Area D-North Alter Cup Qualifier

Anyone hear any results from the Area D-North Alter Cup qualifier held this past weekend at Nigel's place in GA? Lots of discussion before the event about 1-up F16 handicap numbers.

Rescheduled due to lack of wind.

That's too bad. It is tough on the organizers and competitors to have a redeux. Tends to happen at times on our Southeastern US inland lakes. Thanks for the update.

Any idea if they got any racing in?

Not sure what counted but some pics are here, very light air, F16s at the windward mark wih A Class - - - adios downwind: http://www.twinhulls.com/07notaregatta

we got 4 races in 2 sat, 2 sunday. Wind came and went multiple times in each race. The pics do not show the drifting times as often as they were. Olie kicked some big boat butt on the blade solo winning the thing with i think 3 bullets. I had moments of doing ok followed by the saying hey guys wait for me. It was however a great weekend. The blades really do well in the light stuff with the f 18s and even the A cats.
Think we might have made enough of an impression to have some of the sailors consider buying blades.
Well part two is the end of sept. I kinda hope the winds are light again (more times we do this the more I get great food at Nigels, where the steaks were great):)

So... if you got four races in... and Oli won on a blade... How could it be rescheduled?

Did the SI's have a wind minimum and since you did not have that breeze the races were unofficial? Is that kosher!

No to be an offical alter cup qualifier it has to be 5 races total. We all agreed to that at the start of the weekend. Olie will just kick butt again.

Hmm... I think for an event to serve as a qualifier the minimum is 3 races. (That is how I wrote the Area C's qaulifier) Are you saying that the SI's were modified before the race and posted to make it 5 races to count as a regatta and everyone involved agreed to this?

that was the agreement. Nigel asked before we ever hit the water if anyone would object if the wind did not work out if the qualifier could be rescheduled instead of forcing people to race in dead air on an incredible hot day. No one cared. He had even called around before asking if people would still show even if it was not a qualifier since the wind looked so bad on the forcast. Well everyone still wanted to show, so no reason not to have the event. It was the not-a-regatta regatta. Olie got a framed pic for first place, and did not seem to mind about not being the alter cup qualifier. We all just wanted to sail some and have a great weekend which we did. Just lucky to get to do it again.

So what rating did the UNI guys end up using?

well at first they were doing the blade rating which is straight 2 up rating. And we were still correcting out over them (olie did it boat for boat, I did it on correction). Then they realized the mistake and redid it all on the uni rig rating, but I did not see the final results with those numbers. They are suppose to still send the results into the portsmouth people so more data can be tabulated.

Jody is being modest. He finished 2nd. The intent before the regatta was to use 67.1 for uni.

If US Sailing is going to leave the F16U rating on the books, then we are obligated to use it (my opinion). F16 Uni's at Juana's are using 67.1, since we'll be 1 short of a class and wil lbe in Portsmouth.

The 67 rating will not stay long on the books as these boats are preforming better then anyone thought. Sailing out to the course the first day Olie and I were sailing along with Jake on his F18 and Mike on his. WE started to move ahead of them slightly on a close reach and Jake yelled over to mike "you know we have to give them time". Made me smile. Love to see the shorter boats do so well with the longer boats. From looking at the numbers and the little personal observation i have in most everything but heavy wind we should be pretty well matched with the f18s.

And tom where did you get that 2nd from? I knew i was second after the first 2 races but thought I had dropped some after the last 2 races. Damn I am kinda proud of myself. Hope the new portsmouth numbers never come out! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I told Tom that Oley told me that Suellen told him that Jody got second. So way to go!

Humm, I remember a few of us argueing about a superior performance for many years now.

Hell, quite a few of us have even been racing at a much faster handicap for many years now.

67 for the 1-up F16 is just waaaaaaay to kind a rating. Outside of the USA these boats are raced against the F18 rating or very close to it, and have been for many years now. In effect they are raced of 62.4 (=F18) and as such 7.3 % faster. That is quite alot, no less then 4 and halve minutes per hour of racing. And even at that rating a few races are won by F16's.

Our experience overhere is that the F16 performance is indeed on a par with the F18's, assuming equal level of skills between the crews. The F16 1-up has its sweet spots, just like the A's and can under some conditions even be expected to do better then the F18's. Although not by much.

Two weeks ago I raced doublehanded with a skipper I only sail with once or twice a year. We were on an Alter Cup Blade F16 with a Glaser suit of sails. I couldn't believe the upwind speed we had. Together we tip the scales at 160 kg (= 355 lbs) and we were double trapping upwind, going like stink. I was highly impressed by the upwind speed of these Alter Cup Blade. Glaser has made an excellent suit of sails and I now understand why this combination (Blade/Glaser) made such an impression upwind on the Alter Cup crews. Anyway, that fleet had 20 boats in it and we came in 7th overall, ahead of a good number of F18's. Despite the fact that we had lost some serious ground on the downwind leg. I still have a big black bruse on my tigh as evidence.

