But...

"Moreover, the Great Lakes Committee maintain a website (greatlakes.org.uk/The-Method.php) in which they clearly document how the numbers in use for the current season are arrived at." 

After looking at the great lakes website I'd have to say it's really not very clear. They state their aims, but the link to 'the method' isn't a method at all, it just talks loosely about 'analysis'.  

It would be interesting to hear from Great lakes just how much of the analysis is done quantitatively, versus gut feeling from the committee. I'm not saying either are really better, but it would be helpful, for those looking to replicate groupings of similar local waters (shifty ponds, exquisite estuaries, high seas, etc). 

For me, most of you won't be surprised to hear, the localised one designs of the 1940's sounded like a far greater sport than the computer models suggested as 'the solution'. If you need a computer to tell you the result, it just doesn't sit right with me. I want that neck and neck feeling of being in a 'race'. I want immediate feedback on when I'm gaining inches and losing yards. 

I think that it is a bit unrealistic to introduce some of the concepts that DH proposes, a lot of the problems in recruiting RO’s relate to the perceptions of complexity in managing handicap races.

When he refers to the system working best with similar types of craft, this confirms to me the idea of running different races and courses for different types of craft, the Weston Grand Slam used to do this quite well.

Have we finally got bored with chewing on that old gristle. 

I'm pretty much with Mozzy, David and TT; interesting history but so far as more complication I'm out. I actually quite like the random variability of what we have. edit add and the reality check of meeting up for class racing.  

And as for dark conspiracies, nah, I'm more inclined to comedic self importance, I once had an RYA area something or other tell me that he was privy to "certain" information, please, it's the RYA not the CIA MI5 or KGB.  

As for unfavourable or favourable numbers killing or promoting classes. So far as I'm concerned that say a lot more about shallow and self delusional sailors than anything else. A nice boat will always be desirable to anyone with any discernment whatever the number and likewise the other way. 

edit :- excellent article BTW 

As the owner of a new class in the Hadron H2 I will be showing up to some of the SailJuice races and I totally agree with what Rupert sets out here. I am fine with the crappy PY that we have been given under the GL system and am looking forward to just racing in a bigger fleet and the challenges that will bring!

A big thank you to all those who have commented directly - even those who thought the views misplaced or downright wrong. The good news is that it is clearly possible to engage in a debate on the topic in a positive tone. However, since writing it, I was gifted a folder of documents (albeit from the late 1960s) which clearly show collusion in regard to a PY for a new class. In that respect then, the case is proven that it has happened, but I would be very careful of making the link that this could/would still happen in modern times. You might think that but I couldn't possibly comment.....

And so on to Part 2! The working title for this was 'snakes' - as Part 3 will be 'ladders'. Let's look at what is, if not wrong, then what could be working better......and then look at possible ways forward.

One thing is clear to me, with every club I visit, every boat that I look at - the very nature of the sport is changing and just trying to continue to do the same old things in the hope that the results will be different is the very definition of insanity...... 

Neither in reality. it is down to clubs where the boats are sailed to allocate an EN. The PYAG will not allocate a number without data (and rightly so) and a builder recommnded number should always be treated with a large pinch of salt (but they are damned if they do and damned if they don't).

FWIW the D-Zero sailed on 1010 or 1015 for the first 2 years in the GL series. We all ignored the overall results and concentrated on having fun and racing each other.

In terms of EN clubs should pick a similar boat as a starting point. Difficult for the H2 as there isn't really a comparable boat out there but fir the D-Zero I suggested the Rooster 8.1 (it was the boat I sailed previously so allowed a fairly easy direct comparison of my results).

My gut feeling for the H2 is that it will settle out as a similar sort of speed overall to the D-Zero (having raced against them a couple of times and sailed a H2).

In a new boat not only is everyone new to it, but the class doesn't have a history of technique development to employ. It takes a while for the collective and individuals to hone technique. This is especially true of skiff type boats. Often a EN that is just out of grasp ends up being about right. And if it's not, it's diplomatically a lot easier to increase a classes PY than reduce it. I really don't think it's a conspiracy to stifle new classes.

