Rick,

How many races do you figure have been run in the US on F16s or T4.9s? Is it a big enough sample to get a solid idea of the rating, or is it still more or less the provisional rating that was originally assigned?

Thanks for your insight.
Jeff.

Yeah Wouter...don't ruin a good thing for the USA F16's! We all know a 16 foot boat MUST be slower than an 18 foot boat!! (now quiet down, before they change the numbers!!)

I have contacted Darline Hobock and asked her if she has been able to accumulate any data related to F-16's, Taipan 4.9's or Stealths racing open class. I will let you know what she says, but I sincerely doubt that she has much data at this point.

If you want ratings changed, you have to make sure regatta results are sent to her.

Well...if I had sent my results from last year's Tommy Whiteside, the F16 rating would be getting SLOWER! Hahaha.

I'm generally skeptical of handicap racing in general. However, there are some fundamental differences in the methods btw. Portsmouth and the European/Australian systems.

Portsmouth is based comparing the results of new boats to that of better known boats (right?). This assumes a parity in level of boat preparation and skipper skill and requires what I would consider to be a huge amount of data to be statistially relevant. My guess is that the rating Portsmouth has for F16 is based on an initial guess and that no volume of data has been accumulated to adjust it one way or the other.

The European/Australian ones are based on formulas of key speed indicating measurements on the boat. These measurements won't change based on results of the racing. If there is some huge disparity between it points to a flaw in the ratings model. This happened in the keelboat arena with the advent of the sprit/sportboats. Basically, the mathmatical model couldn't accurately predict the results for the vastly different performance profiles.

Which one is right? Beats the hell out of me. My mantra....say NO to math! Hahaha.

Jeff.

Jeff,

The Portsmouth tables indicate that Darlene has more than 15 data points in each wind range to use in developing the Portsmouth numbers for the F16 (sloop plus spin, 2 up) and the F16U (main plus spin, 1 up).

There's no math in sailboat racing!

Portsmouth... only a fraction better than PHRF and about as precise!

If there is no math, then how do so many people seem to know how unfair it is?
Sailing is life, and life aint fair.

Usually we don't go out of our way to put a sharp stick in our eye!

So, in fact, what we have here is yet another thread mutated into an F16 discussion :P

I see how it is

Jeff and others,

The Australian VYC system is a YARDSTICK system just like USPN; is not at all like the measurement based Texel and ISAf systems. Still this VYC system rates the Taipans alot faster as the USPN system just the same. I'm quite sure the VYC has more than a huge amount of race data since the Taipans have been actively raced over there for more than 15 years now.

Also the USPN number for the F16's hasn't been chanced since 2002; while the F16 class was first formed halve way into 2001. This suggests to me that not much converging is going on in the USPN system with respect to F16's.

Now, this all means that physical models (force to drag); rating models like Texel and ISAF and also (Statistical) yardstick systems like (australian) VYC (similar to USPN) are susposed to be ALL wrong just because the USPN system got it somehow first-time-right in 2002; only 9 months after the F16's were created ? Who else finds this a little hard to believe ?

I hear that Gulfport and Taipan / F16 sailors have been sending in data ever since the beginning but no chance has ever come of it.

In addition; the rest of the world is sailing of the F18 and A-cat ratings and is WINNING events with bigger start fleets then in the US.

This all sure doesn't convince me that USPN is right. It is either that combined with the fact that f16 crews are simply a shitload faster than all other crews or the F16 rating is fair at the F18 and A-cat level.

I think we have stumbled on the real issue here. What will it take to convince the US sailors and the USPN system that the boats are faster the the current USPN ratings ? All we bring in as signals to this is simply swept of the table because USPN "must-be-right".

Now I sure that the standard Taipan with spi is fairly rated just slightly slower than the newest F18's; afterall the F18's became faster over the last 4 years with the new mainsail cuts and sorts. So 63.5 to 64 is probably right for the older standard Taipan 4.9's hen fitted with spi. But the newer fully optimized boats like the Blade and the upgraded Taipans F16 are totally expected to be at USPN = 62.5

Of course the fact that F16's have been put on the kiddies course with 1 or 2 H17's and other grandpa's didn't help the statistical analyses much.

