I agree, the "shiny-itis" of the N20, as well as it's improved design (with a spinnaker included) may have contributed to the 6.0 decline.

I loved the N20 and will eventually consider another (once crew and time commitments clear up), as I like medium distance 'point to point' racing as well as w/l can racing, and this platform shows the best ability to handle those diverse assignments in a variety of wind/water states.

SMOD vs. one-design vs. box rule? Not sure where the answer lies, but if a domestic supplier can provide parts at a fraction of an international supplier, it would seem to be a good business decision on the manufacturer's part to develop a rapport with various suppliers (in the countries the platform is sold) to develop sources... I thought that's what licensing was all about?

Not so sure about switching to aluminum masts, but if they're as "idot tolerant" as the current carbon ones, I guess that'd be okay...

And if we're to switch masts (from carbon to aluminum), why not consider a wing-shape rather than teardrop? Might as well upgrade if major changes are going to happen anyway...


Would there be any validity in a North American F20 class, using the specs of the N20 with larger sailplan? I know Eurpoe's weather conditions warrant a somewhat smaller mainsail, but if the N20 design is easily convertable between the two F20 classes by switching mainsail, it might help strengthen demand...