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

I've already got too much on my plate with Endurance Series, Florida 300 and now Hiram's Haul. My boat has been dry docked over a year now. Plus I HATE numbers.

****.

Wow... Jake and Dave agreeing with me.... about the need to make Portsmouth...extinct... The less I say the better...(grin)

Can someone point me to a single windward leeward race with a Nacra 17 racing against an F18 or a Hobie 16 in the North America region. The more numbers of boats in a class helps alot.

(I really would like to see the link to the results page)...

Mind you... The Portsmouth assumption is that the single Hobie 16 or the single F18 is sailing the boat to its rating... eg... This is the ONLY data that will lead to a rating for a N17.

The issue is not about reporting data.... the fundamental problem is generating data.

The only practical, transparent, non political solution is SCHRS... (Texel is in dutch... while SCHRS is in english.... QED)

Boats that need to be measured are
Supercat 22
Hobie 20 (USA version with comp tip)
Nacra 6.o NA
Isotope
Shark

Bastard configurations where you single hand your Nacra 20 are an issue as well.

Until you actually measure a few of each of these classes.... guestimate the rating and use the published table.
Sandy Hook Catamaran Club, and West River Catamaran Racing do this now for their weekly racing.

They use Texel here in Singapore. I can ask if they have a copy of the rule in English.

I think Mark was saying that SCHRS is basically Texel in English.

I think we can agree to disagree whether the real problem is data reporting or generation. While most events are OD (and always have been, BTW), what data we do have is not being reported.

In practice, smart RCs don't mix spin with non-spin. No one racing wants to sit around that long waiting for the non-spins to finish (or cause the faster boats to wait), and no matter who wins, the numbers are blamed (even more so so than when like boats race together).

As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?

Before you say that changing systems will improve dealing with new boats, it will only replace one problem with another. PN works for the most part, but the committee needs some new blood to get it back on track. The other systems will need measurers and administrators, and a lot of setup, communication and promotion, in addition to just new blood.

The grass isn't always greener. Has anyone asked sailors, OAs and RCs using the other systems for their thoughts on the pros and cons of each?

Mark, you've been the biggest proponent of making this change, but have not stepped forward to implement, why should we expect someone else to? We can't get folks to send in data, do we really expect to be able to support a new system?

Again, I'm not saying we MUST use PN, but I for one am not yet convinced that there's a better solution. Show me the data, the proposal, and the team who will implement, and I'll go to bat for you at US Sailing.

Mike

This is spot on. PN is a very good rating system. You have percentage of time handicapping with different wind conditions to take into consideration. As a system it is very good. The only issue is what will be the same with any system. Who is going to update the rating to increase reliability and fairness. Let's figure out a way to get it more updated.

Cheers.

You're right Mike, and I apologize. I should be using the generic

handicap

term rather than any particular system...

Firstly, I accept handicap racing for what it is:

an excuse to take my

dead boat society card

around buoys while making a lot of noise (and occasionally humping a barge buoy) in order to drink and tell lies later

That being said, if I were REALLY grumpy about how bad I sail where would I start the process of changing my rating?

Would I have to start with knowing all my measurements (let's assume it's a stock boat)?

And then I would need a lot of results from area regattas with similar design boats (most are now heavily modified)?

Did I miss that page on the US Sail website on how to change a rating?

OMG! I remember someone made that argument back in the 60s!
An early foiler.

The idea of gathering meaningful statistical data is a fantasy and we really need to stop hiding behind the idea that if we could get race results the system would fix itself.

How many regattas have a single start same course format? Now that area qualifiers are gone I'd venture a guess that the number is extremely small. You also need to keep in mind distance racing data is NOT considered in the statistical analysis.

DPN has simply evolved into a PHRF model which is easily the worst handicap system on the planet! In all fairness even Texel and SCHRS are PHRFish in there arbitrary adjustments.

I would be perfectly happy if the DPN numbers were bounced off Texel and SCHRS numbers and any place there was a large deviation an adjustment would be applied. Not perfect but still better than not doing anything at all.

