Michael, Seeker-

Both well thought out, constructive posts-

Let me just add a few comments for consideration:

Mast height- I agree if this is left "open" an "optimum" height will be arrived at through trial and error- But from my experience in the "A"'s and 18 sq's this is a somewhat pricey procedure requiring both mast and sail alterations which can be quite expensive and/or result in different "rigs" for different conditions. All current "A" rigs are pretty "standardized" at ~9m because that's what seems to be consistently fast on that boat currently so all the masts at the Worlds were quite close in height despite different mains, sailors and hulls. Apparently all the current F 16HP compliant boat builders (except the one-off US BIM 16) have settled on an 8.5m mast height so there must be SOME "magic" (at least perceived) to this height on these boats. Limiting to this height will simply "push" builders, sailmakers and mastbuilders to optimize within these confines and not even have to consider 8.6m, 8.7m, 8.8m, 8.9m or 9m masts (Who knows where the "max" is right now or will be?). Since current masts are this height it at least allows a starting point for further mast/sail experimentation w/o having to buy a new mast to begin with or worry about the effects of the additional 0.1-0.5m in length change along with the changes that are inherent in that. Yes, we are a "box rules" class, but like the F18 class we are trying to keep the class reasonably even in competitiveness as well as affordable. That is why we chose the "HP" (High Performance) over the "HT" (High Tech) in the class name.

Weight- Even the Taipan class has recently increased the minimum weight of the uni boats because it was felt that home built boats could not be built to the prior minimum and be competitive or long lasting (even though the production ones could) so they "uped" the min. to keep everybody "even".

The "A"'s used to have NO min. weight when I first got involved and persons were building flyweight custom boats that won big regattas and then self-destructed shortly thereafter. The class polled all the manufacturers (realizing that the "key" to success of the class was to be supported by the builders of the boats) as to what they considered the lightest weight was they could achieve building a durable cost-effective boat and the class "temporarily" established a class minimum. The class grew exponentially in popularity after that. The Taipan was already close to optimal because it was one of the original designs close to 16 feet long (it's short too by the way!) that was similar enough that we got the idea to try to develop a new Formula class based on 16 foot boats. The Stealth, BIM 16, and Taipan characteristics were all considered when establishing these parameters and all are "close" to optimal, but all were "suboptimal" in some sense but not necessarily the same sense (although all were over the minimum weight set).

As to the comment about increasing optimal weight with a taller rig- this may be true- but the "A"'s are able to stay competitive through a wide crew weight by using different mast/main combinations. I realize we aren't the same since we have 2' less waterline and this DOES make a difference but we are also 6" wider (if "optimal") and have spis.

There is also the possibility of having a "graduated" weight reduction in the class (ie the min. weight decreases by some set amount every ____ years) - This is something the "A"'s have considered to help promote "development" in the class but even in that class there are some strong advocates against it.