I have a Spice, as far as I'm aware the last number recorded is the same as the number suggested at launch, presumably as there were enough returns for Spice to appear in the EN list but not enough to precipitate a change or promotion to the main list. Who decided that 930 was the right number for the Spice to start is racing career with?

I have a suspicion that in some cases a lower than realistic number is chosen to make the boat look faster than it actually is. Alternatively an entry into a couple of high profile handicap events combined with an artificially high number might lead to a couple of publicity generating wins. Who knows ;)

Spice will never have a 'real' (i.e. garnered from sufficient race results) number as there are very few (less than half a dozen I'd guess) racing infrequently at clubs that file returns so it's just a matter of persuading the race committee at my clubs that 950 is more realistic 

 In the brave new world, iGRF will decide based on whatever over-simplistic parameters his mood dictates at the time. With new designs his affection for the design, designer and builder will be pivotal.  

But the system will be far fairer than the current conspiracy against him perpetrated by the RYA PN system.

Leg-pulling aside, It does seem logical to me that, if an established class has a material rule-change (weight reduction, larger sails for instance) it should lose the established number as soon as the change is made and a revised (lower) Experimental Number issued in anticipation, rather than letting them bandit for a year or more until the results catch-up with them
 

The way to start a trial number would be to find a boat of broadly similar spec and use that as a base point. I suggested to my club we use the Rooster 8.1 as a start point. Similar sail area, similar type of boat and a boat they could measure my own performance against as I previously sailed one.

It worked pretty well on the whole. We did agree to drop to the GL PY after a while as people said we were winning too much (NB I felt my performance was on a par with my Laser/8.1 sailing). This made no difference.

It definitely isn't with me sailing it  but I take your point. Although it is very similar spec to a 400 (twin strings excepted) mine is about 25kg heavier than a 400 and nearly a foot shorter (as far as I can tell waterline length makes more difference than any other single factor on otherwise loosely similar boats)

Of course if you are sailing on water where it's not suited, you will be lucky to sail to the PY, but the national average PY can't be expected to account for people like me who take 505's to narrow rivers etc.

Absolutely

There are many failures that the PY should be called to account over, the blind alley of the 90s Topper range is not IMHO one of them.

Again absolutely, the other examples, ISO and Buzz were sufficiently successful to achieve critical mass unlike the Spice (and to a lesser extent the Boss). Iso is a couple of feet longer, supposedly 15kg heavier, has a slightly smaller rig and only one wire but, according to the PY list is 7 points faster than Spice (and 20 points faster than a 400). That WL effect again?

Just enjoy it on the water and find your own way of keeping track of improving?

And yet again, absolutely. This will be my 10th season in the Spice and I haven't regretted buying it for a second (and I now have the Blaze for slightly more serious racing).
 

I started the thread out of curiosity, the Spice is simply my own reference point. I know there is no possibility of there ever being a 'proper' handicap for it, (see above) and I'm perfectly happy for their to be no further mention of it in this thread.

But, how handicaps are arrived at is something that interests me and rather than take the H2 thread even further off topic I decided to start this one (not that it helped mind you). I understand how PY numbers for established classes are calculated, I'm sometimes surprised at where the numbers end up. Musing over the factors that affect them seems a reasonable way to spend a quiet afternoon.
 

Some kind of rise of floor or prismatic coefficient factor could deal with skinny unstable but fast boats c/w boats of similar dimensions but fatter and more stable.

Would the formula be secret like IRC?  Which would leave room for the conspiracy theorists to suggest that builder's are in cahoots with the handicappers.

What any handicap formula would not deal with unless the RO had some subjective input, is the relative performances of different types of boat in different conditions and varying wind conditions; i.e. Some classes excel on beat and running courses, others in light winds, others when it is blowing dogs off chains.

Ultimately people might conclude that pulling numbers out of a hat in a committee room might work better.

