Les,
I'm sorry to inform you that I couldn't disagree with you more. That and the fact that I'm bewildered by you attributing statements to me that I never wrote down or would write down. You whole post is simply incorrect. They contain great one-liners, but incorrect ones just the same. Sorry.
Actually, any system based on data is superior to one derived by formula.
You are wrong here. Both systems are based on data, so they can't be discriminated on this property alone. Texel however gethered data of all boats and sailors to establish a basic describing formula which is then used to rate all boats while Yardsticks use the individual datasets for each boat/crew and hopes that these datasets are unbiased and unbiased in comparison to the other individual sets. It is a very well documented fact that these hopes (assumptions) are NOT reflected in real life. Therefor the Yardstick has a huge fundamental flaw in it that ruins everything. Any person schooled in probability and estimator math will be able to explain this to you. Yardstick systems are very sensitive to what we call outlyers. Especially when there is only a small data set for a given boat (+new classes, dead classes, or classes with a small active race fleet) In real terms the identifier outlier refers to guys like Randy Smyth, Robbie Daniels and Charly Ogletree. The advantage, adn yes superiority, of Texel is that ALL data is gethered in one dataset and used to make make only 1 describing function, the texel formula, which is then used top predict all ratings. Outlying values have far smaller effect on the overall ratings this way and often offsets that find there way into the formula are propogated to ALL ratings which are then cancelled out to one another because all ratign usage is is relative. This all makes Texel alot less sensitive to biased data and makes it also alot more stable. Example : Supercat 20 has been stable under Texel fro 20 years; Under yardstick it has gone from faster than (standard) tornado to ALOT slower then (standard) Tornado simply because the guys sailing the Supercat saw the good skippers change classes.
With data based system, the system is continually getting more accurate
That is just nonsense. Again a great one-liner but without a scientific basis. I can give plenty of examples were such systems do NOT become more accurate with more data. In soem cases you can even see them become less accurate. One example is of the Prindle 19 ; Raced hard at first, then class dies, then got briefly revived because of Randy and died again. We now have a data set that contains both very fast data and very slow data, yardstick averages this into a rating number that doesn't reflect both situation with high accuracy.
The Portsmouth system is based on bouy racing. If someone applies it to races that are something other than bouy racing (e.g., Steeplechase, where the Supercat competes), then it is a mis-application of the system.
To this part I agree. It is the only part.
Wouter, some of your posts on the F16 forum stated that a single-handed F16 could not be expected to compete with a 2-up F16
I never said that or wrote that. I don't understand why you think I did. From the very beginning the F16's were designed to be comparable in both setups; if I thought that they weren't then I would have redesigned the setup.
however, the Texel rates the F16 1-up w/ spin faster than 2-up w/ spin. Is Texel right?
It is alot more right then the US Yardsticks, I can tell you that. US PN have us 4% to 5% slower then the F18's. Texel shows us to be in the 1% band around the F18 rating (is often just the rounding off offset). It is my firm believe and personal experience that F16's are very comparable around the course to F18's. Even the Australian yardsticks put them there. It is only the US portsmouth that has been "unwilling" to converge to the right number for years now. And I talk about "right number" because we have such much data now that underlines the correctness of the F18 equality. The US PN numbers are just way of base.
Texel was always more accurate then US PN, I'm sorry, despite the fact that for a while Texel wasn't too accurate itself. Now I feel Texel 2006 (and Texel 2005) are accurate in the absolutely sense as well. With this I mean the true performance is within a 1 % band of the calculated perfromance (rating). That is pretty big achievement as there are so many variables.
Is it a fair contest for F16 1-up and 2-up to race head to head, first in wins?
Yes; in general I beleive so. With this I mean that 2-up vs 2-up and 1-up vs 1-up is more accurate then 1-up vs 2-up but event the last contest will be accurate with a margin of 2 % at the maximum. Which is accurate enough for 90 % of the racing. Meaning that 90 % of the racing won't see a different final listing even when taking such a offset into account.
Wouter