Conference unifix::sailing

    Looks like Dave and Dean have company in A fleet.
    
    re. (1)  How would your proposed crew correction factor work?  If we
    assume more crew = more performance = less favorable handicap, no one
    is going to sail with anything above the IMS max unless the extra crew
    member's name is Jud.
    
    If we assume more crew = less performance = more favoarable handicap,
    the streets of Marblehead will be deserted as IMS press gangs round up
    helpless civilians as rail meat slaves.
    
    Or would there be a correction factor based on wind strength and sea
    state and the number of crew.   E. G. more crew + high wind + lumpy sea
    = more favorable handicap.  I think IMS ignores sea state entirely and
    doesn't explicitly factor wind velocity into a particular races
    handicap correction.  The VPP would have to change for this one.
    
    Maybe some VPP hacker could come up with a #crew/seconds/mile table to
    enable a better pre-race decision on who to take and who to dump.
    
    re (2)  Weight, or the lack thereof, in the ends does make a
    difference.  This year even the lowly inteclub fleet wrote a bow weight
    requirement into the class regs.  The finn class has done this for
    years.  But while the Taylor 40 is designed to the IMS, they're on a
    supposedly even footing under PHRF - but not under every sea and wind
    condition.  They probably feel cheated when they see C+C37Rs blowing by
    them in heavy air chop.  
    
    - gene

While you're at it, how 'bout a rating fiddle for crews of less than
maximum size? 

:-)

    Howdy.  Didn't know you worked at DEC!  
    
    Your concerns about IMS are valid.  We ran into the max crew thing when
    we went to do the NOOD.  Ended up leaving one of our regular crew on
    the beach.  A female who lacks great skill, but more than makes up for
    it with enthusiasm and humor.  But like you said, those are the first
    kind of crew that get cut.  
    
    The weight in the ends concern is also valid.  We may look like a
    custom one tonner, but we are really a production boat with a head up
    forward etc.  Balsa core, forward hatch, the whole bit.  Boats like the
    Taylors do take advantage of the rule as it is written now.  The
    question is, at what point do you quit trying to factor in all the
    variables?  Gene mentions sea chop.  It's hard enough for race
    committees to agree on accurate wind conditions for the ratings.
    
    By the way, have you looked at the Tripp 40's being cranked out by
    Carroll Marine?  I bet they take the IMS advantage farther than the
    Taylors do.  
    
    IMS had a very ambitious goal, to rate dual purpose boats and racing
    oriented boats fairly.  The complexity of that goal is what is killing
    IMS.  The top IMS boats are treating it no differently than the top IOR
    boats do/did.  Every advantage is being sought.  Boats are being
    designed to the rule which is peeving everybody else without $250k plus
    to spend on a new boat.  
    
    We have made a sailing career of picking up outmoded racing boats very
    inexpensively as the next generation comes out.  We have owned two
    successful ex-IOR designs and forsee the time when ex-IMS rockets will
    be available on the same market.  Bad news for the original owners but
    great for us!  Let's hope there are always folks who want to be on the
    leading edge.  We'll pick up their debris.
    
    Dave

    A lot of work has been put into calculating pitching moment for the
    IMS rule. The last I heard, the work is either complete or nearly so.
    The days of glory for light ended boats are almost over.
    
    But IMS still falls apart completely on the wind velocity calculation.
    They use boat finishing TIMES to back solve for wind speed. This has
    the effect of averaging the wind speed during the race. If a race
    starts in heavy air, goes flat calm for a hour, then blows again
    till the finish: the light air boats take a beating on the rating.
    This is because heavy air boats get to race in favorable conditions
    while the rule calculates light air and penalizes the wrong boats. 
    
    If you really want to test your sailing skill against others - one
    design is as close as you can get. As soon you get into IOR, IMS,
    PHRF, you start competing on additional levels. It's not better
    or worse - just another dimension of sailboat racing. 
    
    IMS is an ambitious idea and has potential to be a good rule. But
    from a mathematical viewpoint, it's a multi-variable equation. 
    Therefore it will have local and global optimums. On the water,
    this translates into a certain type of sailboat that  fits
    the rule well. The success of IMS will depend on whether this
    type of boat is popular. The death of IOR has shown that 
    IOR type boats are not popular and wallets are not bottomless.
    
    Paul

There's another "hidden" issue here that may in fact be equally interesting:
A comparison of the various rating rules - IMS, PHRF, IOR.

I have three criteria for doing well:

1) A boat with a reasonable rating (e.g., can be sailed to its rating)
2) Preparation (includes: hull, sails, crew, etc.)
3) Go in the right direction (includes: don't make the big mistake)

Out of the 3 criteria, #3 is the one that is the hardest to control and the one
that has the largest effect on the outcome (assumes you've taken care
of #'s 1 & 2).  We've raced quite a bit in both PHRF and IMS this year.  Out
of all the races, Schehazade (Taylor 40) corrected out on us once (had to be
IMS since we're level in PHRF).  Other than that, the ratings were burried in
the noise compared to tactics, et. al. 

How would the CCF (Crew Correction Factor) work?  IMS and VPP currently take 
into acount wind velocity and course configuration as dynamic (per race)
paramaters (along with finishing time, of course).  The static performance
(handicap) is calculated based on a fixed number of crew.  The crew allowances
changed from 1989 to 1990 (from nine to eight for us).  This was the only
change on our cirtificate and it resulted in a significant change (several
seconds per mile) in our handicap at various wind velocities.  My simple
proposal was to calculate and publish as set of handicap numbers based on two
or three different crew configurations. 

As to the vagaries of scoring IMS: how to determine the "real" wind velocity, 
etc. - this is up to the RC (read: subjective).  There are also multiple
scoring options available: from using the "GP" rating (the average of LR 8
and LR 12) as the handicap number regardless, all the way to complex
calculations taking all the variables into account.  John Colins developed
most of the scoring software commonly in use.  I believe it also allows
the IMS rating tables for each yacht to be down-line-loaded from USYRA by RC's. 
A lot of this is viewed as being too complicated by many RC's.  This is a
big disadvantage to my proposal - how many times has adding complexity 
resulted in a better product?

As to the performance of the Taylor 40's.  We were fortunate to do quite well 
against them the last couple of years.  I like to calculate the cost per 
trophy.  You may be interested to know (this is second hand) that
Coalition (the new one) cost Brian well into the $300K range - and this is
after salvaging several expensive items from the old yacht (sails, winches, 
etc.).  On the race course, Mark Lindsey (on one or the other of the Taylor 
40's he built) would stare at me for hours, literally wouldn't take his eyes 
off me.  We were second for the year for YRUMB behind Scheherazade.  (If 
the results for the Corinthean 2,000,000,000 were scored, we would have won.)  
Scheherazade also won the 40' Class - they had 900 points for the season, we 
had 899.  So I guess the extra $200K does help.

