BUT it can be developed and so should be getting faster. But now as the Texel system is (still??) based on the old T without kite and twin wires; anyone sailing an old (Standard T I'll call it) is stuffed.
No it isn't. Texel does include teh difference between single traping and double trapping and apparently it doesn't make that big a difference in the speed of the Tornado. Which is not beyond logic, the difference between the skipper hiking at 3 mtr is not much different then having him trapeze of 3 mtr. If they boat were to be 2.30 mtr wide like a dart 18 then the difference will be more significant.
People, we are argueing "gut-feelings" against founded mathematical relationships here. Now I'm not saying that math is always right, but I am saying that "gut-feelings" are far more often wrong.
I also say that when a crew takes a competitive 1999 Tornado and slaps a 2006 kite on it that this crew will indeed be very close to the fully optimized 2005 Tornado. 1 % difference in rating may be a bit small but I don't expect the difference to be beyond 2-3 % anyway. The changes to the Tornado were not THAT significant. It is still the same platform, with the same boards and fittings. I must say in this respect however that TEXEL needs to remeasure the new carbon masted Tornado's as the current Tornado rating is still for the ones with an aluminium mast. Of course the boats because nearly 7 kg;s lighter overall due to the carbon masts. Thhis will lead to the Tornado with carbon mast to be rated as 93 , which is 7 % faster than the classic tornado (no spi) and 1 % faster then the fully pimped 2005 tornado with an aluminium mast.
Lets not forget guys that the carbon mast on the Tornado is a rather new development. I expect the rating to be corrected for it before the round of Texel 2006.
There is a basic problem with any rating rule that pegs it's starting point to a development class (or box rule). The development class (or box rule) boats should get faster over time as the sailors make material changes to the boat which makes it faster.
Material chances in themselfs are very ineffective in making designs faster. Most materials changes are made to keep a mainsail longer competitive. A new dacron mainsail will be just as fast as a new pentex one. After a year of hard use they may not be, but when new they will be.
The same for hull material etc.
It is true that the development boats get faster over time, but this is more due to design changes like squaretop mainsails. However this is not a practical way of looking at it. It is better tho regard the modern designs as stationary and regard the non-developping OD classes are becoming slower in comparison. In my own rating system I proposed giving OD classes without development an extra correction in their ratings for this. This is far more practical to do and more fair. Why because who really races dead OD in open class regatta's classes anyway ? The biggest requirement of an rating system is to rated the popular racing designs properly not the extinct Prindle 16. In addition the owners of 10 year old Prindle 16's and Hobie 16's expect to be competitive with their run down boats, that is not an issue that a rating system can solve; it can only rated new boats properly or risk giving owners of new boats unfair advantages.
Having said all this I'm also convinced that design chances like the squaretop sails and selftackers are only causing offsets of about 1%-3% at maximum. Compared to the 30% -40% chances in performance due to different level of sailor skills, I think these material related differences to be rather negligiable. The new development are not making the formula boats that much faster in absolute sense. 1 % difference is already 40 second per hour difference. A significant gap in a F18 world championship racing when fighting for place 1 to 3 but not far any other placings.
People are often making far too much out of material differences. Its simply not that important in overall performance.
Also the best approach to make a Texel system really fair is to group modern design into 1 fleet and to group the OD and dying classes into one seperate fleet. Now you have solved this issue al together. This trick is often applied. Pretty much this is possible because Texel does rated modern design very accurately to other modern designs. The same for older designs.
All sailors should be getting faster in their boats, but with a development class, there is scope to sail better and also make the boat faster. You cannot make a One design class like the Dart 18 any faster as the rules preclude it.
Well, if Dart wants to optimize their profit margins and source out their sailmaking to some vietnamese sewing company then that is just not a problem of the Rating systems. Bad quality should be an input into a rating system. Especially since the same situation will even lead to unequalness and unfairness within the OD class itself. And there no corrective action is taken as neither. We all know of examples where a sail from a certain batch was a winner while others were not. No system is going to accurately deal with bad quality control. Nor such any system try to do so.
This leave the development into new shapes etc. I refer to my earlier answer above. These developments are not a big as many believe it to be. See Tiger versus Capricorn. A difference may well exist but it will not be very big. I personally think making a rating system alot more complex in order to accurately rate this small chances is beyond what is desireable and practical. So yes in this respect it is a choice to make the rating system more like a good estimate rather then a really accurate one.
Again I make the statment that the Tornado is not a one design as the rig setup can be different. Thus it was a mistake to peg texel to this boat.
The tornado was rather fixed in its rig before 2000. It was certainly not as open as the formula classes. I seem to remember that the width of the sails at different heights were ruled upon. Please everybody, research the matter before making wild claims.
Better sailors should always (IMO) win, but any sailor of a development class (or box rule) also has the ability to improve the boat.
Sure but is it significant beyond say a certain margin ?
If so is it practical and desireable to expand the rating system to correct for this ?
... now I have a nice carbon Wing mast and it makes a massive difference -
That is what people believe but if you started out with a proper alu mast then the difference maybe small indeed.
This leads us to a difference problem however. The difference between an heavy alu Hobie 16 telegraph pole and the lightweight alu F16 superwing mast is FAAAAR greater then the difference between an alu F16 mast and a carbon one. If we are to take these effects into account then we should do so with respect to masts that have no diamond wires and outdated crossections. Not between alu and carbon masts that are in all other respects the same.
Actually I had a crude correction factor in my NMBR system for this issue.
Maybe we should all realize that Texel is not perfect, we can all name situations were things may go weary. HOWEVER the discussion was initiation whether a yardstick system would be better. The answer to that is that while Texle may not be perfect it is more accurate then a yardstick system. We can make Texel more accurate still but then Race committees and sailors will bitch about teh fact that it is too complex and to cumbersome to use. Notice the Texel 2005 to texel 2006 change and the causes for that.
I don't see much point in proving the fact that Texel isn't perfect. That is a given.
We should focus on other things.
I've spoken to some of the Tornado boys and they say that the Carbon Mast is "always better"; more power in the light stuff, More control in the heavy stuff, We are going faster in all conditions.
No wonder, they saved 10 kg on the overall boatweight as well and all carbon rigs have spanking new mainsails. A new boats is "always better" if not "feels better". Then of course the professional crews chance over first leaving the less skilled crews as the new (biased) reference pool. Now I expect some improvement, indeed, but the magnitude may well be smaller then what is suggested by feelings.
Note that the tornado class rules DON't state an overall minimum boat weight ! The minium weights are specified per component and on the platform. In the way of masts only a tip weight is specified and the one for the carbon mast is less than that of the Alu mast. In effect this means that the Tornado has lowered their overall boat weight without many people noticing it. I hope the rating committees are aware of this,
But the Tornado Handicap has not changed!!!!!!!!!
That is mostly because its carbon mast introduction is very young. No rating system has had the time to react yet. Texel has to measure the new overall boat weight first.
No, but soon Texel will have reacted while yardsticks will take years to converge to a new number.
SCHRS had a penality of one point for a Carbon mast that was removed some time ago, perhaps it should be put back......
No if anything this penalty should be had to differentiate between masts with diamond wires or not. Or even between teardrop shaped masts and wingmasts. Material is of only a minor concern.
Question for Wouter, Did Texel ever have a Carbon mast factor?
No
Wouter
