I designed two 2.4mR’s – one FIN-97 for the Bjurström brothers in 1997 and another FIN-119 for Nisse West in 2002. These boats are totally on the opposite area of the spectrum. The first one was designed as a heavy boat and the second was done as a light, minimum wetted area design.
FIN 119 Mk I, Mk II
LOA: 4.50 4.11 4.30
Measured: L 3.077 3.091 3.091
Beam: 0.847 0.839 0.839
Displacement (measurement trim) 302.50 265.00 274.80
A =4.450 4.650 4.650
B =2.095 1.960 1.960
I = 3.750 3.750 3.750
J = 1.460 1.560 1.560
In comparison I have to say that it is clear that FIN 119 (minimum displacement / wetted surface) was not a big hit, except maybe in extreme light conditions. Therefore we modified FIN 119 by adding more displacement with a bustle and extended stern. Still the improvement was not enough to get the boat up to speed with the rest of the class. The heavy boat, FIN 97 however was showing promise. It could have become a good boat, if the hull and deck would not have been so impossibly heavy! It virtually did not get any more ballast than a Norlin due to the overweight build.
To draw some conclusions of my experiences, I would say that heavy would be the way to go. If one would have a boat in accordance with the philosophy of FIN 97, but built in the right way – where the extra displacement could be converted to ballast, one would have a great medium / heavy wind boat. Another area where thoughts are needed seems to be the sails. Even if FIN 97 was sailed by a sail maker, the sails were never totally OK. Therefore I would recommend to use the standard sail plan and rig from the Norlin Mk III, as we did for the FIN-119.