Evidently, the best length under our rule being 62, the best length under the American rule is something less; how much less being only determined by trial, and depending on the numerous factors before mentioned. Moreover, an arbitrary limit of L.W.L. is thus shown to be less necessary under the American rule than under ours; and with L. so greatly developed in our racers at the present time, it may be that we have already gone beyond the best length for the American rule, especially in the small classes. This was carefully pointed out by the present writer in two letters to 'Land and Water,' October 5 and 9, 1892. Mr. R. E. Froude also stated the case very clearly in the 'Field,' December 31, 1892; but it is very difficult to convince the defenders of the Y.R.A. rule that any other rule is superior. Mr. Dixon Kemp, in his excellent work on 'Yacht Architecture,' says (p. 15, 2nd edition) in comparing rules I., III., IV.: 'Of these rules, that of the Y.R.A. admits of the employment of the greatest length for any given rating'; and the length referred to was evidently _best length_ in a given climate. The Seawanhaka rule is therefore superior to ours if excessive length be feared; and being a plus formula, it lends itself readily to the adoption of any desired tax on other linear dimensions. For instance, Mr. Watson's proposal (II.) might be put into the plus form, thus:-- American R = (2L + 2B + D + [V¯]S) ÷ 3.8 (VI.) This shows the value of a plus rule over a multiplying rule and the value is not lost when a plus rule is converted into an English rating rule by cubing the former and dividing by a constant. Thus, the recent Rule Committee proposed to convert the Seawanhaka rule into an English rating rule by cubing it and dividing by 6,000, the result being: English R = (L + [V¯]S){3} ÷ constant, say 48,000 (VII.) The variable within brackets in VI. can be cubed and divided by a constant in a similar manner. But the cubic forms of the 'plus' rules are clumsy, and seem difficult to those who cannot compute by logarithms. No real advantage is gained by adhering to the English rating and time scale and classification. In fact, the American time scale is simpler. If, therefore, a 'plus form' of rating be ever adopted, it would be much better to adopt 'corrected length' as the rating, together with the American time scale. The classification could, of course, be chosen in such a manner that our own racing yachts would be at the top of the classes without any important alterations. Another rule was proposed in a leading article of the 'Field' on October 15, 1892. It is:-- English R = L{2}[V¯]S ÷ constant, say 6,000 (VIII.) It gives a sail-curve nearly parallel to the one produced by the New York rule, and may almost be regarded as that rule dressed in Y.R.A. uniform; but the advantages of a plus rule are lost, whereas in the conversion of the Seawanhaka rule proposed by the Y.R.A. Committee 1892 they are retained.