I do see Jake's point though, and Mike's, using a straight measurement only system doesn't chang the numbers for such things as a new type of mast (Carbon and/or wing type vs. older types) and newer hull shapes, etc.
Neither do the Yardstick system for that matter.
I mean, yardstick system ONLY look at the name of the boat, in this case F18, and not whether that particular boat is fitted with a wingmast or not. In that sense measurement based system are clearly better as these CAN distinguish between a carbon mast and an alu mast (if indeed you want to make that distinction).
If 50% of the F18 fleet is made up of Tiger then these will dominate the yardstick ratings, not they handful of Capricorns that are running around.
Again, this discussion about rating systems is turning toward gut feelings and entrenched believes, not scientific discourse. That way we not get anywhere. Others may recognize such a situation as a "Wouter moment"
Wouter
I started a new thread because that other one is mainy a gripe fest...with many valid points being made at times.
I have also volunteed to (thanks for the warning JW) do something rather than talk about it.
I have proposed to have a meaningful discussion about a workable measurement rating system.
I believe that Wouter has done the legwork far better than anyone can fully realize. You know that he has , even if you don't want him to get the credit for it!
I am hoping that several of us can get together soon and review what has been done and go from there. Obviously Wouter will be our eMentor, if he is willing.
Until we actually produce useful numbers, all the bantering is silly.
I want a system that is RC friendly. RC folks should not have to defend or interpolate numbers and they should not have to keep reams of timed results.
In fact, I believe that most small regattas could be run quite well with level rating classes, with boats being placed in a class by similar handicaps, but racing scratch once so placed.