In addition, seeing Matt Mac. racing doublehanded and Hans c.q. Marcus racing singlehanded I'm now totally convinced that the F18 rating is the right rating for the F16's. I always knew the F16 would be very close to the F18 in performance but now that the rigs (Glaser/Landenberger) and sailors are matching the boat it is beyond any doubt.

I'm sorry to say that the US PN ratings are just wrong and it will take far too long to see them converge. Afterall the F16 class is now 6 years old. What are we going to do ? What another 6 years before the ratings get anywhere near the true performance. Isn't a decade a bit too long for a rating to converge on the right number ?

Hell ! If we are unlucky then developments to F16 design will improve the F16 performance by larger amounts then the rating numbers converges each year, thus preventing the ratings from ever being right.

I say we make a real effort as a class to get some relalistic US PN ratings.

The committee needs to decide whether they want 1 rating or 2 ratings for the class. Then we as a class must request with force to "split the difference" between the current F16 numbers and the F18 number and have the convergence proces restart from that point.

Those new ratings will still be to slow but at least we won't be wasting another 5 years in covering the first 2 rating points with the (very small) adjustment steps.

Surely the rating committee will be open to such an suggestion ?

US F16 class committee, is this something you guys can run with ?

Wouter

You mean like this :










And the lead after rounding the downwind mark. Look for the Blade F16 in the back ground !

We can also see the bows of the second Blade F16 on the left.





Very nice pictures indeed. Thanks the photographer for us, please !

Wouter

Is that an A-sail with Blade hulls or just a Blade sticker on the A-cat?

Gill

it is a vectorworks sticker, and the A was made by them.

Vectorworks marine makes two types of beach catamarans :

-1- Blade F16
-2- Bimare XJ A-cat

Both of which are fitted with the same Vectorworks Marine logo for small racing cats.

Wouter

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?

I am tired of this one up two up debate...
This thing is a just red herring issue.

if the race results correctly describe the configuration AND you sail the same course... The boats could be in two starts seperated by 5 minutes and it won't matter. (both ratings are off)

You need to get elapsed times for the first F18, the N20, the first F17 in the race...as well as your two F16 configurations. You can't depend on the RC to send in results that matter to you. That is your responsiblity as a new class. The last class to handle this issue was the F18HT rating.... Intiatlly given a slow rating... the class leaders collected the data, turned it in and showed that the accurate rating was quite fast. They did not depend on the RC for this or sit passivley by for years. (PS Wouter can't do it from Holland either... Lord Knows he tried)

Bob's point is that when you sail as a one design fleet and the RC is lazy... no times are taken... Net result no data.
You have to Ask, Plead, Pay off in beer... whatever to get the data collected.

Bob's other point is that you have to sail the boat to it's rating. He could ask... What current F16 sailors have ever sailed any cat to it's rating... (evidence... success in an established one design fleet where the PN rating for that class is really solid.)


Remember.. the US System is DESIGNED to adjust slowly. Even if 5 rock stars joined the fleet tommorow... the rating would adjust by 25% of the new rating. and the following year... it will adjust downward by another 25%.

YOur class has inherited a situation. The solution is to RESET the rating.

This situation is similar to the Supercat 20 TR rating. Over the years... old sails on poorly prepped boats, novice racers, generated an adjusment of rating upwards... relative to when the boat was actively raced. Eventually, The PN committe reset the rating to the accurate historical rating.

Your problem is the reverse...

Interesting point. I think that is what gave the HT such a fast rating - a bunch of rock stars sailed it in the beginning.
I have thought about whether any rock stars will move to the F16 class. For some reason I think there won't be many. We have our rock stars though, but not national "rock stars."

In our races the RC takes times on everyone-fleet or not. Also, we have been enjoying the current number that way we have time to learn the boat and get good at it. (It is nice to be at top or close.) Whereas the current number does help us out quite a bit we are still in front of most if not all of the F18's without a correction. So I would say let the numbers be and in time they will be changed. Just enjoy the correction and become proficient enough to win boat for boat. Then no one can complain we beat them because of our number. As for one/two we have found the boats to be almost perfectly matched so as for the 2 numbers--enjoy. The uni guys have a lot more work by themselves and a lot can go wrong. We are stuck with the rating system we have, good or bad and the statistics just have to work through the system. Be patient and enjoy sailing a GREAT boat.

