We are having growing pains. We need to get back to the spirit of the box rule which was to usher in a development class and minimize costs. This necessarily means some give and take, as certain things change performance while contributing greatly to cost. That's understandable.
Boards are a good example. The new boards are somewhere between 2-3X cost of the older boards,as they must be built to extremely high strength tolerances and now can set you back $3000. These boards also provide some improvement in performance.

So, as an example, long as such improvements are possible, it will tend to drive up cost, and can work for, or work against work the box class. Unabated, arms races can, not always, eat into participation, and it should be the responsibility of the ruling body to mitigate certain developments in the interest of broader class development.

Unfortunately, the F18 rules body seems to have a limited abiltiy for composing, and communicating decisive, definitive mandates to the class. This makes everyone suspicious of 'ulterior motives'.

To me, some of this looks more like a lack of English language skills in the rules and outright petty 'gotcha' behavior in an increasingly competitive sailing environment. The rules group, and the class, need to be a bit more articulate and expedient about these changes, even to the point of dismissing some complaints if it was a cheap shot (paint and gel coat discussions are ridiculous) and keep their eye on what is important about the box rule, which is that development should occur, but not at outrageous cost which will adversely impact participation and competition.