But Wouter, you are asking the mast makers to add weigh to their mast because the rules say so.
And worse still, I'm asking the hull builders to add weight to the F16 hulls because the F16 rules say so as well !
But seriously, what you saying is actually the core principle of a formula class rule set. Some claim that 18 foot long hulls are way better for a singlehander, but the F16 rules demand the hull to be equal to or shorter then 5.00 mtr. Same with the minimal ready to sail weight, the Marstrom M18 has proven that an 18 foot long spinnaker singlehander with F16 specs for the remainder can be build at 80 kg ready to sail. Still the F16 class demands that the boats weight at least 104 kg in 1-up mode. All these limitations on what CAN be had technically were not the result of us not knowing any better a few years back. Under all rules there is a balancing between technical capabilities and economic c.q. perceptional considerations.
More often then not a formula rule framework asks the builders to build something to a lesser degree then can be had with cutting edge technology. This is the core intention of the rules and rule makers as this prevents an arms race and garantees economic feasibility. So I will argue that the fact that something CAN be build to more impressive specification is in itself not an sufficient reason to claim that a formula rule framework needs correcting. In most cases limiting this possibility was actually the intention of the rule in the first place.
A far more persuasive argument can be had whether the reasons for limiting this possibility are still present.
I feel personally that times maybe changing and a revision of the reasons that gave birth to this particular rule may be in order.
Wouter
