>>>LS-They are still preferred in most ocean racing multihulls like the Open 60 tris. Bill designed his boats to sail with waves.


And you are implicetly saying that the other designers don't design boats to be sailed with waves ?


>>>LS-Exactly, but shared lift is not only about balancing the boat with the spi. There is another claim: a smaller daggerboard further forward combined with a bigger rudder allow both foils to work more efficiently, ultimately reducing drag.


The post clearly stated that shared lift was intended to counteract the spinnaker effects. I was commenting on that statement.

Apart from that Bill has agreed in writing that most efficient mode, drag bucket, can not been achieved when the rudder needs to provide significant lift. Not to mention to problems of having the rudder move in the wake of the daggeboard. There is more to this picture than just pump up the aspect ratio and Voila have significantly more efficient boards. But this is a whole different topic. I comment on the fact that other designers apparently have not seen the light as one particular designer. It stands to reason that this may have a different explaination than "other designers are stupid"


>>LS-Only the older boats I saw had straight tracks. I think curved tracks are being used today.


And who pioneered that, curved tracks I mean ?



>>LS-High volume wingmasts may be older but Bill's idea was to SEAL them so that they can float. I think he was first in this.

This seems like a very unprovable claim to me ; but if you have proof of this that do share it with us. I have a hard time believing that each cat before the SC-product line was doomed to be resued by a crane platform after each capsize.



>>LS-The SC 17 was designed to be sailed with half of the bow height under water for lift - remember it has no daggerboard.


Okay, when others do that then they have insufficient volume in the bows but when a ARC-17 does than it was fully intended. I do remember it has no daggerboard, that is why it has oversized rudders right ? Besides more then halve the bow is under. But never mind, they point yet again is that other designers have chosen other paths (solutions) and are just as effective in getting results if not more effect. I refer back to my comment woth regard to a superior design having a significant inferior handicap rating and needing that to come out on top.


Regards,

Wouter