Area D-North Alter Cup Qualifier

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=

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=

alt=

/> <img src=

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=

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.