By the way: I have had the pleasure of significant on-the-water time with Judd
Smith.  However, he only raced with us on one "major" regatta this year (the
Chapman Bowl).  Judd spent all of his big boat time on Taylor Ann.  Interesting
enough we won the Chapman Bowl (with Judd) and Taylor Ann beat us in the JFK
and the Corinthean 2,000,000,000 (with Judd), each by one place (e.g., they
were 2nd, we were 3rd both times). 

The Tripp 40's: there was one at Manhassett.  It raced in IMS along with
the new J-39.  Both were loaded with all the "real" rock-stars.  The J-39 won.
We raced in the 40' Class under PHRF - so didn't get a chance to go
one-on-one.  The conditions were extremely light and flukey - they didn't even
get the fourth race off for lack of wind.  I've heard rumors of Barry
Carrol construction problems similar to the Frers 41's (there are unconfirmed
reports that the first Tripp 40 is back in the shop getting its hull and keel
back in their anointed places).  Interesting note: Steve Garland sold Wired and
will be sailing a Tripp 40 next season.  As for the J-39, it owes the other 40
footers 15 seconds a mile, PHRF - so it isn't even a candidate for the 40'
Class Association.  Besides, I think Fred DeNapoli is currently selling
insurance. 

On one design versus handicap - The purpose of the 40' Class Association is
to promote as close to one design racing as possible.  This does work.
In the PHRF-NE's and Manhassett Fall Series there were about 15 yachts, each
rating within a few seconds a mile of each other.  This was great racing.  
Again, the final results were not anywhere close to being determined by the 
ratings.  (BUT... I wonder how many E-22's I could own for the price of one
C&C 37R?).

I really have trouble relating to this note. You answer most of your own 
questions:


>I have three criteria for doing well:

>1) A boat with a reasonable rating (e.g., can be sailed to its rating)
>2) Preparation (includes: hull, sails, crew, etc.)
>3) Go in the right direction (includes: don't make the big mistake)

>Out of the 3 criteria, #3 is the one that is the hardest to control and the one
>that has the largest effect on the outcome (assumes you've taken care

 sounds good. With one design, your point is still valid

>I like to calculate the cost per 
>trophy.  You may be interested to know (this is second hand) that
>Coalition (the new one) cost Brian well into the $300K range - and this is
>after salvaging several expensive items from the old yacht (sails, winches, 

 Wowwwww !!!   And here I was crying about having to drop $45 for a new 
jib sheet to bring my boat up to spec   ;>) I feel much better now. Maybe
I should bring this reply home and show my wife how much money I am saving
her racing catamarans.  ;>)  Money to pleasure is measured
differently by different people. Reminds me of the joke about driving a car:

"why is it when someone passes you they are a luntic, but when you pass some
one they are retarded dweebs?"

>On one design versus handicap - The purpose of the 40' Class Association is
>to promote as close to one design racing as possible.  This does work.

  I have Never heard a group of handicap sailors all say this at the same
time. Somehow it is never quite fair. 

if you want to race, go one design. Only the 4Ps will get you a 1st place. More
importantly, one should have fun. It seems that once people get the
bug with big boats, they have to do well, or else something isn't fair. Read
the America's Cup notes. Heck, I'm glad to be able to afford to get out for
15 or so weekends a year on some windy water and run what I brung against some
friends and then go have a beer in bar afterwards. Many people I know do not
have it as lucky as me. To get upset with some complex formula that goes crazy
with weather conditions on a boat I bought thinking there would be justice for
is just too hard to swallow. IMHO if you want a big boat to go play with, more
power to you. If you want justice everywhere, good luck. 

I've been racing for years and know what it takes to win. But more importantly
I've  lived long enough to know it isn't what life is all about. I get a heck
of a bigger kickout of pouncing on an opponents tactical error than wondering
it the new kelvar foo-barb is worth the tranmitted emperical roll time in 
windy conditions. Blowing serious bucks on making a sailboat go fast really is
a crazy idea when you look at it from the big picture. I mean to say you can
do 10 knots when everyone else is doing 9.3 ??? Non sailors will look at you
funny. 

Why not have a bit of fun. Ignore the bozos on the line. Enjoy the time on 
the water. And screw the formulas. 

    john

    I have a question.  After reading other notes about how the rating rules
    fleets are loosing their competition, where are they going and what is
    making them leave these fleets?  Do you suppose it's just the rules
    that are designed to attract competition?
    
    Someone stands to make a killing by designing a good, big boat one
    design fleet.
    
    Forget these silly ratings rules.  Race one design!!!!!!!
    
    Charlie

    >>> I wonder how many E-22's I could own for the price of a C&C 37R?
    
    Probably most of the Marblehead fleet.  I believe that's a bit of
    arithmetic the previous owner has made and considered acting on.
    
    Re the CCF, what's is the rating change you got as a function of # crew
    and wind speed?  On my own boat the experience has been that crew
    weight changes are useful only in lumpy seas.  In flat water it seems
    to make -0- difference regardless of wind speed.
    
    Re Kalinowski's complaint - John, you were out with us that Wednesday
    night on Dave Carter's boat.  Even a Hobie fleet can't race any closer
    than that.  And that's with a rating spread 12 seconds or so on either
    side of ours.  I've been impressed with the narrowness of the spread
    between the first and last boats in recent PHRF racing.  Given the
    differences in skill and ratings, the fleets still seem to finish
    closer together than the E-22 fleet as whole.  And I know those boats
    are dead even and the skippers generally competent (my own case a
    frequent exception).
    
    The calculation of cost/trophy is a dangerous one.  It frequently leads
    to the assumption of alternate summertime activities like gardening.
    
    
    - gene

    A)  I don't believe the base note was a complaint against handicap
    racing in general, just the particular problems with IMS.  Even
    mentioned the great racing found last summer among the handicap fleet. 
    The PHRF NE's and Buzzard's Bay in particular.
    
    B)  Get off it with this one design is nirvana stuff.  There are very
    popular offshore one designs like the J35 fleet.  You hear as many if
    not more complaints among those in that fleet.  The subjects are just
    different.  For example, the tight restrictions on equipment, deck
    layout, interior weight over the various models made over different
    years.  Any time you get a group of competitive guys together with
    complex boats they will argue over how they are getting screwed.  Just
    human nature.
    
    C)  There are skills you gain by racing handicap that you don't get by
    racing one design.  An example is getting the most out of your baot
    speed without having an identical competitor to compare with.  There
    are also skills you get racing OD that you can't get racing handicap.
    
    D)  The cost factor.  Chuck wasn't recommending that the grand prix
    boats are the way to go for most of us.  He got a good deal on his
    boat, and we did too.  The way we have ours structured, it costs each
    of us just a bit more than having our own J24.  He and we get most of
    our kicks out of beating the deep pockets guys.
    