Mind you I'm not blaming Darline or the USPN system for anything intentional. I'm quite sure that there are very normal causes for this discrepancy. But that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Again the best comparison I have it the (statistical) VYC yardstick number between the Taipans and F18's. Both are actively raced in Aus and are expected to have a dependable number by now. The ration is (Standard Taipan +spi)/F18 = (71.7/70.0) = 102.4 % with this the USPN number for the standard Taipan + spi should be 102.4 % * 62.5 = 64 or 4.5 % faster than it is now.

Actually under the statistical VYC yardstick system a standard Taipan 4.9 without a spi is rated at 74/70 = 105.7 to the F18's that is actually LESS than the USPN system gives for the same boat but now with spi ( uspn 66.9/62.5 = 107 % )

I mean just look at it ! How on earth can this be right !

Back in 1999 Glenn Ashby raced the standard Taipan (NO spi) to 24th overall in Round Texel of a rating of 105 (=105/102 = 103 % to the F18).

Call this all Wouter math if you have too but these are all indications that VYC, Texel, ISAF are probably correct while USPN isn't.

Now Jennifer Lindsay will beat me hands down and she is with distance the fastest sailor on the Taipan in the USA but even she is not of the caliber that many Aussie Taipan sailors and quite a few F18's sailors are. If we are converging the USPN F16 data on her skills alone than were will we end up ?

At the DCC here in Netherlands in 2004 Daniel van Kerckhof and Anna-liese Byrne wipped all our clocks. They were lapping I-20's !

I simply don't understand why many of the US sailors keep clining to a rating that is arguably discredited. And I don't understand the distrust of mathematics. This stuff puts satelites in orbit and men on the moon. Not to mention CD and DVD players that read data that is enclosed in little hills and vallies that are no bigger than 10 micron large. Why do many people trust gutt feelings over science and mathematics so much ?

It beats me.

Anyways we'll just race anyone on the F18 and A-cat ratings; it is not as if this is unfair to the others right ?

First over the line wins; and no handicap or Frankenboat bitching afterwards.

If you can't win of those rating (like the Aussies and Europeans are doing) than it is you that is not fast enough, not the F16 boat.

Wouter

Sorry about that !

Wouter

While I sometimes secretly enjoy the peachy F16 US ratings as it puts wins under our belt I also feel that it is not fair to other USPN racers.

It is also takes away from the glory of F16 wins as honestly a significant portion is the result of the soft handicap.

I don't want the F16 class to be regarded as handicap beaters like some Frankenstein Boat (see hagar race discussion on www.1design.net).

It is just not fair to the other open class sailors.

Also we get put on the small courses from time to time and this is hurting the willingness of F16 sailors to travel to regatta's.

In general; a rating that is too soft is bad for us as a class. It also creates lazy crews. The founders of the F16 class pride themselfs on being a no-nonsense class that looks at what is real and scientically sound. The USPN ratings are simply not. Or at least not in relation to the often raced F18's and I-20's. It may be right in relation to say a Prindle 18 but how valuable is that ?

Now I've been of accused of being over critical of other classes and now I show that I'm critical of my own class as well. At least I'm consistant

Yes, I truly think we all have a responsibility to keep things fair between boats of different make.

Wouter


P.S. would I really call for faster ratings if I thought that the F16's weren't up to it ? I'm not THAT dumb !

Jeff and others,

The Australian VYC system is a YARDSTICK system just like USPN; is not at all like the measurement based Texel and ISAf systems. Still this VYC system rates the Taipans alot faster as the USPN system just the same. I'm quite sure the VYC has more than a huge amount of race data since the Taipans have been actively raced over there for more than 15 years now.

Also the USPN number for the F16's hasn't been chanced since 2002; while the F16 class was first formed halve way into 2001. This suggests to me that not much converging is going on in the USPN system with respect to F16's.