Todd,
We will be at Juanas. I plan to bring the boat over on Thursday evening and sail uni on Friday. I will be 2 up with Nicole for the race.
Chris

this makes a class eh?
Would be great if the F16s were the only class there! Maybe the N20s will have a class but probably no others. Not a lot of F18s around there for the most part unless Kirk loans a couple out.
I can see the headlines "Blades invade Juana's!!! No one is safe!"
can I mention, yet again, how dissappointed I am that I won't be there?

BTW.. after this whole discussion, I am fairly certain that Juanas will not be sending any of the info to the portsmouth committee (which I guess they wouldn't now that there will be a class anyway).

I know the race committee and should be able to obtain the results/numbers for the US PN committee. This race is normally a numbers race without class breakdown.

See ya there!
Bob <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I personally think that having handicap numbers that are peachy is not in the interest of the class. It is also not fair to the other racing crews outthere. Afterall how do you tell A top F18 crew that they have to give over 4 minutes time to a singlehanded F16 in light winds ?

It is also bad to the sailors in the F16 class. Our goal should be to improve our own sailing skills and not dependent on a peachy rating to propel a mediocre sailor to first spot corrected. Because again, F16 crews in Europe win races on a rating that is over 4 minutes per race faster ! THAT is a HUGE difference. In an F16 class race this will put you back in the tail end of the fleet.

I also believe that we must be careful to not become the new SC20, a design everybody hates because of its ludicrously favourable handicap. I really do believe that we as the F16 class have a responsibility to other racers (Corinthian spirit and all) to make sure that our handicap is realistic. Right now it simply isn't. Handicap racing should not be about who can hustle up the most favourable handicap but rather who is the best sailor.

When we founded the F16 class we never intented it to be a handicap racer. We intended it to be a "first to the line wins" racer. I know that parts of this intent have just been removed from the F16 class rules but the fact remains that this class was never founded as anything other then that. I think it to be shameful "to hide" behind an obviously wrong handicap number for the 1-up version. That is not what I busted my butt over for 5 years, when I was creating this class.

I strongly believe that we as F16 sailors must remain a group with a "Can do" mentality. These US PN handicap numbers are a direct contradication of that. We earn respect and grow our class by doing what we set out to do, win by crossing the finishline first. At the NAM-REM race some of the leading boats commended the first F16 sailors and admitted to being impressed with the speed of these small boats. THAT grows a class in the long run. An F16 that comes in an hour later and then corrects out to 1st will impress no-one and will mostly likely only grow resentment. The latter is very bad for the class.

After having put our trust in the US PN system for 6 years already I think we must understand that doing more of the same and expecting different results is indeed a pretty accurate definition of insanity.

Peachy handicaps breeds complacement F16 sailors and discontent (disrespect) in other sailors. The wise course of action is to prevent this situation from continueing.

Wouter

quote][

Interesting point. I think that is what gave the HT such a fast rating - a bunch of rock stars sailed it in the beginning.
[/quote]

NO... The rock stars did NOT make the boat fast... No more then You could make a pig fly...

The F18HT is a fast boat.... Some sailors with experience were able to PROVE this point.

Fact… You PTP were not able to sail the boat to its rating.

So you finished races in the middle of the pack or worse... That’s life..
You are saying... well... I like to compete so long as my competitors carry a monkey on their back... and I have a good chance to win...

"Enjoying your current Rating …. Experiencing some wins... while you learn the boat..."

This is more complete crap.... You can learn the boat in your one design racing circuit. Nobody will care... they will be glad that you have a great time with your boat in your class.

However, the cruel fact is that you have no integrity if you are content to race with a rating that you in fact AGREE is off.... (not to mention the fact that the rating is 7% off the ratings used in the rest of the world)

Look...Sailboat racing is a Corinthian sport…. You call fouls on yourself… You can ask the race committee to use the F18 ratings for your F16 boat.... Just like you can ask them to use the fastest F16 rating in the table for that regatta...

the playing field will be even. You will have satisfaction of playing the Portsmouth racing game with integrity.

For determining Portsmouth ratings in the future... it won't matter!...

Your elapsed time relative to the other classes won’t change.
Send in the configuration of the boat., the elapsed times of all the first in class and a windspeed independently of the RC,


NOTE… The other recent example of a rating that was RESET is the F18 class. Initially... the F18 rating was almost the SAME as a Hobie 20... Rob Jerry who was among the first sailors campaigning the Hobie Tiger… did NOT say… wow… great rating…lets keep it there…. He did everything possible to get the rating adjusted properly.

This is EXACTLY the point. The numbers will fix themselves over time. By rating the configurations differently, you take away the one of the best things about the F16 class - versatility.

I have not seen separate ratings for the F18 large sail plan and the F18 small sail plan - why?

NO... The rock stars did NOT make the boat fast... No more then You could make a pig fly...

