Off Topic > Banter

this years handicap

<< < (2/2)

JimC:
Ah yes, the (in)famous Hayling tide correction. I don't disagree with the general principle, but can't help thinking that they really ought to have one correction for wind against tide and another for wind with tide because in one situation the slow boats are greatly disadvantaged, but in the other they are moderately advantaged...

ade white:
Heres an idea...
Do we have a maths guru in the class? Or anyone that could be bothered to work out some variants of times.
For example; if Andy logged some of his times and results he could adjust them accordingly to what he thought his 200 position would have been during those races. Then he could establish his own 'fair' PY and even adjust it to how he thought he sailed in the race. We generally know when it is going good and how long a dump takes.
I am not saying we try to implement this idea with anyone else; only to highlight for our own interest.
If we were really interested in handicap racing we would all buy a bandit boat - get really bored, luff up Tom, Dick and Harry, and then not bother and take up knitting instead.

JimC:
PY calculations are scarcely guru level (thank goodness, otherwise I wouldn't be able to manage). I'm more than happy to give the class unofficial support and explain how things work.

This document gives some more clues.

https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/technical/Web%20Documents/2007%20Portsmouth%20Yardstick%20Scheme/2007%20Instructions%20for%20Worksheet.pdf

and here's the spreadsheet.

http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/technical/Web%20Documents/2007%20Portsmouth%20Yardstick%20Scheme/2007%20Results%20Worksheet%20v1.xls


The main feature is what the paper calls poor performers. This excludes about the bottom third of most fleets from the results. In classes with rather binary performance this also has the effect of tending to chop off results in weather that doesn't suit the boat. Moth last places in non-foiling conditions won't affect the Moth handicap!

andy_peters:
Talking to the QM handicappers (who also do the Great Lakes handicap) their approach is to handicap a boat based on its ideal wind and course.  Therefore a Cherub is handicapped according to how it should perform in a F4 W/L.  This is of course to stop development boats walking off with one off events such as the Bloody Mary if the conditions are perfect for them. 

In a series across a range of conditions and courses it is a woeful approach for a boat such as a Cherub whose ideal speed is far in excess of its average speed over a series.  I'm trying to make this point to QM at the moment ably backed up by our Weds evening results.

JimC:
I must confess I do have philosophical trouble with this aspect of how the Great Lakes handicaps are done. To me it just feels like people in smoke filled rooms deciding what the handicap ought to be. Which is all very well, but how do they know? Its hard enough sanity checking the data from the national numbers, where we do basically follow the data, although it may get smoothed if changes look too sudden.
But I can bore for Australia on the subject of handicapping, if there's stuff you folks want to know let me know, otherwise I'll try and shut up.

 The difference between 890 and 908 is usually just a couple of places in most fleets. Its funny how little difference handicap changes make.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page