Data note: this race had a ~90-minute logger dropout (dead battery, ~19:00–20:29 UTC). Everything below reflects only the data from ~20:43 UTC onward — if the boat's early upwind legs or first maneuvers happened before the dropout, they're not captured here.

True wind conditions

• Across the logged portion, TWS ranged from 2.9 to 22.7 kn (avg 13.1 kn; middle 90% was 7.2–18.4 kn).
• Direction was the steadiest of the season so far: circular std of only 11°, drifting slowly from ~336–351° early to 309–331° through the middle of the race, settling around 316–321° late — essentially a single, gentle left-hand trend, not an oscillating shift.
• Wind built through the first hour of logged data (8.6 kn at 20:43 up to a peak of 18.0 kn at 21:10), held in the mid-teens through most of the race, then eased steadily in the final 30–40 minutes down to 3.7 kn by the finish.

Tacks and gybes

• 15 tacks, avg duration 7.8 s (faster than the 9.3 s seen in the comparable-wind race on 2026-07-13), avg speed loss 40.6%, avg recovery 7.2 s.
• The tightest, quickest tack of the race (21:25:30 — 5 s, 74° total heading swing) had by far the lowest loss at 18.9%. The four widest-swing tacks (109–133° swings, at 21:05:58, 21:15:50, 21:18:45, 21:21:08) all lost 50–58% of boat speed. Observation: tack quality tracked heading-swing width closely and consistently in this race — tight, quick tacks were clearly cheaper than wide, slow ones.
• Despite faster average tack duration than the 2026-07-13 race, average recovery time was slower (7.2 s vs. 4.5 s) — the turn itself was quicker, but getting back to full speed afterward took longer. Likely explanation: rushing the turn without a matching acceleration phase out of the tack.
• 2 gybes: one clean (21:11:33, 7 s, 15.0% loss) and one in very light air near the finish (22:44:51, boat speed under 2.5 kn beforehand) that isn't a fair comparison point.

Upwind performance

• Beat boat speed averaged 75.3% of polar target (3,256 samples, avg TWS 13.8 kn), with average TWA of 43.2° — much closer to the polar-optimal beat angle (38.3°) than the 2026-07-13 race's 51.1°.
• Actual VMG averaged 3.39 kn vs. a polar target of 4.59 kn — 73.9% of target VMG, tracking closely with the 75.3% boat-speed figure.
• Likely explanation: unlike the 2026-07-13 race (where angle was the bigger drag on VMG), here the VMG shortfall is attributable fairly evenly to boat speed — the boat was pointing close to the right angle but simply not moving fast enough for it.

Power and boat handling

• Average heel while beating was 20.3° — essentially identical to the 2026-07-13 race (20.1°) at a similar wind strength, suggesting this is a repeatable pattern for the boat in the low-to-mid teens rather than a one-off.
• Rate of turn upwind averaged 1.69°/s, noticeably lower than the 2.22°/s on 2026-07-13 despite similar wind — less active steering/correction this race. The data can't say whether that's calmer conditions, a steadier helm, or something else.
• Data insufficient: as with every race in this dataset, there's no traveler/vang/cunningham or rudder data logged, so power state (over/under/appropriately powered) can't be directly confirmed — the high, consistent heel figure is suggestive but not conclusive on its own.

Boat trim

• Heel dropped sharply off the wind (20.3° beat → 9.1° reach → 3.1° run), the expected pattern; no finer trim breakdown is available to say more within the beat leg itself.
• Data insufficient: no per-maneuver or per-leg trim comparison is available from this summary to isolate trim's specific contribution to the speed shortfall.

Comparison with other races

• Only one comparable race by wind speed: 2026-07-13 (avg beat TWS 13.5 kn vs. this race's 13.8 kn). Every other logged race averaged notably lighter air (6–10 kn) and is excluded from this comparison.
• This race sailed a tighter upwind angle (43.2° vs. 51.1°) but a lower % of target boat speed (75.3% vs. 82.7%) than 2026-07-13 — the same trade-off as noted from the other race's perspective, worth a crew discussion on footing vs. pointing in this wind range.
• Tacks were quicker in duration here (7.8 s vs. 9.3 s) and lost slightly less speed on average (40.6% vs. 42.9%), but took noticeably longer to recover full speed afterward (7.2 s vs. 4.5 s) — only 2 comparable-wind races are available, so treat this as a pattern to watch rather than a firm conclusion.

Coaching priorities

1. Tack recovery time (high confidence). Tacks were quick to execute (7.8 s avg) but slow to get back to speed (7.2 s avg recovery, some as long as 19 s). Action: focus the next tacking drill specifically on the acceleration phase immediately after the boat comes out of the turn, not just the turn itself.
2. Tack angle consistency (high confidence). The tightest tack (74° swing) lost only 19%; the widest ones (109–133°) lost 50–58%. Action: aim to keep every tack's total heading swing under ~90° — the 74° tack is this race's own benchmark to repeat.
3. Upwind boat speed vs. target (medium confidence). Angle was close to optimal (43.2° vs. 38.3° target) but boat speed was still only 75.3% of target — the shortfall here looks more like raw speed than angle. Action: check crew weight placement and sail trim in the 13–14 kn range specifically, since angle wasn't the limiting factor this time.