Surfski Knowledge Base

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
===== The WTF system (Work to Fun Ratio) =====

(//Editor's Note: This system was originally proposed primarily to rate downwinding laps, where you paddle upwind, turn and surf downwind, turn and repeat the cycle. The interplay of unusually strong current in the mix was probably not at the forefront of consideration by Prof. Medler although he does mention tides. There are some interesting variations to consider where current does become quite important - such as in a tidal race like Deception Pass (([[:tidalrace:deception_pass|Deception Pass Tidal Race]]))  where one typically downwinds against the current which can be quite difficult but has a much easier job going back upwind with the help of current (the Gorge provides something similar at the Hatchery (([[:hood_river_columbia_gorge#downwinders|Laps at the Hatch]] - open up the downwind description section))  on typical west wind days)//,// or the Gorge with an east wind blowing can compound the difficulty of laps when going upwind is also against current.)//

**michael.medler@…** \\
09/08/15 #17980

I propose a new rating system to help us communicate better about our local paddling conditions. It is not enough to just know that it is blowing 25 from the SW. We face a complex set of interactions between earlier winds, tides, boat wakes, and our mysterious submarine wakes. Some days we paddle easily into a 15 knot freshet and then speed down easily linked 13 knot waves made of liquid jade. Other days we beat our heads into 30 knot winds with our hulls slapping, only to turn around into a jumble of chaos despite how great the waves looked going upwind. What I propose is that along with wind speed and direction we can report a ratio of “Work to Fun.” For example, If you felt you worked about as hard as expected for the quality of waves (like today at about 11:00) you would report a WTF of 1. However, if you found you needed to work twice as hard as expected for the quality of the waves you would have a WTF of 2. Whereas, a session where you paddle upwind only to find the downwind waves twice as good as you usually encounter after such an upwind (a powder day) would result in a 0.5 WTF. This ratio based system offers two huge advantages. #1: it is completely open ended, so there is always the possibility of a higher WTF. #2: It is entirely subjective, which means it is infinitely debatable. This means it can assure hours of post paddle entertainment as we compare our assessments and sandbag and exaggerate to each other about the conditions we encountered.

**Jerome Truran** \\
09/08/15 #17981

Great idea. I think a simple, 5 star pleasure rating - 5 being the best, would be easier for us simpler minds to grasp, fractions never being everyone's favourite. I like the WTF name, but a WTF of 5 might be confusing - is it good or bad

**John Rybczyk**

09/08/15 #17983

This is a great idea, but the equation needs another set of variables to be completely descriptive. For example, as it stands now, a WTF of 1.0 could mean that that the waves were horrible, but there was no wind to deal with. It could also mean that the waves were amazing, but the wind was a real SOB. In other words, a flat day and a raging day could both have a WTF of 1 and WTF is up with that? As a person who writes algorithms for a living, that doesn't sit well with me. Let me cogitate on this.

Johnr

**joanandthom**

09/08/15 #17984

Arrgh!! you guy's are hurting my brain!!

**Nicholas Cryder**

09/08/15 #17985

I second stars. And for those who want more detail, maybe we just start doing yelp reviews for conditions.

On the snow side of things, there's "Larry the Powder Guy" who is a meteorologist and issues excellent email alerts for what to expect. Maybe we could get him into paddling?

**michael.medler@…**

09/09/15 #17986

John,\\
My proposal was to add the WTF rating to the wind speed and direction. This makes it similar to a wind-chill rating. It drives me to distraction that we now see weather reports that only mention the wind-chill number. I for one will make different recreational desisions around a wind-chill number of -20 degrees if it means a clear crisp windless day at -20 vs. a 30 degree day with a 70 mph wind. Similarly, the WTF rating offers the chance to provide useful information when accompanied by other data, or it can alternatively be used to agrandize an otherwise unremarkable situation, which may be its most useful feature at avenue bread. As this is a WTF rating, I don't really see using it much for values much under 0.7. We already have a useful adjectival rating system for that range (awesome, epic, etc.). For those of you trained to evaluate your desisions based on a 5-star system, I propose that everything under a WTF of one could be discussed in stars if more comfort is provided. It is in the real WTF conditions for which we need the ratio to describe our experiences. For those afeard of math I propose that a WTF can easly be stated in a simple "2 to 1" or "3 to 1" style to avoid the confusion that a decimal might introduce.

**njcooksey@ymail.com** \\
09/09/15 #17987

the only problem with this system is the worse the day the higher the number which is counter-intuitive.

**David Scherrer**

09/09/15 #17988

WTF ?

D.

**michael.medler@…** \\
09/09/15 #17994

I must admit that is a feature not a bug. The idea is to have higher numbers if it is more WTF.

**Bob Putnam** \\
09/10/15 #17995

The benefit of having the higher number for bad conditions is that conditions can usually be worse with higher numbers. But on the other hand what constitutes a perfect 0 zero?

**David Hooper** \\
09/10/15 #17996

I believe 0, though mathematically feasible may be against the laws of physics (something like perpetual motion). However, not wanting to discount the indomitable human spirit, it sounds like the rough equivalent of Zen enlightenment. But achieving this state will take practice and focus, Grasshopper.

**Acronym Ruler - Re: The WTF system\\
Reivers Dustin** \\
09/09/15 #17993

Existing rating system:

Awesome. Nuclear. Epic. Puckery. Survival. Chunky Munky. Rock-a-Hula. Technical. Bigs. Gorge. Ticklish. Fiddly. Duck Farts. Flat (- as someones beer? - as LG's roof? …) Kissing your sister. Pondwater.

How about size: 10 footers (riiiight).

Then there's wave period: 30 feet apart, coulda surfed a ferry. Total white-out, nothing but foam, couldn't surf a zodiac on that.

I applaud recognition of the problem. (Paddlers lie worse than fisherman/golfers/…) I just want to know what it's doing out there. But, dangit Bellingham bay is weird. LG and I got totally faked out yesterday riding bigs up to the red-can looking for where the waves stretch out and speed up just North of the can. Surprise: duck farts that gradually built as you rode into the Outfall Buoy. Then surprise again, ten minutes later it was rock-a-hula time all the way to Squalicum Marina.

Duncan and Peter are real salty from actual boating experience. I've tried to pin them down on what patterns might be useful: water level, current vs. tide swings, wind direction etc. They suddenly get evasive and humble. Since these are dudes with mucho manly confidence I think it means there is no dependable pattern.

Michael's system has proven itself: we are haggling like kids who found a stray weasel. Count on a scientist: cut it with a chainsaw using a chalk mark, then measure it with calipers. (First prize for best acronym in show.)

rd
Surfski Knowledge Base

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
