Why…Why…Why…would you want to design and build a hull design that is inferior if it costs you nothing more in money, time, or weight to have a superior product?

If someone offered you a compact car that outperformed a sub-compact car on every level…got better fuel economy, had a more desirable body design, had more interior room, more carrying capacity all for the exact same price…which would you choose?

If I offered to build you a house that was 3,911 square feet instead of 3,657 square feet for exactly the same price and it didn’t cost anymore in utilities, taxes or insurance to own this bigger home which would you choose?

There is zero logic to the argument of having a poorly performing 12'-0" hull design when you can have a superior one at 12'-10" that costs nothing more, is not any harder to build, will perform better, will allow a greater range of use because of increased weight bearing capacity.

Darryl’s F14 is like a Ferrari in comparison to what we are talking about here… and about three times as expensive as the proposed F12 budget. We are talking about the difference between caviar and canned tuna fish.

I say again…make the hull as performance oriented as possible within the restrictions of building materials, and simple construction methods… achieve all your performance restrictions with the rig…

“You know what I quit.” Wouter just think if you would have said that a few years back…the F16 class as we know it today might not exist…

Regards,
Bob