Fascinating reading the differences of opinions between groups of people. On one hand we have the professional racers saying that stiffer is better regardless of cost. I guess thats the win at all costs attitude which has made them top racers.

On the other hand we have the guys from engineering backgrounds going OK stiffer maybe better but it is at a cost, usually reliability and lifespan of the structure, that argument looks as though it is supported by the Orma 60's "The reason they had to allow the boats to flex was simply that they could not make the entire structure stiff and strong enough without developing a hard spot in which the failures occurred"

So which is it to be then carry on stiffening the boats until things start to break or allow a bit of flex and get longevity of the structure. Coming from an endurance racing background reliability was more important as soon as my bike was damaged I was out of the race. Damage a part of a boats structure and it can mean weeks and months out of action. And that failure maybe not in say the first year or two of the boats lifespan but further down the road.

I'm still not convinced yet that we have reached the balance of stiffness ( ie more stiffness maybe better ) to reliability that is acceptable to most people, but one only has to look at the problems some of the F18's are getting such as bridle mountings delaminating and I guess the weight ( mass )/ strength / stiffness / reliability question is not far away. Its not to say with a slightly revised engineering solution that those problems wouldn't dissappear at the cost of a bit more weight or investment ( stress analysis ).