Nope it does not. Gina is 50% of the team! How many times must I repeat myself im talking about in the UNITED STATES! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> No on in the US. Now did you miss it?

2 1-ups beat the 2-ups at this years Juana's Good Time Regatta at Navarre. I placed ahead of M/G in two races at Gulfport in 2006, but they killed me overall. It can be done, but the equipment still needs to be refined for 1-up in the US (my opinion). M/G's (and O/J's) dominance does not only cover the 1-ups. They've handed it to the 2-ups pretty good, too. You seem to ignore that fact.

http://www.wrcra.org/ then click on race results. All the 1-ups are sailing at 65.2 throughout last year. I thought that using 65.2 was pretty much the standard in the US.

I guess you didn't bother to read my long post with some of the answers to your questions.

Just want to clarify some of the Maryland info. The Lighthouse results were from 2006. I think Constantine requested to be rated at the two up number for the 2007 season at the fleet meeting before the season started. Thats before we knew that we were getting three Blades to keep his Taipan company. We all raced one up using the two up number in 2007. Ed

Robi,

We've (you and I) have talked about going to a single rating ... and you support that in the previous post back in Sept:


Robi Comment:

So something has changed here into 2008 that makes you think differently....is there anything we should (re)consider?

T.

yeah my opinion has changed, because I have not seen enough data to support the 1 up is faster than the 2 up.

Tom I did read your post, like I said I will live with this decision, because I have no other choice. But if it were up to me, I would use the 67.1 rating. I still do not understand why in the world was the one up F16s scored with the two up numbers for the alter cup qualifier when it was a total OPEN event?

We had it and did not use the number, I honestly think we have shot ourselves in the foot with this issue.

In the post that Terry has linked Bob could not say it any better. The boat has never been sailed 1up consistently to the 65.2 numbers.

And I didn't understand your point the first time either. Are you trying to argue that a one up F16 sails slower in the US than the rest of the world - obviously not, so I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss evidence from outside the US that the F16 formula produces performance that for all reasonable intents and purposes is equivalent across configurations (which is the issue, right?). Talk to us some more Robi.

My entire point is, no one here in the US has been able to beat the fastest F16 team while sailing in UNI-RIG configuration so why should the uni rig configuration drop its PN number down to the Sloop rating?

Doesnt PN go off the fastest boats sailed?

No one up boat has sailed consistently enough to merit the PN drop.

Robi, if what you're saying is true and I have no reason to disbelieve you then you have a valid point. Your PN is calculated like our PY rating in that it is not formed by a mathematical formula like SCHRS or TEXEL but on actual performances/results over the water.
In the UK it is up to the Clubs to return their results to the RYA in order for the PY numbers/ratings to be accessed for accuracy. The only draw back in this method is that there is no historical evidence for new Classes and the return forms are overly complicated so many Clubs don't bother completing them.
Getting back to the point it does seem strange that your PN has been dropped to the 2up rating if the results don't reflect this increase in speed. However, think yourselves lucky here in the UK 1 up F16's are rated faster than A Classes on TEXEL, F18's and 2 up F16's on both TEXEL and SCHRS.
So although the U.S 1 up rating has unfortunately been dropped please give a thought to your 1 up friends on the other side of the pond <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

When there is the official F16 logo on the website, please make it as a vector graphic for vinyl plotters. Then it is scalable to size with smooth transitions. Last year i took an eps file from here to a local store and the the logo had some edges in the outline. I recutted them with a sharp knife, but this work shouldn't be necessary. If i remember, some post ago "Isvlorin" showed us a smooth logo and has it as vector graphic.

MarkP I hear ya.

Hopefully this year we can seriously start concentrating on boat speed and getting faster every time. I sadly wont be doing any of that because I am boatless, that aside though I hope those who are sailing get moving because I know once im back on track I will be sailing every time I can.