Just a thought, if designers knew that the numbers would be adjusted to represent the 'real world' performance of the boat within a couple of years would that not remove the incentive to design to the rule?

If it works "well enough" that's probably the best you can hope for

Again, I think Graeme has 'fingered' one of the problems facing any builder thinking of launching either an all new boat or a fettled version of an old classic. Where I don't agree is in his solution (if he'll excuse the pun).

With modern tracking devices it should be an easy matter to have a 'sailor boy stig' ( or a whole school of SB Stigs) - so as to match boat and a range of crew weights and sail it over a pre determined course and then compare the results with a known factor. And yes, that could well be the L*ser as in theory the boat itself will not change. I know that the people at Sail Racer were quite happy to do some demos on this (and that may still happen). Then, when Mike at 'Circus' (name changed to avoid conflict with that well know sailing club seen at the winter events) launches his next new single hander project a day/weekend spent with the people from Sail Racer could well spit out a number that is an honest and defendable trial number.

I can only see one problem! You'd have meaningful data on a few boats - but that then questions the rest of the sh*t numbers that are out there!

Could be - should be - done!

D

I can't see how your system would iron these things out. The relevant factors are way too complicated.

I doubt any system could do that and I doubt race officers/race committees would want to have the extra complication of deciding if it was a windy/moderate/lightwind race, and it probably changed during the race. However a simple means of applying a handicap to a new class has it's attractions even though it's not going to be the most accurate (so err on the low side until results suggest otherwise). Also a simple method of re-rating two handers when sailed solo, without a spinnaker and/or trapeze(s) may find favour and encourage the owners of 'unsuitable' boats to continue racing them when the crew grows up and goes to uni......

iGRF and others. Something along these lines  - at least, in terms of a demo, could still happen. I was having lunch out the other day (and I remembered my wallet - that makes it an important event) and this was being discussed. I was happy to contribute - as an 'honest' tester and scribe but this just highlights the next problem; where would you post the results? This was the sort of thing I could do back in the days of Dinghy Mag but today....I just don't see the outlet for this sort of writing.

But it is a bit like the FOM. You need a venue, some boats, rib for photos, SailRacer to do the techy bits. I've some ideas.....one of the advantages of being an independent is that I have some freedom to think outside the constraints of advertising budgets and the like. Will you be at the Dinghy Show? if so, track me down and I'll give you the insider story!

D

A good post RS, thanks. That seems the most sensible way (and I assume that's how it's done) but no one person/committee makes the decision. In some cases I guess it's the designer, others the manufacturer/marketing guys and yet others the hosting clubs racing manager. Those with axes to grind will recommend a number that makes the boat either seem faster or one that makes it more competitive depending on the boat and their aspirations for it. 

I do like GRFs suggestion that there should be a 'scratch' boat that remains on 1000 while the others move around it, that way all those lost classes that haven't had a real PN for years will, in theory, have a fixed reference point but even the L@ser will have got a little faster over the years, particularly with the Mk2 sail and new carbon topmast so even that is doomed to failure

Good point Rupert. But in a way - that is just what I'm saying. If you had an accepted number for the Buzz (based on real data) and then you wanted to launch the Spice, you ran it over the pre determined course for a day or so, downloaded the tracking data, compared it to the and then you can make an informed decision. Rather than the wet finger in the wind, is it 30 points or 40 (or 20 or 50 even) you've data, fully in the public domain, that everyone can see.

RS 400 also makes a good point. You're going to have to compare apples with apples. It isn't difficult to set a bench mark for a genre, all the more so when it is a SMOD, a boat that once it has an established number, it is hard to explain why the PY is changing (unless there has been a change in the equipment used). In the end - it isn't rocket science  - but what would we have to complain about then. I'm sure the man of kent will come up with something!

Buzz is identical to Spice apart from one extra wire and +50% (roughly) sail area. Any other differences are cosmetic. 

At least that would give race officers something to go off and get those lost classes racing.

Wasn't that the Firefly at 100?