FYI, I did make this same proposal years ago and it went nowhere so I'm not remotely intrested in working with the current committee.

           Elapsed      SCHRS   Corrected

Acat       00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0

F16 (2)    00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0

F18        00:30:00.0   1       00:30:00.0

H16        00:34:21.0   1.145   00:30:00.0

           Elapsed      DPN     Corrected

Acat       00:31:00.8   64.5    00:48:05

F16 (2)    00:30:17.6   63      00:48:05

F18        00:30:00.2   62.4    00:48:05

H16        00:36:32.6   76      00:48:05

Wait what now!? You mean to tell me in europe the beachcat center of the universe the F18 is rated significantly slower compared to the A cat and F16 than in the US (DPN)!? Interesting, Todd H. any comments?

The lower the number the faster the boat.

The SCHRS has developed into quite a meaningful handicap method for Cats, it has got a lot better over recent years and already has a foil input for the lies of the A's. It does not quite yet handle weight correctly in my opinion but it has got better.

Where it does fail and fail badly is the conversion to PY numbers, we regularly sail in mixed fleets and I can't think of a Cat handicap winner in the entire time I have been racing at our club.

The RYA and Sailwave have combined to try and get the PY handicaps more reliable with automatic downloading of results and suggested club PY numbers. With very few clubs running mixed cat and dingy races, there simply is not enough data to really establish meaningful results and as the PY smoothing software will only make small ammendments each year, it will correct itself but may take more than a few years. Most clubs in the UK seem to use the SCHRS PY conversion.

In summary the SCHRS and Texel are good to getting very good, the PY is getting better with its automated downloads of data ( bigger pool of boats in bigger number of races ) somewhere in about 10 years time they should finally converge.

You know... now that we have some great GPS tracking units and analysis software, isn't it time the Race Committee's started setting courses where the A and C marks are exactly 1 nautical mile apart, and then they could keep the lap times or total time for each One Design race, and then we could compare the real speeds of each fleet.

Still, even the best guys who consistently finish in the top places will tell you they have never sailed a 'perfect race'. So even they are not always sailing the boat to it's maximum speed potential, but at least if we are all using the same distance/course, we will have a better comparison of relative speeds between different classes, than we have today.

Now... what to do about the Foilers? I say we should have a

Speed Week

type event, where all the top foiling teams show up and again, race around the same 1 mile course for best lap times. Then put them on a long reach type course, over a measured mile (or two or three miles) and again, look at the times/speeds.

One day of A to C type racing, second day is 'drag racing' for best times. I think that is the only way were are going to be able to nail down realistic handicaps for foilers.

Looks like the same ratio to me. I think you're stretching again trying to justify your gimme number while bitchin' about JC's. Shame on you.

Wait, now we're looking at data and saying that the PN numbers are actually pretty good? What are we ever going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks?

Timbo, we track our marks by GPS already, so that math is easy regardless of the distance chosen (simply divide the time by the calculated distance). One mile legs are very short for our boats, so you'd need to do a bunch of laps to have a good race, and the spin crews will hate you for that.

Mike

Administration is International ISAF committee with Representation by national members. I represent the USA.... Happy to hand this over to an engineer who could contribute a bit more then I can!!!
(but you know that)

Your premise that there is an accurate rating table is a unicorn…. Find one system, used in the world that sailors agree is “accurate”
I have done Jakes calculation comparing time deltas for each and every update of the ratings….. It’s a matter of opinion what is accurate… as Todd replies to Dave…. Looks like the ratios are the same…. So…. You can argue this … till you die.

So, you won’t find an accurate ratings table under a rock or patch of weed…
What you will find is a group of owners who forge a consensus… that XXX sucks but it sucks less then all other attempts in the past…. AND we are willing to pay XXX for its administration.
The group of owners then go out and get Official Sanction for their rating system… Big boats now favor HPR…. And pay 500 to 1000 to get their boats measured while the last great hope… IRC (pay about 100) has collapsed in the US.

