John's proposal of 8,5 m max mast will ban BIM 16, of which the mast is 9 m. I would therefor push for a max set at 9 m if a max is set. Personally I would like to see no max and see the scene sort out what the most effective mastheight is. Just like was done in the A-cat cirquit. I feel that there could be an arms race like John predicts, but that the "cost to possible gain" is such that the impact is very limited due to the workings of the Rated Sail Area formula. I feel that the first bucks will be spend on getting a perfect 100 kg platform before any money is spend on optimizing mastheight. The gains with respect to the weight savings are clear and well defined; the same can not be said about the mastheight. In other words, I feel that designers will be hesitant to spend alot of money on a "maybe" gain that may well not be worth the money at all. This should be enough to stop an uncontrolled arms race and on the other hand open the door enough for controlled development.
<br>
<br>In summary, my answers :
<br>
<br>* I opt for letting the Rated Sail Area formula regulate mastheight.
<br>
<br>* If mastheight is limited than at least at 9 m in order to include BIM 16 and to have some room for optimizing the rig and genaker.
<br>
<br>Anonimous4
<br>
<br><br><br>