Just a quick post to see if there is any movement on updates for the SCHRS/ Texel / SwelLYS etc or US/ Aus/ UK PY's ratings for 2009 and if they will ever get in alignment? I know all about the measurement V’s history of the systems but in each group ( measurement or history) there is such variations. And one other questions if SCHRS is seen as near perfect why is it not used by all ISAF nations? Why is PY still popular and a lot of nations have their own measurement systems.

It would be interesting to see a selection of boats, new and old, light and heavy, high sail area and low sail area, in all the measurement rules and PY rules and see the variations, what you will see is huge difference between boats in each measurement and PY systems. Who chooses?

I’m like a dog with a bone on this subject I just can’t let it go! I believe no boat can rate to a single number for all conditions, it’s just impossible, we just have to live with a so-so system. but can we not agree on one system and get rid of the rest.

I'm in favor of dropping the U.S. Portsmouth system and adopting SCHRS. Imo, a measurement system is more accurate than a reporting system and is easier to use.

I disagree - I think the perfect solution is a combination of both. Use a measurement based system to establish initial ratings or modification factors and to eliminate the [brackets] of uncertainty in the Portsmouth ratings but continue to use performance data to fine tune the numbers. I'll admit to being astonished at how accurate the measurement based systems are but there are still issues and there will continue to be new issues in the future with new performance gaining design features that are really difficult to quantify...canted boards and/or lifting foils for an example. How much performance to you attribute to a canted daggerboard at, say 15 degrees? what about 45 degrees? Over the last several years, I've sailed a Nacra 20 against F18s and I've seen F18's become considerably faster in the moderate and light breezes though none of their parameters have changed. A measurement system just can't have enough complexity and be manageable to compensate for the differences between a box rule development class and a strict one design class that hasn't seen a significant sail shape / performance design change in 15 years.

My point is that where the measurement based system gets really complex and begins to falter, the performance based system can take over quite easily to refine the figures.

Wind range parameters in the Portsmouth system make the system very accurate when they are used (which is less often than it should be).

There are some other issues with performance based systems with rating creep as boats become older and sailed less by the experienced sailors...but that can be managed by establishing a lower ceiling for the rating based on the measurement rating of the platform.

Scooby,

Forgive me if this has been explained before...

Why, in SCHRS ratings, are all one-up boats listed with 75kg crew and all two-up boats listed with 150kg crew weight? Or, without regard to class minimum crew weights?

I'd still like to see the issue brought formally to USS. Nothing lasts forever, imo, it is time for Portsmouth to be retired.

I've said my piece.

Why should it be retired?

I don't believe the reporting is being done adequately. I would offer the stability of the ratings as evidence i.e. if any classes ratings do not change over time either performance has remained constant or the reporting is not being done. USS can not change a rating if there is no data to indicate a change necessary.

It has been brought to the Multihull Council and we have had some pretty thorough on-line discussion. It is a topic for the meeting in Denver. I'm not sure exactly what the Multihull Council can do about this, but we're looking into it. It seems to be more of an issue today than it has been for people in the last few years. Make sure you let your Area Rep know what you think.

Pete

Do you think that official measurements by certified measurement officials will be done MORE often?

Do you think that one-off-frankenboats will carry official measurements?

The manpower required in either system is roughly equal.

Also, unless you've hacked into Darline's inbox, how do you know if data is being adequately reported?

"Also, unless you've hacked into Darline's inbox, how do you know if data is being adequately reported?"

That's uncalled for.

OOOOoOk. Whatever. The question still stands. What hard proof do you have that results aren't being reported?

If your area rep is on an F18 and the gripe is the difference in the numbers between F18's and N20's, do you think it would allways be effective to let them know? Not complaining about our rep, but wtf? The F18 sail plan has evolved quite a bit while the N20 is gathering dust for the past 7 years and the numbers don't seem to reflect this. I mean, seriously, what could our rep do if we thought it would make any difference to complain to them. What would be the next step for our rep?

BTW, I cant believe that got censored! It wasn't even a curse.

Have a frank conversation with your Rep - I find that they're all pretty straight up about bringing things forward. If you don't get the sense you're being heard, bounce it up a floor. General concerns with ratings are, of course, the purview of the Portsmouth Committee, which is not a Committee under the Multihull Council as some seem to think. All the Council is considering is looking at the various options and listening to the concerns in order to determine if action is needed, determine what that action may be, and then work to see the action implemented. We can't (and wouldn't) tell the Portsmouth Committee what to do or how to do it. We can spend some time looking at concerns from around the country, distilling common issues, and carrying the message in a concise way forward. We can also make national-level recommendations (like the multihull courses) for racing, which could include an option for using other ratings systems for some events (like distance races).

I'd heard a lot of concerns about the N20 v. F18 number some years ago, but thought that once the F18 number dropped to 62.4, people were pretty satisfied. Do you have some race data that needs a look?

What about a rating for the skipper level? I could use the help.

It's not being reported accurately or very often. I've had discussions with Darline about it. She has to do an incredible amount of manipulation to get the data that she receives in an operable fashion and a lot of people don't use the variable wind ratings (which are much more accurate than the straight DPN number).

One thing I started to pursue was with Colin - they guy that created Sailwave. He's already doing this with the RYA...but we talked about having an option in sailwave where you select "send results to US Sailing". If you have an active internet connection, it would send a data file to a US Sailing managed FTP site with exactly all the information that can be immediately imported into a database that would crunch the rating calcs.

It takes a lot of coordination to make this happen but Colin is ready and willing to add it if the details can be worked out on the other end...that's where I left it.

Go bowling instead.

I feel that the F18 / N20 numbers are relatively fair. The problem I think Lee runs into is distance racing - and it's going to be really tricky for any handicap system to accomodate that unless you add the complexity of an "angle of sail" factor.

For the record the Area D South data I can get my hands on is given to Darline in SailWave format with wind corrector mods used.

Not to complain, (who me, complain?)

But someone mentioned if and when the modification factors are being use correctly in Portsmouth.


As I said, not to complain, but in the recent past, if I was in a portsmouth class, (which I usually was on my N6.0), that only the standard DPN #'s were used, and no wind corrections, even in bouy racing.

And granted, othing is perfect in this system, and it does usually work pretty well. Maybe thats why it would seem several one design classes are once again emerging.

This is the information that I was seeking. Pure conjecture doesn't get us anywhere.

We also should consider what happens when classes are raced by themselves. Presumably you wont be able to run numbers on a race where the boats aren't starting together. This would make classes like the F18, and regionally NF17 relatively stable since they are class racing in most cases.