In the opinion of numerous, long time, Ensign sailors, the track position for the Blade was indeed defined in the wrong location. Less than 9 degrees is far too narrow.
Because of the narrow sheeting, the Blade has been unnecessarily difficult to trim from the beginning. Achieving an appropriately open slot along with an even break on the Blade's luff has been tricky and difficult. Designing a Blade to overcome these issues has been trickier, and although these certainly are viable issues, the real problem is that Ensigns have a shallow draft, full keel.
Full keels are great for tracking, comfortable motion, driving through short seas, carrying way through tacks and resisting round-up, but their relatively high wetted surface area and low aspect ratio are associated with increased leeway and reduced pointing ability. Full keels are not considered to be a high performance underbody as compared to fin keel/spade rudder designs.
In general, narrow sheeting angles work best on efficient, high aspect ratio keels and hulls that are easily driven. In addition, narrow sheeting angles are best in medium air and flat water, and they tend to reward experienced helmsmen and a responsive helm. The Ensign Class has plenty of good sailors, but there are no Ensigns that have a responsive helm.
Increasing sail side forces through narrow sheeting angles on a heavy boat with a full, shallow draft keel is simply a design mismatch. There is only so much lateral resistance one can ask of the low aspect, Ensign keel before the vortex under the keel starts to slow the boat.
The leads need to move outboard, and having run the experiment, I can tell you that the Blade is an absolutely wonderful sail when led correctly. Great for day sailing, cruising, racing and singlehanding because of the ease of handling a 100% jib, I would love to see the class get behind fixing this problem.
I have a suggested fix if anyone is interested.
Best regards,
Bud Brown
#1085
ECA Rules Vice Commodore