?
Martin
In other sports, when teams have cheated, their titles were stripped from them- recommend the same here!!
Thanks for putting up a well structured outline of these issues, Martin. Since my last comment I have spent some hours searching for other sources of info on what is going on. No disrespect to you, but I like to make sure I check out a few different points of view before drawing my own conclusions.
I could not find much of anything current directly from the Class Association (or anywhere else), which in itself is a bit disconcerting.
I completely agree that the main issue is not the specifics of the recent incidents, but rather the reactive, poorly structured, and targeted nature of them. Not to mention a clear lack of common sense by the people calling these shots.
Nothing kills a the joy of a sport quicker than bullshit politics and right now I am extremely glad I have no time or money caught up in a class that is showing such instability. It will now most likely be some years of good management before my faith in the F-18s returns to what it was before I heard about all this.
Cheers
Silas
I propose you to share an idea about how to manage the class. I'll be glad if we can exchange upon that (here: certificate of compliance with money back)
There is not one but two questions, (a bit personnal indeed), you do not answer my questions, anyway I can try to help:
-I baught a ShockWave in 2009. I' m a big fan of loday's design. I sell it (january 2010…) because we baught two HC16 for the kids. You may suppose I was aware of Correcel using my Xray vision (it was on the scene in Erquy july 2010,if I remember well). But believe me or not I don't. A friend of mine is sailing on this boat (one upon 280 F18 french members).
-The WC meeting of december 2010 choose not to ban. I accept WC decisions . Martin, you should do the same even if you don't agree all decisions. It would be better for the work in the class, and profitable for all sailors.
I do share the point that we have to inform sailors, fed up as you are with hidden issues.
But please not only one side propaganda. The two sides of an issue has to be shown. (that's explain my comments)
May be, may be, you (as I) are sometimes wrong, that's why collegial work is better in long term.
WC is a collegial work. It's better than Martin voice against the world
My question is in response to your personal accusations made here and the WC. 1 for 1.
So, you bought a Shockwave, sailed it for a year or less, ir doesn´t matter…
Then you sold it to a friend/sailor and when the WC knew and issued the corecell affair you were in favor for a Total Ban of the Shockwaves.
The same boat you sold to buy two H16 for the kids, hurting the investment your friend or any other sailor did buying you that boat.
Glad you are not my country class representative, but too bad you are the spokesman of the current representatives holding the power on the IF18CA
You understand if you would have NOT sell the boat, my pursue for fairness towards the sailors investing money would have protect yours, right?
Thanks for the clarification.
We clearly are on the opposite sides on how to manage things around and ethical behaviours.
Good luck Franck and best regards.
Martin
Martin,
I'm so sorry you can't stop yourself to becomint to a personal affair of that.
Do you think it is the right way to be a representative or managing the class ?
That only show that you cannot stand ideas and position debate without being upsetting if you'r not ruling.
I would prefer 1000% have constructive and open talking upon true proposals in the interest of the F18 class.
So ok, to have fun 1 minute (serious but nothing personnal at the end):
One more time before making an accusation check and complete your intel (remember nice picture you received of "R" and Cap, you want to share them ?, and also the ridiculous accusation you write).
In december 2010 during the WC: the ShockWave was on a "pro" store on a parking.
I do insist that the boat was sold to a sailor in spring 2011.
You want the name of the guy to check ?
As french representative we know that to obtain that builders change the process we need to have an aggressive move. Our WC friends, of course and with no surprise, do not share this extreme view point and everybody was happy with the final vote.
Ask 2 to get 1, and to have a good decisions. I'm proud of that, be on the other side as you like.
We've made that in F18 interest, applying as strongly as we can the rules, with respect to sailors investment.
Said that, as you mentioned "ethical behaviors" for me a national representative shouldn't be in the F18 business. Not for a penny (in particular, ads can hurt).
And guess what ? May be I'm not the only one to think that.
Regards.
