Hello everyone. Changes are afoot at SCHRS, Richard Allen has resigned as the UK representative as he has too many work commitments now, I'd like to thank Richard for his hard work in the past years.
As a result of Richard's resignation, I was invited to join the SCHRS committee as the UK representative - I have accepted this and I am now getting up-to-speed with this role.
Olivier Bovyn and I are in the process of re-vitalizing the website and more news will be forthcoming soon (as will an e-mail address for me).
But as we do this we want to share some information as to what is happening at present with the SCHRS rating rule.
Currently Jason Smithwick and Olly Harris (both marine architects) are reviewing the rule with a remit to propose changes that will go forward to the ISAF meeting in the Autumn of 2006. One item that is almost certain to be included in the submission to the ISAF is an additional measurement point (and rating) for beam.
We are currently discussing other items such as making the rule easier to administer, easier for measurers to measure boats and also any items within the rule that we feel are outdated (max Spi pole length being one).
The point of this post is to make it public that I have now taken over this role, make it known that SCHRS is evolving (and will continue to do so) and ask you, the sailors that are sailing with the rule (me included) to propose changes to the rule in light of real world experience - we cannot say if these proposals will be included in subsequent submissions to the ISAF, but I will listen and take note of anything that is posted.
I do not want this to becoming a slaging session against the SCHRS rule. I want it to be a positive discussion of how the rule can evolve in the future.
Over to you <img src=
alt=
/>
If you wish to contact me in private, please use the email address in my profile (for now) as we are still setting up @SCHRS email addresses etc.. I will provide this at a later date.
Scooby the things that popped to my mind :
-1- Replace the trapezoid in the sailarea measurement by two triangles. It is more accurate and easier.
-2- Update the F16 rating to a faster one. In may 2005 we simplified our sailarea rules and effectively slightly entlarged our sail area and have not been able to contact the SCHRS since to effect this change. I think this to be unfair to sailors of other makes.
-3- Include daggerboard area in the rule and not only the aspect ratio. This will solve some issues with boats like the H17 (very small boards but will a significant aspect ratio). OR not include area and limit the hit one can get with a high aspect ratio. The latter is not absolute advantage because of
tripping
and unstable flow around the board. Low aspect boards do have advantages as well especially in the higher winds ranges. Right now the board rules seems to be a little to crude.
-4- Simplify the spi pole length rule. Non-European sailors don't understand the current rules very well or think it is just plain weird. The confusion around this rule appears to be immortal despite expaining it often. This hampers international acceptance.
-5- Do
something
with the singlehanders, the current ratings are unrealistically fast in comparison to the doublehanders.
-6- Limit the hit of a having a jib on a spinnaker boat. The spinnaker negates much of the advantages of the jib on downwind legs. This solves any problems when uni-rig boats fit a spinnaker in comparison to sloop rigged boats that fit a spinnaker.
Wouter
Simon, I wish you the best of luck with the SCHRS job, I look forward to seeing the new updates. <img src=
alt=
/>
Thanks chaps
My schrs email adddress is now set up:
SimonL (at) schrs.org Please use this for any SCHRS Communications
something
with the singlehanders, the current ratings are unrealistically fast in comparison to the doublehanders.
Interestingly, our club has just replaced SCHRS in favour of Texel to accommodate this; the Texel values tending to match our expreience to a far greater degree than SCHRS. I'm hoping that a new beam component will bring the A rating up to a realistic value.
Just noticed that the SCHRS web site is off line, could it be that the updates are coming very soon?
http://www.schrs.com/
http://www.schrs.com/
Maybe......
Site is being moved to a new ISP.
Should have something to announce very early Feb.(ISAF signoff required)
Should have the final rules to announce (ISAF signoff required) later in Feb.
I really do hope the rule has evened things out, and not just a quick band aid fix to stop the move to PY and Texel, keep up the good work Simon, it's a thankless job. Also your new F16 looks great, some nice details
We have done what we can within very tight timescales and we believe we have taken out most of the bigger problems. We have had to stop for the odd bit of sleep now and then, so I am sure we have not got every little thing sorted out yet. we are already thinking about what we need to address next.
Hope to be able to actually confirm a few things in the next few days, but as usual, we are waiting on the ISAF for sign-off.
Hi Scooby...
I don't want to minimize your effort... but is there a need for a second measurement based yardstick?
I understand that one key difference will be the ISAF sanction... Is it a continental kind of thing? Are there real differences in how performance is calculated?
Mark
I don't want to minimize your effort... but is there a need for a second measurement based yardstick?
I understand that one key difference will be the ISAF sanction... Is it a continental kind of thing? Are there real differences in how performance is calculated?
Mark
2nd ?
There is currently Texel which is used for the unique conditions for the Texel race, and for others as well, there in then SCHRS that is the ISAF method. Both systems produce similar results, but SCHRS is the ISAF rating rule.
That is not really the case. Texel system is far more applicable to bouy racing then distance racing like Round Texel. It is always further optimized for bouy racing and never towards distance racing.
It is just the same as SCHRS really. It just doesn't coordinated things with ISAF. To each his own opinion whether that is good or not.
But I am very interested in the new SCHRS, indeed.
Wouter
Wouter,
If you are going to quote me, please put the whole bit in.
Yes, Texel is used for other races too.
Simon,
You are missing the point I was trying to make.
Texel is not USED for other races AS WELL. It is fine-tuned for bouy racing and then USED for distances races (like TEXEL) AS WELL.
As such it is exactly the same as SCHRS. Your earlier post seemed to suggest something else.
I just wanted to correct that.
Wouter
I'm glad to find topic! SCHRS site is down, contact e-mail isn't valid. I had one question, copy from mail:
---
Dear Sirs,
Since 2002 we use SCHRS handicap system for inflatable catamaran race at Verhnevolzskaja Regata (Russia, Volga river near Konakovo city) and also for some another catamaran racing in Russia and Ukraine. In Sept 2003 we create catamaran owners association - ICMF (International Coastal Multihulls Fleet).
I shohuld note, we use system not exactly as described in SCHRS rules, but with some simplyfications.
Big part of our
fleet
are home-made. We have also some types of productional boats, but often owners have rebuild their catamarans by their own wishes.
We should re-measure a lot of boats and use simplyfied sail measurements and WL (not at water). Of coarse, as handicap system himself as measurements are subjects of constant disputes.
Now we have one new question.
After ERS 2005-8 (Equipment Rules) was published, we explore one contadicrion with SCHRS measurements.
Accordingly ERS G.7 foot/leech/luff/ length should be measured as distance between corner points (Clew/Head/Tack).
That is, as the direct line! Pictures in G.7 section dont leave doubts.
On the other hand, accordingly SCHRS measurements (picture on Yours site) for spinnakers and common sense edge length should be measured at real edge curve line.
The question is important mostly for spinnakers, since the Zero Code gennakers are popular and the decision is a sail spinnaker or
genoa
(75%) depends from foot length.
Best Regards,
Grigory Shmerling
the ICMF secretary
Moscow
parusa@narod.ru
http://parusa.narod.ru