The predictability of PYAG

Originally posted by JimC The worst part of the 4 digit numbers is people make such a huge fuss over a 10 point change but wouldn't over a 1 point one.

Edited by turnturtle - 08 Mar 16 at 9:01am

Mostly less than one duff tack or shift missed. 

I can see GRFs point about leaving the Laser alone and moving everything else relative to it, which was done way back with the Firefly at 100, right up to the point where I actually start to think about the race times that come in to the system. If the timings are showing that the Laser has been sailed 4/1095 slower over the last 3 rolling years, but you are leaving it the same, do you then have to shift 100 or so other classes by the same amount to keep things fair?

More broadly, I still don't get the Laser number bashing. 10 years ago, it was common knowledge that Lasers did badly in handicap races, even when sailed well. Lots of reasons were given, usually revolving around the idea that there was always a better boat for the conditions, the Laser being an all rounder. Isn't it more likely that the handicap was wrong, in line with what the timings coming in from clubs are now showing?

What does it matter what happens with a py system. Whatever anyone comes up with to replace the incumbent system, someone will moan about it

Peaky already offered the solution, which could be automated, it would still be wrong, but at least there would be some logic to its' wrongness, not the anarchic crapfest they have at the moment and there would be a fixed pivot point.

The Laser centered at 600 to ease the maths and everything rejigged and pivoting about it, personally I'd rather see the 'peaky' number system offered for new boats rather than 'them' issuing an EN, new classes punch their length width, sail area, displacement, into the machine and it spits out an initial number, so what if you can design something to fit, it'll get hammered later by returns if that is still the favoured route to correction.

Edited by iGRF - 08 Mar 16 at 10:16am