You are not rating the rule, as the F18 rule (as I have said a number of times) does not measure the same things as SCHRS.
back to my other example again; I build a boat that does not have a limit on dagger board size (as per F18), it does not have a mast height limit (as per F18) and it does, but does have a "beam to mast top limit". For my first boat I build it with very small daggers and a very short mast. THis boat then (say) rates to 100.
We will call it the scooby1 design
I then decide that I messed up my boat design and so add very large boards (that are not controlled in my class rules as this will make it point much better) and I also go for a much taller mast). Under your proposal these 2 boats whould rate the same. however the 2nd version WILL be quicker; maybe only 3-5% quicker, but it will be quicker. Fair, I think not.
Which is exactly what SCHRS is going to be doing I believe.
Old F18's will rate at 1.01 and new(er) boats will rate at something else for racing using SCHRS - I've never suggested the F18's should handicap race at their F18 championships.
This is why SCHRS and Texel exist; once you get the measurement criteria correct, you can fairly rate these boats by just measuring them. Wouter said above that people turned up with what they thought were "ratings" beaters at Texel and it was not the case. Ergo the rule works.
So you want to use a rating rule and a "portsmouth rule" !!!!!!!!
I don't; SCHRS and the ISAF do;
I would be happy to use either SCHRS or Texel assuming they are coming up with similar answers.
Simon, I ignored this comment until I had the usual Saturday bottle of wine 
The Spitfires have a "One design" circuit, with 25 boats at their Nationals. Apart from JP, as far as I know, no other F16s have ever challenged the top Spitfire sailors at open events.
I hope that some day the Spitfires will enhance the F16 fleet, but at the moment there is no contest in the UK or France.
Yes... the data set is too slow to be generated and the pool of sailors too small to generate an acceptably fair number. Since the principles that a portsmouth system depends on are not valid... you need another solution. You could just make up a rating like PHRF and then go from there... or you could use the measurment rule until the conditions change and you have met the criteria.
This is my solution to balance the reality on the ground with the ability to implement it.
I must say... it sounds like a nightmare trying to re measure every F18 and certify that the equipment that an X brand of F18 now has... is what all of the other F18's of t brand X also has.
Or will everyone have to have their boat's measured to go racing?
There have been more instances like that. One just last september in Netherlands, but I don't see the point in highlighting this every time. The spitfires keep mostly to themselfs in the UK and in France/Ireland we don't have an F16 class yet. Outside these three nations the Spitfire class is non-existant. Spitfires were sold to a number of other places but never in the numbers to be able to form a class of their own. Holland is one such nation. I count 2 spitfires here. One crew we have approached to invite them to join us in F16 racing but he said that he was only interested in recreational sailing. The other boat is rarely used and for sale. This example is not to put down the Spitfire class, I think them to be excellent boats, but to show that the two classes are pretty much seperated from eachother. For this reason we don't see much direct comparisons; it is simply not possible. That is with the exception of the UK but here the Spitfires have a rather strong class and want to maintain that.
Personally I don't care whether they participate in F16 events or not. The invitation stands. If they don't want to then they don't want to.
With respect to the spitfire design. I think the design to be faster than the SCHRS rating is suggesting. It is a fast boat that will indeed run with the F18's;
Its rating is 1.02 under schrs (F18 = 1.01) when punching in :
Crew = 2
weight = 135 kg
length = 5.00 mtr
mainsail = 15.5 sq. mtr.
mainssail luff = 8 mtr.
jib = 4.5 sq. mtr.
jib luff = 5.5 mtr.
spi = 18 sq. mtr.
daggerboard = 0.19 x 0.76
However under schrs is has 1.04 as rating because it is measured at :
Crew = 2
weight = 139 = (135+4)
length = 4.98.00 mtr = (5 mtr - 0.02)
mainsail = 15.45 sq. mtr. (= 15.50 - 0.05)
mainssail luff = 7.9 mtr. (= 8.0 - 0.1)
jib = 4.45 sq. mtr. (= 4.50 - 0.05)
jib luff = 5.43 mtr. = (5.5 - 0.07)
spi = 18 sq. mtr.
daggerboard = 0.19 x 0.76
Now less than an inch difference in length, about 1 sq.ft. less sailarea and 4 kg more boat weight are not going to make the boat 2 points slower in reality. But it was enough to put the boat over the 1.0351 rounding off boundery so it gained two extra handicap points as a direct result of these offsets. Sadly that is possible with measurement rating systems.
