Vectorworks builds the Bimare XJ A-Class, as well as the Blade F16 (and a bunch of other cool stuff). Big boats, little boats, power boats, sail boats, etc.... www.vectorworksmarine.com and www.vectorworkssail.com

Not speaking for the entire class, but as an interested US-based F16 sailor....

The US Class Assoc's first attempt at managing the handicap ratings was a request to drop the F16U rating entirely (or synchronizing it with the F16 rating). The basis was "Why have two ratings, in a performance based rating system for a boat that fits into class rules in either configuration?". I understand two ratings in rating systems that use engineering specifications to build the handicap number.

Well, this request has not been addressed (it is still on their docket, as of a few weeks ago) and the the F16U rating lives on.

If the F16U rating is going to be part of the rating scheme, then we need to start using it to get some good data on it. It should not take too much data to move the number since there is probably not much data already in the system.

I would like to avoid the scenario where everyone starts using the F16U number, then the Portsmouth Committee drops that particular rating (per the outstanding request from the USF16 Class Assoc). Seems like it would add more confusion. It would be nice to know the Portsmouth Committee's intention regarding the F16U rating.

I do not know how open the Portsmouth committee is to adjusting ratings outside of the normal data collection method. They are pretty steadfast in the belief that the numbers will ultimately tell the truth.

I personally, would withdraw from the standings if - while in an Open Portsmouth fleet - corrected out over a 2-up F16 that beat me (sailing 1-up) on elapsed time.

How do the other US sailors feel about moving forward with using the F16U rating? Not a fair handicap number, but I've seen where we have been accused of circumventing the system by NOT using the F16U rating. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I too speak as simple a F16 sailor.

Personally I believe that we must be careful to not have others make this OUR problem.

The error is clearly with the US PN system and not with us (the US F16 class association) or the F16 design. From the very beginning we have been saying to everybody and anybody that the performance of the F16's was on a par with the F18's. We actively designed the F16 specs and the F16 class rule structure in such a way as to achieve this. All other rating systems in the world recognize this fact EXCEPT the US PN system.

Nobody knows how the US PN ratings numbers started where they started initially and over the last 6 years they were only adjusted by very small amounts. This in itself is a convincing argument against the efficiency of the convergence proces. The US as a whole has a base of cat sailors that is too small and too much fragmented to allow a faster convergence proces that is also stable. I won't tire everybody with the mathematical details. Basically statistics are only dependable (accurate) when relatively large sets of unbiased data are available. Looking at the US racing scene with its small fleets and very strong "5 boats earn a seperate start" bias this will never be the case.

I feel the US PN committee need to decide first whether they want to have a single F16 rating number or two seperate numbers. We should not accept any excuse of why such a decision takes more then a couple of weeks to make.

Taking this as a starting point we should argue that a convergence proces is only as good as the accuracy of its starting point. This is basically "Numerical Mathematics 101". When the starting value for the rating is far off the true (but unknown) value then the convergence proces can almost take forever, especially on biased data sets of a rather small size.

I say lets argue the case to the committee from a different perspective. Why not let their much beloved statistical proces do its things as they want but only restart the proces at a different initial value. Say for example the F18 rating or some rating relative close above it ? If we are wise about it then we'll propose the same starting value for both the 1-up and 2-up value. I propose a new starting point of 63.5 for both setups.

Afterall, why should a number be always adjusted downwards and never upwards ? If these ratings are too fast then surely this "perfect" convergence proces will "quickly" adjust these number upwards toward the "correct" numbers, right ? I don't believe it ever will but that is really not the point. The real point is that this way we both get what we want. A fair rating number that is still fully subject to the mathematical models underlaying the US PN system. It can then take forever to adjust itself, but no-one will care as the rating will then be about right anyway. Something that is simply not the case now. Most likely the ratings for both setups will stay very close to their initial values and to one another anyway as the convergence proces is disfunct. The difference that exists now is almost entirely caused by the difference in starting values many years ago. And with both numbers very close to oneanother we can simple race first in wins anyway as a difference of a couple of tens of a point is negligiable in time anyway.

Much fairer to other boat types. Everybody happy. Problem solved.

Wouter

What I dont understand is why is Wouter (Dutchman) worried so much about our DPN? Wouter you do not sail in the US, you dont have to worry about Portsmouth numbers.

Tom - I think if we start using the actual Uni number, and better results start flowing into the committee they will look at it, and clearly see that the number is off.

Why actively pursue it? Let the committee do their job. Lets not (as a class) interfere with their data collection.

Just because we say the Uni number is a slow number, doesn't mean squat. We have to get out there, use it, and prove that it is in fact a slow number. This is how Portsmouth numbers works.

This is reminds of when Wouter wanted us to invite the F17 sailors to race with us straight up. Remember the headache that caused? Lets be very carefull with our approach, please!

We've already had our fair share of F16 bashing and honestly it is NOT doing the class any good.

my $.02

ps: I actually think this is something that should be discussed in private so local opinions wont be skewed by non local sailors.

