How fast????

Skiffman, while Julian and Frank are good designers, they are NOT the only people who get to decide what a skiff is. They have designed some great 18s, I don't know if they've actually designed a succesful 16 (Julian did do the rig on Luxury Afloat, recent champion but it's an OD hull) and I'm pretty sure they've never done a 14 or a 12.

Secondly, my calcs (which may not be perfect, but seem OK) indicate that if we apply the Bethwaite formula, the 16' skiff - which has more of a claim to being a "skiff" than any other boat and is the most popular skiff in the skiff homeland - doesn't fit the Bethwaite definition of a skiff because it doesn't have the upwind power (I haven't checked downwind numbers). So if we apply the Bethwaite definition, the most popular "true skiff" of all, the one which has ALWAYS been called a skiff, suddenly becomes a "non skiff". Do you really think any pair of designers have the right to just suddenly change the designation of an entire class (to which they have never created a design, IIRC)?

I don't think the 300 + current 16 foot skiff sailors will be very happy to know that their class, which has always been a skiff, which sails from clubs that call themselves skiff clubs, which have multiple rigs and big rigs and have lots of RM and sponsorship and all the old markers of a skiff, suddenly is not a skiff any more - just because two of the opposition designers decided that it didn't have the right numbers.

The older (pre wing) 18s which still race as classic skiffs in the Queensland fleet also don't fit the Bethwaite definition. These boats WERE skiffs when they were built, they haven't changed, they are still called skiffs, they still fulfil almost everything that has ever been a part of skiff sailing - so how come they have suddenly been changed to a "non skiff"??

The 12' skiffs are very, very marginal according to the Bethwaite upwind figures. The 12s are still an open design class, they still have multiple rigs, they still have massive rigs and lots of RM, they are by far the lightest of skiffs, they sail from Skiff clubs, they ARE definitely skiffs - much more so than a 29er by any reasonable definition. So what right do Julian and Frank have to suddenly make the 12s, which are closer to the classic skiff than any other class afloat, marginal  as skiffs?

I raced a Historical 18 a fortnight ago - a replica of the 1930's champ Aberdare. According to the Bethwaite definition, she is no longer a skiff.. I don't think Julian would want to tell that to "Angry" Tearne or Fergo or other Hysterical skiffies.

The Assymetric Canoe fits the Bethwaite skiff definition, and the Canoe definitely isn't a skiff.

Surely it is not logical to apply numbers which take four of the five classes which have ALWAYS been skiffs and throw them out of the category. Surely it is not logical to apply ratios which bring boats like the Canoe, which is older than skiffs and has NEVER been a skiff, into that category?

Sorry, but the 29er has probably less right to be called a skiff than the Cherub (29er is heavier, has less sail for length IIRC), and out here at least, where skiffs came from, Cherubs were traditionally called dinghies. OK, times change - but you surely can't suddenly decree that 16,12 and classic 18s are no longer skiffs and 29er are?

The Bethwaites are important, but they are only two people in a large movement.
There is something of a tendency for them to highlight their own importance - for example Frank says in HPS that Dave Porter (with whom Julian sailed) was the "visionary" to create the 3 man on trap 18. Now, ask "Portholes" himself and he looks very embarrased about the claim made on his behalf. His designer, Chapple, was also involved. Bruce Farr was the man who actually created the first championship-winning 3 man/3 trap 18, after working on it for about the same length of time as Porter (Cool Leopard came out the same year as Porter's first 3 hander I think). Jim Young was also in there (with one of the Smirnoffs), and of course years before Ben Lexcen's Taipan and Venom had been winners three-up.

That's just an example of the fact that there seems to be a slight tendency to overly underline the importance of the boats that the Bethwaites were involved in.

PS thanks Phil for accepting that graciously. I've just learned this stuff 'cause I'm working on a book on dinghy design so I've had an exccuse to get all technical!

I wouldn't get too hung up about the definition of a skiff.  However somebody said they had flat bottoms at the back.  That's not the case with the Laser 4000 its decidedly rounded - which is what makes it so tippy.  It does however have little rocker - whch makes it difficult to sail in the light stuff since it drags its bum.  I've sailed a RS 800 quite a bit, it too has little rocker and it has flat aft sections - this makes it more stable but even worse in the lihgt stuff.  I have on a few occasions sailed a 49er, this is not as flat at the back as a 800 but flatter than the 4000 but being longer has more stability than both the others.  I can't say how well it does in the light stuff since I've never experienced it but it needs to be pretty light when you have such a huge sail area.  I've never sailed a B14, this is both flat at the back and short and the mast is a long way back making it difficult to keep the weight forward - this is a boat which parks up in light winds.  I consider them all skiffs.

Redback, with respect, when you say "I consider them all skiffs" - what do you base that on?

The term, as now applied, comes from  down here. The boats from which it comes are pretty easy to identify. Surely you can't just take the term and apply it to a  boat that doesn't come close to being a skiff, really?

The 4000 is about the same length as a 505; it's about the same weight; it's probably got about the same "wingspan" and RM (but in the 505 the "wings" are built-in flare due to the structural problems Westell had to deal with back then), the 505 has more upwind sail, about the same downwind, and the 505 is faster.

So if the 505 is a dinghy (and it IS) what makes the 4000 a skiff, rather than a dinghy?

I mean it's a great boat, but is it really a skiff? If so, what makes it a skiff? What makes the 505 a "not-skiff"? Or have you migrated the 505 to the skiffs, too? In that case, the Aussie Sharpie should be a skiff....and in that case the FD....and the IC....

Compare the 4000 and 505 to the closest skiff in LOA, the 16 - the 16 has almost 80 ft2 more upwind sail (half as much again) on a hull just 7" or so longer (but 25% lighter). The L4000 carries just 58% of the 16's sail area downwind. The 16 has much more RM; is considerably faster.

You can just look at a 4000 against a 16 and see it's a different beast.

Compare the L4000 to the 12' skiff - the 12 has more RM on a much shorter hull; it has a hull that weighs less than 50% of the 4000's hull, and it sets 80ft2 more sail upwind and MORE THAN TWICE  the L4000's sail downwind.

Or look at the NZ (Spencer) Javelin, which is traditionally considered a dinghy; it is about 25% lighter than the 4000, has about the same RM, almost the same sail area, and is probably quicker. So it has more claim, perhaps to a skiff title thant the 4000 - but the Jav is not generally considered a skiff.

The I-14 skiff has 20% more sail than the 4000 on a shorter hull, 25% less weight, way more RM, way more speed, and about 200 ft2 more sail downwind.

So they are skiffs. If you plot the 4000 against them, it's off the scale. If the 4000 is a skiff, then logically the 505 must be 'cause it's very similar in dimensions.

And if the 505 is a skiff, what's stopping the 470 (basically a baby-rigged 505) from being a skiff....and a 420.....

maybe the easiest thing is to forget the term "skiff" and just use class names

a fast boat then. what was it in y&y assymetric mostly trapeze and fast or
something.