OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent!

And yet he only finished a few seconds in front of Brett on the Carbon rocket and minutes behind the RC30.... you honestly think JC was sandbagging?

Tad at least try to do a small amount of homework before you make a post like that. There was a fair amount of grass and weed in the the bay forcing JC to litterly stop the boat and back it up to clear grass from his blades. We cleared our boards over 5 times before entering Card Sound. So with JC having to clear his boards an extremely time consuming and slow way and to still finish a few seconds in front of the top M20 does not say the boat deserves a gift of one point faster than the M20 (IMO)!

If the DPN committee asked JC what he thinks the number should be for the foiler then you better believe I have an issue with that! Please note I did say if.

Do you have an idea of the numbers he was posting for the spin ride back?

Dude I'm going off of nothing other than the results. I don't have time to do homework - it's why I have you to set me straight.

Since I didn't watch the trackers, what route was the winning ticket? Hugging the western shore?
Straight up the middle?
Midnight pass?

Hey, what happened to Onsguard? Says DNF

Was it that light or was there a time limit?

You can still see the race replay:
http://kws.kattack.com/GEPlayer/GMPosDisplay.aspx?FeedID=1404

Too bad we only had four boats tracking. If you click leaderboard you can see the top speeds on the way back. Keep in mind the top speeds reset when I added the way back to the course and also the RC30 did not fly a spin on the way back. Also of note, the

Good Ship Lollipop

did not sail back to the club.

And am I reading the results correctly that a ARC1 boat with a 125 PHRF won overall?

I see some (but not all) of the multihulls (with the 10/** rating) appear to be in a separate class with separate ranking(s)

As far as I know everyone took the same route, right up the middle and both channels through the flats. Midnight pass was discussed but would only be considered if the boats in front did it and they didn't.

The weather was AWESOME! Maybe less than 10 at the start building to the mid teens or maybe a little more by the finish. We had long port tacks for the first 20 miles and the wind slowly went more square on the nose.

I was not there either so forgive the NOOB info request. I did homework and only have hearsay. Was the Nacra Foiler able to foil at all or was it foiling and lost a lot of time due to having to stop and reverse to clear seaweed?

Honestly, the performance differences here are in the same category of trying to handicap non-spinnaker boats against spinnaker boats or multihulls against monohulls. The performance range is going to vary so wildly over different wind speed and angles that it's just going to be absurd to try use any number to compare results between those different classifications.

You would be better off assigning a number between a foiling moth and a foiling cat.

100% Agree. Putting foilers with nonfoilers is ridiclous.

Once upon a time the question was posted here: Is a foiling multihull still a multihull? My answer was no then and it's hell no now! It's bad enough we have to sail against the two carbon fiber fly weights with a highly suspect number but at least they break 50% of the time when it's over 15. But a foiler with a silly number, come on! I've really tried to look past DPN racing and enjoy it for what it is but f@ck me! I really want to know what process was used to create that number.

I don't think they got it from US Sailing. I can't even get them to reply to any emails after they gave me a mandated number to use for the Nacra 20 Carbon a few days before last years Florida 300. They still have not posted the provisional rating yet.

You still haven't answered my question:

I was told that they were not foiling until the way back. I am going to pass on the info to US Sailing for all the good that will do. I am about done with them and thinking of using another rating system for next year.

I didn't answer because I don't know and they were gone before we got back to the club. I knew about the grass clearing because our ground crew knew what they had to do and you can see the evidence of it on the track. All I can is they weren't foiling at the start and they were quickly to far away to see any kind of detail.

See...that is an answer! Not so hard is it.

Clearly i've pissed in your cereal I just wish I knew when I did it so I could at least enjoy it and I don't care enough to go back through the thread to try and figure it out.

Craig, I recall chatting about this quite a bit last year. Here are some quick thoughts:

There isn't enough data getting back to the PN committee for the system to work as intended. They pull numbers from the vendor, or sailors, or any race data or ratings from other systems that they can for a provisional number, then they're supposed to tweak that with actual race data, which isn't being reported to them, and they do not actively look for it.

