The Tasar v the Icon

If you discount top and bottom quartiles you do not get to 'boat potential' really .... Imagine a development class if you like.  You reject quite rightly the bottom quartile but generally any boat improvements will be disproportionely be in the front.  So any boat technical advantage is 'missed' for a considerable period of time.  The resulting PN will always reward the newer boat over the older ones..nd not just in class racing ..  because it is cushioned by the 7/8th of the iceberg below the surface  

Just extend the argument now to 'regular' classes.  Older boats are also not usually the fastest, they are not generally the most capable in any class fleet.  The potential of the boat itself to perform at the upper limit is missed by dilution.  For example what is the average age of a club sailed Laser ?  Yes we know the front have new kit every couple of years (do I mean months ?) but the average is a bit longer in the tooth...  (Excuse me using the Laser as an example but bear with me a mo ...  but we all know them and I even had 6 myself over the years and it is just representative here).  So is the 15 year old club Laser, (substitute with your own choice here *) with its aged sails and dodgy cover and foils representative of the potential of the class ?  This has little to do with crew ability as well note.

Mike L.

PS - The object is it not to measure boat performance - not the people.   I am not characterising people as 'crap' btw ... put the back of the fleet guy in a better boat and guess what most go faster.  Put the front of the fleet guy in an old clunker and suddenly many of them don't look quite so capable ....  If you have boat speed more of 'your' decisions do tend to look good .. and vice versa.

changing the parameters their Mike- one minute you were rejecting the bottom 75%, now you're just reject the bottom quartile.   50% slide in two pages... nice going. 

Originally posted by JimC record's stuck...

Originally posted by Chris 249 Originally posted by iGRF  it's certainly not as quick as a Contender, we just held it on one reach and we can keep it at bay in light weather, but once the wire is engaged upwind, sorry - game over. Funny thing is that down here the Contender is rated just 0.75% (approx) quicker than a Tasar. I don't think that's fair, but oddly enough once we get off our puddle and down to the wider waters the Tasars normally beat the Contenders. Mind you, our local Tasars include two ex world champs, and while the Contenders are good they are nowhere near that level.

Clearly they cant be - on open water a decent contender in any breeze will be in a different league to a Tasar. Here a Tasar is slower than a Phanton (PY) and a Phant is way slower than a contender in the breeze.

...... ...... you appear to be taking it rather too seriously.

You don't know my wife do you ? 

Er ...... anyway to answer your query ...with regard to ’seriously’ quite possibly (with tongue definitely in cheek much of the time .... you just don't get to know exactly when).  ‘Too' seriously though ? .... with the greatest respect possibly no more than many here including you Sir !  

Or could it be the reaction of some on this forum every time a few more breadcrumbs are dropped on the surface - and very happy to provide it occasionally we are as well.

Thing is that we are not the only ones who think something is less than optimal with the ‘vanilla’ raw PN system today. ..... and now more people ARE beginning to question the sample structure used are they not ?  Look at the discussions about sampling already, cos that is what they really are,  both for and against on this and other threads.

 The GL approach is not ideal, and not necessarily the whole answer but if you wanted any more proof that the venerable PN approach is being gently but widely challenged you don't have to look very far any more.  Nearly every major handicap event now uses the GL numbers, and many sailing weeks are going the same way as well...  Why ?

These are the facts that should be taken more seriously.    The real scratched record, and it is a very very old one now, is that the current approach is absolutely fine, "Of course it is just a few malcontents from a couple of minor classes stirring things up" ... .   "It was good for my old Dad, and his father before him ... and is for my children.... and will be for their children’s children etc ". You all know the sort of argument.....  

Wake up, if/when local clubs start using GL figures preferentially for club racing as well they might soon can the stock response  still remain the same ?  Surely not ....   Clear case of "evolve or die” maybe ?

Do remember this is a dinghy development forum – why on earth would we not discuss such topics here ?  If it annoys bores or provokes then don’t read this thread or perhaps any threads, but if you have a positive contribution or proposal people should pitch in.   So who does seek (or even benefit from) an un-questioning consensus with regard to the status quo ?  Well that is exactly why forums are so useful – so things can be questioned by all us proles out here.    

In time change will come, it as inevitable.   If the PN system becomes less and less important it really will have to adapt or die.    It will not happen tomorrow.. or next year  but it will  eventually.   We expect it to quietly evolve with regard to sample structure etc rather than be the subject of some real grass roots enquiry or headline overhaul.   But change, however introduced or presented will have to come.  Not ‘if’ but ‘when’ and how incrementally is the issue. 

When the PN system is again the default major handicap event one you will know it really has managed to evolve successfully   ... hopefully for those behind the scheme this will all be in good time !

Yes – many are lobbying for change and improvement and sailing forums are obviously a useful medium.

Right  that’s me done for now -  I’m on the wagon now (forum wise) until next week.  Life is  far too short etc .... suppose that just means I’m not taking this stuff seriously enough after all.

Mike L.