Seeker,

You made some very good points, and from the perspective of a class starting purely from scratch, I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I weighed 190 lbs. However, please consider a few things:

1. mast height - why do you say 19 inches is not significant? How many 28 ft. A-class masts do you see? Personally, I believe that 19 inches cat-rig could be a significant advantage, with proper crew weight. It would probably only be a few boatlengths, but that wins races. And possibly more importantly, it would move the ideal 1-up weight up to 180-190, or more. This really isn't too questionable... look at A-classes. Remember, this class is designed with couples, juniors, lightweights in mind. There are a number of classes out there in the "beefy" range.

2. You inferred that it would only benefit the T4.9, and that this was favoritism. Actually, it would mean that BOTH the T4.9 and Stealth were closer to optimum. If anything the weight would help the Stealth more than the T4.9. And the T4.9 would still not have quite the max. beam. And currently, these are the ONLY 2 designs with any real volume of production. So what manufacturers would be offended?

3. How much participation/support do you want to have from T4.9 and Stealth owners? The expectation that they support (and in fact make up a vast majority of) the class is at odds with the expectation that they give up a significant amount of mast height (both T4.9 and Stealth). You asked "in what real way is this hurting the class." Well, I know of a number of T4.9 sailors who are quite leery of supporting a class for which their boats are NOT optimised. This seems very "real" to me. In fact, I have delayed ordering a new main for this reason.

4. You said "As I look at the proposed changes, I can’t help but notice that the new minimums would put the Taipan 4.9 very near the optimum design parameters." Well, that is exactly the intent, and to "optimize" the Stealth as well. Are you telling me that you expect me to support a class in which I'm NOT "near the design parameters?" This is what truly concerns me. On the one hand, you say that these differences are minor, and of uncertain benefit. On the other, you say that you DON'T want the Taipan to be close to optimum...



If this is to be based on the F18-style racing, then there SHOULDN'T be huge differences in mast height, weight, etc. Rather, the differences should be in sails, hull design, blade design, self-tackers, snuffers, etc. The question isn't WHETHER there is a mast height restriction, there already is one. It is only about adjusting it.

You spoke about "lowering the bar." Well, if the T4.9 and stealth are what you are "lowering" it to, is this mediocrity? Personally, I think the T4.9 is fast as hell.

Please don't take this as an attack on you... your argument was well thought out, and I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to build their own boat. But these were a few points which you might not have thought of.

Thanks,

Michael C.

T4.9#32

P.S. Maybe this will put everything in perspective as to why many of us who already have boats feel so strongly about this vote: new masts and sails for all the T4.9's in the U.S would come to something like a combined U.S. $40,000. For the Aussie boats and the U.K. Stealth's, who knows. And yet making this change in wording would cost nothing to anyone. Is it really worth splitting the class over?