Now, this all means that physical models (force to drag); rating models like Texel and ISAF and also (Statistical) yardstick systems like (australian) VYC (similar to USPN) are susposed to be ALL wrong just because the USPN system got it somehow first-time-right in 2002; only 9 months after the F16's were created ? Who else finds this a little hard to believe ?

I hear that Gulfport and Taipan / F16 sailors have been sending in data ever since the beginning but no chance has ever come of it.

In addition; the rest of the world is sailing of the F18 and A-cat ratings and is WINNING events with bigger start fleets then in the US.

This all sure doesn't convince me that USPN is right. It is either that combined with the fact that f16 crews are simply a shitload faster than all other crews or the F16 rating is fair at the F18 and A-cat level.

I think we have stumbled on the real issue here. What will it take to convince the US sailors and the USPN system that the boats are faster the the current USPN ratings ? All we bring in as signals to this is simply swept of the table because USPN "must-be-right".

Now I sure that the standard Taipan with spi is fairly rated just slightly slower than the newest F18's; afterall the F18's became faster over the last 4 years with the new mainsail cuts and sorts. So 63.5 to 64 is probably right for the older standard Taipan 4.9's hen fitted with spi. But the newer fully optimized boats like the Blade and the upgraded Taipans F16 are totally expected to be at USPN = 62.5

Of course the fact that F16's have been put on the kiddies course with 1 or 2 H17's and other grandpa's didn't help the statistical analyses much.

Mind you I'm not blaming Darline or the USPN system for anything intentional. I'm quite sure that there are very normal causes for this discrepancy. But that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Again the best comparison I have it the (statistical) VYC yardstick number between the Taipans and F18's. Both are actively raced in Aus and are expected to have a dependable number by now. The ration is (Standard Taipan +spi)/F18 = (71.7/70.0) = 102.4 % with this the USPN number for the standard Taipan + spi should be 102.4 % * 62.5 = 64 or 4.5 % faster than it is now.

Actually under the statistical VYC yardstick system a standard Taipan 4.9 without a spi is rated at 74/70 = 105.7 to the F18's that is actually LESS than the USPN system gives for the same boat but now with spi ( uspn 66.9/62.5 = 107 % )

I mean just look at it ! How on earth can this be right !

Back in 1999 Glenn Ashby raced the standard Taipan (NO spi) to 24th overall in Round Texel of a rating of 105 (=105/102 = 103 % to the F18).

Call this all Wouter math if you have too but these are all indications that VYC, Texel, ISAF are probably correct while USPN isn't.

Now Jennifer Lindsay will beat me hands down and she is with distance the fastest sailor on the Taipan in the USA but even she is not of the caliber that many Aussie Taipan sailors and quite a few F18's sailors are. If we are converging the USPN F16 data on her skills alone than were will we end up ?

At the DCC here in Netherlands in 2004 Daniel van Kerckhof and Anna-liese Byrne wipped all our clocks. They were lapping I-20's !

I simply don't understand why many of the US sailors keep clining to a rating that is arguably discredited. And I don't understand the distrust of mathematics. This stuff puts satelites in orbit and men on the moon. Not to mention CD and DVD players that read data that is enclosed in little hills and vallies that are no bigger than 10 micron large. Why do many people trust gutt feelings over science and mathematics so much ?

It beats me.

Anyways we'll just race anyone on the F18 and A-cat ratings; it is not as if this is unfair to the others right ?

First over the line wins; and no handicap or Frankenboat bitching afterwards.

If you can't win of those rating (like the Aussies and Europeans are doing) than it is you that is not fast enough, not the F16 boat.

Wouter Jeff and others,

The Australian VYC system is a YARDSTICK system just like USPN; is not at all like the measurement based Texel and ISAf systems. Still this VYC system rates the Taipans alot faster as the USPN system just the same. I'm quite sure the VYC has more than a huge amount of race data since the Taipans have been actively raced over there for more than 15 years now.

Also the USPN number for the F16's hasn't been chanced since 2002; while the F16 class was first formed halve way into 2001. This suggests to me that not much converging is going on in the USPN system with respect to F16's.

