-List'
Cc: Bill Coleman
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design
I agree, and I feel your pain.
A 5 leg triangle/W/L does level the playing field somewhat between a mix of
older and newer boats.
Altho, in fairness to our race committee, sometimes when the wind it too
.
Bill Coleman
Entrada, Erie, PA
From: Matthew via CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:04 AM
To: 'Stus-List'
Cc: Matthew
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II now race course design
Ron:
With all due respect, my boat’s PHRF
could keep our boats and have some fun
racing. W/L courses undermine this concept.
Matt
C 42 Custom
From: Ronald B. Frerker via CnC-List
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 12:55 PM
To: Stus-List
Cc: Ronald B. Frerker
Subject: Stus-List Re: C 33-II vs 35-II
Honestly the only course I want to see for big boats goes someplace. Long ago I
decided that if it was all going to be dinghy racing on short W/Ls, then race a
dinghy and save tens of thousands of dollars. Think about the cost of ONE sail
replacement on a big boat vs. an entire used dinghy.
On
At one time we use to set the triangle and run the boats around the
triangle, then windward leeward (beat, reach, reach, beat, downwind).
That course always seemed better for different generation boats since it
involved all points of sail.
Now if the organizer sets a W/L course the lightweight
W/L racing is also ‘encouraged’ by some PROs when their mark boats are limited
to only 1. Much easier to adjust the course if you only need to either adjust
the line or move only 1 or at most 2 marks (W and L).
Moving a jibe mark efficiently to provide a ‘more perfect’ triangle usually
requires
The problem is with the handicap numbers. A triangle course has only 33%
beat, if equilateral. The more you spread out the offset mark, the less
percentage the beat; the more you pull it in, the higher percentage beat.For
PHRF to work, I believe they recommend at least a 40% beat.
