Ett till inlägg, detta i amerikanska forumet.

I agree it is a big risk if we change like 1 and two. Most of us think a lighter device is faster than a heavy. To you that do not agree, check every sport in the world. Almost always weight is decreasing performance. Even if it would not the top sailors would get lighter masts and sail fast with them. Everyone else want the same gears. At least it is a risk that it will happen. Are you willing to chance?

About the runners i think we have an other story. We have two opinions about the rule. Some mean it is pretty clear and others that it is not. I think it is very unclear. My english make this a bit hard so i will only tell you my worst issues. Rules E.2.a-d tell us (a) thickness of body, (b)length, (c)height of at least that part contained by chock and (d)thickness contained by chock. I misunderstood this when i made my four first runners. I thought the wood had to be 1-1/32 to 31/32 in the chock. Now when we in Sweden discussed this i realized that the wood has to be the same in the chock as outside (a). What thickness does d. mean then? My chocks are wider (27mm) than max width in the chock (d). How do i handle the gap? It can not be stiffening element. If so rule d. would be needless. I am sure some of you have an explanation. In Sweden no one had. After a while in the discussion some guy noticed that the height only is regulated in the chock. Height on the runner or the wood is the following question. Another thing i noticed this autumn before this discussion was that we are allowed to put all material except wood, steel and that yellow fibre (i forgot the name)(of course i can be wrong here, but it was my understanding of the rule). I started a project to build runners with a very wide slot. In the slot i planned to put half ice hockey clubs that is available in every arena for that sport. I collected material for six runners. I have the steel with big structural holes to put fibre of glass thru. Some thin faner would meet the rule. I know some think this is a nasty way to find holes in the rule that is not ok. I have read some expression in the threads that describes persons trying to make as good equipment as possible inside the rule. Every builder does that so it is only a personal opinion that have no value. It is not cheating to read the rule and make what it say. I want you all to know that i require a readable rule. We can not have the written rule so far from what is ok. The written rule should be what is legal. For me that is very very important. Otherwise i always have to worry if i make my gears ok or not. If outside and inside a chock does mean something else than, you know, between the aluminium that holds the runner i can not thrust anything else in the rule. I have shown a cheap way to home build stiff and light runners. The sides will be better glued together with that fibers. The only problem with this is that old runners are going to be more heavy than the new ones. That may be bad, but it is worse that home builders like me can not read the rule and make his own runners without the risk of making it illegal or unnecessarily bad because the difficulty of reading the rule. I imagine the professional builders easy will make two cleaver halves and glue them together thru the big water cut structural holes. Maybe this will be cheaper than it is today because it need less time of work. I do not know this, but it definitely would for me if i made more than 10 runners.