Also I don't think there is any manufacture / designer conspiracy. They'd want a fair-ish number so buyers aren't immediately disillusioned. But really I imagine most are aiming to create a new 'class' with large fleets. In which case they would be better focused on the type of sailing the design lends it self to, off the water practicality and cost. 

Do you mean the SJ/RYA? I think there is required a certain amount of subjective filtering of results, otherwise if it were a pure formulae from raw data then they would just publish it.  I imagine the lack of transparency is to a) allow frank discussion between the committee b) not undermine the number by admitting that. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy though. 

In cycling you have midweek handicap races. It's based on ability rather than equipment, but basically, the commissionaire set off the 4th Category riders first, then 3rds, then 2nds, then 1st and elites. He just makes the gaps up on the spot and adjusts next week to get a closer finish.  Because it's obvious how ad-hoc it is, no-one takes it too seriously and it's all good fun. 

The problem with handicap racing is people give the numbers and results far more respect than they're due. It would be better if sport just acknowledged it's not to be taken seriously. 

Which brings me to where I disagree with the 'solution' the article points toward. The answer isn't to add complexity sell a false hope of some super fair complex model. It's to admit it's a bit of fun, the results don't mean much, just have fun doing it, then get out class racing when you want proper competition.  

+2  

I agree that the H2 will probably end up being similar or the same as the D-0, at our club when it is windy the H2 has the edge thanks to the extra hiking leverage upwind but in the light the D-0 is faster due to less wetted area and the ability to run by the lee. Whats interesting is the wide range of ENs being used by different clubs this year

I agree with this - maybe I am weird but I have always bought a boat based upon its design and whether I enjoy sailing it rather than the PY! If you have a boat that is nasty to sail but has a great PY then it will not be long before it is gathering weeds - I enjoy sailing boats, winning follows if this is the case!

I promised myself I wouldn’t get involved in any thread to do with this article when I said no to a(ny) journalist attending the PYAG meeting back in the summer as I knew it would be coming, but hey, you only live once so here goes.

To me there are some interesting historical points but with regard to the modern day parts, this article just reinforces how often only one side of the story gets reported.

For what it’s worth Dougal or David or whatever he calls himself asked to specifically attend a PYAG meeting. His offer was declined as we felt it's preferable for the members of the group to be able to discuss anything and everything freely without the worry of their opinions/decisions appearing as click bait on y&y.

Whilst politely declining the offer to attend the PYAG meeting, Bas Edmonds from the RYA offered to meet the "respected journalist" (if ever there was such a thing  ) with an eye to explaining the process the PYAG go through when finalising the numbers.

For anyone unsure - look up the YR2 calcs which are the basis of the PYS website on the RYA’s PY page. It’s been a while since I looked but there are even specimen races to show some typical calcs. The PYAG are then presented with an amalgamation of all the club data from the website for the last three seasons class by class. It should be remembered that PY is an observed handicap system and not measurement based so the rating for a boat is based on previous seasons results which is a fundamental reason why all classes can and do change numbers periodically.

It is a good point that someone else made about the method of returns. The process has changed immensely since I joined the group when paper returns were still the norm. At that point clubs filled in a long winded form and suggested the changes required at their clubs. This required them to effectively have done all of the calculations throughout the year long hand. 99.999% wouldn't have done this so would have been at best guessing any changes needed so opted for the safer route of never recommending any. The PY group accepted that few changes were needed even if they knew some actually were. They just didn’t have any evidence to support this from the clubs using the system. And even if they did, the unwritten rule of the Yardstick group at that time was that Primary numbers only ever moved by a maximum of 1 point, secondary numbers by 2 points maximum and recorded numbers by 3 points maximum for “stability”. We took the brakes off this when we switched to the PYS data based method, but the fundamental sums behind the calculations have never changed. Of course none of this recent history which has we hope considerably improved the PY system, was mentioned.