    E)  Cost per trophy.  No one in their right mind does this.  We give
    most of our trophies to our crew in recognition of particularly good
    work.  Let them polish the silver!  We use our boat in many ways the
    smaller OD's can't.  We cruise it, pack fifteen people on it for day
    sails, and use the large crew as a way to get a group of solid lifetime
    friends.
    
    In summary, I've raced a lot on one designs from Lasers to North
    American 40's and love it.  I also race in handicap and love it for
    different reasons.  One design is not heaven. Nor is handicap.  Both
    could use some improvement.
    
    Dave
    

    Rathole enabled.
    
    Dave I agree with you that there are flaws in both styles of racing. 
    My only point is that the one design racing isn't contested in
    someone's calculator. (ie. enter the correct number into the
    differential equation to see what place you came in.)  That's what
    makes it fun.  You bust your butt and get obvious paybacks in one
    design racing.  I have been in PHRF races where no obvious mistakes
    were made, where we busted our butts and the only payback was the round
    that the skipper bought for us when we got off of the boat.
    
    In my humble opinion the only way to make ratings rule races work is to
    insure that all of the boats are truly equal by creating a FLAWLESS
    formula, where no differential is assumed minimal and is intigrated
    over the course of the race over all variables encountered.  Then find
    the sum of all the instantaneous solutions calculated at the most
    frequent sampling rate possible.  (ie. install a VAX 9000 or CRAY on 
    all boats).  As crazy as this sounds, until this happens ratings rules
    are written to be broken, and they will be broken, and they will be
    inaccurate.
    
    At least with one design boats there are barriers that keep the boats
    close enough to eliminate a large proportion of the differentials that
    are at the discretion of PHRF racers.  And, corrections can be made
    after each race.
    
    Put one of your MITite crew members to work on creating the perfect
    ratings rule.  He will tell you how tough it really is and that IMS
    also can and is being beaten.
    
    
    Rathole disabled.

> He will tell you how tough it really is and that IMS
>     also can and is being beaten.


Nobody will argue this point.  However, one design is no end-all.  I raced
470s and 420s for a while, and can tell you that the difference in a boat
that is 2 years old and a brand new boat is not trivial.  Age and condition of
sails is also critical.  Put two equally competent crews, one on a 3 year old
470 with blown out sails, and one on a brand new one with new sails and watch
who wins.  Add to that the fact that two sets of brand new sails are not
identical (even from the same manufacturer) and even one-design is not the
inherently fair race you make it out to be.  

One way to increase fairness, is to do what we did when I raced in 
inter-collegiate races, that is rotate boats among the different crews
a

The notes program ate the bottom of my last reply!!!!  Here it is in
full.


> He will tell you how tough it really is and that IMS
>     also can and is being beaten.


Nobody will argue this point.  However, one design is no end-all.  I raced
470s and 420s for a while, and can tell you that the difference in a boat
that is 2 years old and a brand new boat is not trivial.  Age and condition of
sails is also critical.  Put two equally competent crews, one on a 3 year old
470 with blown out sails, and one on a brand new one with new sails and watch
who wins.  Add to that the fact that two sets of brand new sails are not
identical (even from the same manufacturer) and even one-design is not the
inherently fair race you make it out to be.  

One way to increase fairness, is to do what we did when I raced in 
inter-collegiate races, that is rotate boats among the different crews
after each race.

In handicap racing, tuning your boat/rigging to gain advantage out of
the formula can be considered part of the race, and you can certainly have
fun with it, as long as you don't lose too much sleep over it.  After
all, this is supposed to be fun.


F.

    Dave,
    
    Your One Tonner costs are the same as a J/24. Get real! How
    many partners are in with you - twenty??
    
    You can buy TWO used race ready J/24's for the cost of fairing 
    your keel! 
    
    

    RE .13
    
    >> You can buy TWO used race ready J/24's for the cost of fairing
    >> your keel!
    
    And with a bit of knowledge, time and work you can fair your own keel
    for the cost of a bit of plywood and fairing compound.
    
    Can we steer this discussion back to it's original topic?  It was
    getting interesting there for a while ...
    
    						... Bob
    

    If cost were the only optimizable attribute in sailing we'd all be
    members of Community Boating.  It's a good organization but it ain't
    the same as owning and campaigning your own boat.  I can't really say
    that my current one-design is cheaper to sail than my former
    semi-big boat.  That's due to different ownership and financing
    structuring.  And the structuring of the deal can make the costs come
    out to whatever you want.  I've seen it done so I know it's possible.
     
    Some friends campaigned a J-30 for four seasons winning their class
    championship.  They stored at home, borrowed moorings, and did their
    own work.  The largest investment was one new sail which they got for
    half price by doing some work for the sailmaker.  At the end of the
    period they sold the boat for what they paid for it.  Granted they
    could have done the same thing with a small one-design.  But over the
    four years some 30 or so people got to do a lot of sailing on the NE
    circuit that wouldn't have otherwise done it.  It was worth the bucks.
    
    I've calculated my cost per trophy.  At -0- trophys and a lot of cost,
    I think I'm ahead of Brian Tedeschi.  How can you beat infinite cost
    per trophy?
    
    I've just learned about the new J-39.  What makes this an IMS rocket
    ship?  
    
    - gene

    Re: cost in general.  Gene's note explains it best.  With two of us as
    partners, and the financing we have, the ANNUAL costs are not much more
    for each of us than if we EACH owned and campaigned seperate J24's.
    
    Re: the J39.  I simply don't believe that any conventionally ballasted
    monohull is as fast as J boats claims this one is.  At their estimate
    of a PHRF rating of 53 seconds per mile, that makes it 13 seconds
    faster per mile than Yaquina and 16 sec/mi faster than Wildside.
    Maybe, but I doubt it.
    
    Re: the Tripp 40.  Watch for Key West results.  Barry Carroll and Tim
    Woodhouse went in as partners on one and are bringing it to Key West
    with the express purpose of beating Collaboration, the 46 that is
    supposed to be the hottest IMS thing afloat.  One of our regular crew
    has been doing sea trials in Newport and will be onboard in Florida. 
    He says it is very quick.  Long and narrow with a large frac rig. 
    Almost 1000 pounds lighter than our boat.
    
    That is all.
    
    Dave

This is great!  My initial intent was to see if anyone felt strong enough to
lobby with USYRU for changes in the IMS rule.  This has seemed to wonder past
the layline into the never-never land of handicap vs. one-design.  An 
admirable topic.  Shifts happen.  Although it seems to me that both sides 
in the dispute are praying to the same god.  Anyway... 