So... the last time we made a change... from NAMSA to US SAILING... There were no compelling issues driving a switch…(as their is currently) Rather… US Sailing, with Darline at the helm decided to work extra hard at getting beach cat ratings updated in the US Sailing run successor to the Dixie Portsmouth system. There was no “The Man” telling clubs and sailors what to do…
So… monohull sailors saw the regionally run system now administered by US Sailing (and the Dixie label was dropped…. )had value as a national system run by the National sailing body and supported it. US Sailing Sanction mattered for widespread acceptance…. Likewise, Catsailors, decided that national sanction was important and cat clubs around the country voted to run their events under US Sailing Portsmouth.
The current UPSET is that US Portsmouth won’t do its job of nationally sanctioning a rating (bogus or not)… So… national sanction matters to race organizers…. Because it does.
So… in the US…. What could you do…
Step One, get the active one design classes to vote on their preferred handicap system.
A dated Portsmouth system that creates ratings for all recent designs using PHRF principles to stay current Or a measurement system administered by ISAF via the SCHRS committee.
Step Two, get Organizing authorities who run handicap races to make their preference clear in their NOR… (Sailors ask for and get what they want)
Step Three, Ask US Sailing to make the recommendation that beach cats use SCHRS for racing and Portsmouth/PHRF for mixed fleet (lasers et al) racing.
Its about getting a consensus and authority sanction for a system with transparancy and pretty good accuracy
.
At the national level, It starts with the OD classes who represent their sailors and do their part to LEAD. At the local level, some clubs have already jumped from Portsmouth/PHRF to SCHRS

SCHRS is transparent... the rating formula is published and applied to all cat classes to get a rating. NO PHRF principals/ vodoo opinion applied. No need for large amounts of QUALIFIED race data to get ratings.

Yes… its spring time again.!

Thanks Mark,

I disagree that the PN committee

won't do its job.

They are not very responsive (a big problem, but solvable). They take time to issue a provisional number (in theory, this is better that knee-jerk). They need race data to validate/update the ratings (we need to step up).

You seem to have a vested interest in a different system (you're an ISAF rep?).

Jake's calculations show some pretty dramatic differences (still, no one has recalculated some regattas to see if the results would have changed).

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but until that is explained and addressed, I have to conclude that changing systems is a horrible idea at this time.

Edit: BTW, good luck convincing anyone, especially H16s who never see spin boats again after the weather mark (unless it's blowing 25-30 knots), that they should change to a system which gives them LESS time!

Mike

Interesting that the

gimme

number didn't work out all that well for you and that's with probably one of the most tallented multihull crews in the US. Is it really that hard to do as you're told?

Interesting that you call it JC's number and not the the F20c foiler number Todd.

Mike how did you even remotely put together that I'm ok with DPN? I'm saying exacly the opposite and Jakes data shows there is significant differences between SCHRS and DPN so I'm even more motivated to either dump DPN outright or adjust it based on the numbers used in europe. But thanks for taking the issue seriously.

Well, at least now i know what you folks at the pointy end of the fleet(s) talk about.

Back in the middle-DFL group, we ponder such questions as:

how did that spinnaker get launched upside down (BK)

Why is the C-gate over there?

the bunny goes out the hole, around the tree, and back down?

But, should a handicap system base their numbers on the theoretical perfect race for each design? In which case polars (both wind and sea-state) would be the only real data. Actual race data factors in human performance which varies widely.

BWHWHAHAHA

Thanks Jay.. that brought be back.

Here is a thought. Use the Multihull Committee of US Sailing as the vehicle to

validate

the multihull numbers and tell the Portsmouth committee to use them. In the meantime, the races and race committees can use the numbers develop for our races. As a race committee person I can tell you if the sailors agree to the rating used for their boats, then I would have no problem running that race.
I can tell you I have big problems with

data

selected from

races

.
Here is my problem from race results. A) I have rarely raced in a sailboat race where the wind was consistent. Either direction or speed always changed. All of the rating systems make that a central assumption. This makes rating boat accurately almost impossible. In a fleet of 10 one design boats there can be a 30 minute difference between the first boat and the last boat. Is the first boat get used for the

correct

rating? Now we have one Hobie 16 racing some other boats and he gets his data uses as if he was first. Was the sailor of that H16 of the same level as the sailor of the 1st one design sailor or the last? This is how results get loaded and it leads to a lot of variance and then we are into the land of false belief.
Thoughts?