The F18HT is a fast boat.... Some sailors with experience were able to PROVE this point.

Fact… You PTP were not able to sail the boat to its rating.

So you finished races in the middle of the pack or worse... That’s life..
You are saying... well... I like to compete so long as my competitors carry a monkey on their back... and I have a good chance to win...

"Enjoying your current Rating …. Experiencing some wins... while you learn the boat..."

This is more complete crap.... You can learn the boat in your one design racing circuit. Nobody will care... they will be glad that you have a great time with your boat in your class.

However, the cruel fact is that you have no integrity if you are content to race with a rating that you in fact AGREE is off.... (not to mention the fact that the rating is 7% off the ratings used in the rest of the world)

Look...Sailboat racing is a Corinthian sport…. You call fouls on yourself… You can ask the race committee to use the F18 ratings for your F16 boat.... Just like you can ask them to use the fastest F16 rating in the table for that regatta...

the playing field will be even. You will have satisfaction of playing the Portsmouth racing game with integrity.

For determining Portsmouth ratings in the future... it won't matter!...

Your elapsed time relative to the other classes won’t change.
Send in the configuration of the boat., the elapsed times of all the first in class and a windspeed independently of the RC,


NOTE… The other recent example of a rating that was RESET is the F18 class. Initially... the F18 rating was almost the SAME as a Hobie 20... Rob Jerry who was among the first sailors campaigning the Hobie Tiger… did NOT say… wow… great rating…lets keep it there…. He did everything possible to get the rating adjusted properly. [/quote]

#1: So you would say that the HT is as fast as an I20?
#2: My first thought is to say [censored] off regarding your comment about me not sailing the HT to its rating. I know that you [censored] but I sail with someone else who is a rock star on the boat. I never claimed I was sailing the boat to its max, [censored].
#3: everything else you said is exaclty our point, don't know why you are getting on our case for making our point exactly like you say. "However, the cruel fact is that you have no integrity if you are content to race with a rating that you in fact AGREE is off.... " If you were paying attention, this is what we have been saying. Learn to read and all will be well.
How did the F18 sailors "reset" their number? I believe that is what we are trying to do you [censored].

Look I will say it again.... "Fix themselves over time"...demonstrates your lack of integrity.

7% differences is not a small adjustment... Volunteer to race on the level playing field... report the data.

FYI,

The one up and two up rating designations are historical and the purpoe is to make life easy for the community.

The Dart 18 is the example to look at.

The class rules...state that the uni... one up and the sloop 2 up are equivalent.n (sound familiar)

Fact of the matter is... nobody sailing in light winds of the USA believe this.... So... the class rules were ignored and the PN committe for the benefit of the sailors... added the one up and two up rating. The Uni rating is very slow..

Then the Hobie 17.... added a jib... (sport)

Then the nacra 5.5 became a sloop and a uni... (with a larger stick).

So... the tradition has been to list the same boat twice when it has a signficant confiuration change. It simply makes life easy on the scorekeeper.

Currently,
EG... the Hobie FX1... is EXACTLY the same as the F16.
three configurations.

When one was dropped from the table... the ONLY US Sailor complained to have it added back....

The Taipan had SEVERAL ratings.
Uni (main only
Sloop (
Spin (all three)
F16 (all three)
F16 uni (main and spin)

REMEMBER... the Tables list the boats so that it is EASY for the RC to score a race... Its a pain in the butt to calculate corrections

So Mark, do you suggest racing uni at the two up rating of 65.2 and reporting that to Portsmouth?

What we are trying to do is just get rid of the UNI rating all together. So we can just have ONE rating of 65.2. Once this issue is resolved as a local class we can then tackle the "slow" rating. I myself cannot sail the boat to its rating, but I want to be as fair as possible to everyone else on the line.

I do believe the discussion has gone off the tangent. We want to resolved the one up and two up rating differences and only use one rating.

Some say use the UNI rating, report it, and it will get changed.
You say sail with the faster rating report it and it will be the only one to be used.

Now I am confused, how can I (Robi) help Tom Shannon (US Class rep) to get rid of the UNI rating all together? What can I do when I race, with the numbers, in order to be scored with the 65.2 rating and it gets reported to Portsmouth?

Other than asking the RC to score me with the faster rating, what can I do?

Maybe this will help shed some light.....

Someone will have to sail uni and sail the boat consistently to the 65.2 number(and wind numbers) in order for the uni number to be dropped. IMO, these 2 numbers (sloop, uni) will exist for the next 2-4 years. Only results will bring about change, not lobbying.

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

Hey Mark, I'd appreciate it if you could address some of my questions regarding your last post. I apologize for this one being so long. I really believe we are trying to work this out to everyone's satisfaction.