Franck
Martín, I'm curious to hear what you find on the issue of "ply." Strictly speaking, "ply" in English refers in general to a layer of cloth or fabric. Not the composition of the layer, just the sheet itself. It's the standard English definition (not up for debate!), and ISAF's very clear definition of "ply" in the current Equipment Rules of sailing (download here, G.1.4(b), top of page 29) closely adheres to this standard meaning. So… does "ply," in the context of sailing equipment, somehow mean something different and refer to the composition of that sheet, i.e., the type of cloth itself? Because if that's the case then that is not at all clear in the Equipment Rules.
I'm beginning to fear the whole 2-cloth issue may have been a non-problem to begin with. I am not an expert (and so may be missing something obvious here), but unless there's a special meaning of "ply"–one that's understood by sailmakers but absent from ISAF's current equipment rules–having 2 types of cloth in a sail is not illegal, provided they are arranged as adjacent panels joined at a seam (as opposed to layered one on top of the other, which would be 2-ply).
I'm worried.
Thank you for all the good work. The class is lucky to have someone who looks after the class's broader interests.
Hi Bill
Exactly you are well directed. The new hot issue will be
a nonsense (in my view) discussion on the meaning of the word "ply" and what "single-ply" means, wording found on current rules.
I came to the same conclusion without even reading the ERS.
The English meaning for PLY is LAYER.
ERS G.1.4.b and G.1.4.f
(b) PLY
A sheet of sail material
(f) SINGLE-PLY SAIL
A sail, except at seams, where all parts of the body of the sail consist of
only one ply.
The other interpretaion is that "Single-Ply" means a sail made of only one type of cloth (ie Apen 06)
I will make full report later, as more clarifications are coming, (for a change) but check ISAF ERS
https://www.sailing.org/downloads/committees/ERS_2009-2012_Complete.pdf
And IYRU 1993 1.5.1
1.5.1 Ply
A layer or layers of sail material (the word ply is both singular and plural)
https://www.radiosailing.org/document-files/classes/a/IYRU%20Sail%20Measurement%20Rules%201993.pdf
More later.
Martin
This may be another issue of precision, much like the problem with "and/or" that you pointed out (I did not notice that before). The language about the window suggests that at single type of cloth was in fact intended throughout the rest of the sail body. (Otherwise why would you want to make an exception…?) But I think someone wrote "ply" when they really meant "sail material." If in fact that was the intent he rule should have read:
"The body of the sail shall consist of the same woven or laminated sail material throughout with the exception of the window…"
That actually makes sense. Someone really needs to proofread the rules before they get published. How much more of this Mickey Mouse nonsense is there?
How much? well how about that with current rules (before Nov 26 Minutes decisions) you could have inward canted boards like the new Nacra F16.
The current Infusion F18 has outwards at 4°.
I demonstrated with diagrams that you could have inwards too and possibly curved boards.
I was part of the Foils Working Party, and I made a fully born attack challenging current rules on foils (pre minutes Nov 26 decisions), I also asked to that material to be distributed.
You will check in the minutes how much technical (and 0 political) the new wording on foils is.
I also asked for a full Challenging Procedure before any new rule to be published.
No answer whatsoever on this proposal yet.
A full attack as I did with sails rules (after Balaton and in private to the management, basically all what your are reading now)
But I will get this class to have better procedures in the future, and also a new voting system to represent the Class interests World Wide.
Martin
hello Franck
I bet that the guy you sell the shockwave to would be much pleased that after you sell to him you are in the WC asking to ban it!!!
you are a really great guy to have for the france members. great job!!
Hi Bill,
You're right the rules can always be improved detail after detail.
May I suggest you to write your analysis to your national (US ?) representative.
And may be you'll have a convincing response, almost two british people are in the WC. Remember also that the class rules (originally written by french) have been transfered in the ISAF format a few years ago.
So despite potentiel default and other "Mickey Mouse nonsense", no need to throw the baby with the water of his bath.
Martin start his post right when he write: "a clear rule stating that the body of sail must be made of only one type of cloth".
May be it's enough to have the idea.
Best regards Franck
Concerned (but still anonymous 😉 F18 sailor said…
"hello Franck
I bet that the guy you sell the shockwave to would be much pleased that after you sell to him you are in the WC asking to ban it!!!
you are a really great guy to have for the france members. great job!!"
