RS300 vs Blaze

Agreeing entirely with Blaze720 it's all about give and take and your own chosen class will always be viewed with rose-tinted specs. 

The Blaze should probably accept a Carbon mast (with the same sail) some way down the line, but sooner rather than later as there's few  <300 in circulation now.

Windward planing in the Blaze is a reality now if it's windy enough but would be much easier to do consistently with a carbon mast (less pitching with that low bow in waves) and with a lower hull weight (bound to be un-popular with the class as this would 'obsolete' older boats).  I think the bigger c-board on the X boats gives greater leverage and lift and makes it easier to get planing than the older X-ed Mk1 boats which have the smaller original profile board.

Worth looking at this again now that Topper have announced the end of Blaze production under their wing and the class now evaluates potential new builders

... what should happen next?

Getafix

The various Open and Nationals results this year show that well prepared Mk1's Blazes with a recent sail are still very potent when racing with 'X's.  Everybody would prefer a newer boat of course but the fact is there is very little difference in racing performance.  The X has a slightly thicker centreboard (25mm v 21mm) as you say for reasons that now escape me and this might give a bit more lift upwind but its straightline performance is possibly a fraction slower all other things being equal.  ie extra chord can be fine upwind in some conditions but just adds to drag when powered up. We cannot adjust foil chord of course although most understanding the same issue flatten their sails when it blows - not just for contol but also for speed.  Really really fast sailing machines have small, low chord, foils and small flat sails for high wind maximum performance. (Re the Blaze - I'm told that the later X centreboards do fit in Mk1 hulls for those who might want to know)

As for carbon masts - well if they were issued 'free' all would want one - they don't seem any faster in most conditions on the Blaze but they are easier to live with in gusty conditions.  However they are very far from free still and we do want to continue to offer a lot of performance for a reasonable cost - carbon is great but maybe not quite great enough to justify just yet.  However the CA does review all options periodically.

A new Blaze builder is expected to be announced by early September at the latest. 

Mike '720'   

Originally posted by jeffers a carbon rig requires much more rig tension

Why?

Originally posted by getafix The Blaze should probably accept a Carbon mast (with the same sail)

That's one thing there really is no point in doing. The advantage of a carbon (or part carbon part glass like the byte) spar is that it can have different and much superior bend characteristics, giving better gust response and all sorts of goodies.

But this only works if you have a different sail, certainly different luff round, and best to have different panel curvature, leech profile the lot - just the sort of thing the Byte class did.

If you aren't going to change the sail there's no point in changing the mast for plastic until such time (if we ever get there) that a plastic one with exactly the same bend characteristics is cheaper than a tin one.

Originally posted by getafix there is a lot of sail below the mast track and no really satisfactory way of securing it to make it useful area upwind - of course downwind it's a bit more useful but can't help thinking most Blazers would accept a long bolt rope on new sails, if the mast chosen by the class supported it.

I take a short piece of shockcord around the mast - just under the lowers - and through the eyelet for the downhaul. That stops it drifting away from the mast quite so much. Also experimenting with a sail slide attached to the same eyelet. These aren't great solutions, but better than nowt I reckon.

Col