Whoa dude. I am trying to get the ratings more realistic - how does that show a lack of integrity? The system works by data being fed to it - that takes time. Could you elaborate?



Race on a level playing field with who? F18, CFR20, N20, H16?? Not sure what this means either. If you mean just go out an race in a bunch of Open regattas and turn in the numbers, then I get you. Otherwise, I'd like to understand what you mean.



Wouldn't one rating be simpler?



Was the Dart 18 Class Association included on the discussion, for the benefit of the sailors - of course?



Each one of these changes altered these boats out of the original class rules. A new rating HAD to be established because the corrections would have been too time consuming to calculate.



Do all three FX1 configuration's race head to head at class events? or are they separate classes? This is an important distinction, imo.



If there are enough scores being submitted for that rating on a yearly basis, then he has the right to know why it was dropped. Again, my opinion.



The Taipan is also a one design class outside of the F16 rule set. The F16 assoc does not want to make any changes to the Taipan OD ratings. This is a great example of how complicated the committee has made the ratings.



Then let's make it REALLY simple for F16. Have one rating for F16. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Mark: Hey Tom, what you racing?
Tom: I am sailing F16.
Mark: Which one?
Tom: The one that says....F16.
Mark: Oh, ok - I got it.

Nice and simple.

I hear ya Bob - but here is the rub....

No one is using the Uni #'s b/c they are so out of whack. The Uni number will NOT change - ever - as it is getting very little data.

Even the F16s in Mark's neighborhood are posting scores at 65.2 while sailing in 1-up mode (does that show a lack of integrity?? or circumventing the sysytem??). BTW, they took 1-2-3 finshes in their latest series (not a single regatta, but a seasonal series) - indicating that 65.2 is even too high; nevermind the laughable 67.1 for 1-up. See http://wrcraorg.ntitemp.com/racerslt.html#SpringSummer for more details.

The F16 group wants one number and then hammer that number down as quickly as possible. Having two numbers will split the data, cause confusion and ultimately hinder the process of getting to a more accurate handicap rating.

You are of the opinion that feeding the system data is the only way to resolve it. I agree with that, but I'd add that we'd get a "good number" quicker with one rating to feed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

We should take Matt's advice and go sailing.

Looking forward to next weekend and watching your transoms disappear into the distance.

Maybe if someone (using the F16U 67.1) beat bob (NF17U 66.7) on corrected time then he would have some motivation to use his volunteer position on the committee to change the rating
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well put Robi. I could not get that point across ver well. I hope the Tampa/Gulfport move goes well.

If we use the 67.1 as F16U, we face the potential animosity of other sailors and violate class rules or swap trophies in the parking lot (theoretically).

If we use the 65.2 as a general F16 rating, we are "circumventing" the system as long as the F16U rating is on the books. Again, pissing people off.

I don't see a way to win.

Either way, next weekend should be fun 5 F16s to play with.

Well, F16 guy's get your arses in gear and do so !

Tom,

The structure of the proposals by Mark and myself are not complicated, but they do require some knowledge about the internals of the PN system.

First of all Mark states that data submitted to the US PN committee (on which handicaps are adjusted) is INDEPENDENT on which handicap was used to make the final score listing of that race.

In effect, for adjusting the numbers it really doesn't matter one bit whether the F16 uni's ask to scored against the 1-up handicap or the 2-up handicap. The basic ELAPSED TIME data send to the committee is unaffected by this choice.

Secondly my proposal revolves around the RESETTING the initial value of the F16 ratings on which the data of the last few years is effected. Basically it means that a rerun of all the adjustment calculations are done but now beginning with a different starting value. This starting value that was used was most likely arbitrary anyway, so there is no real reason against chosen a more accurate one.

A third element of the proposals is to reset the initial value of both F16 ratings (1-up and 2-up) to the same number. With the very limited data that is available at the PN committee this may be expected to keep both numbers equal or nearly equal, which in turn would solve the issues related to that.

Basically, but proposals are great compromises where all parties get to keep their "pet-peeves" and I think we therefor should give both a try. Additionally both proposals are complementary and can therefor be effected simultaniously.

Pursuing these proposals is indeed the Corinthian thing to do.

With respect to some other points raised. There simply is no "circumventing the 1-up rating", no-one can be angree about the fact that the F16 sailors have themselves scored against a faster rating. If any party is disadvantages by this then it is the F16 sailors who requested this themselves. Again It should be noted that the raw data the US PN uses for adjusting the ratings in totally UNAFFECTED by how the event listing is composed (requested handicap numbers).

Wouter

Actually Bob, that is a misconception. If "someone" , i.e. a single sailor, is to do this then the rating number will only convergence to a "personal handicap" for the sailor and not so much to the real handicap belonging to the design.