You've missed my answer because you stay back in the dark.
Not a problem I repeat :
Martin,
I'm so sorry you can't stop yourself to becoming to a personal affair of that.
Do you think it is the right way to be a representative or managing the class ?
That only show that you cannot stand ideas and position debate without being upsetting if you'r not ruling.
I would prefer 1000% have constructive and open talking upon true proposals in the interest of the F18 class.
So ok, to have fun 1 minute (serious but nothing personnal at the end):
One more time before making an accusation check and complete your intel (remember nice picture you received of "R" and Cap, you want to share them ?, and also the ridiculous accusation you write).
In december 2010 during the WC: the ShockWave was on a "pro" store on a parking.
I do insist that the boat was sold to a sailor in spring 2011.
You want the name of the guy to check ?
As french representative we know that to obtain that builders change the process we need to have an aggressive move. Our WC friends, of course and with no surprise, do not share this extreme view point and everybody was happy with the final vote.
Ask 2 to get 1, and to have a good decisions. I'm proud of that, be on the other side as you like.
We've made that in F18 interest, applying as strongly as we can the rules, with respect to sailors investment.
Said that, as you mentioned "ethical behaviors" for me a national representative shouldn't be in the F18 business. Not for a penny (in particular, ads can hurt).
And guess what ? May be I'm not the only one to think that.
Regards.
Franck
Martin said:
"But I will get this class to have better procedures in the future, and also a new voting system to represent the Class interests World Wide."
Be positive, go for it !
May I suggest you to do not forget to include that a national representative shouldn't be in the F18 business.
ok, we make a straight question now: Franck, did you support to ban the shockwave for the corecell?
YES or NO ?
Concerned F18 sailor said…
"ok, we make a straight question now: Franck, did you support to ban the shockwave for the corecell?
YES or NO ?"
You've missed my answer because you keep stay back in the dark, you can be "straight" but try to be courageous (just a little bit).
Not a problem indeed I repeat (bis repetita placent) :
Martin,
I'm so sorry you can't stop yourself to becoming to a personal affair of that.
Do you think it is the right way to be a representative or managing the class ?
That only show that you cannot stand ideas and position debate without being upsetting if you'r not ruling.
I would prefer 1000% have constructive and open talking upon true proposals in the interest of the F18 class.
So ok, to have fun 1 minute (serious but nothing personnal at the end):
One more time before making an accusation check and complete your intel (remember nice picture you received of "R" and Cap, you want to share them ?, and also the ridiculous accusation you write).
In december 2010 during the WC: the ShockWave was on a "pro" store on a parking.
I do insist that the boat was sold to a sailor in spring 2011.
You want the name of the guy to check ?
As french representative we know that to obtain that builders change the process we need to have an aggressive move. Our WC friends, of course and with no surprise, do not share this extreme view point and everybody was happy with the final vote.
Ask 2 to get 1, and to have a good decisions. I'm proud of that, be on the other side as you like.
We've made that in F18 interest, applying as strongly as we can the rules, with respect to sailors investment.
Said that, as you mentioned "ethical behaviors" for me a national representative shouldn't be in the F18 business. Not for a penny (in particular, ads can hurt).
And guess what ? May be I'm not the only one to think that.
Regards.
Franck
hello Franck,
I am sorry to ask same question again. but it cannot be so hard to type YES or NO to my easy question.
So we make question again: did you support to ban the shockwave for the corecell?
It cannot be so hard to type your name. It is also an easy question, no ?
Yes, I agree, for this moment it would be a shame for you 😉
Don't be shy !
If you can't, you can read my answer, it's crystal clear.
concerned F18 sailor: why don't you stay out of the discussion if you have nothing to say?
I have to agree with Concerned F18 sailor here, they have asked a direct question and yet Franck is dodging the answer like a politician!!
I will now ask it, and I am not hiding my name or using a non verified name either (who is uli?)
Franck, Did you vote to ban the shockwave at the 2010 WC meeting?
We can try the YES or NO thing again.
Oh it's you Andrew the concerned sailor
Can't believe it !
That make sense, you know the guy who pointed the corecell issue in 2010, don't you ?
