Many years ago I tinkered with the idea of a hull, with a modular system that allowed you to swap from  single hander to two handed plus or minus trapeze and spinaker, we got so far as having a plug made.  The advantage was that you could mass produce hulls, with the rest of the fit out pretty much on interchangeable space frames.  This would allow you to sail in the configuration that suits your needs at any time.  I still think this concept has legs.

Perhaps what the world needs is cheaper, but longer lasting existing classes. If the Five-Oh (or FB) was half the price it would be hard to say it wasn't close to the perfect single wire, symmetric kite class. A class being 50yrs old shouldn't be looked as as being old hat, just mature, developed and worth lasting 50years. Other countries seem to be quite happy with a mere handful of classes compared to the UK, but there's no doubt the UK seems to enjoy the turnover in new designs.

As the song say, 'if you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with'

.

I really don't understand why you don't build a 3.7 iGRF.

http://www.int505.org/old_site/kiss01.htm

The story:http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=31704&view=findpost&p=660203

The addition of a T foil would equate to the extra length you desire.

As for beating a Laser over the water - (1) once powered up they will (2) at which point the hikers are giving themselves a hernia (3) It's not all about speed, it's the sensation of sailing the boat that is so great.

I'll point you to this article:

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/187161/Testing-the-UKs-first-composite-Farr-37

You may want to ask Myles for his opinion on speed

Perhaps this is one of those Post Truths that we read a lot about these days.

I think that there is a fair amount of evidence in at least three classes where the engineering of boats has been simplified using FRP and removing the joinery, where the resulting reduction in labour costs has resulted in a more affordable bottom line that has resulted in a resergence in those classes ... I am thinking Merlins, Solos and Fireballs, the two former are still seeing the benefits, and the latter at least benefits from longetivity if not sustaining high new boat numbers.

A lot of increased costs to my eye are the result of unintended consequences of decisions made by those who steer the classes ... my 3DL mainsail does not greatly improve my sailing experience, but does add £600 to the cost of ownership ... this technology could have been banned in the Solo class from outset and saved owners collectively a tidy sum.

A question, is it possible to win national supernova class events in a pre Hartley weight reduction boat? And how much difference in PN would a 20kg weight reduction make? The latter may be difficult to answer as, I assume, 'novas of both flavour are entered in the PY returns?

That's pretty much what I concluded as I sat drinking coffee on a wet Saturday afternoon and reading the forum. If there is a big difference in the Supernova then a new one should be the perfect PY Bandit as all those old boats will keep the PN up......

Except the new boats will have an easier time sailing to their PY

To my mind, though, if a class has experienced a major performance jump, the sporting thing to do is to inform the race organisers and suggest that the latest improved model is given a lower number than the published one.

Or a higher one for old boats (which is what the Merlins, N12s, I14s do isn't it)?

To my knowledge the only class that currently does this reasonably formally are the National 18s ( http://www.national18.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ClassrecommendedPNs-May2016.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://www.national18.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ClassrecommendedPNs-May2016.pdf ) and they deserve great credit for doing so.

Yup. The N18s suggest a 47 point reduction in PN for a refined hull shape and a 40kg weight reduction, and +25 points for a penultimate if it is not rigged for a trapeze.

Now all I need to do is get a realistic number for my Spice ;) say one point per kg overweight, 25 for sailing single wire (and another 25 for no wires?) and another 40 for no kite (RS200 CA recommend +43 for no kite). So that's +105 :) or 1035. I think I might just be able to sail to that (on a good day).
 

I'd guess PY numbers fall over the years as classes get refined and I see nothing wrong with classes having a variance for older or newer boats. Nobody is going to argue that a 1970 Ent is going to be a little slower than a 2017 one and since the number reflects the average boat (from the subset that are raced regularly) it probably should be slightly lower for a new boat and slightly higher for the oldun. Since I've returned to slightly more serious racing I've been surprised by how small the differences are relatively speaking (a Musto is only twice as fast as an Optimist and an RS800 only 20% faster than a Hornet). The difference between crews is much more of a factor than differences between similar boats.

Typical family saloon, say VW Passat 128mph, F1 car, without aero downforce, around 240mph so only a little less than twice as fast, and a Bugatti Vayron will do 260 so more than twice as fast. And cars don't have the disadvantage of "displacement driving" which would bring averages down significantly.

Despite the difference between planing and displacement sailing the fastest non-foiling sailboats are only twice as fast overall than the slowest. Ultimate top speed OTOH may be a different matter but I suspect the difference between say an Ent and a 49er will be less than double. Water is, indeed, a difficult medium :)

edit :- and a foiling moth is exactly 2.92 times faster than an Oppie!

