Wind & Comparable Races

True wind ranged 0.5–21.0 kn (avg 13.2 kn), matching the note's "8~18 knots" for the bulk of the race. The closest comparable by average wind is race 2 (2026-07-20, "WoW", avg 13.1 kn, same 3-person crew) — a near-identical match.

Overall the boat achieved 70.2% of polar target upwind, 53.0% on the reach, and 78.8% downwind — beat and reach both trail race 2's 75.3%/68.2%, while the run comes out ahead of race 2's 67.2%. The most striking number is upwind TWA: it averaged 38.2° against a 38.3° target — essentially a perfect angle, and notably tighter than race 2's 4.9°-wide 43.2°. That makes the beat shortfall a pure speed problem rather than a steering one: heel averaged 24.9° upwind tonight, well above race 2's 20.3° at the same wind strength, which points at the boat carrying more heel than it should for 13+ kn — sailing well-aimed but overpowered, bleeding speed to heel and leeway rather than forward drive. Downwind TWA ran 15.3° shy of the 165.2° target (149.9° actual), sailing higher/tighter than target depth rather than pressing on, even though the resulting speed number was good.

Fourteen tacks lost 37.2% of speed on average — actually better than race 2's 40.6% — but took longer to execute (9.4s vs 7.8s) and longer to recover (11.8s vs 7.2s), a mixed picture: less speed bled per tack, but more time spent getting back up to pace. Five gybes lost 23.3% on average, notably worse than race 2's 11.5% (on far fewer gybes, so a thinner comparison). Three mark roundings were logged.

Coaching Recommendations

1. Upwind angle was essentially spot-on (38.2° vs a 38.3° target) but speed still came in at only 70.2% of target, with heel running 4.6° hotter than the closest comparable race at the same wind strength — this reads as overpowered rather than mis-steered. Prioritize depowering (traveler/vang/backstay, or an earlier flatten) over angle adjustments in the 13+ kn range.
2. Gybes lost 23.3% of speed on average, roughly double the comparable race's 11.5% — worth a look at gybe execution specifically, separate from the tack-focused drilling that's already been paying off.
3. Tacks bled less speed per tack (37.2% vs 40.6%) but took longer to both execute and recover (9.4s/11.8s vs 7.8s/7.2s) — the crew is protecting speed through the tack at the cost of tempo; worth checking whether that trade is intentional or just slower hands tonight.