What also wasn’t reported was that the group does keep an eye on alternatives, and considers requests from any clubs to change or amend things very seriously. At the moment all of the evidence suggests that the balance between accuracy and complication for the overall system is about right. Yes clubs could apply a GPS trace over a local tide chart with wind data stream correction applied but at the moment, most clubs are still writing down finish times on a scrap of paper to transfer to a results program at some point during the following week. Please remember the PY scheme is run by the RYA for clubs, not classes or individuals. If clubs say they want us to look at something we will. To say we are not prepared to look at alternatives is not correct.

I understand Mr Henshall has still not taken up the offer of a meeting with Bas at the RYA, but stating "I couldn't really be bothered to investigate any further" probably wouldn't have added much to the article....

Enjoy your handicap racing everyone. I hope the PYAG/EHAG as it's now known can continue to work to provide the fairest numbers we can for everyone from the data we receive. 

As we've said before, the more data we have to work with the "better" the numbers will be. So rather than throw stones from the outside, if you really want to help to improve the system for everyone, now is the time to press your club in to making sure it has uploaded all of its results to the PYS website as we will soon be starting to look at the numbers for the coming 2018 season.

Well I never!!

Right - for the record - the offer to meet with Bas was NOT to discuss the working of the PYAG.

And even if it was - to what end? He could tell me that all was sweetness and light or that the numbers came from a séance in a darkened, smoke filled room - I'd still be none the wiser.

NEXT

I asked specifically if the PYAG looked at/sought out alternatives to the current PY system and  got the answer 'no' - which I correctly reported.

WHAT IS INCORRECT is the use of quotation marks, according to me the comment that "I couldn't be bothered to investigate any further". Did I say that? because if I didn't, I think you should edit your post and remove that and be PDQ about it. Had there been a hint of something for me to investigate, I would have done so, in as transparent and responsible a manner possible.

The previous post has called you out for arrogance - to which I'd now add irresponsibility and a leavening of ignorance.

Is this the true measure of the PYAG? 

Urr nope, sorry, but I didn't attribute that quote to you. I said that if you had have said what was in quotes it wouldn't have added much to the article, that's all.....

Okay - let's take the heat out of this and get back to the earlier, sensible and I hope, practical discussion on a topic that like it or not, impacts on most (though I full accept not all) grassroots club sailors. I do believe in what I write however - is what we have now the best that we can do? Already I'm seeing automation of the Race Officer function - at some clubs the RO powers up the system, sets the start time and watches the line (and no, this was not at a major 1st Division club) - so the job becomes easier, not more difficult. Is it 'pie in the sky' to think that the club IT system could look at wind direction, strength  and Tide (if any) and select from a library of pre-set courses the best match for the day? No, it isn't and it avoids a w/l course being set by an asymmetric sailor or a reach, reach followed by a reach set by a Contender sailor.

Should the sport - in the wider context here in the UK, be looking at ways to make things both better and easier? Yes, I believe they should. Who better to ask the question "what can we do to make it better" than the RYA?  I have no axe to grind with them - nor they with me (I hope).  But looking ahead to what will come next, it is clear to me that something needs to be done. The game has changed already, leaving the sport to play catch up.

It is not longer a case of "maybe we should do better" but now a time for "we MUST do better".

D

I'm not sure I would like a pre-set set of courses though. Our largish lake has a predominant wind direction and we'd end up sailing the same course 8 weeks out of 10 which would just get dull. I like that we have people from different fleets on duty consecutive weeks all of whom have a different idea about the ideal course.

While the EHAG is not currently actively looking for an alternative to the PY system we are always happy to discuss ways to try to improve the system, but based on what we see from clubs any further complication might cause more problems than it solves.

Chris - good points! Most clubs have a restriction in one way or another on the water that their course area occupies. Where possible you want to start with a beat (though for many clubs with fixed lines this just isn't always an option) and then have a split of reaches, runs and yet more beating. There is the trapezoid, P course and a couple of other options - again, the system can see if course 'x' was used in similar conditions and chose the next best option. None of this is Star Wars - we could do it now.....