(no need a yes/no answer)
Actually the vote of the WC was to ban Corecell boats but as you know in the same move to made exemption for already measured boats.
The right balance, not made by a single man but by the WC decision.
Decisions are public, debate are private.
For God's sake guys… Come on.
Franck,
I am not the same as mr Concerned. I am happy to put my name to comments.
Yes I raised the issue of Corecell to the TC, I did not try to hide from it and I advised the TC that the actions they took on the matter would set a standard for the future so I asked that they act in a fair manner that can be consistent for future issues.
I would like you to simply answer the question now, did you vote to not allow shockwaves to be class legal?
I know the answer already, but it is important for the reading public to see you confirm that you voted to ban the shockwaves from the class after you had sold your own shockwave.
No more fluffy answers, just a simple one. YES or NO.
Andrew,
When people have no argumentation they try, as you do, to make personnal attack or insinue bad things. It's not great, but usual. I do not blame you.
Timeline: when you point out the corecell issue in july 2010, the Shockwave that interest you, was not mine no more since half a year. It stayed on a pro store parking until it has been sold to a sailor in spring 2011.
This F18 (by exemption) race now.
So what ?
As a former owner of ShockWave I cannot vote in the WC ?
I Cannot participate to this debate ? Are you serious ?
Actually the vote of the WC december 2010, accordint to our rules, was to ban Corecell boats but as you know in the same move to made exemption for already measured boats. I do assume the two points.
The right balance, not made by a single man but by the WC collegial decision.
Decisions are public, debate are private.
And you know what ? May be I do not vote… you may don't know there is two french representative, and of course only one vote…
That's why I won't satisfy your yes/no curiosity.
hello Franck,
I have understanding from world Council members that you were in favour to ban the shockwave from competing in F18.
this is a disgusting thing to do. The technical report from mr Goodall was very good and says there is no advantages in using corecell but you still want to ban this and destroy the investment in class of those owners.
I bet you would not push this views if you still owned a shockwave!
be a man and admit it, no more hiding behind the 2 representative of france. You voted to ban the boat that you just sold.
Franck,
Your "Answer" is clear by its omission…. Thankyou for confirming.
All the best.
Ok with this.
Franck
I've checking the comments and no direct offense was issued, no more than our mutual complains.
Please have a final word if any so I can close this thread on personal issues and block further comments on this same subject.
Best regards,
Martin
Martin,
My last comment, it was an interesting experience, thank you.
I do agree we have to leave personnal matter on the side and respect each other, please pardon me if I don't.
So to resume main points in my opinion (engaging myself only):
-F18 World Coucil is not the place for people having money business in F18. Because WC representative are elected mostly by paying sailor. The merchant cannot rule the class. That's why the Technical Committee exists. Most of the time TC advices are wellcome, heard and introduced in the WC decision.
No opposition, working together.
-One french members (or ita, or ned, or ger, and so on), is as important as one members from another country.
Not more but not less. No way to move there.
– I share with you that the IF18CA has to move and fix issues till 2010 events (long list: spis, illegal 2 cloth mainsail, limit length daggerboard, illegal corecell, illegal paint). Moving doesn't mean breaking all. In the same time sailors should have fun on the water. For me it's ok at 95%. Ok improvement could be done.
We cannot lost our time in wording, just straight to what we want.
Clarification was important, after that if anybody want to make an amendment (paint seems to be important, so have a democratic tour), go for it..
-SI customers should have the same treatment than Shockwave customers to preserve their investment.
-Last WC 10 nations representative present or voting on the agenda. representing 74% of the worldwide members and 70% of the vote. Almost decisions made unanimously after long talk. One regret that far away representative do not share direct and live their opinion. You did it by the mail way.
It's hard to hear that decisions were not according our rules.
I do not think that affirmation is correct.
WC, Sec gen did an outstanding work.
-Next big move: certificate of compliance with money back insurance in order to protect the customers.
Just moving for our class.
Très cordialement.
Franck Tiffon
trésorier association française F18
first F18 in 1994.
sailing a Capricorn.
Ok Franck
Perfect and thanks for your contributions.
