Gents,

I admit to skimming the previous verbose posts so I don't intend to debate any of the finer points with this post. However, I do wonder why you guys are suggesting such a large deviation from our current Portsmouth system?

Portsmouth suffered a period of inactivity a couple of years ago (for a couple of years) that was a personnel/management issue. This happened about the same time the F16 came on the scene which is a big reason that the F16 adjustment took longer than normal to settle in. However, this was not a flaw in the mechanics of the system itself.

We started this conversation about how to improve Portsmouth and now we're talking about replacing it entirely. Why? Who's complaining?

I need a crash course in the handicap systems. They are designed to compare two different boats on a "time over distance" basis, correct?

In gathering the data from a bouy race, they would need the elapsed time the boats finished as well as the length of the course, right?

And if it's a one design fleet, this information is not usually kept (only finish position), which tends to screw up calculations?

It seems so simple in theory, but those earlier posts are way too complicated. Are they crunching all those numbers to determine a provisional rating rather than a compliation of historical data?

I don't trust Portsmouth.

"a personnel/management issue." That will always be a concern. We must impose on individuals to tabulate the data and trust the data is provided to them.

With a measurement system, once the data is provided, the work is done. If the data is not provided, the boat shouldn't be rated.

All of the systems being discussed are "time on time" so no course length data is needed.

Data gathering and processing is the major flaw with PH. Scoring once numbers are established is relatively easy.

The problem, as it stands is that good data is hard to get. Every race has situations that skew data...wind shifts, pressure holes, bad starts, 360 turns, wind shadows, etc. that are uncompensated.

If there was an oversite committee as part of the PH system, then perhaps some of this could be filtered out. I believe a trusted board of perhaps three people could "fix" the anomalies in either system. That is how PHRF works and yes, there have been abuses it seems.

At some point, you just have to pick good people and trust them. A machine or formula cannot accomplish what the human brain can.

I thought you wanted this!

And....it could simple be a way to improve PH. Like I said, no pretense...just sensible conversation.

From a statistical standpoint, since every race has result skewing conditions, they cancel each other out.

I believe portsmouth does a good job. I think we can enhance it a little by modernizing the software that manages it, reviewing the routines for any enhancements we could make, and giving Darline some more help (or helping remove it from her responsibility if that is what she wishes). I am not in favor of the wholesale replacement of it because I feel that it works as well or better than the other options out there. Can it be made better? sure - but I don't think it's even close to needing replacement. You also have to remember that nearly all of the handicap youth / dingy racing in the US also depends on Portsmouth handicap - so the picture here is bigger than catamarans alone and we don't really have the authority to abandon it completely.

The quote with Ding that I had earlier was sarcasm based on the known fact that Ding abhors handicap racing and we've been drumming about this for a while now...that thread was getting more off topic and since this discussion seems to weave into (and overtake) several other threads, Ding pointed it that way as a joke and I was laughing with him (and then it did go that way which is even funnier).

I'll try to read up on NMBRs tonight because I don't remember the finer details of the system...but if I remember correctly, it's a tweak to the measurement based systems to add two ratings per platform to accommodate different wind strengths. It also includes a polynomial trend into the performance curve for the boat to better account for the variations in performance among basic boat configurations. If I have this correct, it's still a wholesale change for the Portsmouth situation and would require a whole lot of new work to be done.

Measurement systems exist and if Portsmouth was to enhance itself by adding some measurement basis, there are other measurement systems that already established the boat numbers and their experimentation is complete. We wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. Wouter has done some neat things but it seems that the other existing systems have already incorporated some of those thoughts.

My only point in this dicussion was, is there a "better" system using measurements instead of race time? And can we not take times even when a single fleet is racing against itself, like at a Nationals, where the top skippers are racing? Then that time can be compared to it's P number to see if it needs adjusting. And to throw one more measure into the system, could we measure the distance from A to C mark, so that when we have several fleets racing against themselves, like the upcoming Perf. N/A's, we can gather some data on speed over distance.

Or could they at least keep the time of the fist boat, start to finish, in each fleet, to see how they compare to each other?

As some here have said, getting good input data seems to be the problem with P number racing, as Jack pointed out above there can be other issues too.

If the energy applied to this thread had been put into Portsmouth this year, we wouldn't have the thread. Pete, you're still counting on someone to do the measurements and certify boats - ask Scoob how that's going. When was your boat measured? I know all the Capricorns in the US have been measured (in AUS) - have any other boats in any class been certified? Estimate that level of effort, please. After you name the measurers.

