>>>Do you actually need to have a focal point in the rule, once the basic numbers have been calculated……?
No, but there are advantages to overlapping the theoretical case with a real case. It makes processing data and experiences easier and it will make the work required on RC's less strenious. Remember how one argument for the F18 was that this allows a large portion of the corrected times to be determined by just copyign the elapsed times ?
If such a opportunity for simplifications exists why not take it ?
>>Boats speed will change as they are developed (F18 will get faster, Dart 18 will stay the same)
As einstein said "everything is relative" ; does it really matter which viewpoint you choose if you are comparing both to eachother ? The only difference if the direction of the change, the amount and speed of it will be same in absolute terms.
Also, the catamaran scene, especially the racing scene, is more and more dominated by boxrule based classes like the F20's, F18;s, A-cats, Tornado's and possibly the F16's and F17's. Is it then wise to choice a stationary class a your viewpoint ? Or do you help yourself by choosing a development class that moves in the same direction and with the same speed as the other classes that dominate the racing scene ?
>>But the rule you propose is measuring theoretical performance, not real world (crew dependant) performance. ‘Driver skill’ is not relevant.
That is true but the foundations on which to base weighting factors and future modifications must come from real life data. Therefor the ability to seperate design performance from crew ability is an important one. This is easy with big competitive classes and not so much so with smaller classes that race mainly OD.
>>Or does your rule propose to give boats that are di8fficult to sail (ie have more sail controls for example) a more favourable handicap ?
No, That is something that will always be difficult to rate. Such a thing will always add much more complexity than can be justified by the gains. Designers must be expected to design boats that have a minimal level of comfortable control. Measurement systems, in basis, rate the potential a given setup has when properly designed. If a design choosed to not implement a downhaul on his boats than this does not impact on the magnitude of its potential even though it will make it harder on the crews to achieve that potential. But then again measurement system allow crews to modify and adjust their boats in non-key points without rating hits. Yardsticks systems however have the added responsibility to check wether a given boat is still compliant with its OD status in every respect. Rating committees, sailing organisations and Race committees have many times expressed that they rather do without such an addition responsibility.
For that reason the approach of a (box rule oriented) measurement system was chosen. It is more flexible and cuts down on responsibilities and work that nobody is waiting for.
>>BUT, I applaud you in trying to come up with a new method. Just don't tie it to one class as the Texel and SCHRS have been once you have a formula.
Well, trying is a to strong a statement. It may seem this way for the coming years but if the F18 classes, for example, choses to drop its minimum weight and increase sailarea than it will move away from the base rating of 100 and decouple itself from the reference number.
It is more like: for the immediate future both things travel along parallel roads, but may well diverge at a later time.
Thank you from participating in this discussion and I appreciate your comments. They are the wet stone on which the system needs to be sharpened
Wouter