But anyway, I personally regard the Spitfires as only a fraction slower then the F18's and pretty much on a par with the best of the F16 designs. So I don't think that fear of underperforming is at all a likely cause fro Spitfires not attending F16 events.
Wouter
You are making error regarding F18 rules
-1- mast height is limited in the F18 class rules (to 9.15 mtr to be precise)
-2- SCHRS does not rate daggerboard area, only it aspect ratio (as I wrote earlier in a different post)
For these two reasons alone your example is wrong. As a matter of fact by having small boards you can NOT get a slower handicap at all. Actually you get a handicap that is rather too fast for our boat, the one that is accurate for a design with normal sized boards.
Scooby, please forgive me but research the matter more thoroughly before making baseless statements. You are only creating wild rumours and correcting these obvious errors in your reasoning is simply a waste of time of the others.
So please, study the class rules of F18/tornadp class and others and investigate how SCHRS (and other systems) really work internally.
Wouter
-1- mast height is limited in the F18 class rules (to 9.15 mtr to be precise)
-2- SCHRS does not rate daggerboard area, only it aspect ratio (as I wrote earlier in a different post)
For these two reasons alone your example is wrong. As a matter of fact by having small boards you can NOT get a slower handicap at all. Actually you get a handicap that is rather too fast for our boat, the one that is accurate for a design with normal sized boards.
Scooby, please forgive me but research the matter more thoroughly before making baseless statements. You are only creating wild rumours and correcting these obvious errors in your reasoning is simply a waste of time of the others.
So please, study the class rules of F18/tornadp class and others and investigate how SCHRS (and other systems) really work internally.
Wouter
Oh FFS I give up;
I made one small error on aspect vs area. People know the Capricorn is faster and all SCHRS is trying to do is equalise this in the rules. I believe SCHRS is going to address this. I don't know how, but I am assuming each F18, so Hawk, Capricorn, Tiger, Nacra (old), Nacra F18 and Illusion etc will have a SCHRS number for handicap racing.
I re-state again. The F18 rules do not measure and control the same things that SCHRS does; thus there is a cproblem with the handicap of the F18 within SCHRS. SCHRS are addressing this.
Wouter I had not seen the 9.15mtr rule in the F18 rules for the mast; However, there SCHRS parm is the Vertical luff on the mailsail (and Jib) and this is stated at 8.5 (5.2) in the current SCHRS calc. Are you stating that all mainsails on f18's are 8.5mtr luff and so this does not need taking into account (I don't see that you are).
I am not a member of the SCHRS ctte or do I have any control over the rule. It's not my rule I just want to discuss it and it's short comings with regard to the F18 situation and how (I hope) it will be fixed.
I believe that we are getting bogged down in scantics; I'll apologise for my minor mistake on area of plates and the max mast size.
[color]
BUT, please consider this:
"Are the current crop of F18's (Capricorn, Illusion and the newer Tigers) faster boats than the old boats with old rigs ?"
I say yes, the reasons I say yes are :
Development of the class as a whole, construction and mast shapes and the like, mainsail shapes, VLM and plates.
so, should the handicap's of either the F18, or all other boats, be adjusted in the light of the fact that the F18's have got faster?
I again believe yes.
SCHRS and Texel were created to allow new designs to be given a rating "out of the box" and perhaps the rating parms need changing
Discuss.
I wonder if all the Spitfire's are now shaking in their boots after Wouter's update on their SCHRS rating review. So if people know that this boats is slow in SCHRS and fast on the water do they buy the boat for the easy win? Or do they race as a one design fleet?
Wouter how does Texel look at the Spitfire?
Looks like a lot of classes under SCHRS need adjustment's
They prefer OD racing as far as I can tell.
We must allow ourselfs to overstate a 2 points difference under SCHRS (or Texel); is not a major difference. About 1 min 12 sec per hour. Now this may sound like alot but people often forget how quick time passes on the water.
Spitfire under Texel is about the same : 104 (spitfire) to 101 (F18)
Both system use very similar input values; I haven't investigates this in detail (as Texel is hiding their unrounded handicap numbers now) but it can be that Spitfire is again just on the right side of the rounding off boundery.
Wouter
Scooby,
I would like to state first that I feel we are on the same track in most aspects relating handicap systems. My current discussion with you is mostly to get the details right as well. No disrespect intended.
I'm sorry to say but you were making more mistakes then that. And you are missing the way in which the F18 rules are indeed fixing the schrs/texel handicap numbers. In addition the Texel handicap number for F18 has come down over the years and you don't give that credit.
