Bill-

You hit the nail on the head - the dies wear out! This is not a new problem - it is inherent in the manufacturing process.

As a result mast flex repeatablity is not up to the standards required by world class one design sailors. For weekend warriors (including me) it is fine, but I don't believe that is the issue. If the T wants to stay at the pinnacle of the sport, then there is a compelling argument for eliminating this cr_p-shoot.

How would you like spend 8 years training full time to get to the Olympics with a reasonable medal shot (that is what it takes and more natural talent than 99% of us), then you break your #1 rig on the first day of the Olympic Regatta? You would have to sail the biggest regatta of your life with a completely different mast: different numbers; different tuning; different sailing style. At this level that is a huge adjustment. And that is not to mention the cost of the extra training required to have the back-ups dialed in just in case.

And thank you Tornado for pointing out that once you get it just right then you can have it over and over and over. Yes the initial cost is higher, but the long run cost is much lower - one carbon rig (OK include a spare tube if you are really serious) vs. 3-4 rigs minimum to test for a serious Olympic campaign in some classes (and that is after you choose the section you want).

There may be good arguments for not changing the class rule -- status quo is important to keep from making boats obsolete w/o upgrades. But just because you are not an Olympic caliber sailor (maybe you are - I've never heard of you but what do I know) does not mean you shouldn't try to understand the basis for their arguments.

The good news is that all class constitutions have processes for amendments so the class gets to decide by what ever process they have in place.

OK, I don't even sail a Tornado so I will let it drop, the class will decide what it wants. But lets not put out too much bad information. Both sides have valid arguments.

IMHO
Hunt