I too speak as simple a F16 sailor.

Personally I believe that we must be careful to not have others make this OUR problem.

The error is clearly with the US PN system and not with us (the US F16 class association) or the F16 design. From the very beginning we have been saying to everybody and anybody that the performance of the F16's was on a par with the F18's. We actively designed the F16 specs and the F16 class rule structure in such a way as to achieve this. All other rating systems in the world recognize this fact EXCEPT the US PN system.

Nobody knows how the US PN ratings numbers started where they started initially and over the last 6 years they were only adjusted by very small amounts. This in itself is a convincing argument against the efficiency of the convergence proces. The US as a whole has a base of cat sailors that is too small and too much fragmented to allow a faster convergence proces that is also stable. I won't tire everybody with the mathematical details. Basically statistics are only dependable (accurate) when relatively large sets of unbiased data are available. Looking at the US racing scene with its small fleets and very strong "5 boats earn a seperate start" bias this will never be the case.

I feel the US PN committee need to decide first whether they want to have a single F16 rating number or two seperate numbers. We should not accept any excuse of why such a decision takes more then a couple of weeks to make.

Taking this as a starting point we should argue that a convergence proces is only as good as the accuracy of its starting point. This is basically "Numerical Mathematics 101". When the starting value for the rating is far off the true (but unknown) value then the convergence proces can almost take forever, especially on biased data sets of a rather small size.

I say lets argue the case to the committee from a different perspective. Why not let their much beloved statistical proces do its things as they want but only restart the proces at a different initial value. Say for example the F18 rating or some rating relative close above it ? If we are wise about it then we'll propose the same starting value for both the 1-up and 2-up value. I propose a new starting point of 63.5 for both setups.

Afterall, why should a number be always adjusted downwards and never upwards ? If these ratings are too fast then surely this "perfect" convergence proces will "quickly" adjust these number upwards toward the "correct" numbers, right ? I don't believe it ever will but that is really not the point. The real point is that this way we both get what we want. A fair rating number that is still fully subject to the mathematical models underlaying the US PN system. It can then take forever to adjust itself, but no-one will care as the rating will then be about right anyway. Something that is simply not the case now. Most likely the ratings for both setups will stay very close to their initial values and to one another anyway as the convergence proces is disfunct. The difference that exists now is almost entirely caused by the difference in starting values many years ago. And with both numbers very close to oneanother we can simple race first in wins anyway as a difference of a couple of tens of a point is negligiable in time anyway.

Much fairer to other boat types. Everybody happy. Problem solved.

Wouter