D

I agree with the previous poster that some OEMs make an assumption that all those in race management can tell the difference between a 4.7, Radial and a Standard or an Aero 5, 7 or 9 ... the logos of the latter appear quite small to me.

Meanwhile Dougal is looking for Race Officers to make judgement calls on wind force, direction and tidal conditions.  With no disrespect to our club race RO’s, but simply setting a course with a good beat for the one design fleets can be a challenge.  I can see the brick bats going their way if they program in the wrong course.

Don’t get me wrong, I accept the place for handicap racing particulars as the class structures get increasingly fragmented, or where there is a need to sweep up declining fleet sizes, but I really have doubts that increasing the burden on race management is really the solution at club racing level.

What hasn’t been touched on is whether there is a place for personal handicapping on a more structured basis, if you stripped out the divergent skill levels in different classes at PY level, would there be a place for personal handicapping as a layer on top?  Golf seems to work, and there would be an aspirational aspect of being a zero handicapper ... like Ben Ainslee; just a thought.

But could we (the sailing community) agree to implement a single personal handicap scheme throughout every club so people can move from club to club taking their number with them. I could see that causing some headaches.

Grf is on this own planet. Which to be honest is the best place for him.

And bless your heart for taking the time to type the preceding rationale.

With modern technology it is possible to have a simple app that the RO opens and it takes a data feed automatically from free plugs ins like Wind Guru that gives you the wind speed over the course of the race. You could get the rescue boat to take a lap of the course with the app in "course mode" so that it just logged the course and took a GPS read out of where the buoys were. My point is that for this to work it just needs to be as easy as hitting one button on an app and we go from there.

If you dont think it can work then Google "Harrys Lap Timer" which many ludities like me use to work out how fast we drive around tracks here in the UK using a phone app!

Actually I don't disagree with the rest of your post but (pedant alert ) the best sailors will win the race (with the best CT), the guys first back to the beach though will mostly those sailing the fastest boats.... 

David normally I love your post and your articles. This one I found unpleasant. You already know all the answers to all the question you asked. You always say you are open minded and and have complained about being constrained by outside forces, but then out of the blue do this article. Which is not a balanced piece, but a knowing article done in the style of a shock jock or Jeremy Vine. I hoped and normally get better from you. If you hoped for informed debate, you failed. All you did was set off the tin foil hat gentleman. I expected better from you. ☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️

If you're looking at working out the wind and tide on the course, even more sophisticated systems were tried (and failed) in the days of IMS racing in yachts. They also tried downloading all the info from the instruments on competing yachts; trailing the fleet with a powerboat downloading all the data via expensive instruments; and using special forecasts. All failed.

The problem is people presenting handicap racing as being more accurate than it is. 

The problem with the article I highlighted in my first post was it attacks the RYA and holds up Great Lakes as having an open method. Yet, there is no stated method for Great Lakes which I can see. 

Basically, to get sensible handicaps from historic data it's also going to take some subjective filtering of boat and sailor ability and the range of performance likely from given designs. This involves saying which boats you think are easy to sail and which groups of sailors you don't think are as good. It's necessary to get a system that works. You can see why the committee would be reluctant to put this information out there, though. Everyone likes sausages, but no one wants to see how they're made. 

Maybe, to highlight how important the subjective input is, Great Lakes and RYA should process a set numbers based on input data assuming all boats are sailed on average equally competently, not removing any out-layers?

The only way to get away for having a subjective interpretation of past results is to create a performance model based on design characteristics. The issue here is that if people take this racing seriously then people will start designing to push out on the model, like they do with IRC. Ironically, the ultimate end you get to with this is one big class with a weird box rule, where the box is the model parameters. Is that a game we want to play? 

I don't think adding weather and tide variables as another layer of calculation is going to help anyone relate better to the results. 