Basically, the ELAPSED TIME results are dependent on the design, on the skill level of the crew AND on the skill level of the crews on the other boats. These three influences can ONLY be seperated from one another when a significantly large pool of sailors are racing each design directly against eachother, thus creating the data. With one person this is simply not the case. Especially not when that person is not of the same skill level as the crews on the other boat types in the fleet. And of course how does one know when such a person is or is not of the same skill level ? Read the last sentence again and think about it some more.

This is why yardstick systems (and all statistical systems) fall down in such a glorious fashion when the racing scene collapses (small data pools). Think about the SC20 and its rating or even the FX-one rating.

Wouter

Hi all,

don't intend to tell the US sailors what to do, but hope I can tell you about my own experience in OZ, which may add more info into why it is important to try and get near the right number sooner rather than later.

My interest in the F16 class started when fitting spinnakers to the Mosquito class I was sailing. Luckily it already had a single Yardstick for one or two up. So we started racing and found the Yardstick correction for adding a spinnaker to the base number was too easy to win with, so Tim reviewed results and approached the VYC yardstick committee with that figure. This was put into the system and has only moved by .5 since, however at mixed events the front Mossies with spinnakers have continued to clean up unless it is blowing 25 kts. plus.

I came under constant criticsm for winning races in the open fleet on Yardstick and so have the other top sailors, but still the number has not changed, because the starting point was to generous? So one of the reasons I decided to go full F16 was the winning on Yardstick criticsm. I wanted to race for the front of the fleet and avoid the Yardstick criticsm.

I was lucky that when I approached the VYC Yardstick committee (one person)about the F16 yardstick, he agreed to use the number I suggested and had been using for a few races so had some results. It was based on adding the spinnaker factor to the Taipan Sloop Yardstick and rounding down. It is very hard to win races in mixed fleets with, but I would rather that than the criticsm I had when racing Mossies in mixed fleet. I know the F16 is capable of mixing it at the front of any fleet and Matt and others have shown this in the US.

If I where in the US I would be doing anything I could to get the number changed now, as when your number is near the front of the fleet, where your top sailors sail the boat, the class will get respect, which also helps to grow the class, we all know the F16 is fast, but to other sailors and prospective buyers only the handicap proves it.

It's good to only see one F16 in the VYC yardsticks, it is just one class afterall.

There was a comment made that "Nobody knows how the F16 DPN were decided" and this is not true. Both Darlene Hobock (Chair of the US PN Committee at the time) and I know because we did it. You have to remember this was at the birth of the Class when the current interest/boats/etc. was a pipe dream. There were only TWO type of cats in the US at the time that could legitimately be considered "F16's" and those were Taipan 4.9's to which spinnakers could/had been added and a lone BIM 16. NOBODY on the planet had any idea, realistically at that time, of how fast these boats were. The boats were new to the US and spinnakers (of the "modern" type- although this was several generations of design ago) were new to the Taipan and the Taipan was new to the US. Australia had the largest and most active fleet of Taipan 4.9's on the planet and I think you could say they had a few "rock stars" sailing them (as sloop and uni only mind you) - Glen Ashby, Greg Goodall, Jim Boyer, to name a few. So we used the Aussie VYC numbers for the Tornado vs the Taipan in sloop and uni configuration (BECAUSE the Aussies had PROVED there was a true performance diferential between these two configurations even when the Taipan uni was "optimal"- ie uni specialized sail and mast, etc.) as a basis to assign "provisional" PN's to the Taipan 4.9. Shortly afterward when we wanted to get an "F16HP" class going (anybody remember those days??) I simply petitioned Darlene and the PN Commitee to apply the standard PN spinnaker modification to the Taipan PN to get a "provisional" number for the F16's. At that early time I was one of the few guys sailing the 4.9 uni (and without a spinnaker prior to the F16 days) but we had Glen Ashby, Greg Goodall and Jim Boyer all sail and race the sloop (no spinnaker) over here and submit those numbers as did Lars Guck back in the early Taipan 4.9 days. Those experiences dropped the DPN 4.9 numbers and hence the F16 numbers (since they were based on the 4.9 numbers) but prior to the Blade there were not very many of us in the US racing F16 so numbers were naturally scattered and few and they were for Taipan 4.9s fitted with spinnakers, NOT fully optimized F16's like the Blade which have a much wider beam, thinner/deeper boards, "latest generation" spinnakers, and optimized mains (vs the original 4.9 "squarehead" that looks like a pinhead next to a new Glaser main!).
SO- Was it our original intent to have a single "F16" DPN? YES, because it was our original intent that the boats be raced uni or double "heads up" as a class.
Did we know if this was realistic? NO, it was our "goal"! Did we have ANY date to support this contention at that time? NO-so the PN Committee did the best they could and assigned 2 numbers. Does it appear we may have met this goal? Perhaps- but again, until a large, comparable "data set" is achieved we won't know. I believe in some of the European "boat parameter" handicapping systems the uni actually rates FASTER, rather than slower, so they actually have the opposite problem there when handicap racing. IMO the important thing is that, AS A CLASS, F16's race "heads up" against each other. By the way, IMO it is the nature of the beast that "Formula" and "development" classes will get faster as more people get involved and drive competition between builders/sailors/sailmakers. Just as the Inter 18 or original configuration Tiger for instance are no competition for the current generation/configuration of F18's.

