D-Zero

Hi Null

I'm not suggesting any number myself - and could never do so until class 'x' was raced by decent helms in fully competitive races if at all.  It is the handicappers who have the problem ... and in the vacuum of experience they will always er on the side of caution as they did with Icon etc. 

If it looks like a Punk their reasoning will be it probably goes like that  as well .. or are you suggesting it is today considerably slower than Punk or what ?  The alternative is they 'give'you a 'better' number but you are then excluded from any 'chocolates' in major events - if that is what you want ask for it.  I'd just bite the bullet, just get out there and sail like we do in Icon.  I'd rather be in love with a great boat than its (movable) handicap.   Buy those extra coffee cups on the web or down the highstreet. 

Icon handicap ?  The NS number is OK allbeit the obvious differences plus rotating carbon mast etc so not too bad although we think Icon quicker.  Today of course we do have real Icon race results to show over three Sailjuice series.  And what is wrong with using 'champion' quality crew results - if used for all classes and across the board.  We are all after 'boat potential' really are we not ?  Compare the top in each class against each other rather than the newbies at the back of a local club fleets in poor examples is surely better.  The MG comparison can be made as well but would be a bit of a stretch as that has trapeze, spinnaker and rotating carbon mast etc etc ... You could more easily suggest Merlin or Tasar maybe.

Greame - I don't exactly see how Icon has 'found favour' under either alternative.  969 or 979 for Icon !  Previously the GL system had us at 1000 and the year before at 990 - it moves both ways guys.  The GL Blaze handicap dropped to 1030 something a year or so before the PN one did aandnow it is just the other way round ...  Not too many crumbs there.

Performance calculations - well I do have a copy of Dans earlier spreadsheets - and this one has the Blaze at close to 1047..... No I don't think so either and a number of other numbers are 'interesting'.  These are facinating things these spreadsheets and this one takes no account for hull shape - so does hull shape not matter then ?  You will be chasing your tails for ever on that approach - trying to fit a slippery universal  'tape' over such a diverse number of classes.  Your formula will be a 'forever' project, believe me...

So a results based system definately has advantages in terms of practicality so the question is what assumptions or sample selections do you make ?  You do need a truly decent sample sizes to not need to apply some form of sample structuring.  If you do not then 'your' numbers can be called into disrepute if they do not come with a full health warning hence the suggestion of a degree of declared  'human assessment' as well until the numbers (sample size) available climb suffiently.

I'm done -  this one will no doubt run and ...run.  Just race them for heavens sake.  If the boats are over handicapped it will show over time ... I only suggest this reluctantly as I cannot see any real change in 'the system(s)' any time soon.  The 'least worst' in the short term at least has to be the GL approach.  

Anyway I'd rather pack the boat for Sunday's 'Battle of the Classes' thingme at Southampton  now ... it is the end of another long week.... so I'm  going for a web-free weekend ... great therapy.  I strongly recommend it and maybe even a bit of 'sailing' as well.    

Mike L.


Edited by blaze720 - 19 Sep 14 at 9:29pm

On to more mundane things, my

I want a stable, fact based formula to issue a number first.

Then 'these guys' can do what the f**k they like, to suit whatever agenda they like, but there has to be a basis in physical reality to begin with, something to return to, something with logic.

New classes get it issued, manufacturers get it applied, no argument.

Let them have their silly returns system, but after the fact.

The fact must come first.

You (Mike) arguing their case just because currently you've found favour within the system and or the conditions which may or may not suit the Blaze or that some crumbs of relief have been proffered to the Icon doesn't help the rest of the world in the greater scheme of things.

Peakys number system or the spreadsheet Dan Holman refuses to send me or the system allegedly used by QM, someone, a group of interested individuals need to take a look.

Who am I to do it, I have no authority, I'm just a consumer being buggered about.

It needs a naval architect, a web designer, a couple of manufacturers reps, a body, say a magazine to promote it and the scheme needs rolling out to clubs as an alternative for adoption.

They can then choose, use the RYA PY or the new RDA sphrs (sailboat performance handicap rating system)

I suspect they'd welcome it, they don't seem to have an appetite for it themselves.

Time for a Dinghy Racing League/Association/Federation to take over running the game from the RYA?