PY Numbers for 2017

Edited by Chris 249 - 09 Mar 17 at 1:21am

I probably haven't made it exactly clear how I'd see 'my' system working but here goes.

The 'Rating' could be two part, centred on measurements based partly on Peakys formula and partly on my own additions of sail area v crew weight, The Laser fixed at 1000, the second part of the rating would indeed be based on weight, but a crew weight/skill number with Scratch at it's lowest. In say 3 - 5 bands starting at entry level and progressing through intermediate, club winner, nationals winner and internationals winner at scratch. The better being the lighter and the lighter obviously speeds up the handicap.

So taking the Laser 1, It's 'rating would be made up from the length, beam, weight sail area and the optimal crew eight of 70 kgs which rates it at say the value of 1090 old money.

If you fall into a Category A sailor that is you have or are still capable of winning international events then you ride it upto -10, Category B (nats winner) sailors sail scratch, Category C sailors say (top ten nationals Club race winners) get upto + 10 and Category D and or National Average get around 20 which can vary according to national trends, Category E (Entry level get upto 30).

Your task then Jim should you choose to accept it, is to work on your handicap which can reduce in increments, and this is the bit that could be fiddled with to everyones hearts content without messing with everyones mental logic of the bloody boats getting faster or slower when they don't.

Just set the National Average bit of the handicap where your data dictates and folk can either choose to sail it or apply their own Handicap (with the view to improving personal status as we'd all like to).

Edited by iGRF - 09 Mar 17 at 10:22am

Originally posted by mozzy . What separates these boats in big fleet events is that mistakes as punished by dirty air and reduced strategy options down the fleet. This doesn't happen as much in club racing.

1.       The PY scheme is not 100% accurate.
2.       The PY scheme will never be 100% accurate.
3.       The PY scheme works best when applied across a long series.
4.       The PY scheme is not very transparent.*
5.       The PY scheme rates the relative performance of boats**
6.       The PY scheme could be made more accurate, but would take a lot of validating and effort.
7.       The 1/1000 resolution suggest a level of accuracy that is unachievable.
8.       The concept of local adjustment is deeply flawed.
a.       It is a huge administrative burden for each club to tweak numbers.
b.      Individual clubs have very little data to make such tweaks (risk of personal handicapping).
c.       There is no guidance on how to do this objectively.
d.      Lack of consistency between similar clubs.

*It is not clear from material published by the RYA how the numbers are calculated - which results are excluded, what kind of averaging is used, are the changes damped/filtered, are there any human checks and balances on the numbers? etc, etc.
** Take two boats. Initially it is thought that both have equal performance and so the PY of both is set at 1000. Over time, it becomes apparent that Boat A is 1% quicker than Boat B. There are a number of ways the PY can be altered to reflect this – 990 & 1000, 995 & 1005, 1000 & 1010, or anything in between. Looking at the last couple of years RYA PY data, it seems that for every class that drops there is almost another one that rises, which suggests that in this simple example the RYA scheme would propose something like 995 & 1005. The implications of this are many and subtle. Most obviously, a rise in PY does not necessarily mean that the class has gotten slower in absolute terms, which is counter intuitive. Secondly, it makes local adjustments harder (suppose the RYA have adjusted the numbers to 995 & 1005, but at my club we believe they should race off the same number, due to my local conditions. Should make them both 995, 1000, or 1005? This decision matters very much to Boat C, who sails off 1010. Thirdly, it makes benchmarking across clubs very difficult – Club X can't use Club Ys Aero 7 number unless it uses all their other numbers.

I would like to ask that the PYAG consider the following suggestions:

1.       Put a document on the RYA website explaining how the numbers are calculated.
2.       Reduce the resolution of the numbers – round numbers to the nearest 4 or so.
3.       Adjust the way the relativity is used, so that only classes that have actually gotten slower in absolute sense (or were previously harshly handicapped) get a PY increase. Obviously there are not many classes that evolve to become slower.
4.       Find ways to reduce the burden and onus on clubs to alter numbers.
5.       Publish the historic PY numbers of classes over the years, so that the relative effect of changes can be better appreciated.
6.       Have a different, and transparent, method for allocating (temporary) numbers to new classes – it should not be in the hands of the manufacturer/class to propose a number.

At the end of the day, it is not about having a more accurate scheme. It is about having a fair and workable scheme that encourages boats to go racing.

In my experience it is easier to chase than be chased