what happened?

Both the Tornado and Star classes had significant equipment differences that, while within the rules, make some people uncomfortable. We'll see if ISAF or the IOC decide there are lessons to be taken away. If the event had been as light as the vast majority of us expected, the US teams in the Star and Tornado might have done much better, which would very likely have led to some serious discussion about "one-design-ness." Now I wonder if those conversations will take place. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

One-design may be good for the Olympics, but is incredibly boring. Intelligence and improvement require more space. The most politically correct one-design would be the Optimist. The youngest athletes in the games would deserve a lot of media attention.

The Chupacabra reminds me of Eric Tabarly. His open minded developments made him the greatest rule optimizer/bender. The Fastnet winning schooner with an enormous genoa between the masts forced a rule update. The depleted uranium keel forced another one, and the water ballasted solo transpac another. His hydrofoil tri motivated the categorization (does this word exist?) of the transatlantic record to separate monohulls from multihulls. The sea lawyers really had to run to keep up with his pace.

None remembers the sea lawyers who fixed the rules after his inovations (and achievements) - but all sailors remember the great man.

The Chupacabra is an innovation that Tabarly could have created. He would have loved it. The initiative is admirable of those who developed the sail, as is the courage of those who dared use it. Wining or not.

Cheers,

One-design may be good for the Olympics, but is incredibly boring.