Hi Matt,
I'm not ,for even a moment, suggesting a smaller model.
I was asking the ridiculous - just by way of example.
Just imagine the outcry if there were different size specifications for the types !!??
Then to highlight what 10% actually meant I went with the 1.8M.

However all the arguments ,or most anyway, that are being used to justify the current rules could be used to justify a different size rule - ridiculous I know.

Brian

EDIT; The key point that I'm making is that of potential performance advantage or perhaps better if stated as potential performance difference due to weight difference.
There should be no potential for a difference deriving from our rules.