Rolf,

How much could you win here ?

No too mention that you have to change the beam landings to take the curved beam and thus can not used symmetrical beams anymore.

How much would be gained in speed by such an excersize ?

This is typical of todays a-scientific thinking that seems to be the fashion. I see it everywhere.

Some people BELIEVE that there should be an advantage to having a higher rig or more sailarea (think US I-20 sailors) and therefor they claim that it must be so deriding everybody else who questions it (guess who). Then when they finally done they find out that gut feelings are very basd advisors (I-20 example again, see the recent I-20 = overpowered thread).

Also why would you go for curved beams and all the hassle associated with it when you can just make the hulls higher at the mainbeam point ? The latter option is both simpler and cheaper. I guess we can expect a F18 rule on that soon. And later we find out again that the F18 is already fitted with alot of canvas and that placing the rig higher in effect does not result in a performance gain. But by that time the F18 rule set will have the size of the New York phone book. And that is my point.

There is something to be said for rule sets of limited size and leaving some things open. The F18 class used to be that way (WHEN IT GREW THE FASTEST) but now more and more rules (silly rules often) are added with no clear advantage. Where does this end ?

This 15 mm rule in itself may not be very interesting in itself as with the very large beams of F18's today you don't need more then 15 mm prebend, but the general concensus for adding rules has been set.

Wouter