I reread my last note - it is rather rambling, off the subject in places and
long.  And I supose an attempt to justify my own low equity to debt ratio.  
Here's the points I was trying to make: 

1. The IMS rule is still under development.  I wasn't intending to denegrate
   it.  I just think it has a cople of problems: 1) restricts participaton due
   to the crew limit,  2) does not take into account pitching moment, which
   I have found to be VERY significant in certain situations.  I also think
   these are second or third order effects because of the next point.

2. No matter what handicap "rule" you race under, at the level of racing we
   have around here, a few seconds per mile difference in rating is 
   meaningless.  A vast majority of the results are determined by tactical
   decissions and mistakes. 

3. No matter what "rule" (used broadly, one-design is a "rule") you race
   under, someone will always be willing to spend infinite dollars to compete. 
   Sometimes you can get lucky and be competitive for a fraction of the $$$$'s
   (look at the record of WILDESIDE, YAQUINA and CLADAUGH against boats that
   cost over 1/3 million bucks.  You don't even want to know what C.J. and
   Tommy spent on Taylor Ann AFTER they purchased her, or even this year for 
   that matter.)

------------------------

Crew weight and placement is extremely critical on YAQUINA.  In light air, we
take as few people as possible (e.g., less mass as in F=MA).  In heavy air, we
take 3-4 more people for the rail. Its worth 10-15 seconds per mile.  If it
gets light, we just melt all the ice, drink all the soda and eat all the
sandwiches. 

As for one design, there are people who will always spend significantly more
$$$$'s to be competitive.  (e.g., WHIP, Noth Sails Mhead's E-22, in which
they placed 2nd in the Worlds, is for sale for $25K - several times what the
average used E-22 would cost.  And at list price for sails and $40/hour for
yard work, a fraction of what one of us would need to spend to duplicate her.)
I think it is just as expensive (relatively) to incrementally approach the
limits of the envelope under IMS, PHRF and one-design.  (My personal reason
for an offshore handicap yacht is to be able to do other things with it (e.g.,
"dual-purpose") like cruise around the Northeast - and yes, I am subverted by
the desire to win - although not at any cost, just every penny I have.) 

Somebody HAS made a rather large fortune on "one-design" big boats.  His name
is Rod Johnstone.  J-33's, J-35's, J-44's and now J-39's are all marketed as one
design yachts and many are raced that way, even though they also compete in
offshore handicap events.  So you can have a big boat and have it both ways. 
(Of course, you MUST race a J-44 one design, since it is a boat anchor at
anything under 12 knts of breeze. Sorry, Mike.)

I submit that it is possible to have "one-design" style racing in handicapped 
offshore yachts.  There were 15+ boats on the line at the PHRF-NE's that 
rated either 66 or 69, essentially level.  There were roughly the same number 
at Buzzards Bay, racing IMS, and with only a slightly larger spread.  There 
were 16 boats on the line at Manhassett in the 40' Class - and would have been 
20 if a few of the boats hadn't raced IMS to chase the J-39 and Tripp 40.

As for the J-39... Its another J-Boat in the long list that they have 
introduced as a rocket ship.  J-Boats always does this.  J-30's initially had 
a rating of low 130's.  The J-44 was initially rated in the teens (I think
15).  They market their boats as being fast and use low ratings to bolster 
their claim.  Then they take each new boat, a professional crew and tour the 
circuit winning a lot of silver.  This sells boats (with all due respect, T.P.
does build good boats).  The trouble is, the poor soles that buy them, like
you and me, don't have a chance to sail them to their ratings.  And it takes
about five years for the ratings to converge to reality. 

Why aren't there more entries in the local races?  We did very few of the 
local Marblehead races.  I wanted to chase YRUMB and 40' Class points.  I felt 
this was a good year to do this because we believed we were competitive at
that level, I had moral support from North and C&C to do this, and that next
year could be a different story (older boat, older sail inventory, other new
boats).  Next was my crew situation.  Most of them compete in other regattas -
mostly one-design.  We had to carefully plan the entire season in advance. But
these are my problems - not related to the general fleet. 

I've just had some poor experiences with race management by the Mhead yacht 
clubs compared to other areas.  The courses these folks come up with are about 
as inspiring as a bannana peel.  Both the Corinthean 2,000,000,000 and the 
PHRF-NE's were disasters for the participants in many of the classes.  And 
some of the 2nd etchelon boats are just plain dangerous.  One boat fouled us 
four times in three races (they hit us once).

What would I suggest:

1. Put on more professional regattas.  There is certainly the tallent in Mhead 
   to do this.  Have them go to Buzzards Bay, NOOD, Key West, Manhasset and see 
   how other folks pull it off.  Better courses, better trophies, better 
   off-the-water services, less politics.  The yacht clubs should cooperate
   with each other rather than compete.

2. Get more publicity.  We don't make money at this - we just stroke our egos.  
   My wife likes it, my crew like it and I like it.  Somebody ought to take 
   Tony Chamberlain out and drown him.

3. Expand the JFK and the PHRF-NE's to three days of racing with five races 
   and one throw-out.  Maybe add another significant regatta.  It's a big 
   effort to get a boat on the water for a regatta.  Once we're there, lets
   get in as much racing in as possible.  At the least, don't schedule the 
   starts for 1100 and set a course so everyone finishes at 1400.  Race 
   'til we drop!

4. Have a summer Saturday series - like the Wednesday night series, like the 
   MRA series, etc.  Make it fun, make it interesting, make it predictible and 
   give some of the non-professional boats a chance (like a hadicap penalty 
   for winning).  Seems like I've heard this idea before.

5. Have the yacht clubs and local sailors (I certainly would do this) give 
   some significant on-the-water and off-the-water seminars.  The winter is
   the time to start.  Get people involved.  Get to know each other.  Make 
   these people feel comfortable that they aren't going to get laughed at 
   (or rather don't feel bad when they are laughed at) by the "rock-stars" 
   and yacht clubs for for all the dumb things they will do.  The marketing 
   done by the Mhead yacht clubs to attract new yachts consists of Robby 
   Doyle giving a rule's seminar once a year and publishing a book of race 
   notices that you have to pay $5.00 for after you've spent $50.00 to get 
   on their mailing list.  

    I have a beef with the IMS rule.
    
    A lot has been written up in the mags about target boatspeeds.  The
    name sounds very techy and the polar charts your get when send away box
    tops look great - very authoritative.  
    
    Looking over an old Sail Magazine I read the fine print on the charts
    and noticed that the plots are speed as a function of TRUE WINDPOINT
    AND TRUE WINDSPEED.
    
    All summer long I had been sailing on boats without the microprocessor
    based intruments needed to give TWP and TWS and yet we were trying to
    sail to targets.  The crazy results drove everyone nuts.  There were
    more than casual murmurs of dissension.
    
    So unless you have B&G's, Ockhams, or the like, bag the whole target
    boatspeed concept!
    
    - gene

Another problem with target boatspeeds: smaller boats tends to accelerate
and decelerate more with every change in windspeed and waves. The speed
never settles enough to be useful.

