Oh yea and the fallacy that 6 r too many to move around on the boat in terms of room on the rail.. I raced with 6 at 1065 from 1993 to 1998 and it was never to many to sustain agile boar handling. This is another among the executive fallacies who came after everyone raced with 6 and they raced with 6 and it shows on the sophistries perpetuated for 24 years to keep 1000# and then 800# that was only an advantage to them. mb

:: Marcia and I have conferred, and these fleet
:: participation debilitating points are not just fallacies
:: they are sophistries and cannot be proven.
::
:: WP, the boat will structurally blow up with 6 . . . bull
:: shit maintain u'r boat
::
:: WP, the 880# weight limit allows a woman . . . so would
:: 1060 to 1080.
::
:: Executive committee there are currently detractors, the
:: price of an extra sandwich.
::
:: Marcia points out and I agree with 880# flogging the rig
:: is more detrimental to the entire boat than propagating
:: the fallacy that the boat will blow up structurally.
::
:: I maintain someone at my weight is not competitive at
:: 260# in the back of the boat without a midship
:: counterweight and EVEN THAT IS NOT COMPETITIVE say
:: beginning 220# and has cost the fleet membership.
::
:: Marcia and I agree, 6th person opens up a training
:: position when the weight limit is 1060 to 1080.
::
:: Marcia and I agree the 6th person opens up a fleet
:: recruiting path.
::
:: Marcia and I conferred on the Morgan Larson technique of
:: 7 that Marcia also employed that sends essentially no
:: weight with big arms to leeward trim.
::
:: Marcia and I conferred on Jeff Madrigalli 1100# NAs and
:: it works on a windy circle NA but I have found from 40
:: years of e27 racing over 1065 is on average faster than
:: 1100#.
::
:: Fleet participation looks good in the winter but on
:: average is dying having adopted the weight limit of a
:: J24.
::
:: More people more fun . . . you can always go with less
:: than 1080.
::
:: mb