However, there is one rule of common sense. It won't do much good by disagreeing with FACTS.
So let's look at some facts.
Why don't you announce the true boat weights at the past GCs. Or is that confidential F16 class information.
So as you say the Blade comes in at nearly 112. Is that correct. The Falcon is about 5 kg above min so that would make it about 117 kg. The Blade has been around for a bit now and they are building them lighter and lighter trying to get them down to min. Sure you can make them lighter if you use carbon mast beams and hulls, so why don’t they. I’ll answer for you. Because it would cost considerably more and price them out of the market. These are new boats and they are struggling to get them down to weight, let alone build them under by a few kg and bring them up to min weight which seems a standard with any other manufacturer. This would suggest the min weight is too low.
I originally suggested a 115kg min but now think a 120 kg would be more realistic. That way the Falcon is ideal weight and can be brought up to 120 with 3 kg of correctors. Older F16s that are heavier may be closer to the min as well. Ban the use of carbon in everything except foils (AHPC are not the only people in the world who can built alloy wing masts) and ensure the price of boats do not spiral out of control in the future.
Would it hurt to have a realistic min weight that reflects the true weight of the class, or is the class more concerned with giving the sailing world a false impression of itself, a 112 kg double hander that is as quick as an F18. That is all I hear from its internet racers. It is a great product, has unique versatility and has a very bright future if guided the right way. Don’t BS the sailing public, they are smarter than that.