All this talk about whether IMS is fair or not boils down to type forming.
In other words: what spectrum of boats will fit the rule well. As everyone
knows - IOR is so heavily type forming that today it's almost one design.
But lets assume the IMS rule could be made perfect - all types of boats
are rated fairly. This means you could show up for the Newport Bermuda
in a bathtub and bedsheet and win. But there's a real danger of local
optimums here and there that may promote the design of inefficient (slow)
hull and rig designs. The rule becomes regressive.

A good rule should be progressive, promote fast boat designs, and have
restrictions to control cost and complexity. The sailing industry also 
stands to make money from new boat designs. That's one reason why 
IMS is less type forming than IOR, but the span of "fairness" is limited.

Target boatspeed, polar diagrams, and instruments are all great for
theoretical discussions.  I do believe some of the broader concepts have
practical application.   Ockam has a weekend seminar that is reported to be 
very good that they give around the country in the winter.

In a nutshell, the target boatspeed goal is to maximize the velocity toward
your destination.  Follow these steps: 

1. Take the polar diagram for the appropriate wind velocity
2. Draw a line from the center of the polar diagram to your destination point
3. Draw a line perpendicular to the line in step "2" and tangent to the polar
   curve at the farthest point away from the center
4. Draw a line from the center of the polar diagram through the tangent 
   intersect point in step 3

The line in step 4 is the bearing you should sail relative to the wind.

For a course dead upwind or dead downwind, this is typically pre-calcualted 
for a each wind velocity (because the line you must draw in step 2 is known a  
priori) and called (by Ockam) "optimum beat" and "optimum run".

Polar curves can be calcualted for true and apparant wind direction and
velocity.  So you don't need an HP calculator on you Laser.  The most common 
source for polars is (you had to know this was comming) your IMS certificate.  
This is because USYRU uses MIT's VPP and actual measurements of the hull 
lines of a yacht along with static measurements like righting moment and 
displacement to calcualte your IMS ratings.  If you have an IMS certificate, 
you can call USYRU and they'll send you a set of polars for a few bucks.
(USYRU uses an amazing maching to measure the lines of a boat.  Its ultrasonic 
and you move a wand all over the hull, keel, etc.  This then logs the 
coordinates of enough points on the hull for the system to calculate the shape 
of the hull.  USYRU is purchasing several of these.  I just got a letter from 
USYRU asking for contributions toward purchasing a couple of more.  All you 
one-design sailors should immediately contribute to this.)

Ockam has a package that keeps your polars in ROM and will display either the 
optimum beat/run or target boatspeed on deck.  This is a $1,000 option.

An alternative is to make a chart that lists target boatspeeds for various
wind angles and wind velocities from 6 to 20 knts. and paste it to the back of
the mainsheet trimmer. 

I have an Ockam system integrated with a compass, a Loran and a PC.  The only
thing we commonly use is boatspeed, compass heading and range/bearing to
the next mark.  The MOST important thing we do is watch our target boatspeed
downwind to get to our gybing angles.  Caomparing target boatspeed (from the
aformentioned chart) and current boatspeed is very useful upwind (if your
going to fast, head up; if your going to slow bear off).  This of course
assumes that you can sail to your numbers in the first place (good sails,
properly trimed, clean bottom, et. al.).  With a few hours experience at the 
helm, the upwind groove becomes pretty obvious - no need to spend $1,000 with
Ockam.  This is all true for the round-the-harbor racing.  For distance racing
or very long legs where the course you must sail is either lower than your
optimum beat course or higher than your optimum run course, maximizing VMG
with polars (what Ockam calls VMC) is the way to go.  Hard to believe when the
destionation bears 180, the wind is northeast and the polars say you should
sail 165, that you will get there quicker sailing 165.  Jim Marshal from Ockam 
was aboard Coalition during the Corintean 2,000,000,000 this year and killed 
us with this after the sun went down (they turned off their running lights so 
we couldn't follow them!).

We have used the PC to some advantage.  We plot true wind velocity and heading 
history.  We also log the raw data.  After the fact, we can look at the data 
and work on instrument calibration.  We have a joke when Judd is aboard.  The 
navigator comes running up on deck, looks Judd in the eye and seriously says, 
"Judd, the computer says to tack!"

    
    What timing! Just got off the phone with USYRU. Wanted polars for my
    (production) boat which were, I think, on the list of boats they
    sent out. The guy on the phone tried to punch it up on his computer
    and told me it hasn't been IMS measured. One design that the hull
    MIGHT have come from was, but the price is too high to experiment,
    or at worst, slow myself down.
    I agree with Gene; if the system's not complete, practice and use
    telltales and good crew. I want `em mostly for DOWNWIND angles. At
    night, they'd be a huge help unless you like flashlights killing
    your night vision. Had the good fortune to crew for WAGS last year,
    which has an Ockam that's tuned, calibrated, and usually working 
    well. If silver talks, that was a good investment.
    Myself, I'm pricing wind machines... low tech for awhile...
    
    Anyhow, does anyone know how to get real polars without shelling out
    bigtime for IMS measurement? I can't justify that, but I'd sure like
    to know those angles-
    
    Scott.
    
    
    PS  Garland's boat is the first masthead Tripp... he's loading in the
    lead bricks to get over 605, I theeenk....

re .20:

>> Jim Marshal from Ockam 
>> was aboard Coalition during the Corintean 2,000,000,000 this year and killed 
>> us with this after the sun went down (they turned off their running lights so
>> we couldn't follow them!).

This may not be a violation of the racing rules, but it is a flagrant 
violation of COLREGS and anyone doing it ought to be disqualified 
forthwith. If I saw someone do it, I would certainly report it to the 
Coast Guard and Race Committee. Of course, no contributor to SAILING 
would do such a thing.

    How to get polars?  Hmmm... 
    
    The key thing we learned at the Ockam weekend seminar we took a few
    years ago was that the angles do not change that much between similar
    boats.  Ie. most one tonners sail pretty much the same.  Sooo...figure
    out what listed boat that USYRU has and order those.  
    
    I swear by polars.  Having a fractional rig, we live or die by polars
    off the breeze.  We are just not smart enough to know if we're too high
    or too low without them.  The difference in distance sailed vs. speed
    is incredible.
    
    We have ours such that for a True windspeed (a crucial piece of input)
    we have only to look at Apparent wind angle to max our speed made good.
    For example the conversation between me and the driver and trimmer
    might go "winds up to 12, come down to 135 apparent.  Okay hold that a
    while....  Wind's dropping let's come up to 110 apparent"  etc.  We
    have apparent wind angle as a large readout on the mast where everybody
    including the helmsman can see it.
    
    We do not have a PC on board.  While others swear by them, we figure it
    near the last on a list of money gobbling options.  Good
    instrumentation and the time spent to calibrate them comes way ahead.
    
