From my perspective, the F16 original handicap number was derived from Taipan 4.9 numbers with an adjustment for spi and other factors (there has been a lot of discussion on the how's of this). As soon as there was enough critical mass for a F16 US Class Association, the Association lobbied for D-PN changes (rightly or wrongly dropping the 1-up number) and actively pursued results to submit to the Portsmouth Committee - which contributed to changes in the rating.

I only point this out because your post could be misconstrued, by the uninformed, that F16 sailors were intentionally misleading the Portsmouth Committee. The actuality is the lack of results (and/or the in-action upon available results - numerous reasons and not placing blame) and rapid optimization of the F16 platform led to a "slow to correct rating". The only thing F16 sailors didn't do is request a lower handicap number at local regattas - which I have never seen done by a H17 or a F17 or any other suppsoed "cherry handicap" boat.

I, too, wish there was a way to get to the "proper" rating quicker - but I think singling out the F16 as a FUBAR does an injustice to the F16 Class. It may be the latest example, but that does not mean any more than the systematic approach to zeroing in on a number may need to be reviewed (as you alluded to lower in your post).