That'll be the day !

There is absolutely nothing there worth copying, they've gotten things wrong in almost every single account.

Sets of multiple sails is EXPENSIVE ! And the performance differences are large enough to force every single serious crew to buy multiple sets; at the very least multiple mainsails; currently at 1500 Euro's the pop without battens. This is they way to price a boat to over 20.000 Euro's and is more effective in doing so than going to full carbon.




Actually Texel is very straightforward in this and I suspect SCHRS is so too. They take the largest sail area allowed, then take the longest luff allowed, calculate the maximum ratio between heeling moment (smallest rig) and righting moment and then calculate the upper performance limit and put it into the lowest rating number possible.





But there is another problem here The rating difference between the US I-20 and the F16 is about the same as the ones under Texel and SCHRS, while the rating difference between the F18's and F16 is far off. You can't correct the latter without creating a problem with the first. And there appear to be some other discrepencies in the the USPN like that.

The F16 rating has been pretty stable of the last sets of years, even well beyond the last 2-year break. I suspect that rating committee has alot more I-20 to F16 data then F18 to F16 data. The first confirming the current rating.

I think the only way to correct this situation is to have more F18 to I-20 data and have the rating problems corrected there first.

A-cat to F16 rating difference under USPN appears to be about the same as Texel predicts; although I do believe the spi makes the spi-boats somewhat faster all-around then this rating suggests.

Wouter