I already posted my thoughts, I like math, because math don't care about who's a better skipper, who flipped, who had weeds, who got the best start, who overstood, or any of the 100 other things that happen out on the race course, as you pointed out above.

We are trying to figure out a way to accurately compare one type of boat to another type of boat. The only 'fair' way you can do that is to take the subjective human performance factor out of the equation. Measure the boats, weigh the boats, measure the sail area, and do the math.

As I said earlier, I'm sure there are many real, educated, licensed marine engineers like Morelli/Melvin that have the secret formulas already loaded in their computers, and they can tell you exactly how fast each boat should be, once you input the numbers for weight, sail area, hull length, board depth, etc.

They probably already have formulas developed for foiling too... but they may want to tweak that one after their G4 Splash down!

Worked out fine for me.Podium finishes the ONLY two times I SAILED (not even raced) the boat.You might need to quit fabricating BS to propagate your gimme number. 3rd in the Steeplechase ,first time on the boat and 3rd in the Fl.300 in class, 2nd time on the boat.All with a rudder system that was like sailing a H-16 with the cams flipped(ask my world class crew about that) and almost whipped your butt with it like that. Either you suck or the number is suspect.
As far as JC's vs. F-20c number, who were you crying about in the Miami/KL race? Who rebutted with he didn't care what the number was?
I was just trying to make it simple for you because you seem to be MORE easily confused these days. I guess that's to be expected, with the age and all. Don't worry I'll bring you some prune juice ( and maybe some Rum) when you're in the home.I just hope you can remember me.

Kaos

Sorry, Your conclusion is wrong.
Most classes are more or less linear as the wind speed picks up. a Single number is fine... The subset of catamarans are more non linear then displacement monos. Foilers are extremely non linear.
Handicaping is possible although the Precision of handicap racing is NOT close to One design Racing in determining the best sailed boat...

The solution to handicapping increasing non linear performance is to use ratings based on the wind.... However... this adds complexity to running a race and both sailors and race committees have proven over the years to just not like using multiple handicap numbers. Point is... a solution is EASILY available in either measurement or Portsmouth type handicaping systems..

The ACCURACY of a ratings table is arguable... See my point to Mike... It is a freakin UNICORN.... See Jake's example... and the debate in the bar will close it down... AND it will be debatable forever...

So... now you need a consensus and a governing authority to end the debate.

In portsmouth... YES this is the ONLY data point used in updating the tables (IF other conditions are met as well).

The Ginormous point is.... the 9 other boats ARE sailing to a rating.... Most of the time, even the second place boat is NOT even close to sailing to their published rating.... So you are really hairsplitting when you compare Portsmouth to SCHRS.... Why is this so... Because its the nature of sailboat racing... clear air is KING! Starboard trumps PORT... so you can add 10 seconds for the tack. and so on..

Bottom line... handicap will not have the precision of one design racing. Accuracy is a unicorn.... So, We agree on a mechanism to handicap and have the system sanctioned. They win... you are second, I am third. Enjoy life!

You have identified the achilles heel of PORTSMOUTH handicaping. The foundational assumption is that the Hobie 16 first boat is as well sailed as the F18 first place boat. Large numbers of races between these two classes take care of this sailor difference... I defy you to list 100 races conducted anywhere in the country for a W/L race between a Hobie 16 and a F18.... much less finding 100 races between two evenly matched helms or as the system was designed TWO FLEETS Hobie 16s and F18s racing each other for 100 races (You don't want a Randy Smythe personal handicap rating...) This is why Portsmouth has become Portsmouth/PHRF.

There is NO TRANSPARENCY in the PN tables constructed from this years data given the facts on the water in North American Sail boat racing..

