Historical Handicap for Phantom

   Does anyone know where I can find a handicap list for 1997 or thereabouts or can anyone remember what a Phanrom had in those days?
George Morris
Phantom 903
Weta 117

Author	Message Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic
Wetabix Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Posting king Joined: 15 Feb 10 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 118	Post Options Post Reply Quote Wetabix Report Post Quote Reply Topic: Historical Handicap for Phantom Posted: 09 Jul 23 at 10:48am
	Does anyone know where I can find a handicap list for 1997 or thereabouts or can anyone remember what a Phanrom had in those days? George Morris Phantom 903 Weta 117

JimC Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Visit Member's Homepage Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662	Post Options Post Reply Quote JimC Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 09 Jul 23 at 11:23am
	1052. That would be wooden hull and tin mast.

Wetabix Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Posting king Joined: 15 Feb 10 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 118	Post Options Post Reply Quote Wetabix Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 09 Jul 23 at 1:24pm
	Actually, back then I had an early grp boat , 947, which was rather heavy by modern standards and replaced it with 1036 and then 1260. I now have a wooden one, 903, with a carbon rig by an unknown mast maker - possibly Claridge. My recollection (which may be false) is that in those days I had a handicap of about 117 which might explain why in those days I did quite well but today I do less well, even with the wooden boat PN of 1047 as per the class website. There may be other reasons of course, like being 80 and having lost four stone, but I would be interested to know.

JimC Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Visit Member's Homepage Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662	Post Options Post Reply Quote JimC Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 09 Jul 23 at 4:29pm
	Carbon spars make a big difference. With hindsight I believe that carbon spars and foam sandwich hulls should have been handicapped separately as was done with terylene sails back in the day.

maxibuddah Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Really should get out more Joined: 06 Mar 09 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1760	Post Options Post Reply Quote maxibuddah Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 7:15am
	back in the day George, a Finn was 113 iirc and now its 1060ish and a Phantom was about 1051 so would be about 112 in old money at a guess
	Everything I say is my opinion, honest

Wetabix Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Posting king Joined: 15 Feb 10 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 118	Post Options Post Reply Quote Wetabix Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 7:27am
	Thanks v much - glad to see that you're still alive after all these years! Do you still have a Phantom? That tells me all I need to know including giving me a guide to what the conversion factor between the three digit and four digit system is, which I had thought was a simple times ten but it seems I am wrong there.

Sam.Spoons Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Really should get out more Joined: 07 Mar 12 Location: Manchester UK Online Status: Offline Posts: 3401	Post Options Post Reply Quote Sam.Spoons Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 10:11am
	They didn't just add a digit when they went from base 100 to base 1000 they also added around 7% so actually multiplied by around 10.7. This has happened twice as boats have been getting faster, granularity is reduced as numbers get lower so a percentage was added so that (approximately) half the numbers fall below 1000 (previously 100) and half above.
	Spice 346 "Flat Broke" Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"

JimC Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Visit Member's Homepage Really should get out more Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6662	Post Options Post Reply Quote JimC Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 6:41pm
	Conversion factors - I believe that strictly speaking there wasn't a conversion factor in 1996, the numbers were recalculated. In practice the actual ratio varied between 9.32 and 9.91, and 9.47 is a good approximation. In 1977 it was 1.2.

Sam.Spoons Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Really should get out more Joined: 07 Mar 12 Location: Manchester UK Online Status: Offline Posts: 3401	Post Options Post Reply Quote Sam.Spoons Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 7:50pm
	I bow you your greater knowledge FWIW the numbers change every year and I'm sure they could allow them to creep up without needing to apply a conversion factor as such. When I was first involved in dinghy racing in around 1965 I remember the Firefly being sometimes referred to as the 'scratch boat' with a PN of 100 but I've learned since that the Firefly PN was not 100 for long (or maybe at all ). The idea of maintaining a single class as the benchmark sounds good but all classes get faster over time, even the ubiquitous L@ser...
	Spice 346 "Flat Broke" Blaze 671 "supersonic soap dish"

Wetabix Send Private Message Find Member's Posts Posting king Joined: 15 Feb 10 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 118	Post Options Post Reply Quote Wetabix Report Post Quote Reply Posted: 10 Jul 23 at 7:53pm
	So what I want to know is how much faster than a Laser did I have to go to save my time then, and how much faster would I have to go today?