    A funny thing is that we consistently sail faster than the baotspeed
    the VPP says we ought to be going, but through empirical testing we
    confirm the optimum angles calculated by the VPP.  That's why I say we
    believe in the polars but not necessarily the absolute boatspeed
    calculated.  This especially applies off the wind, not so much upwind.
    
    Re: note .21  Get the polars! Even if they are close they will in no way
    slow you down!
    
    The use of polars is one reason why (not to start this up again) we
    firmly separate the job of steering from the job of calling the shots.
    Can't steer and look at the cheat sheet!
    
    Dave

    Oh yeah, one more thing.  I can't believe Brian turned his lights off! 
    what a bogus thing to do.  I'd protest him (or anybody) doing that.  No
    kidding.  Fat Tuesday came with dimmers connected to the running lights
    and we disconnected them.  Another local boat famous for doing this is
    Katabatic.  We told them specifically before the start of the Beringer
    (whith it's multiple crossing courses) that we would definitely protest
    them if we even heard about them pulling this stunt again.  The laughed
    nervously.
    
    Now Marshall pulling this I can believe ;^)
    
    BTW, congratulations to Jim Marshall who just got married last month.
    
    Dave

    RE .20 & .22
    
    Turning off your running lights during a night race is against racing
    rules ... at least in some races.  I didn't participate in the
    Corinthian joke-of-a-race last season.  But in both the Chapman Bowl
    and the Berringer, it was stated at the skipper's meetings that turning
    off your running lights was a violation and you could be protested and
    ejected from the race.
    
    At least in the case of the Berringer, I believe they stressed this
    point because the previous year one of the boats we raced against
    turned off their lights and entered the foul area around Baker's Island
    in a last-ditch attempt to gain some ground on the fleet.  Fortunately
    we saw them do it and used out Q-beam to assist them in finding their
    way out of the foul area.
    
    Alan, you are right, it is not very sporting.  But not all racers are
    sportsmen.
    
    ... Bob
    

    Re:  Real polars going downwind
    
    DELTA(vmg) = (boatspeed * COS(rhumbline - course sailed)) - boatspeed
    on rhumbline
    
    In practice, sail the rhumbline and note the speed.  Head up, note new
    speed (hopefully faster) and multiply by the cosine of the delta
    between the new course and the rhumbline.  Do that for 5 degree
    increments until DELTA(vmg) goes way negative. Write the data down
    where you won't lose it.  Repeat for various wind conditions.
    
    When you accumulated all the data, distill down to the following three
    scenarios and write on your cabin top with waterproof marker:
    
    light up 30 deg
    
    medium up 20 deg
    
    heavy up 10 deg
    
    Use the appropriate number of degrees for each scenario as indicated by
    your real life data.  Or use the numbers I've provided.  Chances are
    you won't be far off.
    
    $5.00 please.
    
    - gene 

    RE .24
    
    Funny ... that was the boat I was referring to in my last reply.  We
    had some choice comments for them about stupidity in racing after
    crossing the finish line, and also had a talk with the race committee
    about the whole affair.
    
    I don't believe there's anything in USYRU rules about it, but it
    certainly is a violation of COLREGS, and that takes priority over USYRU
    rules anyway.
    
    ... Bob
    

    RE:	.21
    
    	Couple of ways to get polars, check out the code in 1555 you might
    have to struggle to come up with the data points.  You should be able
    to work out most of them and approximate the rest of them.  Contact the
    builder/designer of the boat.  The cost of the VPP code is so low that
    almost all designers have some version they use while doing the design. 
    Get friendly with a designer and see if you can get him/her to run the
    boat for you.  You would be impressed what you can get done for a pizza
    and a six pack of beer.
    
    
    Forrest

After we finished the Corinthean and found out that the chairman of the
regatta was the only one who sailed the right course and we were all DNF's, it
didn't seem too important to protest any other DNFers.  We asked Brian T. and
Jim M. about it in a roundabout way.  They said they just put a piece of tape
across the stern light because it was reflecting in the driver's eyes (yes, 
I'm aware of the minimum wattage requirments).  Besides, I'm not sure we could 
have proved anything in a protest hearing, although we were not the only boat 
that observed this.  The Corinthean did cost me the YRUMB championship this 
year, but not because Coalition turned off their lights!  I think Brian
received a subtle message about the whole thing somewhere along the way. 
USYRU says that after dark, COLREGS takes precident over racing rules - so it
is absolutley illegal to turn off your lights. 

By the way: I believe Coalition is going to Key West.  With the new Tripp and
the J-39, it should be an interesting matchup.  I'm sure Brian will load the
boat with rock stars (that is if Doyle is still in business - who knows, he 
may have to race with North Sails). 

On getting polars...
Keep accurate records of windspeed, boatspeed and wind angle.  Even if you
have USYRU polars for your boat, the vagaries of instrument calibration can
add-in signficant offsets (1/3 of a knot doesn't seem like a lot, but is a
huge difference if you're using it to figure your optimum sailing angle -
especially down wind).  By recording real data, you can build polars of your
own.  That's the primary thing we use our PC for - recording data.  The key
thing to remember is that you want to find out how fast you should be sailing
(as reported by your knotmeter) for a given wind angle and wind velocity.  If
these measurements are not absolutely accurate (calibrated) (but reasonably
linear and repeatable), then the polars you build using them should have the
correct "shape" and can be used to figure your target boatspeed (or proper
wind angle). 

Fine tuning can be done by drag racing another yacht of similar perforamnce.  
It doesn't take very long down wind to see if one or the other yachts is 
loosing bigtime by being either too high or too low.

    
    Thanks everybody for all the great polar advice. Gene, your check is 
    in the cooler!
    The biggest snag has been practice this year (as far as drags,
    sparring, recording) and the knotmeter never stayed any more constant
    than the wind or sea state. But on-board recording will continue.
    That VPP program is a little scary- and Beneteau's design team probably
    isn't even NEAR a Domino's!! Any advice on how to get desifgn spex, or
    even line drawings? The facility in NC is great for replacement parts,
    but they didn't even have any old brochures on my boat; only 4 years
    old! There's no Starck (?) chrome/lacquer/wierd wood below, so they
    don't acknowledge it! Guess a trip to France (or Italy?) would be
    needed-
    I don't even know the true displacement! I've heard 3 numbers already,
    more than 3/4 ton swing. Probably told Ma & Pa buyer it was SEAWORTHILY
    heavy, and Joe Racer that it was a HI SPEED light sled...
    Further, John Collins decided it was a Tall Rig! Only 3 seconds, but
    total baloney according to all I've found. Arguing NOT the way to go.
    
    Maybe if I order one of those North `Tame your Polars' T shirts...?
    
    Thnx again,
    Scott.
    

