First; the F16 rating debocle was not the failure of Portsmouth. It was a failure of the people running it at the time. The launch of the F16 coincided at the time the management of the Portsmouth Handicap numbers transitioned to new management. Very few people understood the software, it was old and difficult (nearly impossible) to run on a modern computer, and the new management was not able to respond quickly. Ergo, the F16 existed with an unadjusted number for an extended period before Ms. Hobock reclaimed the role and immediately started updating Portsmouth which saw a quick and steady correction on the F16 number. Now that she has passed on (God bless her), there is new management in place that looks like they're getting a good (and very responsive) handle on things.

Some of you guys think a handicap system should be perfect - fact is that it is not possible to make a handicap system perfect in sailing or any other sport. The world just doesn't work that way. It's not the nature of any handicap system. We have two basic types of handicap systems available; Portsmouth - based on performance data and Texel - which is based upon strict math using boat design parameters. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses. With Portsmouth, the weakness is establishing a rating on a new boat with no performance data and rating creep for boats that age and don't have top sailors on them (although there is some statistical math in the formula to reduce this effect). With Texel, the weakness is a rigid formula that can't account for small differences between boat designs and the potential that manufacturers can start designing boats to leverage weaknesses in the formula (like monohulls do with all their measurement based rating systems). Both have strengths; for Portsmouth, it's potentially a more accurate system as it is flexible and accommodates small design differences between similar boats and is designed to change over time. For Texel, it is easy to establish a rating for a new boat. Both systems are quite accurate as far as handicap systems go.

Which is better? It's a personal preference. I personally feel like they both are good systems and take no issue with either. When I race under handicap I expect there to be differences in the ratings that I need to overcome. It's part of the program...hell, it is in the brochure.

Do I have a problem with the Portsmouth Rating on the F20? No. It will shake itself out - it's how the system works. It's how it was designed to work. Is it an accurate rating? Hell if I know - the design has barely even hit the water in Europe. I just want to see the sucker fly and if it beats me it won't be any different than when Mike beat me out of 1st place by two points two weeks ago on A-cats.

Sh*t's weak and MYOFB, geeze guys way to think it through.

Put your personal feelings for Mark aside for 2 minutes and read what he's saying. All he's saying is the brackets (provisional number) need to stay on until there is supporting data for the number and all that means is the F20 cannot be used at the Area Qualifiers for the Alter Cup. I for one am in 100% agreement with Mark on that point. The Area Qualifiers have their own issues and allowing boats to be used at a qualifier that have unsupported numbers is a bad idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but nobody said anything about using the boat in a qualifier except Mark. The boat does have a provisional number which does not currently allow it to compete in the Alter Cup Qualifier. Is 5 events enough information to establish a non-provisional number? If that non-provisional set point was increased from 5 to, say, 10 we are probably going to lose 1/3rd of the existing Portmouth non-provisional numbers to provisional status since so few regattas submit results.

Leadership! He can't wait for a new boat to show up and then just tell them no! I can't wait to see this boat on the water, but not at a qualifier without the proper number.

Since when did Mike say he was going to use it in the qualifier?

I'm pretty sure he's got at least 8 other boats he could use for that event

That isn't the point, imo. It is still a question of leadership and being proactive; making sure policy and procedure is well understood before problems arise.

You are correct Jake, nobody but Mark and I said anything about using the boat at the Area Qualifier, but in my opinion the only place this is an issue is at an Area Qualifier so that's the context I used. In fact, based on Marks comments it appears he believes anything outside an Area Qualifier is also a lesser issue but, I could be wrong which has been known to happen from time to time, you know cause I'm old.

From my perspective, the F16 original handicap number was derived from Taipan 4.9 numbers with an adjustment for spi and other factors (there has been a lot of discussion on the how's of this). As soon as there was enough critical mass for a F16 US Class Association, the Association lobbied for D-PN changes (rightly or wrongly dropping the 1-up number) and actively pursued results to submit to the Portsmouth Committee - which contributed to changes in the rating.

I only point this out because your post could be misconstrued, by the uninformed, that F16 sailors were intentionally misleading the Portsmouth Committee. The actuality is the lack of results (and/or the in-action upon available results - numerous reasons and not placing blame) and rapid optimization of the F16 platform led to a "slow to correct rating". The only thing F16 sailors didn't do is request a lower handicap number at local regattas - which I have never seen done by a H17 or a F17 or any other suppsoed "cherry handicap" boat.

I, too, wish there was a way to get to the "proper" rating quicker - but I think singling out the F16 as a FUBAR does an injustice to the F16 Class. It may be the latest example, but that does not mean any more than the systematic approach to zeroing in on a number may need to be reviewed (as you alluded to lower in your post).

About the regatta...

There is a local N20 sailor that is looking for crew - we need to find the guy somebody so he can play with us (and hopefully get him to put that boat on the trailer and head down the road occasionally). Anybody up for crewing on a 20 this weekend just outside of Charlotte, NC?

Ah you edited your post...

No, 5 events as described is not enough to remove the brackets in my opinion. And Yes, there are a LOT of boats that currently don't have provisional numbers but by all rights should (SC22, SC20 (tall rig) and M20 all come to mind)! If I were the supreme ruler of the DPN universe there would be a truckload of boats with brackets! Heck, I'd even take it a step further and use SCHRS as a base then allow the number to move as supporting data dictated. But on the flip side, as the talent moved out of the class the boat would not be allowed to get slower. Yes I know... I'm a dick.

I don't read my post well enough before I hit submit and end up editing them a lot after the first one goes up....apparently I'm getting old too.

I don't disagree with what you said - but I'm not sure about what impact changing the quantity of results required for provisional/non-provisional might have on the qualifiers and who can attend. It would take some investigation and historical scenario math.

Regardless, I think everyone gets too worked up over handicap racing. It's not perfect nor will it ever be.

+1 So move your suggetion up the line and see how it is received. Imo, it is a perfectly reasonable way to modernize the numbers.

And Jake my friend that is the tough nut to crack! When looking at the data you can't ignore the talent on the boats contained in the data. We both know how difficult it can be to rank sailors nationally even when they are sailing the same boat. Then when you throw in the different boat variable... holy headache batman.

Yes I know we aren't ranking teams and boats but the thought process must be very similar when you are determining if a number should be adjusted.

I was only talking about the boats that might drop to provisional status due to changing the requirement from 5 data references to 10....they would no longer be eligible to compete in a qualifier - so was wondering how many boats that might cost the events. That wouldn't be so tough....and it's probably a pretty small number but it still is going in the wrong direction toward boosting attendance.

Help a fellow cat sailor out. Tad, fly in like the rock star that you are. I'll come pick you up at the airport.

I'm a grossly overweight and fat Suck Star right now.

The plane couldn't take off with me in it. Much less a boat float with me on it.

Put down the bon-bons and take the dog for a jog!

I knew that's what you meant but chose to talk about the tougher nut. The debate about tightening up the handicap system at the cost of reducing attendance would probably turn into a circular argument anyway because I'd take the position that if the system was tighten up the potential loss of participation might be offset by those long disenchanted by the current system. I know there are DPN haters out there and many have simply buried themselves in their own OD and formula classes, so I yeah I might be reaching a bit.

I also do not want anyone to think that I have in anyway soften my position on open handicap racing. I'm still a hater.

JC and I are stating P90X like... tomorrow.

Be sure to post pictures here of the progress. Banana hammock optional.