Author Topic: Handicaps for open handicap events  (Read 10802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline deefender1098

  • Alex Harris
  • Committee
  • Wanabe Guru
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +5/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2019, 02:37:05 PM »
Long story short i was not pleased when it all happened but hey

lets be honest it was always going to be a tad controversial to some so when we registered i went up to the race office and specifically asked if it would be a problem, they said no and just go race

when we got off the water we were called to the race office and told that what we had done was unfair to the competition and there was nothing we could do about it, they were changing our handicap, we decided it wasnt worth the fight.

my personal oppinion on the matter is they violated both the rrs and their own S.I's to do this but they made it pretty clear our oppinion didnt matter

 Alex

Offline Clive Everest

  • Former_Member
  • Guru's Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Karma: +41/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2019, 10:46:12 PM »
You are right Alex.
The best response it so show them that you have the best boat on the planet.
They know this which is why they are scared of the class.
We had extraordinary bias against us both before and after foiling. (PY 760 at Hayling without foils).
Pick your day and you should be able to beat them all on the water.

Class Committee

Offline JimC

  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • Karma: +10/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2019, 01:25:32 PM »
Its tricky though Clive. 

On the one hand I am no fan of the Great Lakes tendency for people in smoke filled rooms to decide what they think handicaps ought to be.

On the other hand, whether they measure to class rules or not, its clearly inappropriate to use a handicap developed from data for non foiling boats for foil equipped boats. Whether the foiling implementation is a success, partial success or failure the chances that a "correct" handicap for a foiling boat will turn out to be the same as that for a non foiling boat is pretty much zero.

With hindsight, in my opinion we made a major error with Portsmouth Yardstick in not splitting off foam sandwich/carbon spars from wood/grp and tin rig boats. Our predecessors got it right when they split out  cotton and terylene sails. To my utter astonishment I have data I have comfortably confident in that suggests that wood Solos are around 5% slower on elapsed time in a race than foam sandwich ones. It would be an even bigger error not to split off foil boats from lowriders.

You've got to say, then, that an RC should consider the yardstick number for a foiling boat to be a trial number, and that's really a finger in the air exercise. If you take the same principle as redress then an RC has a duty to make the racing as fair for as many competitors as possible. It is not reasonable to refuse entries from boats that have trial numbers. How are you going to get numbers if you don't allow them to compete? It could be argued though that its not unreasonable to say that such boats aren't eligible for trophies, or that their handicaps may be adjust post race PROVIDED ALL THAT IS MADE CLEAR IN THE NOR.

That brings me on to another feature of PY calculation as it relates to boats with binary performance like the Cherub or anything with foils. The Portsmouth Yardstick calculation discards from consideration any result that doesn't get up to a reasonable percentage of the winners corrected time. The original plan behind that was to exclude raw beginners, boats that missed the tide gate, boats that spent half the race upside down etc. However what is also does, for boats with extreme performance, is to exclude results where the conditions plain don't suit the boat. So British Moth results in breeze don't contribute to the number, and nor do Cherub and Canoe results in drifters, or Moths in non foiling conditions. So this means that a Portsmouth Yardstick number is not an average of the performance in all conditions, its an average of the performance in conditions that reasonably suit the boat.

20 years ago I'd have said that was monstrously unfair. Now I think its probably reasonable. Consider, you, and maybe even I could design a Cherub that was a light airs flyer and pathetic in planing conditions. Call it Rebel[grin]. Could it win a championship? Only if the conditions were very extreme. If you can't expect to win a championship if you bang the R corner on every beat you can't expect to do so  if you bang the corner on design. So maybe its not unreasonable that if a class has banged the corner on design its similarly disadvantaged.

As for extraordinary bias against Cherubs at Hayling. Really? Does a crab s*** in the harbour?

Disclaimer: these are purely personal opinions of Jim Champ, former Cherub, Canoe and Moth Sailor. They in no way represent the views of the RYA or the RYA Empirical Handicapping Advisory Committee.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 03:50:13 PM by JimC »

Offline JimC

  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • Karma: +10/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2019, 05:58:48 PM »
Folks you may have noticed that the Cherub has dropped of the PY list this year. This happens because of insufficient and/or inconsistent data. So please get out there and do races, help your clubs get a return in if needed plus make sure the boats are categorised properly. I suggest Cherub, Cherub 97 Rules and Cherub foils. But most important go sailing!

JimC (same disclaimer as above)

Offline scorpion_1925

  • Committee
  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
  • Karma: +6/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2019, 08:20:22 PM »
to continue what could prove to be a never ending topic, I spoke to Rutland before racing this weekend and asked if we could get our race times so we could see what difference handicapping would make to results. I have attached the results worked out with a handicap just for comparison. if anyone has a suggested handicap for A&E I am happy to update them.
If in doubt flat out

Offline JimC

  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • Karma: +10/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2019, 05:59:01 AM »
By the nature of the PYS calculations they don't work for one of a kind boats. However when you know all the individual sailors involved a decent shot at a trial number can be had by looking at their results before the change/new boat/whatever and seeing where they came in the fleet, then take the post change results and calculate a number that puts them in the same sort of place in the pecking order.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 06:01:29 AM by JimC »

Offline scorpion_1925

  • Committee
  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
  • Karma: +6/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2019, 06:38:52 PM »
The great lakes have confirmed the handicaps as follows foiler 800, 05 rules 890, 97 rule 970

This should avoid any more problems at events like the sailjuice
If in doubt flat out

Offline deefender1098

  • Alex Harris
  • Committee
  • Wanabe Guru
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: +5/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2019, 08:53:41 PM »
foiler 800, 05 rules 890, 97 rule 970


Are we still calling them 05 rules ? ;)


Offline scorpion_1925

  • Committee
  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
  • Karma: +6/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2019, 08:57:04 PM »
I get your point
If in doubt flat out

Offline Clive Everest

  • Former_Member
  • Guru's Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Karma: +41/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2019, 01:04:35 PM »
They look like good numbers for all variants.
Class Committee

Offline scorpion_1925

  • Committee
  • Guru's Assistant
  • ****
  • Posts: 267
  • Karma: +6/-1
Re: Handicaps for open handicap events
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2019, 01:06:08 PM »
At least now we can avoid the grafham debacle
If in doubt flat out