The

mandated

number from last year was suggested to them by the sailors, as I recall?

Foiling vs. non-foiling is as pointless as spin vs. non-spin.

There's no good excuse for the PN committee not responding to your email. Now it's a pattern.

I saw your email but wanted the PN committee to reply first. I intended to follow through for you after a few days, as I did last year, but forgot. I apologize for that.

Where do we go from here? We have the authority to help improve handicap rating systems, but no one has stepped forward to take ownership of implementing a new system. This is where we get into deja-vu, as this topic comes up at least once a year...

All: Open to any and all suggestions, just be ready to help implement.

Mike

So how does the Marstrom never have to clear weed? Ya think maybe they had to too, therefore evening things out again. Sort of reminds me of a rating difference between the F-18 and the Inter/N-20. Kinda sucks don't it?

Of course the M had to clear weed we all did and you know we never stop and back up to clear weeds we simplyt tell the skipper to unload the boat and in what can't be more that 2-3 seconds the board is cleared, same goes for the rudder. And quick crew can knock it out in 30 seconds from wire to wire. Stopping the boat and backing up is probably in the same window but stopping and backing up is crazy expensive. Most skippers have a hissy fit about the crew coming off the wire and unloading the boat can you imagine stopping and backing up!? I stand by my outrage about the F20 foiling number. Weed clearing is NOT a variable in creating a number. For the F20 do do as well as they did with the method they had to clear weeds is impressive. If they were let off the chain... bye bye bitches!

The comparison between the M20 and F20c foiler and N20 and F18 is not even remotely close. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the N20 fleet doesn't hold a candle to the F18 fleet talent. Put your best N20 team against the top F18 team and nobody will bet the N20 team. Pick the skipper/crew boat of your choice F18, N20, M20, F20, F16, H16... and let's settle it. Every time an N20 team gets on an F18 they get freaking schooled until they figure out how to sail it and you sold yours before you figured it out. Todd I don't know why you keep going here.

I believe there will be multiple Foiling 20s and Phantoms at Eurocat and Texel. Those results should provide a good comparison to create a more equitable number. Basing the rating off of the Texel number might be a good place to start.

It's called Schadenfreude, 'cause you know, I'm an A$$hole and all. It's kinda fun seein' you take it instead of dish it. Also I got better results on the F-18 than the 20, even with a screwed rudder system.It's frickin' faster on more points of sail,deep down is the only one it's not. I find it hilarious how you have to puff yourself up defending the number when it's obvious to those who have sailed both. Plus where do you think those hotshots in the class came from? N20. I also find it funny how many people are mad I sold my boat.

If you back the boat down to clear weeds in the tacks it's not that bad, I've done it on the A, so it's not conjecture.Downwind not so much. Also remember that the Marstrom never changed numbers when they got curved boards, they didn't have to. It's in the class rules, like a ARC/Supercat. They can go to foiling boards with no number change too, I believe. That should really twist you up.

David, you did not piss me off. I had been stewing over the portsmouth issue since last years Florida 300 and when you did not answer my direct question, I blew a

fast acting fuse

.

Brucat, I don't have a beef with you either. That ball is not in your court and you have tried to help me out. I only cc'ed you on the emails so you would be in the loop and might provide additional assistance if possible. I will continue to copy you on future emails but there will only be one more probably tomorrow and I WILL NOT acknowledge any more mandates because it is OUR race.

It just really pissed me off when I specifically requested a week before the event not to be sent an answer because it was too close to the event and we were just going to use the numbers they had been racing at for the prior two years.

Then they sent me provisional numbers right before the event and mandated I use them. I am sure that is the reason one of last years participants is not registered this year and really I don't blame them the way the whole thing went down. Put me in a really bad position and they still have not posted a rating for the boat after numerous requests. If they actually based that

mandated rating

based on a sailors suggestion, I really need to switch rating systems. Next question is did the MYC get the rating from US Sailing? If so was it sailor suggested?

