Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Jake

The formula makers can simply add another term to the formula with a factor for developmental boats. It will be a KNOWN factor applied to all developmental boats ...

As Ding commented... far better then the scarce data we have available or (unlikely... the judgment of the PN committee).

Remember... if the F16's (and F18's) made a huge leap in sail development. tomorrow... suggesting that the boat was now rating 62.0 from 63.0.... The rating would change in the spring to 62.75... in 2012... it would move 25% of the difference (.75) down again.... One day some day... the rating would be accurate...

Meanwhile... the racing community would deal with the F16 and F18 classes and be pissed off.... never good for getting people to come out and go racing. If there is no racing... then there is no data... and the adjustment process stops.

Remember the Nacra 5.5uni started out rating slower then the Hobie 17 74.0.... eventually the rating landed at close to 70.0 after 5 years.....

Fortunately, development is not so dramatic. Portsmouth will work well when you have tons of data with many secondary yardstick boats in the race. This is not reality.





I agree that timeliness could be an advantage to a measurement based system - but how long would it take to derive the formula to account for sail improvements? It wouldn't happen the day the change happened.

You have hit on the crux of the issue here. For me, it boils down to your claim that Portsmouth is inaccurate. If someone can quantify that there is a significant inaccuracy (other than the already explained delay in correcting the F16 rating) you will change my mind. I'm not steadfast that Portsmouth is the answer - I just don't see the effort in switching to return much advantage.

Jake Kohl