New PY Website

Originally posted by JimC Originally posted by Hector It is an average of some very iffy returns from the last decade and beyond, You must have misunderstood. It isn't. They don't use returns more than three years old.

Apologies - what I meant to say was that the historic numbers were kept the same or very similar by decades of iffy data. The reason the numbers that we're all familiar with and that hardly ever changed or only did so a little was because there was

1. A very low rate of returns (I seem to recall about 25% of clubs).
   
2. Of the returns, the majority (ISTR approx 70%) returned  'No change'.
   

On investigation, the No Change returns were usually because the results person hadn't done the labourious task of calculating the actual return. So a majority of returns constantly weighted the average towards No (or little) Change - but with no actual analysis of results.

Of those returning a change, there were few who'd calculated actual PNs - again most made an educated guess.

Or at least thats what I understood from the RYA presentation(s).

Matt, could you send me the pdf of your classes over 0.6? Thinking of running the idea past the committeeto see if we'd use some of your data (not that we have many GP's)
Alex

Originally posted by Hector It is an average of some very iffy returns from the last decade and beyond,

You must have misunderstood. It isn't. They don't use returns more than three years old.

Edited by JimC - 02 Nov 12 at 2:46pm

Originally posted by MattHarris Just checked and it looks ok on mine.  Whilst checking I also noticed that I've got an "RYA Technical Approved" stamp on the results for the GP (0.7 cf) and Mirror Single Handed (0.6 cf).  Not sure whether this is a new feature or just I've not noticed it before. On an aside we had a sailing committee meeting last week at which I brought up the PYS website.  Was interesting to see the mix of responses across the sailors.  Ultimately they decided not to adopt the numbers and stick with the RYA list and have another discussion in 12 months with another years data on hand, we should hopefully have a few more stamps of approval by then too.

At the Dinghy Exhibition presentation last year the RYA said  that the National PY number is simply not the right number for the majority of clubs. It is an average of some very iffy returns from the last decade and beyond, and unless a club is that exact 'average' then the figures are wrong for them.
So was there any sound logic to the decision Matt, or was it a case of  not believing the system works / heads in sand / fear of change or backlash / fleets protecting their percieved advantage on your water?

One thing that helped me to persuade some of the more doubtful both on the committee and otherwise, was to print off a few  'Typical Race' results - showing the individual PNs that would have resulted.

Looking at several races the same thing occurred almost every time:

Wiith a roughly 30 boat fleet, the top 2-3 were often from the same class, and had sailed to somewhere around minus 80-100 points below their Yardstick, while the last few boats were sailing to +100points above their yardstick.  Not suprisingly, the middle few sailed roughly to their yardstick (and were often very sailors). Everyone in- between was approx pro-rata to their position.

In other words, for the current winners to not win would need a 100 point PN swing from the mid fleet guys and 200 points from the backmarkers. None of the Class related swings proposed were anywhere near that - especially for those classes with decent confidence, and so there was / is little prospect of big results swings in most races.
The result of the changes we've made has been closer results, with more chance of a mix of fleets in the top 5 rather than a 'Class A N other' whitewash. The same classes still win when you'd expect them to (when conditions suit them) - they just don't dominate the all top places quite as much.

It's worth noting that when we agreed when implementing the changes that we'd review after  the summer series (on the basis that if they were wrong or the racing was spoilt, that we could simply go back to National PNs). In fact, the changes have been widely accepted - even welcomed and increasingly thought a great thing. So much so that we've been encouraged to implement the latest updates in time for our winter series - rather than waiting until next season - we are that pleased with and confident in them!
These latest changes are already more subtle - indicating that the PNs recommended by the PYS system last year weren't far off the mark.

I'd encourage all clubs to consider implementing the changes - at least in part.
For clubs who want to wait  - why not run a shadow series with the adjusted results - discuss those and aim to implement as soon as possible - mid season shouldn't be a problem.

Cheers
Keith

Is the data graph for the class working for anyone else? I get all the info apart from the actual line.

Alex