Firstly this is my opinion only, based on a small amount of data, with a lot of assumptions. I'm sure the analysis could be done more rigorously but you would still end up with things that simply can't be compared with great confidence.
So here goes. I believe the top level F-Class shooters generally outperform the top level TR shooters in terms of wind reading accuracy. With regards separating the F-Classes, the analysis shows F-Open as superior to F-Std and F/TR which are about the same. However the score data is 4 years old and sample size is probably too small to be as confident about this than the TR conclusion.
What follows is a brief description of how my conclusions were arrived at. Feel free to pick holes - there are quite few to choose from.
I looked for a recent Queens event run on Hexta targets with all disciplines well represented by leading shooters, with conditions doing enough to test the wind reading skills, and the 2019 NRAA Queens filled the bill. However I was getting unexpected results, and then discovered that squadding had been used for this event. What happens with squadding is that the different disciplines shoot together in a block, and sometimes encounter different conditions from other disciplines, which degrades the comparison. In the end I had to go back to the 2016 QRA Queens to get a major shoot using Hexta targets without squadding. Looking at score trends for that event, Match 17 900yds conditions were apparently quite tough, and Match 20 900yds the following morning was easier. So that presented a good opportunity to see how much windage error increased for the worst of the two conditions, and compare the disciplines on that basis.
The sharp end of the field in each discipline was used for the analysis, being the top 30 finishers in TR, top 10 in F-Std and top 5 in F-Open and F/TR respectively. For each shooter, the online Hexta data for Match 17 was extracted, and the average windage distance (in mm) from the middle calculated. The same was done for Match 20. These averages were then combined for each discipline as per the first of the two tables below. Next, for each discipline the Match 20 average was subtracted from the Match 17 average to give a difference (in mm). As expected, these differences are larger for the disciplines with the least ballistic performance, so you aren't comparing apples with apples. However if this mm windage figure is converted to an equivalent wind velocity difference using typical ballistics figures for that discipline, then I believe that velocity figure can be directly compared between disciplines as a measure of wind reading performance. So the figures on the bottom row are what I have used for the conclusions above.
![Image](https://ozfclass.com/forums/pic/wrcompare.bmp)