At a certain point the ever expanding gantry will effectively become an effective lengthening of the waterline (bouyancy) and no longer only acts as a hing point for the rudders (because it is also providing additional bouyancy).

The class can easily combat this wild growth however by requiring that the gantry has large openings that allow water in. This won't affect the hinge point of the rudders but make its bouyancy contribution negligiable.

There is another thing about open class rules. Not everything can be allowed or disallowed in detail as you never know in advance what creative minds can think up in the future.

However the intent of the rule is very clear, the pintles are excluded from the hull measurement when their only function id to provide a hinge point for the rudder boards, this does NOT enclose providing additional bouyancy or lengthing of the waterline. If it does so then it will be included in the hull length measurement. Note that the position of the hinge point is NOT regulated and therefor maybe anyway where you want it to be and therefor allow REAL gantries (and not hull extentions renamed as such). You could even put the rudder boards directly under the bow of the hull if you think that will give better hydrodynamic behavior. That is with a axle going through the deck and front portion of the hull and steer just like a car.

Additionally the other rule, about spirit of the rule set is very clear also, increasing the distance between the boards is NOT a (significant) performance enhancing feature. It may be a refinement of how the boat feels c.q. handles but that is explicitely allowed by rules 2.6.2 a, 2.6.2 b and 2.6.2 c !

Of course I too refer to the TC on this topic, as that is the official route, but I do really believe a very strong argument for the use of true gantries can be had. If the TC for some reason disallows it then I'm really interested in how they square that with the F16 class rules !

Wouter