If anything, handicaps need stripping back to make their bluntness more obvious and thus more acceptable.  Then leave it there as a bit of fun and stop tying ourselves up in knots with complexity. 

Interested to see how they arrived at that formula, it seems unnecessarily complex and could be represented as PN-16% (near enough) which makes the mental arithmetic much easier.

I usually have some common ground with Cirrus but subtly disagree with this opening line

 "The passions raised and often expressed here are a clear measure of how important handicap racing has become today. "  

I think the passions do come from changing times but to my mind not in a good way. 

Firstly we are moving ever more to a society which always seeks to blame someone else for our failings or dissatisfaction.

Secondly much as I appreciate the work done by all volunteers involved, I think a more realistic sales job is needed,  perhaps "yes we keep trying to refine and adjust but results will always be variable"

I also think the condescending attitude shown by some towards PY is unhelpful. To say such as "the only real racing is in ........., ........., " is plainly pretentious. PY can be very real to those it suits and I suggest for a decent percentage who understand the limitations and daily lottery an enjoyable experience.

Chris, there is a certain  amount of ease to this because it is all about the data. I would love to discuss further with "someone in the know" if you want to PM me. I have played with allot of race data over the last year or so to see the possibilities of this done as well as setting up an experimental league system for sailors with an ambition of being able to implement such a system.

John

I think this is a key point; certain people here will not recognise their results are poor because they are poor sailors not because there is a problem with the PY system.

Although that post from the guy from the PYAG didn't really help himself ... as I am sure he is doing a great job but the constant criticism no doubt elicited a passionate response that didn't really come over very well but the author of the article was also a bit provocative ...

It's all done to generate discussions ...

or to avoid them... after all one of the reasons cited for not allowing Dougal access was to avoid fuelling "Y&Y clickbait".  

Edit: which is exactly what the article was.... and it set off Graeme good an proper and here we are, on this forum and on other media, stirring up the same old dross about handicap racing.  

Whilst I acknowledge the general agreement towards continuous improvement, (well written Cirrus btw- food for thought...) isn't it better that we all accept handicap sailing generally for what it is, then and only then, we can decide if it's something we want to participate in when we go sailing?  

Well that worked then 

PY sailing is always what it is a best estimate; if you want to know who is best all get in the same boat.

There would be a risk of people trying to game the system if they thought it was possible. And they would be deluged with vast numbers of highly detailed complaints about specific boats which would make their work next to impossible.

Handicaps will never be anything more than an attempt to produce a vaguely level playing field for people in different boats. Trying to pretend they ever could be anything more is a waste of time that could be spend having fun sailing, which is surely the whole point of the handicapping exercise?

this 

but seriously why the need to blame anyone, sailors who blame the "system" and its practitioners need to seriously look at what they're achieving, mostly bad feeling and turning people off sailing.

agreed 

The PYAG are damned if they do, damned if they don't.... frankly I don't blame them for not wanting the distraction.  

Common sense would suggest most people who are happy sailing in handicap racing are pretty content with the system.... that doesn't mean moderate improvements can't be achieved, but overly complicating it, or bringing in more variables or technical requirements for everyone to have their smart phone on the water, is probably not a great idea.  

Half the benefit from getting out on the water - racing, handicap racing or simply cruising around, is to switch that f**king thing off for an hour!!!!

I've done training with mates where we've set up our own 'pursuit races' based on how much time we feel we can catch up. 

These things are simple, the errors obvious and it doesn't matter because its just something done to add a bit of spice where otherwise there would be no competition. 

The problem with handicapping in our sport is the semi quantitative way they are produced creates an air of accuracy that can never be there, and frankly isn't needed. The committee style of calculating the handicaps adds to this myth (even though done with the good intention of having frank discussion and protecting the integrity of the handicaps).

The fundamental problem with handicaps are: 

1) Based on historic results cannot separate sailor skill from boat potential. 

2) Based on predictive model will just encourage a development box rule, based on the model parameters. 

3) Subjective curation of the above to limit those problems is subject to abuse/ accusations of conspiracy.