We are looking for numbers for both the Nacra 20 FCS and the Flying Phantom so we can rate them against each other. Because they cannot beach start or beach finish, they are not eligible for the overall. We are just trying to give them as fair a race against each other as we can.

Sorry for the rant and hijack. Our event is only two weeks out.

Instead of using 'subjective' PN numbers, isn't there some mathematical formula, where the weight of the platform is factored with the amount of sail area to give a theoretical target speed?

I'll bet the guys who are designing the foiling AC boats have that formula somewhere, can't we just borrow it, plug in the numbers for the smaller foiling cats, and get some factual potential speed numbers, vs. using subjective, weed clearing, slow taking, good skipper/bad skipper induced numbers?

you'd think the manufacturer(s) would want to share polars to sell more boats (which would also reduce the chance of sandbagging for a sweet number).

But yes, comparing foiling vs. non-foiling is even worse than mono- vs. multiuhull.

What did the moth class, and to some extent the A-class, do when their boats started foiling? Did they come up with some handicap or just split the fleets entirely?

which reminds me.... did someone say there was a phone app that helped you record polars for your boat by sailing around with it?

edit - Sailtracker app says it displays polars, but I can't tell if that's based on actual performance or a pre-established formula based on lenght, displacement and sail area.

Haven't heard of that Jay, but it could solve a lot of problems!

Craig, I don't know why you keep using the word

mandated

when referring to the PN. For ANY rating system, the numbers have to be assigned by a central authority or there's no hope at all for the system to have credibility. Sounds like you disagree with the number that was issued, which is OK, but I have two questions: Wasn't that number assigned based on sailor input and/or EU data? When you finished the race, did you provide the race time data and subjective feedback to the PN committee?

Mike

Craig... can Kattack upload information to US Sailing for their DPN/PHRF database?

If so that would be a really cool feature and provide almost real-time data which (if there is enough over time) could build somewhat realistic ratings for boats as well as classes..?

Moth and A class are one design/box rule , there is no handicap.The PN is the same, no matter what. Foils rate the same as non-foilers.
Saying foilers vs.non-foilers is worse than Mono vs multi is dead wrong, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that statement. Foiling boats aren't the
X-Calibur of cats, they optimize decent pressure downwind performance at a sacrifice (drag) to upwind and light air performance. These are early days still for foiling boats and this will be the first stateside distance race with them in it. There needs to be region (North America) specific results to come up with a number. Give them a chance, if it's still wrong then go burn down your CVS. It's really immaterial anyway, they aren't even being scored in the race, just match racing each other.It seemed last year that the F-20c number was fairly arbitray. I'm not sure how much re-calculation gets done since Darlene passed away. Maybe Craig could score ,unofficially, with other programs too. Such as
SCHRS (?) or Texel, I'm sure that's just what he needs is more work, but it could be done post facto or by someone else. Maybe Mark Schneider, he DOES know his scoring stuff. Timbo the measurement rule you asked about that would measure everything is PHRF and we DO NOT want to go down that road.

Ha! I'll get the torch ready for my local CVS... Because burning down my own house (or store) will certainly get something accomplished <img src="<>/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile" height="15" width="15" />

The mutli vs. mono comparison figured mainly with original arguments about multis not being able to point, and therefore gave up light air upwind performance for off-wind speed.

But I think history (and evolution of design as well as changed sailing tactics - footing & downwind gybing) has pretty much debunked that. I suspect evolution of foil design (and upwind foiling as seen in moths and the AC) will do the same.?

But I can see why handicap systems will never come close to actual prediction of performance. Faster boats will always be able to find better conditions (either on different areas of the course, or different time-periods at the same area of the course).

hmmmm... pair that sailtracker app with THIS windex, and I think you might get some pretty accurate real-world polars?

I like that this instrument appears to have a compass in the direction arrow, so it SHOULD be able to adjust for a rotating mast (it says it works on them) to display TWA...

Kind of pricey, but isn't that true of most things?