Hi Mark and Mike
<br>
<br> Agree mark you can,t ,-It seems your trying to have it both ways , using Texel as a class rating , but not understanding the advantages of it applied to all racing in the US , --
<br> --CONFLICTING IDEALS -
<br>
<br>-Again ISAF or Texel are formulated and intended rating systems for ALL cat designs .
<br> You are confusing rating systems with class definition .
<br> The 18 or 16 classes did not say ,-o k we have a rating number here is our class . Again ,--please look at their pages of rules defining what a CLASS is , -again the rule beaters are numerous if you do not define a class , -am suprized you can not understand the need for class definition . Again why would 16s and 18s bother if it were not needed to some extent. -
<br> All cat designs within the defined class would rate within an acceptable margin of ISAF tEXEL rating , once refined.
<br>
<br>-COMPRENDA -
<br>
<br>-Hi Mike -
<br> thanks ,-some H sailors may become more interested over time ,---was a H-18 sailor for a decade or so myself, -,do like the look of the Tiger.
<br>
<br>-If you talk to some of the top dog sailors , -they will tell you the F-18S will have comparble performance in the upper wind ranges , --different opinions ,--we will find out next season .
<br>
<br>--Question ,--should the proposed 20 class consider 2 catagories ,-10 ft and 8.5 beam .
<br>
<br> Again I don,t have all the answers , or resources to put this together , we currently have no major dealer or mfg. support or specification agreement , if we did have a base of boats and mfg. this would be done.
<br>
<br>-Again a very difficult set of existing conditions. -
<br> People keep confusing the fact that we did not set these existing conditions or are responcible for them ,-or feel the need to compound them by repeating the same errors and existing design flaws or endorcing them .
<br>
<br> Carl
<br>-<br><br>