    We seem to have a convergence of opinion on the use of downwind polars. 
    Not surprising.  The payoff is obvious and it's not that hard to do
    even for a dyslexic such as myself.  That little formula for Scott
    predates Columbus.  The Square riggers needed it more than we do
    because they're incapable of sailing dead down and presumably didn't
    want to spend any more time in transit than necessary.
    
    But I noticed that Wildside focused on sailing to a recommended AWA, not a target
    boatspeed.  Dave may have his own reasons but mine would be that AWA is
    unequivocally achievable whereas a target boatspeed, no  matter how
    well calibrated the instruments, may not be.  You could wander all over
    the course chasing that elusive target boatspeed.  I love polars.  They
    were good before IMS and IMS has done much to stimulate interest in
    their use.  But I'm not convinced that target boatspeeds aren't an
    elaborate means of running around the block to get next door.
    
    Target boatspeed UPWIND is what Jim Marshall proselytizes to
    unsuspecting innocents.  How many of you folks with smart instruments
    actually use this?  Yaquina admits to not bothering.  IMS can give
    AWS and AWA along with the boatspeed as a function of TWA and TWS.  But
    I'm not sure you get a unique AWS and AWA for every TWA and TWS.  If
    you don't have TWA and TWS available there could be multiple boatspeeds
    for any one given AWS and AWA.  So without the smart instruments, it's
    a hopeless cause.
    
    If your boat has the smarts, for a steady sea the IMS polars will yield
    a unique optimum beat target boatspeed that'll make the best tradeoff
    between pinching and footing.  But what happens in a puff?  You get a
    velocity lift - AWA swings aft but the smart instruments can tell it's
    an increase in TWS.  Assume for the boat in question higher TWS
    translates to higher boatspeed and tighter TWA.  The readout shows a
    new higher target and you foot to achieve it.  You go faster but have
    you made better time toward the mark?  Not according to IMS which wants
    both higher speed and pinching.  You could have gotten both by just
    heading up but how does the helmsman know to do that as opposed to
    bearing off?  Well.....you have to know the boat.  If that's the case
    what do I need target upwind boatspeeds for?
    
    - gene
    

    I'm very critical of VPP target boatspeed data upwind. If I followed
    the VPP targets for my boat, I'd reach the weather mark last every time
    (no kidding). To seriously use targets, I think you have to use VPP as a 
    starting point to your own data collection for your boat in different
    wind and wave conditions.
    
    Two variables that upwind targets don't take into account at all are wind
    shear (wind angle changes with height) and wind gradient (wind speed
    changes with height). Ever wonder  why starboard tack feels so much
    better than port tack in a building sea breeze thats veering to the
    right? It's because there's a lot of wind shear, the wind aloft is 
    veered to the right. In these conditions, you can't sail to the same
    target on each tack, the wind is different. 
    
    In Freemantle during the AC competition, the Aussies put a mast with 
    instruments on their tender at half the height of their 12 meter rig.
    Combining the data from both sets of instruments, they got a picture
    of wind shear and gradient that allowed them to modify their sail trim
    and targets.
    
    

    As always, this is an excellent discussion.  The last four replies hit
    the nail on the head regarding the use of polars.  We have attended
    Marshall's weekend course on target boat speeds and have seen people
    "get religion".  I've observed that too often, the result is that 
    the skipper, tactician, and/or helmsperson becomes fixated with the
    instruments working to squeeze out that VMG.  (Particularly at the
    start.)  Unfortunately in many cases, there is a corresponding loss
    of basic boat handling skills, such as bearing off to gain speed for
    chop or anticipating a lift, etc.  I believe, like many other sources
    of information polars and instrumentation should be used as reference
    points and should be incorporated into the big picture.
    
    re: .29 and the wonderful Corinthian 2000.  The impact that it had on
    your season stinks.  You have my condolences.  By coincidence we had a
    crew XMAS party yesterday where we viewed a video of the race.  Being
    that we were in class B, we shot plenty of footage of your start.  You
    won't like hearing this, but the shortened course flag and course board
    could be seen as clear as day.  Let's hope on the next one that the
    skipper's/navigator's meeting is more informative.    

    We also do not sail to upwind target boat speeds themselves.  We have
    found it to be too rigid a factor as mentioned in previous replies. 
    HOWEVER, the concept is one we adhere to.  For example, we know what
    the base line speed we should have for given wind and water conditions
    assuming clear air, no shear or gradient issues, and no special
    tactical issues like a starting sequence, are.  We constantly change
    gears for more point or more speed.  
    
    Where we DO use the concepts are in changing scenarios.  Gusts tell you
    you should head up to the apparent lift.  But you shouldn't touch the
    helm until the new target speed is met (or the increase you would
    expect).  Same as in lulls.  Don't fall off until you bleed off your
    speed and come down to the new target (or in the vicinity).  Ofcourse
    your crew will get wet feet when the boat heels to windward
    momentarily, but what the hell, they aren't paying the bills :^).
    
    The reason we rely on targets so much off the breeze is that you don't
    get as much sensory data that you can use.  The fall back position is
    the numbers.
    
    A guy that crews for us is working on wind intrumentation for the Bill
    Koch America's cup defense and told me a funny story about Buddy
    Melges.  Seems Koch had Buddy on Matador recently in St' Thomas.  Koch
    gets off the helm and gives it to Buddy.  Now Koch is a strict by the
    numbers guy.  Buddy says to turn off the intruments except for the
    speedo.  Too distracting.  Looks at the waves and tell tales and has
    the boat going three tenths faster in a matter of moments.
    
    If I was as smart as Melges I would do the same.  I ain't.
    
    Dave

On polars... there are a couple of uses for upwind polars.

First, can your yacht be sailed to its targets?  If you're consistently a half 
knot under (and believe you boatspeed indicator is calibrated), perhaps its 
time to see Judd for some new sails, have Mark Lindsey build you a new
rudder, or whatever.  Maybe you should just clean your bottom.  E.G., the goal 
is to get your boat so it can sail to its potential.  Once you've accomplished 
this...

Second, if you know you can consistently sail your targets, then they are one 
more (out of many) pieces of information you can use to optimize your 
performance on the race course.

In other words, we wouldn't use on target boat speed (or any other single 
factor) without first verifying it in relationship to all the other input 
information available.  And we would never depend on just one paramater.  We 
know how fast we should be going in different conditions and work very hard to 
maintain it.

Third, at different times (and sometimes at many times) during a race, you
need to ignore target boatspeed for tactical reasons (unless your rating is 
so good that you can just go out and sail your own race and ignore the other 
boats).  Sometimes you want to go for straight line speed (as at the start). 
Sometimes you want to be in max-point mode.  These dynamics are what makes
sailing fun.  The last place in the world you should be tuning up your boat, 
or attempting to see if you can get to your targets for the prevailing
conditions, is at the start.  Granted, sometimes you don't know what you're
going to wear until the last instant, but otherwise, sail around as much as
you can before the 10 minute gun to get tuned up.  (Coalition always sails 
around all over the course maybe a half hour before the sequence.  We love 
this.  By the time they get through, we know how much pressure there is and 
where for the first beat.)

