Please read what I wrote previously and add your thoughts.
Yes I understand your earlier comments.
My line of reasoning (and it is just that) is that when a craft is limited by righting moment (as surely the mono's are) then a more aerodynamic efficient rig will allow them to create more drive for the given righting moment AS LONG AS it doesn't also include making the mast (leverage) significantly greater.
Pretty much efficiency can be deduced down to a ratio of devellopped drive against devellopped sideways force that causes heel.
I also seem to recall from the Miss Nylex design article that 40 % of the total drag of this C-class cat was the direct result of aerodynamic drag of the sails. It was the single biggest drag factor. I'm not sure how this translates into planing skiff designs. Maybe here the hull drag is significantly higher percentage wise. T_E comments seem to point in that direction.
T_E comments about the (control) compromises is really the only factor then can foil up the above reasoning.
Stephen, you comment :
As for skiff rig tension, I believe that the reason for the high rig tension is to give the rig enough prebend to support a mast head kite without inverting the rig, whilst using a lighter / smaller mast section.
Combined with my 5%-15 % example seem to suggest that it may pay off to drop the mast head spi for one that comes lower on the mast (as with cats) if that allows a sufficiently better upwind rig.
I wonder whether losing 1 mtr on the luff or so will loose 15 % downwind performance. Also going down on spi hoist height really quickle stiffs up the mast top. There is a very powerful 3rd order (power) relationship there. Going to the mast top is not a straight forward must-have.
This could be a case analogue to "slow down to win" , the well know manouvre when rounding the bottom mark with alot of other boats.
All interesting stuff
Wouter
