I realize this thread died a natural death a few weeks ago, but I was traveling on business and didn't have the mental bandwidth to digest everything at the time. Prompted by some more recent questions in my own mind about some local scoring I've just gone back and read the whole thing again (and the related thread on 1design) and think I understand the consensus that emerged...

Seems most agree that unis are best to request scoring at 65.2 (since most agree that it's a more accurate number than the current uni number of 67.1) and make sure that elapsed time results get submitted to the PN committee. Although there is clearly some support within the class to do away with the uni rating altogether - both to accelerate the accumulation of data and to reflect the class rules, until such time as the committee actually combines the two configurations (as requested by the class), the fact that the uni number exists can't easily be ignored and accordingly results should be reported by configuration. Some would also argue that small but discernible differences between configurations may actually exist in reality.

This is all good. However there is one point that seems to have been overlooked in the discussion. There are three entries in the DPN table relevant to the Blade - F16-1 (67.1) and F16-2 (65.2) and Blade F16 (65.2). Therefore, assuming that the uni number stays for now, it seems to me that we do need to ensure that uni results are reported to the committee as F16-1 and not Blade F16.

The reason I mention this is that on occasions when the uni Blade has been scored here at 65.2, I don't think it has had anything to do with a conscious decision, but rather has been because the Blade number just happens to appear higher in the list. I don't know precisely the internal workings of the PN process, but my guess is that if we're not careful and the results are reported to the PN committee as just Blade F16, that would do nothing to improve the accuracy of the F16-1 number.

So, although I understand the view that we shouldn't just abandon the 1-up configuration for reporting results (unless and until the committee responds to the US F16 class submission) it seems to me that we should actively avoid reporting as Blade F16.

Am I right?

Mark.