Respectfully,
Kirt
("The Old US F16 Fart") <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Yes, the SCHRS rating system (of which I am chair) rates the single handed boat faster. The data we have supports this.

So Mark, do you suggest racing uni at the two up rating of 65.2 and reporting that to Portsmouth?

Robbie, Tshan you confuse two things here. Determining a PN Rating and Handicap racing.


Determining a PN Rating.
What you and the F16 class must do is
Report the elapsed time for the first F16 main and spin, the first 2up F16 and the elapsed times for the first of any other class of boat sailing that same course within oh… 10 minutes of your start. Don’t count on the RC… It’s the last of their worries at the end of a regatta.

Remember…ONLY ELAPSED TIMES MATTER… the corrected time, the rating used, the finish position are irrelevant. You also need all configurations of the F16’s. and windspeed.

You can’t count on the RC doing this… Duplicate information won’t hurt the PN Committee if the race gets submitted twice.
So… even when you get a one design race off… Collecting and reporting info on the other races running the course will serve your cause and have complete integrity.

Handicap Racing.

Everyone agrees that the sailors want a level and fair playing field.

Over the past year and 1/2 the consensus among US F16 Sailors is that the rating is way too slow for both configurations. (not to mention your competitors point of view)

The first approach to this problem was to use the faster rating of the two. This was adopted by the Chesapeake sailors and Florida sailors

Now, Race results, EU race Results, ISAF and Texel ratings document that the current ratings are about 7% too slow.

So, that leaves you Robbie with a decision…. What rating should I use for the Regatta this weekend? If I use the slow rating… I know that I have an unfair advanatage.. HMMM>.


If you leave up to the RC… they will score you according to the USPN table.… (they have no choice)

So, IMO, Now you have an integrity issue…. You know the rating is wrong, the playing field is not fair and you have a huge advantage over everyone else in the race.!

When you say… Sigh… we will just keep turning in results and hope that ratings correct to the fair rating… What more can we do ....that is the system.…

That is just crap.

As an individual…you can ask to use a faster rating which is in line with Texel and ISAF SCR. The RC won’t care…the Portsmouth committee won’t care…

In fact… that is already what the majority of Florida and MD sailors are doing…. They sail one up and use the faster two up rating.

You can also as a class… persuade your sailors to use a proper rating.. When they register for a race… they say… Please use this rating… it is faster across the board then published ratings. Thank you.

I believe this is what Wouter is suggesting with the term RESET the rating.

Every race that you compete in will now be a fair contest between you and the other sailors.

Now… nothing can stop other F16’ from using the published ratings…. So be it.
But if you believe the F16 rating is way off… tben you will be racing with integrity.


Robie wrote…
Some say use the UNI rating, report it, and it will get changed.
You say sail with the faster rating report it and it will be the only one to be used.

You report the ELAPSEP TIME>>> NOT the corrected time… not the finish position, not the rating. The RATING that you choose to race with does NOT MATTER to the PN Committee.

The only thing you, Robbie should do is report exactly the configuration that turned in the elapsed times to the Pn Committee and wind conditions.

Now I am confused, how can I (Robi) help Tom Shannon (US Class rep) to get rid of the UNI rating all together?


What can I do when I race, with the numbers, in order to be scored with the 65.2 rating and it gets reported to Portsmouth?


Just to be clear… the 65.2 rating IS NOT REPORTED OR USED BY PORTSMOUTH… only elapsed times matter.
What there is to do is report elapsed times for all classes of boats.

Robbie wrote

Other than asking the RC to score me with the faster rating, what can I do?

Well… you can get the class to generate the consensus Fair Rating for the F16., Ask class members to use this rating when they go racing… take on reporting elapsed times to the PN committee for every race and not depend on the Race Committee. This will get your published rating in line as soon as possible.

Take Care
Mark

Why do you need to submit data that distinquishes between uni and sloop F16? Just submit F16. This is probably where the whole problem has arisen. If you want to have one rating, only submit one set of rating data for F16.

Well ISAF has the single handed version faster..

Texel treats one up and two up differently

So to should USPN....

Its the only fair thing for all of the racers on the course.