MEASUREMENT systems.. (SCHRS or TExel or HPR or IRC for big boats) Don't have this issue.... they create the formula, PUBLISH the formula, apply it to a class's measurements and then see how the rating matches actual performance results.... looking at the entire FLEET of designs..... (eg... we look at pin head mains... on Hobie 16s and Prindle 16s and compare the PIN head factor to boats that use square tops... and so on..) You adjust the factors to fit valid data sets.... and work the problem year after year.

When you get tired of racing in two boat one design fleets... Handicap racing is an alternative. (you probably can count and figure out your one design result) I make the case that SCHRS is a Fair and transparent system....

Form a consensus around one table or the other and ask for official sanction.... OA's will happily do what an organized body of sailors asks for... (they don't care... they want the max fun factor for their event) They can't listen to whinny bitches moaning abut the XXX rating....

Obviously, you're not happy. I was actually referring to Jake's post.

I was trying to add some levity. It's pretty obvious that I've been taking this seriously throughout the thread.

Kaos: We (MHC) don't get to

tell

the PN committee what to do, we can only advise/recommend.

We CAN push for a different system, just as soon as someone presents a real proposal (no Mark, none of your countless posts here equal a solid proposal worthy of presenting to the board).

Mike

Mike

You won't be getting a proposal from me either... This one is not a top down initiative...

The only people who write NORs are the Yacht Clubs and Catamaran Clubs) AND the national class associations for their sailors... (Obviously the class association is about one design.. however... they could play a role in advising their sailors.)

Once the sailors have proactively chosen... US Sailing could sanction the choice. How is a good question tho... Once upon a time... all of the Alter cup qualifiers used the officially sanctioned Portsmouth system... Most clubs followed suit..
There is no bell cow today... More the point... SCHRS is sanctioned by ISAF... Not a pissant insignificant organization so... SCHRS has all of the clout you need.

Bottom line, Sailors need to take a look and choose. Cyber would love for things to be simple... but he really should just poll his racers and see if they have paid enough attention to make an informed choice.
The PN system simply cannot work in this day and age. its done... Again... Just publish a link to race results where a N17 is racing buoys against F18's and Hobie 16s...in the last 3 years.... that is how you get a portsmouth N17 rating... You can make up numbers aka PHRF for the boat... but it will NEVER have enough data. How about links to a Marstrom 20 racing buoys... that boat has been racing in the states for 10 years... Bet you don't find 100 qualified data points. Mind you... a fleet of 2 boats is silly to speak of it as a class.

Portsmouth is done... not because of the committee... rather there is NO qualified data being generated.

Sailors just have to choose.

Bottom line looks like most agree PN is not working very well. So we either fix it or change to a different system.
The MHC can have more impact that you may think. Our biggest problem is getting this group to agree on anything. The second biggest problem is getting this group to actually get behind something and push it. As individuals we have all banged our head against US Sailing and have decided we have better things to do with our time. As a group though there are ways to get stuff accomplished.
There is a reality with US Sailing and organizations running races, it is that US Sailing can only recommend too. We as race organizers can do anything we want. Just need to have the Notice of Race properly competed to notify all of the racers of the organizers intentions. What rating system will be used, even what rates for each boat will be used. Then the racers can decide whether to race in that race or not. We can then tell the PN committee this is the way it is going to be and either they join in or go play by themselves. It they chose to be irrelevant then so be it.
So if Cyber wants to set the ratings for the Race and the sailors agree to race to those ratings, who cares what the Portsmouth committee does or does not do?
At one of our Clubs we actually did that for a regatta. We had a breakfast where all of the racers as a group decided what every boat's rating would be for the race. Those that were known to be new sailors got their ratings

helped

. Experienced sailors with the better boats got their ratings lowered. The result of the race was actually the same. However, all of the sailors felt that the race was at least more fair than before. Even with playing with the ratings the results were not even close (it did not matter is the reality)
Sailing is on a very big decline. Trying to get a new sailor into a catamaran and have them

compete

is almost laughable at this point. A) they will need years of experience to catch up with ability for starters. Second if they buy the wrong boat with a poor rating they can't compete even if they became

good

.
Then we ask ourselves why no one wants to get into sailing?