We are the ones we're relying on to do the work. Portsmouth is a big tent that allows dinghies, monos and multihulls to race - it happens. Don't imagine that the way things are done at your club or beach is the way it is everywhere under the grand old flag. Portsmouth allows for a Hobie 20 with a spinnaker, a Supercat 22, a singlehand Nacra 20 or Hobie 18... other systems don't account for these not-uncommon occurrences in the US - what modifiers are available in Texel and SCHRS?

It seems to me that there is a rush to do some work to set up a new system that will replace a system that needs some work. Do you see? Work to avoid doing work... Someone's always trying to rollerskate uphill.

I hope that some of you will participate in a Skype call we've set up for the Multihull Council meeting later this month - or better yet, if you're close, come to Denver and help show that cat sailors exist beyond the five of us they normally see. This topic is expected to take some time. But make no mistake - those that run it will not always be around. That isn't some kind of warning - that's the fact. We saw what happened last time Darline stepped aside. Nothing. My spectacular failure in the past five or six years has been that I have failed to inspire anyone to service. I can make excuses like, "US Sailing is unpopular," but come November I worry that my term on the Council will be the period at the end of a sentence rather than another line in an enduring tale.

It's all in the numbers.
http://www.schrs.com/schrs/site/exe/SCHRSCalc2007.exe

Cheshirecatman

I think we have a more pressing issue... Darline needs to pass the current responsibility to someone. If not now then soon. I volunteered but was told no, well it was more like F!@# NO! Something about being a DPN bigot or some other rubbish, I don't know where people get this from.

Anyway, taking over DPN from Darline has to be our first priority so the current system doesn't degrade.

Jack I can understand your reluctance to take over a system you don't believe in but, you'll be very connected to it and this will certainly be of value no matter which direction the handicap system in the US goes.

Dave,

I don't think I ever said I don't believe in PH in principle. What I have said is I am willing to help someone make a system work better in our geographic area. I don't want to take over the whole scheme. Only tweak it where we race, as an experiment. If that works out well, them perhaps it might spread to other areas.

You certainly don't want to scrap the existing system in one brash move and you don't want to force any of it where it is not universally desired.

And John, I only checked into Wouter's system to see what he had. It seems that all of the measurement systems have similarities and may only be useful to us as starting points for new or rare platforms.

How can I help without causing grief and concern within the present structure?

As I said in the beginning, I am reluctant to get too deeply involved, mainly because I believe I have technological deficiencies.

I don't know Darlene, but from what I can tell, she does a great job with the resources that are presented her.

However, that in itself can be limiting and hence...discouraging.

Count me out of any Area Alter Cup regattas until there is a believable system.

I disagree that they cancel. They only stack upon each other to further skew the outcome.

Pehaps an interview would be required with each crew as to how well they think they sailed the race before their data would be tallied?

Straight up on Waves

Now there's a thought!

I'm also a fan of measuring our A-C marks because then you can tell how fast you are going, kind of like how race cars measure their lap times. If we would try to always set the same distance from A-C then we could use more data to derive a good baseline as to how fast each cat is, in knots, mph, what ever. But be consistant.

Does anyone know about how far the A-C distance is at the Olympic Tornado events? Is there any specified distance as minimum or maximum? I'm thinking one mile even ought to be pretty easy to do using a hand held GPS unit.

Sorry Jack if I misread your earlier post.

As far as your concern with causing a disruption with the multihull community by presenting a different system. That concern is really a non issue. An OA can use any system they wish right now, so it's nothing more that putting another system on the list to choose from. Currently USSsailing does not mandate that a USSailing santioned event must use DPN. For example as the Area D South rep I could have the Area Elims scored using SCHRF (relax people DPN will used for 2009 (maybe)).

The issue sitting in front of us today (actually yesterday) is taking over Darline's responsibilities. Darline has served the sailing community well and we owe here a great debt and it's time to give her a well earned break. Let's get this action item off the list then focus on how to improve the handicap system in the US.

It's interesting to me that the only people I've observed complain about Portsmouth are the mediocre racers.

The fast guys are oddly silent...

Erm, we do not need to have "modifiers". a boat is a boat. Get it measured and you have the rating. No need to have "modifiers" to cater for this.

Put a bigger (or smaller) sail on your boat? Get it measured and you have the new rating.

Want to leave your crew at home? easy, plug the numbers into the rating engine and this will give you a rating (assuming you leave the boat the same).


The whole point of measurement systems is that you do NOT need to have "modifiers" as the measurement rule already deals with this. No need for a "out of class" sail modification, just get it measured. No need for a "outsize" sail modification, just get it measured.


John, give me a call on Skype to discuss if you want to understand how simple it is.

It keeps them from seeming arrogant, IMO. If, like me, you are mediocre or worse, a bogus system turns climbing a mountain into trying to make **** run uphill.

In any case, I have it on good authority, that the folks who are legitimate contenders would prefer a "quieter" race course.