Okay, I'll just crawl back into a hole here, jumped the gun sorry! man this is hard to say.

Mark,

I still haven't had time to read your post, but here is the short and sweet about the shortcomings and advantages of each system:

Measurement based system:

Pros:
- can quickly establish numbers on new platforms or modification factors

cons:
- can be cheated by designing or modifying boats within the gaps of the measurement system (see monohulls)
- cannot account for small (but sometimes significant) refinements of sailshapes, foils, canted foils / lifting foils, etc.
- caculation is complex and has to be applied by an organizing body (so no savings there over portsmouth)...probably have expenses related to measurers as well

Portsmouth:

Pros
- CAN account for minute design changes because only the boat's performance is measured
- Cannot be "cheated" around by new boat designs since ratings are based on actual performance and not hard physical design measurements.

Cons:
- rating creep can soften older platforms that are not as well maintained and typically sailed by less experience sailors leads to inaccurate ratings (an area that can be exploited).
- new or scarce designs are difficult to establish accurate numbers on which can take several years to settle out an accurate rating.


Mark - can you sum up quickly (I know, it's hard) why you think the measurement based system is MORE accurate?

OK - that wasn't fair of me so I re-read your post. I have the following comments.



Portsmouth is reasonably accurate today. Even if we couldn't get more data by making collection and calculation easier, there is more than enough data available to make a measurement based system incredibly more accurate.



Actually, yes it will. The difference will be small but statistics are statistics. If the new Hobie F18 gets around the course faster, it will show in the performance data. Why do you think it will not?



Mark, neither system is as accurate as it can be. Have you ever raced monohulls under a measurement based system? It's awful. The system sucks so badly that they have local measurement modifications that are established by other yacht clubs to hedge the local mods for different boats based on the political atmosphere. It's ridiculous. If you're not hearing the complaints, you're not listening closely enough.



Well..gosh...then why change a thing if they're as accurate as they can be? Please show me the accuracy advantage of the measurement system - you've not provided one piece of evidence. I do agree that a measurement system can respond more quickly to new designs but I also agree that portsmouth can better respond to the small refinements in boat design that the measurement system cannot - which is exactly why I propose a marriage of the two systems.



Yes, you're right. Texel does not use ANY decimal places because it is a measurement based system that realizes it's inaccuracies. Why do you think Portsmouth USES decimal places? Because it's more accurate me thinks.



So you think everyone's just going to pony up $20 for a measurement when they get a new main? you're in the dreamasphere there.



Why not? If you are suggesting that it is because a top a-cat sailor racing with a top a-cat mainsail won't be racing handicap very often then I agree with that sentiment...so what? A marriage of the two systems wouldn't care.

I can't believe I'm saying this - but where's Wouter in this discussino? He and I were working on a combined system to overcome the shortcomings of both systems about four years ago and had started the beginnings of a website before he pissed me off over something trivial.

Well... it really was meant for you and it was meant as a joke and not as a boot in the nuts. It does apply to Mark's post too, (thanks for pointing that out Todd) still meant as a joke. I just haven't been up for a good sh!t fight lately all the sailing has taken it right out of me.

Another soft spot in the DPN system is when a class doesn't or rarely races around the bouy's. This means new data is never submitted for the class and their initial number which is pretty much a WAG never changes.

I do like the hybrid system Jake scoped out earlier in this thread. Did I just say I "like" a rating system... that can't be good, I need to pull back on the meds.

Introduced such a system about five years ago. I can vouch for the fact that it works very well on a local basis. Good spread of boats winning races and fewer **ssed off sailors. The reason is someone listens to them and acts. It only takes someone to get off their backside, look at the local results and see what is happening. Get the participants then to agree to the adjustments and agree to reviews as appropriate.
The advantage is this system takes into account the local sailing environment and local sailors, after all this is where it is to take place and who it is to benefit. The only advantage of an inappropriate system is to the competitor with an under-rated boat.
Get your heads together at your local club and work on a proposal using last seasons results. Model these figures into the finishing times and look at the spread of results. Stop when happy and agreement is reached. If necessary shadow next series to verify new figures. What have you got to lose?

With time it could maybe be incorporated with other clubs data for regional figures.

Cheshirecatman

So your are measuring the boats and assigning a number then you're using your race results to fine tune the number? If you're not then it's sound like you're using DPN and then adjusting the number regionally. This has been done at lot of clubs for a long time and doesn't address a system used nationally. This thread was started in an effort to get one system globally your system could create hundreds of variants globally. Okay I'll come clean... I'm not a fan of tweaking the numbers regionally. It's a bit PHRFish and that my friend is word that needs to be censored.