But isn't there a basic difference between an ageing OD and an ageing development class? The guy in the old Laser is sailing a boat that (if well maintained) is to an identical design as the current boats and is 99.X% as fast as a newer Laser of the type that the PY is calculated from,

The guy in the ageing development class boat is sailing a boat that (even if well maintained) is physically different and significantly slower than the current boats that the PY is calculated from. Therefore the development-class sailor is in a different position to the Laser sailor.

One other issue is how you determine a class. Take say the Hobie Tiger, which is  a SMOD design that is now an outmoded F18 cat. It's still an ISAF class, it once had a PY of its own, it's had worlds till recently and still has Europeans, it still has nationals in other countries - but it's never had its own class association since it comes under a multi-class umbrella association.  Does it have to be rated as an F18 these days despite being outmoded or does it race under its old PY?  It's in almost exactly the same situation (say) a Boss - a dead class that used to have a PY, so how can one say that the SMOD Tiger should have its rating changed because newer boats happen to fit the same development class rules?  If the Tiger gets its own rating then what about the Alado F18, which is the same design but not made by Hobie?  

If an outdated boat in one development class (the Tiger) gets a "special" rating then why can't the outdated boat in another development class (Canoe, Moth, whatever) get a "special" rating?  

What about the Europe and British Moth? They are essentially one designs version of outdated Moths. Should they get the current foiling Moth PY?  If not, why not - just because they have own organised class associations and rules? Surely that cannot be the requirement, for the Laser Radial (for example) doesn't have its own organised class association. If a development class forms a Vintage Section why doesn't its boats get their own PY?  Why is a Vintage Section of (say) the Merlin class seen as different from the Radial "section" of the Laser class?  

What about the Unicorn (which is an A Class)?  Should its PY be dumped or changed to that of the carbon foiling As?  What about the Farr 3.7, which was conceived as a 12 Foot Skiff? Should it have the same PY as a 12?  If these "outmoded" versions of development classes have their own PYs, why not the rest of them?

Yep, but looking at my own range of kit which ranges from SMODs to development classes, I feel that the SMODs (including my Laser) are vastly more competitive when old than the development-class boats.  I was going to write that it's hard to compare because my development-class dinghy hasn't moved out of the roof of the shed for 10 years, but that in itself tells a story since my ageing SMODs have all been raced fairly hard over that period.

My beaten up '95 vintage Laser, bought just as a training boat in case I got seriously into Lasers again, is far more competitive with second-hand sails against new Lasers than our immaculate 1995 development class F18 is up against the new designs.

Without an incredibly complex system it is impossible to come up with a fair handicapping system, an old Merlin might be the weapon of choice for a river handicap event, whereas a CT would be best choice for a sea event, so you could argue for a matrix of venue and design.

Anyhow, great to see a thread hijacked by a handicap debate so early in the year!

I'm sorry, I fear that may have been me........

I doubt I'd have a problem buying a new RS, Laser or Topper if I had just completed a L2 course and it's unlikely (though possible, we have just such a couple at my holiday club) that they would be looking at a serious race boat, at least not a new one, to learn to race in. No problem buying a Topaz/Vago/Vision at any time of year I'd have thought.

- one that comes with a three day weekend and some guaranteed decent weather.  

 and given absolutel performance ( or any performance at all )  isn;t required for team racing  just the ability to do all the silly  stuff  sounds ideal use for rotomoulded  vessels.

There is always going to be a an unfair advantage to someone, fat boys when it is windy and the skinny lot when it is light. Unless there is some weight adjustment method in play. I don't think the lightweights wearing leaded life vests would get past h&s.

Another thing about weight, I am about 12.5stone however in cold conditions with full gear and wet I am probably heavier enough for it to have some effect on the boat. This never really gets taken into account.

So do we need to look at this from the other angle, rather than bringing the skinny ones up to weight, why not build/modify a boat which that is competitive for 26-28 stone and build in efficient ways of de-powering the rig through a modern sail plan, raking mast, or even different size sails.

The dev classes and "home build classes" where the hull form can be adjusted within a certain limits have a bit of an advantage with this as they can, add more rocker for heavier crews of flatten it off for lighter crews. Merlins used to be like this, you would go down to your builder and say I am a bit porky, build me a boat suitable for my weight and the builder would ablige by giving it a little more rocker and reducing the wetted surface area for the level they expect it to float. 

You could also tailor the sails for crew weight, this again has been done by classes (but add expense) and it reduces the sell on market.