Now... What you do in your one design start...is your buisness.. If you want me to race with a naked cupie doll strapped to the pole to be a card carying F16 member... so be it.

I want one! I'm gonna name it "Bob Curry"!

Ok, I got you. Portsmouth doesn't care what I use as a rating at a regatta. I personally feel that 65.2 is more accurate than 67.1, so I will use that number when I register (since I am full of integrity).

After I hound the RC for the elapsed times, I'll make sure they get sent in. Part of the required data is "code or class" of boat. I assume, I'd send in F16U when applicable, even though I subscribe to the F16 rating (I know, Portsmouth doesn't care about ratings).

It just seems silly to have the F16U rating, if no one uses it.

Please make up my mind! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I used 67.1 last Saturday and have registered for Juana's with 67.1.

I don't care what number we use, but I do hope we will all use the same one.

How about choosing this rating as a basis for fair racing the f16 (1) and the F16 (2)

This is the current F18 rating. The Texel and ISAF ratings for one up sailors would predict a slightly faster then this rating.

62.4 65.9,64.1,61.3,59.5


You would have a level playing field with all of the other 2 person spin boats

There will be some F18HT's there and some I20's - why not just 59.whatevertheyare?? Haha. I know you won't believe this but I believe the data system works (if everyone posts all their scores) - I just hate having two ratings that my boat conforms too; one is totally bogus and the other is suspect.

Not to belabour the point, but I still have these two questions:

1. If no one uses the F16U handicap will anyone care? (analogy: if a bear craps in the woods, ..... well, you know).
2. Why have a rating that no one will claim? 95% of F16 racing is under 65.2 (my guess at the percentage, no data to prove it AND I'd assume a lot of that racing is 1-up).

It seems like everyone would be better served by loading all the data in one single F16 config. BUT - I said I would go with whatever the US Sailing guru's say is the WORD. Get Jamie to respond to my last email and I'll go with it....

It is ironic that, the ONLY times (except for Tiki's last admission) that 67.1 was used was in Alter Cup qualifying (twice, diff areas). Hmmmm. RC made them do it. Hmmmm. In one case it didnt matter too much, but this last (Not-a-Regatta; that started this post - Sorry Oley) he would have won at 67.1 and 65.2 and whatever the F18 rating is he would have been in the hunt. I'd hate for that rating to factor into someone being eliminated from the AC finals.

Do any 1-up F16 sailors want to keep the 67.1 rating? I have not talked to any. Speak up. I am open to hearing all opinions.

Drop the 67.1 ive never used it.

Drop the 67.1.

ISAF SCHRS ratings can be found here

Drop the 67.1

At the qualifier we were orginally scored at the 65 rating since they looked at the blade 16 rating. With this we were 1 and 2 in place. Then RC said sunday they saw the uni rating and were going to use that. Well I am not sure what was used in the end as I never saw final results and since there were not enough races it does not matter.

To me if we all agree that the 67 is just way off base (which it looks to be) then as a class lets all agree to use the 65 only, and no one report the uni setting. This will lead to no data for this config and then after a while be dropped from the portsmouth numbers. Trust me they will drop numbers off the chart, they did this to me about 3 years ago, dropped the over 200 lbs A cat rating and when i showed up with my old wooden A that weighed over 200 i had to race at the same rating as the new a cats and got killed on time correction. Well asked the portsmouth person why the number was gone and was told since no one seemed to be using it they got rid of it. Well that will probably happen to the uni if no one uses it.
The other thing is to just get so many people on these boats that at every event we have our own class. Then straight up no matter what the rating is.

The only fair answer I can see is to vote as a group in the US on how we are gonna do this and then stick to it everywhere. Otherwise it can get confusing on what is the proper way to go.
I do not want to do well in races cause of an unfair number but also this is the system we all agree to sail under and the number is set (meaning the 65) so as of now that is the number we should play by. We can petition the commetitte to reset it lower but until that is done we should sail with this number. I know it might be unfair and other groups will grumble but we did not set the number there because we wanted an unfair advantage. Kirt and the old dogs set it where the orginal f16s seemed to fall. Let us hope that the commettiee takes the advice of the class officers and combines the numbers and drops it some.

Well that is enough wasting time typing at work.

Does the F18 have ratings for 1 up or 2?
Could the F18 be a uni without the jib?
Big or small chute ratings?

No.
There is a modifier that can be applied to those boats that aren't normally thought of as singlehanding- or were never designed to singlehand. The issue with the F16 is that it is meant to be sailed 1 or 2 up.
I am sure plenty of people sail F18s solo occassionally, but I seriously doubt many people race them that way. Besides, I have a hard time righting the blade every once in a while, I can't imagine trying to right a 400lb cat.

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.