Please indicate, for the record, that I did not use the phrase but merely made reference to it.

Look, Portsmouth works pretty well and we've watched the F18, N20, H16, F16...all these numbers work themselves out. It's big glaring weakness is new boats and boats without much data (like Dave pointed out, one design boats that don't compete much in open class). It's strength is that it's flexible. It's weaknesses can be overcome by applying the strengths of Texel or another measurement based system for the numbers that have relatively few points of data (the numbers with brackets).

To those who oppose Portsmouth, what SPECIFICALLY, do you see as the weaknesses of the system that cannot be solved by applying a measurement based system to it?

Having raced under the PH#! system, I can tell you that its all about politics and playing with your number and little to do with what happens on the water.

What? Where did that come from? There's politics in everything...but still. Are you saying Portsmouth should be trashed?

Jake, knock back another cup of coffee and reread Tad's post :-)

SCHRS is used as base and default. It it used as a tool to correct anomalies found in club racing, usually with the extremes with smaller or larger more extreme cats. No rating system will ever be ideal and one design impractical at local level. So you either moan about it or do something. We decided to do something. It's not perfect and never will be. If someone considers a rating unfair it is reviewed objectively. As stated it is run locally for local sailors and appears to work in that no sailor goes out with the opinion he cannot win because of his rating. Forget any preconceived ideas you have about national schemes and try it. Even if you only do it as a paper exercise you may actually see some benefit to it. If you don't you will be stuck with schemes you are not happy with based on wide data with possibly very little influence drawn from your local sailing situation.

You have a better solution?

Cheshirecatman

No No No

I'm talking about the PHRF system. I sail on a J29 during the summers that litterally has ratings wars with a C&C99 in the offseason. Whoever wins is whoever had the latest ratings knock. Its really quite silly.

the system is inherently flawed if elapsed times are hidden from the public.

I'm not saying don't use local variants. Clearly it works for you and no matter what system is adopted or modified nationally it will not impact the local clubs in any way, you guys will do what you think is best for your club. I'm just looking at from a different level.

Me personally, I'll never support a system that is based on a subjective review it's just too prone to manipulation.

Geesh - I'm standing right here...no need to refer to me in the 3rd person. I don't have time to digest why you believe I'm misguided here but will try to do so tonight.

Now thats funny!
Did you guys see my post about how things have changed? Things used to be so much simpler, but those days are gone. When Franken Boats show up at regatt's that I help manage, it's hard to get an accurate number. But today, there are alot 1 design boats that are racing DPN(5 or less which didnt constitute a class), and then you have an A cat, a handful of F18's, a N20 or 2, a modifeid this and modified that, a H16 with no comp tip...you get my point?
Will we ever make everyone happy? naaaa

Aaa...coffee chugged...point taken and agreed with.

so we have three schools of thought here:

A) everyone will never be happy so there's no point in putting any energy in making the system better

B) Portsmouth Stinks and we should use a measurement-only system

C) Our existing diametrically opposed systems can be improved by merging the two and utilizing the strengths from one to offset the weaknesses of the other.


Though I agree that someone somewhere will always be griping, it's no reason to not make a system better than it is currently. C sure seems to make the most sense to me.

In the short term, what if you were to score a regatta using both Portsmouth and Texel or SCHRS.

i.e., sail a 5-race series but score it at if it were ten.

5-scores with Portsmouth and 5-with the measurement formula.

It would tend to "blend" the two and perhaps dampen the major flaws.

The main problem in my mind is the extra calculations and hence time needed to provide the results. It would take a very dedicated scorer to take on this extra workload.

Portsmouth ratings do not stink! I am not making that argument. I state the rating system is more or less fair.

The complaint is... The system is falling apart. For example a late season PN correction was petitioned for and granted to ensure a more or less fair table of ratings.

Why did that happen? The Portsmouth process is slow and requires a lot of data which cannot be obtained in 2009 and onwards. The reason to change is to consider LOOKING FORWARD WHAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION for the US Sailing scene.

Take the portsmouth races which should feature the top sailors racing a number of different classes.... the Area Qualifiers. These results are expected to have sailors who could race their boat to it's rating.

The participation and winners are not posted this year. Memory has
New England.... 2 particpants.
Mid Atlantic 4 participants
I suspect the average turnout would be around 5 to 7 boats.

Tradewinds 2009 approxx 5 boats in open class.

The biggest event was Area D South with 15 or so (memory serves).

My point is that the PN system cannot work with such a small amount of quality data.