I feel fairly neutral about the issue for the most part. I believe, in the end, that we should let the portsmouth committee do what they do according to the way they do it. There will be enough information sometime in the future for them to change the uni number- but I think we need to use that number so it will change. Technically, you are not adhering to the intent of DPN if you sail uni and don't use the uni number.
However, there is a local sailor we all know who, although respected, also has a reputation of taking pleasure in the fact that he usually corrects out pretty well based on his DPN being relatively slow. We don't need any more people having a grudge against the F16s for whatever reason. I do think we are on the level having the discussion that our Uni rating is too slow. If we correct out above other boats then a quick comment can be made over beer or whatever that we are having this discussion and know that the number is too slow. Maybe this will calm their desire to get on our case for at least this reason.
Face it, on some levels people are threatened by the F16 for many reasons- breaking the mold of requiring heavy overbuilt boats, small not being fast, and having a boat that does well solo or 2-up. Add the fact that it is reasonably priced, isn't a Hobie or PerformanceCat boat and some people can get pretty pissed.

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I had nothing to do with this particular [censored] storm.

Guys,

If I was you I would see your current rating as a chance to prove a point.

Go pot hunting, win everything and then say "well we did tell you are rating was wrong".



Actions speak louder than words.

i might be way off on this but has it not been only the last 3 years or so that the F16s have reallly started showing up on the scene here in the US. I know some people were doing the T 4.9 before that but it is not a fully optimized f16 and lot of time i think they did not really run spins with them. And I bet most of those numbers that were turned in went under the tiapan heading not the f16. And since the 2007 numbers have been unpublished this year do to changing of the gaurd I would think that either next years number or the 09 ones are gonna drop. I think Matt M said there were about 45 blades out there. Well 10 of them just got into service with the alter cup and bet the majority have been only sailing for about 1 year (i think Tom and Terry have some of the earlier blades and are only 3-4 years old). I think that the number will soon find itself and we just need to play by what ever the rules are. If it is portsmouth, then the offical numbers must be used and reported to let the system work. But when we are in our own fleet F 16 rules of straight up racing is the way to go. The f16 idea might be 6 years old but it is still rather new on the course in its present setup.

Peace maker! We need some real [censored] slinging around here to liven this place up! It's almost as dead as:

http://www.adventureonline.tv/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1

I tried, but stopped short of posting that on the open forum (and don't you dare link to it on the open forum!!). Didn't want to get people even more pissed at us:)

Why not just make a informal pact- use DPN uni rating when racing open class (Tback and I talked about this) and elapsed time when in a f16 class. but then what about mixed blades racing in open class??? Who is going to be racing 2-up and uni at Juanas? I wouldn't mind just doing it that way and know that amongst the blades first over the line wins (among the f16s) regardless of the numbers game.

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Works for me.

We will be 2up at Juanas.
Who knows, I wouldn't be surprised to maybe see at
least 1 more F16 at Juanas to make 5.

Portsmouth - Open Fleet uni-67.1 2up-65.2
Elasped time - 5 or more F16's in either configuration.

When do you plan to arrive?

Leaving early Friday September,7 around 5:00 or 6:00 am.
Want to get there early enough to rig, then PARTY. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

See you there. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

This discussion about ratings is very interesting. I am a volunteer on the PN committee and have been following your threads for quite some time. As y'all continue to ponder your fate, I still come to one conclusion: your ratings search will come to an end only when a true rock-star sailor is sailing the boat in the US. Right now, your class does not have a sailor of that caliber and expertise sailing the boat. While it is good to show up to events with a "class", it will hurt your PN numbers in the long run. I suggest you guys sail in events for a year with the intent to give the PN committee data points. Oh, and I'll see some of you at Juana's

My view from the outside,
Bob <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Bob, you recommend sailing with the given PN (2-up or 1-up) and always sail in the Portsmouth class regardless of the number of F16 that attend ... to establish datapoints for the committee?

Common thread: use the F16U rating when appropriate, gather some data and let the system work.

Works for me. See you at 67.1.

It's a Friday night and I've probably had a couple too many. I also promised not to post under the influence but what the hell.
The U.S handicap system does appear to be favourable towards the F16 compared only to F18's but we had to start somewhere!! When more sailors start to understand that the F16 is a serious bit of kit and is competitive in all conditions you'll be lucky to catch a glimpse of our transomes. As you might be aware as you follow our posts Graham Goodall has invested a lot of money in the development of a slightly smaller F18 Capricorn (F16 Viper) so the ROCK STARS do appear to be jumping on the band wagon.
Also, having raced against Matt M I have witnessed at first hand how fast an F16 can be sailed. Therefore, whilst I'm still awake, why don't you compare your ratings with the other scoring ratings the world.
From a personal point of view I believe the Australians have the most accurate PY rating system.

Thank you Mark. I think Matt and Gina can sail with the best. Unfortunately, Team McDonald won't be there next weekend (Juana's) to exhibit their skill to Mr. Curry. Maybe Performance Race week (or whatever they call it now) in Oct.

This is my problem with the current rating system regarding F16:

The US Sailing Portsmouth Handicap rating system applies to boats that meet a SET list of CLASS RULES. If you race N20's, you'd better have all the supplied Performance Cat equipment or else you are "out of class" and take a "hit". The F16 CLASS RULES stipulate 1-up = 2-up. Why do we have two ratings when it is one set of class rules???

That being said, if the Portsmouth rating committee determines there should be two ratings, well great. Just let us know and we WILL support it, register as separate classes and swap trophies afterward. Whatever. I just wish they would tell us something... don't leave us hanging.

Kill the F16U or tell us that it will always be there. We can adjust and support whatever they decide, but we need to know their decision. Make sense?