Reply | Post New Message | All Messages | this message is spam
Author: Mike Bruzzone (campmkt...@aol.com) contact the author
Subject: Correction - Our actual numbers
Info: (14207 views) Posted: Thursday 3-6-08 07:52:50 PM
Hi Larry:

We both weight the same.

So at your proposed 175# skipper that makes your boat 880 + 75#s or 955#s. Which as I last said is less than the 880 + 100#s in Eric's proposal which is better for my weight, crew choices and ease of admin needs.

Although I still believe Eric's proposal does not address the heavy crew segment left out. So at your proposed 175#s for skipper over is free weight but one still essentially needs to book 176# mean average weight crew. So I don't know where you came up with the 185# number.

At Erics proposed number for my boat the mean goes up from 176 to 182#s.

At your 185# mean average crew weight number, my boats just above 990. This works for me but why not 1000#s then?

Again I never optimize to the weight limit, I optimize to the ease of booking crew from an extended crew list so its easier to get the boat on the start line.

Mike

:: Hi Larry:
::
:: I'm getting more use to the owner weighs X#s plus add
:: the crew scenario.
::
:: Eric suggested 150#s at Spring Keel.
::
:: Verse your suggestion of skipper at finite 175# the
:: lower 150#s solves an issue among some optimizied boats
:: that swing 20 to 40 pounds over the weight limit from
:: time to time. This is one reason to consider 150#s. Less
:: phone calls to fine tune that last 20 to 40#s of crew
:: weight at the current 880# limit.
::
:: I originally got on this up the weight band wagon for
:: Fun Series because I'm looking to more easily administer
:: confirming crew from an extended list. Like in one night
:: after front work vs all week or longer.
::
:: With crew at 185# mean in your 175# skipper scenario,
:: I've got several steady crew choices over that number in
:: the 190# up to 220# range. Going through extended crew
:: list of 30 choices only 7 are at the current mean or
:: below. Nine pounds more than the mean under your current
:: 175# skipper suggestion still leaves a lot of my crew
:: choices on the dock.
::
:: So, I think there are a couple of good reasons to raise
:: the Fun Series mean higher. First, skipper at 150#s
:: works better for me at my weight. Second, for boats that
:: don't want to sweat the 20 to 40# fine tune around the
:: current 880#s race to race.
::
:: Along the easier to administer crew angle, I'd actually
:: like to have 20#s of room at the high range of the
:: maximum Fun Series total. I'd probably always be 20#s
:: under but then I don't have to sweat the details and
:: admin time in worrying 20 to 40#s this way of that way
:: race to race. At your 175#s I'm still sweating the
:: details race to race.
::
:: And if there's a crew change sometime before the race,
:: that adds to the admin issue booking any crew at any of
:: the lower weights.
::
:: More so I think the biggest issue is that there are many
:: people over 200#s looking to sail on e27s and the first
:: thing we should consider over our own wants and desires
:: is how to get these people sailing in the fleet and that
:: means upping the mean crew weight somewhere between 196#
:: and 206#s.

:: And I think the Fun Series is a great way for entry to a
:: whole segment of people currently restircted from
:: sailing because they weigh over 200#s.
::
:: At Spring Keel some of the old time owners were
:: scratching there heads saying, like me, there wasn't
:: anything wrong with the 1000# limit. And for the same
:: old reasons, its harder to book crew at a lower mean
:: average crew weight.
::
:: For the 150# skipper example that essentially gets my
:: boat to 980# which I have championed as a minimum fleet
:: aim. At 955 I'm right on the edge of booking crew easily
:: and that's the hassle area I am trying to avoid. So 150
:: @ 980# works much better for me than 175# @ 955#.
::
:: At 980 why not just 1000#s as many old time owners have
:: suggested.
::
:: I'd take the 150# skipper and 980# total for my boat
:: because its a good concession which gives me 20# lee way
:: needed not to be just at weight all the time.
::
:: Some still believe a set weight is better. Although, I
:: think this skipper at X#s plus crew can catch on.
::
:: But I think the most important growth catalyst is to
:: attract a whole range of people who can add numbers to
:: the fleet regardless of whether they sail in Real Fleet
:: Series of Fun Fleet Series. Fun Series seems the obvious
:: placer to start.
::
:: Maybe the fine tune here is skipper at X#s, plus a
:: specific range over just to make it easier to do the
:: fine tuning at what ever the limit end up being.
::
:: Mike
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
:: :: well folks, I have been thinking about it and it seems
:: :: that since the skipper does not hike out or sit
:: :: outboard, his/her weight does not appreciably effect the
:: :: performance of the boat. Thus it contributes to the
:: :: competitiveness only in a subtle way. It sets a limit
:: :: for the total weight that the hiking members of the crew
:: :: can add up to. It gives a substantial advantage to those
:: :: boats with a skipper that weigh, say, 140 pounds. The
:: :: "outrigger 4 can average 185! I think that we should
:: :: make the skipper have a minimum weight of 175 to race in
:: :: the fleet.
:: ::
:: :: OK maybe I am being sarcastic but I hope I make a point
:: :: nonetheless.
:: ::
:: :: L2
:: ::
:: :: :: Hi Everyone:
:: :: ::
:: :: :: I'll be sailing in the heavy person friendly M24 fleet @
:: :: :: Spring Keel this weekend.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: There after attending the e27 5pm function. Looking
:: :: :: forward to conferring with others on the benefits of
:: :: :: increasing the weight limit in Fun Series only.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: Desperado is at weight for LS. However, leaving a half
:: :: :: dozen people on the dock because they don't qualify
:: :: :: given the current weight filters 176# mean average, for
:: :: :: Fun Series, well, seems quite frankly; ridiculous.
:: :: ::
:: :: :: MB

Reply | Post New Message | All Messages | this message is spam