Weighting handicaps to account for wind, current, waves and course does not solve the above, even if it were user friendly enough to be adopted. It would only exacerbate the myth of accuracy. 

I think the problem is how the handicap system is understood. More openness about how the raw data is massaged to get working handicaps would be best I believe. 

Jason Ker’s article in the current Seahorse is interesting....

You will know who is best at sailing that class. The class defines the game and attributes of the winner. 

Like it or lump it, being the right physicality is an important part of sailing.

Handicap racing compares the results from two different games and makes an arbitrary decision on which performance was more meritorious. I'm not sure it gets you any closer to deciding who is better. 

If weight /size isn't something you want to be part of the game, then sail a class with weight equalisation. Maybe design a local one design that cater for the sizes of people you have? 

Weight/size is important, but it really isn't the decider. It is part of the game. But no more so than a lot of other sports. 

At the level I suspect most of us are sailing, and certainly at my level I reckon we have a 20kg weight range before weight becomes a bigger issue than all the other mistakes I'm making.

I just think getting in different boat shifts that weight issue elsewhere. I think the penalty of being overweight or underweight in a one design is far less than people imagine, and the differences between designs across conditions relative to their handicap is often far greater. But, yes, at the extremes of a 9 year old and an elite finn sailor then the handicap system allows some form of competition, like the older kids giving the younger kids a head start in tig. 

On a Thursday evening at your local club that's a fun thing. The issue is people selling it as the direction the sport is heading, and a method by which we can run national competitions. 

You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better but I am afraid it is skill that makes the biggest difference; skill to sail the boat fast through the water and skill to sail tactically the fastest route. 

All these belly aching about being the wrong weight or an unfair PY is a smokescreen for a fundamental lack of skill.

If you get better so will your results.

However, one problem for sailors of the lost classes is that PNs have migrated upwards (ref the L@ser which certainly hasn't got slower in real terms over the last 15 years despite going from 1078 to 1087 in that time), if you have a boat with a 20 year old PN it will be 8-10% lower than it should be with the double whammy that older boats with old sails will have got slower not faster.......

I'm guessing Ballet is similar to Martial Arts in that a large emphasis of the participation is around the training.  This tends to mean that you get a top-down coaching ethos throughout the culture, therefore it's quite common for the masters to be teaching the next generation, as well as supporting the adult weekend folks who are there for pure recreation.  The same is true in Yoga too.   

I do echo Sargesail's point though, sailing does have something special that would allow Olympic level athletes participating in the same event as us punters.  The quality of sailing on offer as an adult male 40+ in the Finn masters is, for example, second to none compared to most sports.    

I would, but the Fox Hunting Association won't give me a fair rating for my my three-legged donkey that I'm too heavy for, especially when pirouetting on the saddle in a surf-branded tutu.  Besides Warwickshire mud makes the hooves sink more than Kentish sand...  life is just too unfair and I'm blaming a bloke called Chris.... if in doubt, always blame a bloke called Chris, there are plenty to choose from.   

you might be ,  but others are discussing   stuff that drives participation  and  how  the norms of one thing may be completely different  to the norms of another... 

 and from the point of view of the relevance of ballet. 

'adult'  ballet is a  growing  activity  with the RAD and  other CDET awarding bodies  as well as the Big 5  and other other pro companies putting time and effort into  widening participation - 

and it;s not  just  seeking  out talent   for the companies , they've been doing that  for decades with the vocational schools, the 'upper schools' , Associates  , CAT  etc aimed a 9 -19  year olds  

the RAD's new 'exploring repetoire'  syllabus  is  aimed primarily at a adult recreational  dancers , sure  some of the  vocational students might  take the NQF level 4  part  as  preparation for  Adv2 and Solo seal  if they feel the need    , the the NQF 2 and 3  will be  almost universally   taken by  recreational dancers   as the  YP on the vocational  track  have done  thelier NQF 2 and 3 vocational awards   before GCSE age ...