There are two arguments to be had here. First f18 class has become faster over time relative to old OD classes. While this is more limited then people often think; it is definately truthful. SCHRS didn't not change over time. Texel however had F18 transition from 104 in 2000 to 101 in 2006 while keeping the old OD classes at the same ratings. Same applies to other modern boats like F20. By the way 3 points rating difference is 1 min 48 second increase of performance per hour. Nearly two minutes. I think this to be rather accurate.
Now people will also understand why I prefer Texel over SCHRS. Texel is just alot more responsive to changing conditions in the catamaran racing scene and stays on top of things.
The other way, is that newer F18 are supposedly faster then the older F18 designs. This is a difficult argument as it is not as straight forward as it might seem. Grab and old dart hawk and slap an updated rig on it and you'll have a competitive F18 again. So yes while it is true that the hart hawk design of 1995 (with rig current for that day) WILL not be competitive in the more serious F18 racing this doesn't mean that an updated version with new sails etc won't be competitive again. Naturally it is very difficult for a rating system (either Yardstick or measurement based) to discriminate in this latter example. It will simply be undoable. Therefor both systems require the crews to keep their boats in excellent condition if the rating is to be fair. No rating will be fair to any beat up blown out boat.
I don't think this to be advantagious and really don't expect this to happen. Why because the measured specs of say the Inter-18 are really not much different at all from those of the Capricorn F18. The used rating formula can not discriminate between the two and I really don't believe that an inter-18 with a new and modern set of sails is that much slower in reality anyway. Alot of the F18 development is to be found in components can be put on any older design. If so desired the complete Capricorn rig can be put on a inter-18, same with the rudders and selftacking rig. Who is going to check that a boat that started life as an Inter-18 is still an inter-18 after several years of F18 racing (modifications) ? If its an F18 then it is an F18. The nacra inter-18 class OD simply does not exist. At least not in the way that I actively controls the modifications to the design.
You can state this another 100 times Scooby but that still doesn't make it true.
Now lets turn this thing around. You tell me what you preceive as the measurements of a rating beating F18 and I will first check whether it is F18 class rules compliant, then whether it is at all practical and then most likely show you that the SCHRS is within 1% of 1.01. 1% is the official uncertainty margin because of the numbers being rounded off.
Give it a shot Scooby and show us.
Okay lets look at this in detail :
For the full F18 class rules go here : http:/
B.2.1.2. The maximum distance between the top of the forward crossbeam and the bottom of the upper measurement band of the mainsail shall be 9100 mm. See diagram B.2.1.2.
I wrote 9150 mm earlier but the correct number is 9100 mm. So the mast is limited in length unlike the A-cats.
This also severely limits the mainsail luff length as a low boom is a serious impediment to the crew, especially under spinnaker sailing. This means that on average the mainsail luff length of an F18 is 8.5 mtr. Designs with less will never be rated faster when using their correct amount so we'll ignore those boats for now. The maximum practical luff length on an F18 is 8.7 mtr. And that is absolute maximum as only 40 mm clearance under the boom is really too little. You can't get across on your hands and knees then you'll have to tiger crawl underneath it. Do that with a spi sheet in your hand.
So lets now see what kind of difference going from the average 8.5 mtr to 8.7 mtr makes.
8.5 mtr. SCHRS rating (unrounded) = 1.006191
8.7 mtr. SCHRS rating (unrounded) = 1.002552
a difference of 0.003639 = 13 second/hour racing. = 1/3% = way less then 1 %
This difference is negligible. it is also well in the order of the noise that is enclosed in the rating formula, meaning that we can't say whether this difference is the result of the longer luff or the error made when the rating formula was derived.
So you see while the F18 rules indeed don't actively rule upon the mainsail luff length (as the F16 class rules do), the other rules and what is practical in real life do very much limit all F18's to as good as the same luff length.
From an engineering point of view I can tell you that those 200 mm extra luff length so low on teh mast are really not efficient in any way. Their is far to much turbulance due to the hulls and trampoline that low and the windspeed itself is much lower there then compared to 2 mtr to 9 mtr up.
Agreed. This is why I prefer Texel. Getting things done with SCHRS is a serious pain in the neck. Texel is much easier to talk to and much more accomodating.
"Are the current crop of F18's (Capricorn, Illusion and the newer Tigers) faster boats than the old boats with old rigs ?"
Yes and Texel corrected for this by having the ratings go from 104 to 101 over the last 6 years. SCHRS did nothing.
