czdan: No, and it's a good suggestion. I will ask CLC by email if others on this forum agree that such a scale would be worthwhile. First, I would like to refine the idea based on the views of other forum readers.
Re: "Do we base these "scales" on the lightest recomended load, the heaviest, the average, or all three?"
I have no preference, as long as the spec is reasonably useful to consumers. it would not try to be a perfect scale, just a pragmatic one, just like for a car I can compare published "horsepower" of two cars as a baseline, but it would not tell the whole story.
Re: "each model would need to be towed at a range of speeds and the resistance meaured with a scale and load cell"
This spec sounds good to me, but I am not an expert. Whatever evaluation method CLC specified, it would need to be cheap enough to administer to encourage publication for a wide range of boats.
Note: Consumers should be considered as experts on their own requirements (their weight, how they intend to use the boat,etc.) but not on marine architecture.
"[Tow test] would need to be done in dead flat water and still air - not easy to find and not very realistic in practice
As a life-long sailor, I think I could help any designer who is having trouble finding flat water and still air :-)
Re: "Do you plan to see the sights at 2 1/2 - 3 knots or do you plan to maintain a steady 6?"
Another very good question about what would be the most useful spec for consumers. Again, I would leave it to CLC. One option I suppose they could employ is a pair of numbers, one for casual paddling, one for strenuous. But I don't know that this would be necessary.