Nope all one boat code for the F18 (big sail plan and small sail plan).

One boat code for the F17, also. Even though they have a "big boy" chute and a standard sized chute that are both legal depending on the skippers weight, I believe.

I realize this thread died a natural death a few weeks ago, but I was traveling on business and didn't have the mental bandwidth to digest everything at the time. Prompted by some more recent questions in my own mind about some local scoring I've just gone back and read the whole thing again (and the related thread on 1design) and think I understand the consensus that emerged...

Seems most agree that unis are best to request scoring at 65.2 (since most agree that it's a more accurate number than the current uni number of 67.1) and make sure that elapsed time results get submitted to the PN committee. Although there is clearly some support within the class to do away with the uni rating altogether - both to accelerate the accumulation of data and to reflect the class rules, until such time as the committee actually combines the two configurations (as requested by the class), the fact that the uni number exists can't easily be ignored and accordingly results should be reported by configuration. Some would also argue that small but discernible differences between configurations may actually exist in reality.

This is all good. However there is one point that seems to have been overlooked in the discussion. There are three entries in the DPN table relevant to the Blade - F16-1 (67.1) and F16-2 (65.2) and Blade F16 (65.2). Therefore, assuming that the uni number stays for now, it seems to me that we do need to ensure that uni results are reported to the committee as F16-1 and not Blade F16.

The reason I mention this is that on occasions when the uni Blade has been scored here at 65.2, I don't think it has had anything to do with a conscious decision, but rather has been because the Blade number just happens to appear higher in the list. I don't know precisely the internal workings of the PN process, but my guess is that if we're not careful and the results are reported to the PN committee as just Blade F16, that would do nothing to improve the accuracy of the F16-1 number.

So, although I understand the view that we shouldn't just abandon the 1-up configuration for reporting results (unless and until the committee responds to the US F16 class submission) it seems to me that we should actively avoid reporting as Blade F16.

Am I right?

Mark.

Sounds plausible to me.

You are correct. It is MOST important to make sure that the configuration/boat code reported to US Sailing is accurate.

The distinct Blade F16, G-Cat F16 and Taipan F16 PNs are in the table to "ease the RCs job in identifying boats" and are regulated to follow the 2-up F16 generic rating (also you could alter these boats and sail in Open class using the modifiers). I was told the Portsmouth Committee had an internal process to group all of these ratings together and calculate the F16 handicap as a whole, minus the F16U rating. Compare the generic F18 PN to the Hobie Tiger, Nacra F18, Capricorn F18, etc. - their system seems to work in this regard.

The omission of the F16U rating in this grouping of "F16 configurations" is what led the class to request it being dropped from the tables.

Your statement:

"I don't know precisely the internal workings of the PN process, but my guess is that if we're not careful and the results are reported to the PN committee as just Blade F16, that would do nothing to improve the accuracy of the F16-1 number."

could not be more true - the accuracy and speed at which the PNs change hinge on the fact that the boat codes are reported accurately. It is our responsibility, as a class, to make sure the reporting is accurate.

Truthfully, I am not sure how we monitor this - especially since most RCs are going to submit the times as whatever you registered as. Rectifying the reporting creates a lot of hassle for everyone involved. The common thinking is: "why would you register as something you are not?"

Thanks Tom. I think I can discuss with my local scorer to ensure that the results are submitted as F16U even if I'm registered as Blade F16.