Sorry Martin but…. (he's embarrassing himself)
Concerned F18 sailor said…
"hello Franck,
I have understanding from world Council members that you were in favour to ban the shockwave from competing in F18.
this is a disgusting thing to do. The technical report from mr Goodall was very good and says there is no advantages in using corecell but you still want to ban this and destroy the investment in class of those owners.
I bet you would not push this views if you still owned a shockwave!
be a man and admit it, no more hiding behind the 2 representative of france. You voted to ban the boat that you just sold."
I do not care position of anonymous, be a man and type your name, you're ridiculous for info the facts (minutes extract from the 2010 WC), which I do support at 100%.
10.Material used in F18 hull construction
The Council recall D.3.1 rule : The core cell material is not a class legal
material.
A recorded letter requesting the details of boats already produced has been
addressed to Loday/White on 7th of November with "No answer from the Company".
A second and last letter will be issued shortly requesting the details of boat
produced and sold prior to 1 of August 2010 (list including owners name and hull
number).
The boats produced and measured prior to 1st of August 2010 and listed on a
class document will be allowed to continue to compete in F18.
All other boats using Core cell will not be class legal.
The Council agreed to ask to TC committee to investigate possible new material
in close conjunction with manufacturer and technical third party with the aim of
getting longer lasting boats keeping cost at minimum.
Martin:
One thing I do not understand.
I understand correctly you are blaming the class for not warning the buyers of illegal SI mainsails.
But if the class warned SI about this and they kept selling illegal sails (which they did!) shouldnt SI be the one to blame instead of the class?
And who warn the sailors????
This is the problem with people that cannot put aside biased positions.You just don´t care a thing on those sailors that bought illegal stuff, you only want to punish the builder.
The builder was punished on PSA and a list of sails were banned for good.
The builder's image was duly damaged on this PSA issue, further more he was accused on using Carbon by a member of the TC, still no proof of that.
With last decisions all his past mainsails are banned.
So whichever responsability assigned to the builder (SI) , and posterior punish, bans, jail or whatever you want from him, one thing remains:
Some on the Class knew that illegal sails were been bought by amateur sailors and did not acted accordingly , they could have punish the builder before and also stop sailor from buying illegal stuff.
As you see two different issues.
1) You punish the builder with duly and right actions on PSA.
2) Who care for the sailors? If the builder goes bankrupt or whatever, but in the process some on the class could have prevent these sailor to buy illegal stuff.
This is going on right now again as you may know, and I already warned this on the WC and ask for an official press release or clear information for the sailors to be on duly informed.
And not repeat the process once again in LA 2012.
The sails were all measured by the class approved measurers. So maybe the class must pay?
To be more clear and in my view:
"Let this builder sell illegal stuff for a year, we already warned him, next worlds in the middle of the event we will get him to cause maximum damage"
Where in this scenario you think the actual amateur sailors are included?
As a Class we have our higher responsibility toward the sailors.
You 'kill' the builder and you also take care of the sailors as the class did with the Shockwave.
Not so easy to understand if you care for the amateurs. Now if you have an agenda towards the builder I can understand your position.
The Class on errors has a good tool already used. Is called grandfathering.
You prohibit new sails but let the old ones legal.
(This analyzing every case, I'm talking here only on Two Cloths not PSA)
Martin
Read the posts.
Two cloths are irrelevant right now, nobody cares, not even the builder.
The only ones left wondering are the owners of the banned sails.
martin, prohibiting the new and using the old ones sounds really salomonic 🙂
s.th. else: In this thread you very often use the shockwave issue. Where can we read the full story about that scandal? Haven't you written a post around that ban process? Labeled posts do not cover that.
Many thanks!
Not Salomonical , just Common Sense and fair decisions.
No, you wont find any news or post related to the Shockwave issue or any other matter of the IF18CA beyond current ones and the 2011 Worlds public events post.
But I was never ever before been accused of hiding info, or ads or whatever other accusation you might think off, in fact I was congratulated several times for the work on this blog promoting the class by the management, NA Reps and even from those accusing me now…. go figure.
Rest my case? What do you think?
Check 2010 Minutes on IF18CA for Shocwave info.