PY Inland vs Sea

So the real issue is what part of the overall sample you consider and it was always so.  The problem is the level of consistency across a class  (homogeneity if you  like).  If the ‘spread’ is particularly wide you will never handicap the potential of a class, at the front , to dominate much of handicap racing.   The alternative is tough on the back of that fleet if you do over-weight the impact of the front on results. 

In fact many classes, internally, understand this and have ‘classic’ or ‘vintage’ groupings and offer suggested alternative (lesser) handicap numbers.  The problem there is this is not necessarily reflected in the ‘national’ pot when the results are ‘gathered in’ for PN purposes ...A boat of class ‘n’ is tied to a recorded time in the overall figures and not to any locally varied number or positon in any races.  I’m sure to be corrected if wrong on this supposition  .....  Classic groups, I’m pretty sure, are not recognised and their timings are simply lumped in.  Bottom line is the national average numbers produced can be a bit of a gift to the front of that fleet in handicap events.  Vice versa must obviously true as well and much of the bottom half of the fleet do not stand much of a hope !    

In an ideal imagined world all classes would be made up of boats with identical potential to get to the front of that fleet – with no theoretical ‘spread’.  The only factor determining who ‘won’ in that fleet would be the crew.  When they then raced in handicap crew factors, coupled to condition factors on that day (because different classes do have their ‘favourite’ conditions of course) would be the only determining factors.

I don’t think there can be any ultimate system devoid of some human judgement at some level – to suggest anything less is simply idealistic and more than likely to lead to less than ideal numbers. 

So if we have to accept some human judgement what should that be based on ?  Eliminate the top 25% and the bottom 25% ?  Just the bottom  33% ? or any other ‘cut’ of the data mountain ?  etc etc .... Consider separate ‘classic’ numbers for older boats – especially for the development classes might be attractive and encourage a lot more people to bother at all.  

New classes and small classes pose special and additional problems –  and a solid and certain treatment should be developed.  Maybe a probationary period of a season or two where they are recorded but are separated from the overall results at the major events would help and additionally they should be assessed on the water first and a ‘human’ produced notional number applied for the probationary period. (I’m sure both manufacturers and young CA’s are sick of subject and would even pay for it – yes yes  and very seriously!)  

I suppose I’m arguing for a more proactive manner where the approach is to lead  rather than to follow when the wheels start needing a bit of oil.  The advent of GL numbers is a very strong symptom that with  ‘core’ system  modifications  might be both possible and desirable.  Don’t get too excited about their numbers either way, these can change over time as well, but their numbers and approach do seem to work well – if you count popularity as any measure.    

Mike L.