Now, this all means that physical models (force to drag); rating models like Texel and ISAF and also (Statistical) yardstick systems like (australian) VYC (similar to USPN) are susposed to be ALL wrong just because the USPN system got it somehow first-time-right in 2002; only 9 months after the F16's were created ? Who else finds this a little hard to believe ?

I hear that Gulfport and Taipan / F16 sailors have been sending in data ever since the beginning but no chance has ever come of it.

In addition; the rest of the world is sailing of the F18 and A-cat ratings and is WINNING events with bigger start fleets then in the US.

This all sure doesn't convince me that USPN is right. It is either that combined with the fact that f16 crews are simply a shitload faster than all other crews or the F16 rating is fair at the F18 and A-cat level.

I think we have stumbled on the real issue here. What will it take to convince the US sailors and the USPN system that the boats are faster the the current USPN ratings ? All we bring in as signals to this is simply swept of the table because USPN "must-be-right".

Now I sure that the standard Taipan with spi is fairly rated just slightly slower than the newest F18's; afterall the F18's became faster over the last 4 years with the new mainsail cuts and sorts. So 63.5 to 64 is probably right for the older standard Taipan 4.9's hen fitted with spi. But the newer fully optimized boats like the Blade and the upgraded Taipans F16 are totally expected to be at USPN = 62.5

Of course the fact that F16's have been put on the kiddies course with 1 or 2 H17's and other grandpa's didn't help the statistical analyses much.

Mind you I'm not blaming Darline or the USPN system for anything intentional. I'm quite sure that there are very normal causes for this discrepancy. But that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Again the best comparison I have it the (statistical) VYC yardstick number between the Taipans and F18's. Both are actively raced in Aus and are expected to have a dependable number by now. The ration is (Standard Taipan +spi)/F18 = (71.7/70.0) = 102.4 % with this the USPN number for the standard Taipan + spi should be 102.4 % * 62.5 = 64 or 4.5 % faster than it is now.

Actually under the statistical VYC yardstick system a standard Taipan 4.9 without a spi is rated at 74/70 = 105.7 to the F18's that is actually LESS than the USPN system gives for the same boat but now with spi ( uspn 66.9/62.5 = 107 % )

I mean just look at it ! How on earth can this be right !

Back in 1999 Glenn Ashby raced the standard Taipan (NO spi) to 24th overall in Round Texel of a rating of 105 (=105/102 = 103 % to the F18).

Call this all Wouter math if you have too but these are all indications that VYC, Texel, ISAF are probably correct while USPN isn't.

Now Jennifer Lindsay will beat me hands down and she is with distance the fastest sailor on the Taipan in the USA but even she is not of the caliber that many Aussie Taipan sailors and quite a few F18's sailors are. If we are converging the USPN F16 data on her skills alone than were will we end up ?

At the DCC here in Netherlands in 2004 Daniel van Kerckhof and Anna-liese Byrne wipped all our clocks. They were lapping I-20's !

I simply don't understand why many of the US sailors keep clining to a rating that is arguably discredited. And I don't understand the distrust of mathematics. This stuff puts satelites in orbit and men on the moon. Not to mention CD and DVD players that read data that is enclosed in little hills and vallies that are no bigger than 10 micron large. Why do many people trust gutt feelings over science and mathematics so much ?

It beats me.

Anyways we'll just race anyone on the F18 and A-cat ratings; it is not as if this is unfair to the others right ?

First over the line wins; and no handicap or Frankenboat bitching afterwards.

If you can't win of those rating (like the Aussies and Europeans are doing) than it is you that is not fast enough, not the F16 boat.

Wouter Jeff and others,

The Australian VYC system is a YARDSTICK system just like USPN; is not at all like the measurement based Texel and ISAf systems. Still this VYC system rates the Taipans alot faster as the USPN system just the same. I'm quite sure the VYC has more than a huge amount of race data since the Taipans have been actively raced over there for more than 15 years now.

