[Jeff_H]

"Just the facts, Mam", I like that. I have seen a lot of discussion on this and it really is not cut and dry.

As you are aware at the core of it the long overhangs were intended to trick the rule into thinking that the boat was slower than it really is. Since the boats were measured upright and static the short waterlines looked really slow. When the heeled the bow wave moved forward and in fact did give more speed than the rule would predict. There was less gain in the area of the run. As a boat approaches hullspeed the stern begins to squat. The long overhangs not only did not prevent squatting but actually contributed to it without providing enough lift to offset the downward rotation. So while the stern wave moved slightly aft, the achieveable speeds were nowhere near what should have been achievable with the predicted hullspeed for a waterline length equal to the heeled waterline lengths of these boats.

In other words, while these boats were faster than the rule would predict, they still gave away a lot of performance compared to a more wholesome design with an equal length waterline to their sailing waterlines and when things got lumpy, the longer waterlined boats were a lot more comfortable and were not as adversely affected by the conditions.

Rules like the CCA and the earlier International and Universal rules generally promoted boats that were an aberation from what was considered good design practice before these rules and were certainly poor boats compared to what followed. They were designs that ignored seaworthiness and seakindliness just to beat the rule.

Respectfully,
Jeff