Holger:
I repaired the graphic a few years ago and that is the file that has been floating around. I want to say the vector graphic you speak of was acquired through me. Although im not 100% sure. I already provided the graphics in jpg, gif, ai and eps. The last two are the ones anyone would need to take to a local vinyl shop to get them cut.

Hope that works.

FYI: This thread was not started with the intent to fully discuss PN ratings. But mostly for clarification on what is going and what number to use. The questions have been answered. Although IMO these questions should NOT be raised but in fact brought to the table as soon as the information is available.

What is so special about the US ? Is the water different over there ?

If 1+1=2 in the rest of the world, it then equal to 1.5 in the US or something ?

Wouter

Didn't you intend to put "IN THE USA" in that sentence ?

Because we sure as hell sailed the F16 1-up all the way down to the F18 rating outside of the USA.

Wouter

Hi Holger,
The logo I posted was vectorized over a raster image provided by someone on the forum. It is very smooth but can't call it official because it was processed from a raster image.
I also can provide several file extensions from the original file I created. (ai, eps, dwg, 3dm). If you need the other file just send me a pm.

But as I said, IT IS NOT AN OFFICAL LOGO, it is vectorized over a raster image (with higher resolution).

From what I read so far on the forum Robi has the logo too. His version might be the official one. Hope I am correct on this.

BTW - Robi , the logo you have was provided by the designer of the logo/class officials ? Or is a vectorized version from a raster image also ?

I think the official logo should be downloadable on the F16 website. If not people will be tempted to vectorized raster images and that way details will be lost in time.

Robi have generously supplied a copy of his files and they are in the publication workflow for the website. If his logo isn't the official one, it soon will be <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I dont know who originally designed the logo, but perhaps we can get an answer to that? It would be very good to give credits to the designer(s) on the same page where the logos can be downloaded. Phill, was you involved in that?

I wonder who designed our F16 logo ?

Take a wild guess ?! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


I did and I seem to remember that Robi downloaded a GIF version of the old F16 website before making a vector version of it and tydiying it up a bit. I'm holding the orginal copy of the logo, but I too had it retouched manually to improve its looks.

From memory Robi did a very good job in revectorizing it. So what do you guys like to start with.

-1- the absolute original that I hold

-2- the vectorized version by Robi


I think that I'm fine with either.

Wouter

A vectorized version is definately what should be on the site. Other than that I dont have strong opinions as I assume the differences are minor? If not, I want the "Official" logo in a vectorized format to be on the website.

I'll make sure you get credit for the design Wouter!

No question, version -2-
Because an official version has to have the same look everywhere, without manual rework.

I used Robi's Verctorised version when I made my mast rotation fitting detailed here and it worked out fine.

"Are you trying to argue that a one up F16 sails slower in the US than the rest of the world - obviously not, so I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss evidence from outside the US that the F16 formula produces performance that for all reasonable intents and purposes is equivalent across configurations (which is the issue, right?)."

What part does local area wind speeds come into play? Does the uni fair better in higher winds? Or is it pretty much the same? If it does perform slightly better in higher winds wouldn't that account for differing results, say between Australia/Europe and the South East US?

Regards,
Bob

Why is the rating for the single handed F16 rating (on a returns based system) quicker in the US?

I think the US PY system has factors for taking one configuration of a boat and calculating a rating based on adding/subtracting things for the new config. Is this how the single handed F16 rating being calculated?


IMO the F16 single handed is quicker than the 2 up boat. BUT it is more difficult to sail to this potential. Thus, I would expect a returns based sytem to (probably) rate them equal as the single handed boat gains in ligher winds (better power to weight ratio) and looses out when it's howling as "you run out of hands". The point where the single hander "runs out of hands" will slowly migrate UP the windspeed as we get better at sailing these beasts single handed.

SCHRS and Texel rate the single handed boat quicker and I feel this is right as SCHRS and Texel rate the boat only. PY and US PY rate performance and the sailor and so the "difficulty" of sailing single handed is taken into account. I'd be really interested to see how the (current) faster single handed rating on US PY is justified. PY in the UK for both boats is the same.