Also the USPN number for the F16's hasn't been chanced since 2002; while the F16 class was first formed halve way into 2001. This suggests to me that not much converging is going on in the USPN system with respect to F16's.

Now, this all means that physical models (force to drag); rating models like Texel and ISAF and also (Statistical) yardstick systems like (australian) VYC (similar to USPN) are susposed to be ALL wrong just because the USPN system got it somehow first-time-right in 2002; only 9 months after the F16's were created ? Who else finds this a little hard to believe ?

I hear that Gulfport and Taipan / F16 sailors have been sending in data ever since the beginning but no chance has ever come of it.

In addition; the rest of the world is sailing of the F18 and A-cat ratings and is WINNING events with bigger start fleets then in the US.

This all sure doesn't convince me that USPN is right. It is either that combined with the fact that f16 crews are simply a shitload faster than all other crews or the F16 rating is fair at the F18 and A-cat level.

I think we have stumbled on the real issue here. What will it take to convince the US sailors and the USPN system that the boats are faster the the current USPN ratings ? All we bring in as signals to this is simply swept of the table because USPN "must-be-right".

Now I sure that the standard Taipan with spi is fairly rated just slightly slower than the newest F18's; afterall the F18's became faster over the last 4 years with the new mainsail cuts and sorts. So 63.5 to 64 is probably right for the older standard Taipan 4.9's hen fitted with spi. But the newer fully optimized boats like the Blade and the upgraded Taipans F16 are totally expected to be at USPN = 62.5

Of course the fact that F16's have been put on the kiddies course with 1 or 2 H17's and other grandpa's didn't help the statistical analyses much.

Mind you I'm not blaming Darline or the USPN system for anything intentional. I'm quite sure that there are very normal causes for this discrepancy. But that doesn't make it any less wrong.

Again the best comparison I have it the (statistical) VYC yardstick number between the Taipans and F18's. Both are actively raced in Aus and are expected to have a dependable number by now. The ration is (Standard Taipan +spi)/F18 = (71.7/70.0) = 102.4 % with this the USPN number for the standard Taipan + spi should be 102.4 % * 62.5 = 64 or 4.5 % faster than it is now.

Actually under the statistical VYC yardstick system a standard Taipan 4.9 without a spi is rated at 74/70 = 105.7 to the F18's that is actually LESS than the USPN system gives for the same boat but now with spi ( uspn 66.9/62.5 = 107 % )

I mean just look at it ! How on earth can this be right !

Back in 1999 Glenn Ashby raced the standard Taipan (NO spi) to 24th overall in Round Texel of a rating of 105 (=105/102 = 103 % to the F18).

Call this all Wouter math if you have too but these are all indications that VYC, Texel, ISAF are probably correct while USPN isn't.

Now Jennifer Lindsay will beat me hands down and she is with distance the fastest sailor on the Taipan in the USA but even she is not of the caliber that many Aussie Taipan sailors and quite a few F18's sailors are. If we are converging the USPN F16 data on her skills alone than were will we end up ?

At the DCC here in Netherlands in 2004 Daniel van Kerckhof and Anna-liese Byrne wipped all our clocks. They were lapping I-20's !

I simply don't understand why many of the US sailors keep clining to a rating that is arguably discredited. And I don't understand the distrust of mathematics. This stuff puts satelites in orbit and men on the moon. Not to mention CD and DVD players that read data that is enclosed in little hills and vallies that are no bigger than 10 micron large. Why do many people trust gutt feelings over science and mathematics so much ?

It beats me.

Anyways we'll just race anyone on the F18 and A-cat ratings; it is not as if this is unfair to the others right ?

First over the line wins; and no handicap or Frankenboat bitching afterwards.

If you can't win of those rating (like the Aussies and Europeans are doing) than it is you that is not fast enough, not the F16 boat.

Wouter

what? You can not have my Bud Light....

Darline has now told me (March 11, 2005):
"I have been accumulating data on the Taipan 4.9 sailed as F16 and on others from races abroad. I, too, think the F16 rating is too high. Preliminary race analysis agrees."

