With respect to point #2, I would suspect changes in the sail shape would be helpful only if it (1) broadened the conditions that the sail plan is effective, (2) increased sail plan efficiently in certain conditions, (3) reduced mfg. costs, or (4) all of the above (obviously preferable)
I think the N20 was originally optimized as a W/L racer, and has since proved its mettle as a near-coastal distance racer.
Given that those disciplines are so widely different in terms of the sail plan effectiveness, what ONE change to, say, the spinnaker shape would improve the N20 performance in both bouys and distance?
Would a finer entry on the spin be good for high angle reaching in a distance venue, but also reduce the ability to go deep and fast on a W/L course? I'm not a sail designer, so I don't know anything about that...
I think I'd focus on point #1 (quality control) first, before the 'nuclear option' (open source). I can't see the volume of sails needed for the N20 fleet being enough to gain any economy of scale or competition amongst suppliers ultimately resulting in lower cost to buyers.
I'm not even sure that the same sail supplier would want to offer optional sail materials for the class (like pentex vs. mylar vs. dacron on the sail plan), since it would reduce the number of sails constructed in each material, further reducing the sailmakers efficiency and ROI.
Fractioning the already small market base amongst other lofts, each of whom would most likely have to do their own R&D (doubtful EP or PC would share all that with them), and pass those costs to the buyer just doesn't sound like it would reduce costs...
On point #3 (taking control of the class), is this due mainly to the lack of communication between the class management and the owners? It would seem to me that this is the case.