Most of these changes can be put on older F18 designs as well, making them alot more competitive again. Only exceptions are hulls and daggerboards. Rudders, sails, mast etc are all exchangable.
Class rating as a whole, YES. Individual F18 ratings, NO
Wouter
Good, that is what I hope SCHRS will do. Excellent.
That is what I am trying to get to. The F18 has got faster, so the handicap needs to change. Simple as that.
If the SCHRS rule needs to change what it measures, so be it. If the rule needs to be re-worked so be it.
Which countries use PY, SCHRS and Texel? Is Europe more measurement based over the Australians and Americans using PY systems?
Has SCHRS updated the numbers or the French went ahead and did their own changes? SCHRS web site is still showing 2004 numbers.
http:/
Hee hee hee....
Bet theyare in for a shock when they find out that a Flyer rates at somewhere around .98 ! They are talking about their rating being too hard !
Bet theyare in for a shock when they find out that a Flyer rates at somewhere around .98 ! They are talking about their rating being too hard !
I think that the whole reason that A Class people have brought this subject up again recently on this, and other forums, is because they cannot race competitively on SCHRS. They feel that if they were seen to win open events, then more people would buy As and the Class would grow. They have been asking for a better rating for a long time now.
Use the Texel rating system. More fair and far more easy to contact the Texel committee. I have to deal with ISAF and SCHRS but I'm not enjoying it any way. I much rather deal with Texel system. SCHRS is just a pain in the neck. I've been trying to get the F16 rating adjusted for a year now as we have a slightly larger mainsail since spring 2005. But without any succes.
F16 rating under SCHRS should be 1 point faster then it is now.
With respect to the A-cats sailors. They of all people should be pushing for using Texel. They are most benefitted by that; ESPECIALLY with the new 2006 Texel version which rates the A-cat equal to the F18's. This rating is the most fair rating I have ever seen for the A-cats, even if it may not be perfect yet.
I really don't understand much why people are still clinging to the SCHRS rating.
Personally I have my doubts. In teh past the A-cat had such a technology advantage that you could jump on one and have a very good shot at getting a win. The old OD classes were notorious for sub optimal design features. Then the Formula classes came along and quickly closed the technology gab that allowed the A-cats to rule in the past. By now the Formula boats at nearly as advanced as the A-cats in design, in some aspects even more advanced. In addition the A-cat is not an easy boat to sail well. And you need to sail it to its full potential to stand a chance of winning in todays high competitive formula fleets. We must be careful not to underestimate the level of skill in current day F18 class. Alot of A-cat sailors aren't as committed to racing their boats as the F18 crews. It is true.
The A-cat has losts its edge and no rating adjustment can bring back the old (happy) times. This is no accusation just an observation, the A-cast has yet to find an answer to the spinnaker on the formula boats as better upwind VMG is simply not sufficient anymore.
And Texel has been given them these since early 2005.
Wouter
Well done! Once again Dermot you manage to put your Dealer foot in it.
Rob
Has anybody heard any word back from SCHRS on this subject?
Ha, ha, Good joke !
Like that one !
Wouter
Do they really have their heads that deep in the sand?
Yes, that is my experience. I've been trying to get them to adjust the F16 rating for over a year now, because we had a small rule change making us FASTER. So the change is to our disadvantage and still no response. Tried several different ways.
Texel = one e-mail and the rating was adjusted within the month with a "thank you for the update" reply.
Wouter
Just seeing if anybody got any news on the SCHRS new mods? if any! plus is the French SCHRS numbers real?
Nothing happened, I'm giving up.
Texel all the way for me.
Wouter
Nothing happened, I'm giving up.
Texel all the way for me.
Wouter
Things are happening with SCHRS and there should be some news soon.
I cannot say any more at the moment, but things are happening in the bakcground.
I'd say it will be the end of the year by the time the new formula get passed and on to the web site. SCHRS has a history of being a bit slow in getting updates to the people. Like Wouter I've given up on them.
But saying that there are boats out there that dont want SCHRS updated because their rating will go down and they will have to race a bit harder to get that win. Wouter talked about one of these boats and the reason why it has such a great rating.
Hi Mark,
Just for the heck of it, I took some results and used Texel and USSA Portsmouth Yardstick. As I expected, there were no position changes. Maybe in tighter racing there would be. (??) What I do like about Texel is more configurations (like my Fx-1, two-up with jib, no spinnaker...)
Steve
Hobie FX-1
Sail #211