So there you have it. The writing is on the wall for a rating change. I guess this is for better or for worse, depending upon who you are talking to.

I know I can get a little bit argumentative and wordy at times, but was it really necessary to copy-paste my reply 2 times ?

That makes me look worse than I really am !

Wouter

Darline has now told me (March 11, 2005):
"I have been accumulating data on the Taipan 4.9 sailed as F16 and on others from races abroad. I, too, think the F16 rating is too high. Preliminary race analysis agrees."

So there you have it. The writing is on the wall for a rating change. I guess this is for better or for worse, depending upon who you are talking to.


Well, I'm happy that these statements were made by Darline; it proofs at least that I'm not talking nonsense here. And that feels good !

But seriously ; I'm happy that the arguably weird situation is looked at. No matter wether we think this is good or bad we all should be happy that the situation will be investigated to determine what is more fair to us AND others on different boat makes.

Thanks for this post Mary,

Wouter

I suppose that might be possible, but as Maugan attempted to point out many posts ago the self absorbed f16 bigots(hope that's not an unkind term)have plundered this thread. Seeing as how both Rick and Mary went along, I will probably be seen as an intruder into this arena rather than a guy who wanted to read more about catsailor magazine and who couldn't give a damn about the f16 class. Guess you have to read the book before you buy it, eh?

This thread actually started with the statements :

"This month's Catsailor Magazine was a superb issue and I really enjoyed it! The insite to Vectorworks marine was awesome - I really wish them well and hope they bring us an F18 option soon."

Now this is certainly an F16 comment by a NON-F16 sailor. The article that was mentioned is ABOUT the Blade F16.

The first replies to this initial post were :

"I agree with Jake. That was one of the most exciting issues of catsailor. I too especially liked the Blade 16 article. Looks like a great boat just right for people like me (you know, the little people...)."

Written by Steven Bellavia (FX-one sailor)

Then Tim Bohan talks about converting a nacra 5.5 to F18 and in his next post he talks about F16's and USPN ratings. Note that also Tim is not a F16 sailor. Till recently he was a I-20 sailor and he is now boatless

Than Jake, the orginal poster states in his reply :

"I think the Blade is a damn sexy boat and would scale well to the F18 spec (although they would have to ADD some weight) - wave piercer bow but with adequate volume up front to handle a blow. I was very impressed with it at Tradewinds having sailed along side it once and having it show a slight upwind advantage over us on my F18. "

Jake sails F18's of course not F16's


So as far as I can tell this thread was about Vectorworks, Blade F16 and F16 in general (that also means F16 ratings) right from the beginning. And it was the non F16 sailors that hijacked their own thread.

Seems to me that you are hijacking this F16 thread yourself to do some slacking on F16's. This is arguably a 180 degree reversal to the original praising statements about the Catsailor mag article of the Blade F16's.

Now I will admit that the rating discussion got out of hand but your post containing words like :

"self absorbed F16 bigots "(who Jake, Tim, Steven ?)
"plundered this thread" (as if the thread was about anything else then F16's /)
"An intruder" (How can Jake and Tim be intruders on their own thread ?)
"who couldn't give a damn about the f16 class" ( saying that about Jake, the orginal poster, who has made the very positive F16 related comments above ?)


Ain't you living in your own world mr Whoa.


Wouter

thee dost protest too much. All you needed to say, you said:

"I will admit that the rating discussion got out of hand"

But on second thought I guess I don't really agree that:

"that [b]might be possible"

Oh, and I won't be answering any more replys from you Mr. Wouter. Two reasons: 1. I have never seen you not get the last word, and 2. I would be guilty of further straying from the thread title

Don't worry about it, Whoa. I was very happy to get the free advertising for my magazine. When Jake posted his compliment, I thought this would be a ready-only, one-post thread that would quickly disappear down the page. So when all the discussion started about the 18s and 16s, it has kept the magazine up there at the top of the pile. It's a good deal for me, since a lot of people who come to these forums do not even know about Catamaran Sailor magazine, much less subscribe to it. (hint, hint)