On the Corinthean... there's no question that the RC changed the course.  My 
issues were several fold:

1. The way they specified in the instructions and at the meeting to do this
   was very vague.  When 9 out of the 10 boats in A fleet miss the entire
   concept, there's something wrong.

2. The RC made the change several minutes after posting the original course
   listed in the sailing instructions.   They did this just before the 5 
   minute gun.  (Yes, we missed it.)  And the new course distance they posted
   was almost identical to the bearing to the upwind mark for the 5 mile beat.

3. The pin was heavily favored.  At the 5 minute gun we were 100 yds left
   of the pin and a long way from the committee boat.

4. I think the RC should have done something more to notify all the yachts
   that something had changed (like fire 2 guns).

It is my belief that the RC should make every attempt to run a race that is
fair to all the participants and not try to sneak in ambiguous, tricky or
subtle things.  (Another (bad) example is the race at Buzzards Bay where one
course had a mark rounding that was just over reciprocal by less than 2
degrees.  Nobody could guess whether we should leave it to port or starbd.) 
Getting the course right is pretty basic - for both the participants AND the
RC.  By the way, John Collins was a judge for the Corinthean and also on the
protest committee - hearing the many protests over this.  He wasn't too
enthused that this was allowed to happen.  The protest committee admitted that
the thing was all fouled up.  THEY AWARDED TROPHIES TO THE PARTICIPANTS WHO
SAILED BOTH COURSES.  But they refused to allow any of the protests, thus
exhonerating themselves from any wrongdoing (on paper, at least) and scored 9 
out of 10 boats as DNF's for YRUMB.  (Remember the overnight races are scored 
1.5 times the point total.)

The sad thing about all this is that it was one of the best races I've had
all year.  We made up 15 minutes on Taylor Ann (with Judd) between Cape Ann
and M'head on Saturday evening in a dying breeze (it was blowing about 2
knts when we finished).  We were in a tacking dual for the last three hours.  
Each time the wind shifted, one of us would cross the other.  Whoever got the 
last shift would win.  They finished 6 seconds ahead of us.  (That's the last 
time I heard that Taylor Ann was so fast in light air.)  We were elated at 
having such a good race, and a little distressed that we didn't finish 2nd.  A 
tremendous amount of adrenalin was flowing.  Then the CYC launch driver asked
us which course we sailed. 

December's "AMERICAN SAILOR" has a report from USYRU's annual meeting.  The 
Offshore Racing Council report included the following:

	"The crew weight limit under IMS, which was reduced last year, has
been restored to a higher level but will now include a provision for owners to
declare a lesser crew weight with a commensurate improvement in handicap if
the owner's practice is to race with a smaller crew.  All crew limits are now
in terms of total weight only, not number, to put an end to the practice of
selecting very large crew members. 
	During the meetings an instruction session was held for race officers 
in the step-by-step procedures for IMS race scoring.  The IMS Race COmmittee 
Guide will be revised for 1991 and will include these procedures as well as 
instruction for the use of the IMS Race Scoring Software distributed by the 
ORC."

    Re:  The Corinthrian start.  The A fleet boats must really be close for
    a gang up at the favored end like that.  I suppose every fraction of a
    boatlength counts, even in a 200 miler.  Often a wickedly favored end
    presages a change of course or resetting of the line due to wind
    shifts.  RC's like to favor the port end a little bit to spread the
    starters out but not enough to induce a pile up there.  Our race
    intructions allow a course change up to three minutes before the gun. 
    They've done that fairly often so if there an obvious slant to the
    line, I've learned to stay within sight of the course posting racks.
    
    Re:  IMS target boatspeeds.  My understanding of how the concept
    originated was that Marshal et al noticed some unorthodox steering by
    some good 12 meter skippers.  Up in the lulls and down in the puffs
    rather than vice versa.  Unlike lighter boats, 12's carry their way in
    light spots but accelerate only slowly in puffs.  The observed bahavior
    was an accomodation to the 12's displacement induced handling
    characteristics.  Cook up some numbers, develop an algrithm to mimic
    the 12 meter steering paradigm, and presto - target boatspeed.  Nice if
    you have a 12 or similar floating lead mine.  
    
    For the budding Wed. night phrf'er in his Hunter 23 with 20 year old
    sails and a knotstick for a speedo, some other basic skills have to be
    acquired first.  Maintenance, sail shape, sail trim, tuning, elementary
    tactics, starting maneuvers, rules, racing protocol, etc., all have to
    be learned.  And it takes a while, at least for some of us.  Throwing
    in IMS targets is like giving steroids to little leaguers or shotguns
    to cubscouts - too much too soon, though it may make 'em feel good at
    the time.
    
    - gene  

    Gene, good point.  Target boatspeeds, polars etc are only a tool to be
    used once the basics are down pretty cold.  It represents the last 5%
    of boat speed.  If you don't have the other 95%, don't struggle for the
    last 5!
    
    I disagree with your story about boatspeed targets only useful on heavy
    displacement boats.  Heavy boats make it easier to measure without ups
    and downs associated with lighter boats, but the concepts are still
    applicable.  Plus, nobody is forcing anybody to use this.  They work
    for us and I suppose many others.  If you don't believe in it, so be
    it.
    
    P.S. Did you call McCue?
    
    Dave

    
    I spent a fair amount of time working on/with polars this past summer
    using VPP, so I'll pass along my 2c.  I tried it on my own boat, which
    I cruise, and a C&C 29, which I raced on.  
    
    For understanding my own boat and identifying what needed to be
    improved, I thought it was a success.  It _did_ take all summer to
    properly calibrate the instruments, take measurements, etc, etc, though
    it might take a shorter time for other folks who spend more time on
    their boats than I did.  In particular, if you don't have a similar
    boat in your sailing area that you can tune up against, the polars
    provide an external standard to compare yourself/your boat against. 
    Not a panacea, but a lot better than 'this feels pretty good',
    especially downwind.  In short, calibrating was a pain but was worth
    the effort, and it helped me understand my boat a lot better.
    
    Racing results were another matter.  Gene's description of 'cub scouts
    on steroids' describes the situation pretty well, speaking as one of
    the cubs myself.  Fundimentals first, _accurate_ polars much later.
    Polars with an unknown amount of error are much worse than nothing at
    all, and as mentioned earlier gathering the data (if not already
    available) takes a lot of time.  In the Wed night PHRF's, spinnakers
    and poling out a genoa on the same side as the boom are illegal anyway,
    negating the benefits of polars downwind.
    
       /Jim