D-Zero

I don't think Russ is that far off-the-mark Simon.  Any comments perceived as negative towards the Aero have been directed more at the hyperbole in their go-to-market approach.  

Edited by kneewrecker - 19 Sep 14 at 12:13pm

Originally posted by JimC Speaking completely personally. A purist point of view would be that without observed performance it's absurd to issue corrected times. So for classes where a club has no satisfactory handicap perhaps the purist would say the best thing is to only publish elapsed times for those boats, and no corrected times or placings.

Originally posted by Rupert Originally posted by iGRF Originally posted by Punky The RYA is the national authority charged with running dinghy sailing in all its forms.  It needs to stand up and be counted.  I don't care if it gets an initial estimate wrong, because they can issue new guidance when evidence shows they are wrong.  But someone has to make the initial estimate and the RYA are based placed to do that - to wash it's hands and say "not our problem" is a deriliction of duty IMO.  But if they issue a trial number and then the evidence says it is wrong, people like grumph , who only appear to buy a boat if they think the yardstick is favorable, will then jump up and down saying "you can't change the number, my boat hasn't got any faster", with absolutely no regard for the fact that the guessed number will be wrong in the 1st place. If the number is too low, and the PYAG put it up, they will find something else to whinge about - maybe that they bought a boat expecting it to be faster than a so and so, because the number said so, and now it doesn't, and IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT!Now, if there weren't prats around with no willingness to understand the system, then possibly the RYA could get involved in setting a trail number, maybe off the results of something like the Battle of the Classes. Meanwhile, clubs will just have to do what they have always done, and see how boats do on the water. The RYA has never set numbers on no data at all.

I take exception to that, kindly point out to me any new boat I've purchased because I felt it had a favourable handicap.

My purchases.. RS500 sailed off 963 it is now 973
Alto purchased and sailed off 925 it is now 912 but at the time there were no others about.
EPS it's is 1024.

Don't talk bollox.

As for the PYAG I can level that accusation and all they have to fall back on were some returns from a lake co incidentally used by the 'new' licensees of the Icon which were miraculously notified after the 969 and the old licensee forced to give up marketing it.

Had they an agreed formula based in solid fact, backed by their years of experience and a boat shape that never changes around which to pivot their tables, I couldn't argue, but as it is any number of conspiracy theories can be suggested. And these manufacturers? There are times they can't even look each other in the eye they're that defensive, they need to work together on selling the sizzle as well as their individual sausages.

This sort of thing destabilises the very market they rely on, not to mention some of the other un printable suggestions that reach my ears from time to time surrounding enthusiastic fanbois action at organisation level.

It really is childish and unprofessional and I thought the windsurfing business was bad, we're shiny knights in white armour by comparison, we do at least come together when we need to.

Edited by iGRF - 19 Sep 14 at 12:30pm

Originally posted by Rupert Originally posted by JimC Speaking completely personally. A purist point of view would be that without observed performance it's absurd to issue corrected times. So for classes where a club has no satisfactory handicap perhaps the purist would say the best thing is to only publish elapsed times for those boats, and no corrected times or placings. But I want a number NOW. And if the number doesn't mean I beat the Streakers, who are all sailed by numpties for whom I have no respect, then the number is WRONG, and I want a better one NOW.

Originally posted by JimC Speaking completely personally. A purist point of view would be that without observed performance it's absurd to issue corrected times. So for classes where a club has no satisfactory handicap perhaps the purist would say the best thing is to only publish elapsed times for those boats, and no corrected times or placings.

Whilst I can actually see some appeal in that, it is clearly unsatisfactory - who would buy a new boat knowing they can't effectively race for a year?  Personally I would (and have), but we all know many wouldn't and who could blame them.