Traditionally the USSA Area Championships have used the USPN Portsmouth Ratings tables.

My reading of the Area Championship rules would allow any regions to select an alternative handicap racing system.

The choice is between a Portsmouth scheme (USSA) or a Measurement scheme (SCHRS or Texel)

The philosophy for running the Area Championships using a handicap system is to allow ANY sailor to FAIRLY compete for a slot in the USSSA Multihull Championship for the Hobie Alter Cup.

So..

Would you support your Area Championship switching from a portsmouth system to a measurement system? WHY?

If you support a measurement system... Which one? and Why?

I support a change for the Area Championships... (assuming your area actually wants a championship... sigh!) because a measurement system is instantly fair and absolutely transparent.

A measurement rating system is 100 percent inclusive.... no class of boat can be excluded. The measurement rules are published and an independent measurer certifies the boat is what it claims to be. US owners with rare or unique class boats can pay for the measurement and go race against the fleet fairly.

Measurement systems are fair. Europe has the most active cat racing scene and they use either TEXEL or SCHRS and by and large believe these two schemes are fair. They have high participation in handicap races.

USPN has real issues generating fair ratings for new classes of boats and the process for generating fair ratings has obvious systemic problems. Specifically, there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data necessary for getting an fair portsmouth rating with classes of of one or two members and new classes.

I support Texel over SCHRS because I see a periodic review process for the Texel rating system. The Texel Committee has a huge stake in generating a fair system in order to keep the enormously popular Ronde Texel race going. If the ratings were not fair...the event would fail. I think this incentive to be right means a lot.

I am all for something more transparent and "objective"

I think I got the pattern. Mark has a ratings rant with every cycle of el nino.

but this is a La Niña year

Mark,

I don't see where the Area Rep has the latitude to use a different handicap system for the Area Qualifiers. I'm looking at the selection criteria and the Area Rep responsibilities pages:

Area Rep Responsibilities

Selection Criteria


Under the Area Responsibilities you find the quote:

"Assure use of US SAILING Portsmouth wind related handicap numbers."

The way I read it DPN is your handicap system for Area Qualifiers. We had this discussion last year and if I'm not mistaken DPN was confirmed as the required handicap system because I was also under the impression it was up the Area Rep which handicap system could be used, but it's not. Now it is our championship and if the issue is put before the MHC and the criteria is rewritten then you're good to go.

SCHRS is my poison. I'm not a fan of adjusting a single classes rating. Fix the formula don't punish a fleet because it's talent rich.

Mark was to chair an ad hoc committee formed in March 2009 to evaluate using different handicap systems with an emphasis on measurement systems. The Council still hasn't gotten that report. That information would be necessary to make a decision, IMO.

I'll just start by saying, a fair system is all that anyone wants. If a measurement system turns out to be what the sailors want, go for it.

Having said that, no system is perfect. No matter what you use, someone will insist it is unfair, and will provide a list of reasons why...

Mark, you made a couple of very interesting points.

"...there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data..." In what day (or age) was it ever easier to communicate finish times? With today's technology, it could be done from the water at the end of each race.

"...enormously popular Ronde Texel race going. If the ratings were not fair...the event would fail." I would be careful not to confuse cause from effect. There are lots of reasons that race is popular, if for no other reason than there are just so many boats entered, and there is really no other event like it. People will find a reason to attend, even if that means changing boats, or just entering to say they did it. The best sailors always rise to the top, regardless of the boat they are on, rating system, etc.

There are fundamental issues with using a measurement system, just as there are with a handicap system. Someone needs to administer it (just like a handicap system), someone needs to do the measuring (exactly who is being paid?), etc.

I can't stress this enough: I highly doubt that changing the system will increase attendance, as that is rarely given as the reason people don't attend.

Mike

Dave, Thanks for the correction.

The history of that line was Darline's request to get the Area's to use wind adjusted ratings versus the flat DPN rating we traditionally used. Back in the calculator day... hell would freeze over before you would change the rating for each race. Once Sailrace (DOS) and Sailwave (Windows) became available Darline wanted to be sure that the data were collected. The best PN data she has was collected from the championships. The assumptions for Portsmouth handicaping are most like met at the championships. Each race is entered into the database under the windspeed it was conducted at... eg 8 knots, along with the elapsed time of each class. The data are then pooled into the categories for windspeed ... eg B2-3 category.

Mark S and I considered a change but we had no inkling of problem boats.... hell!... we did not even have boats... sigh. I don't believe we are required to use PN... but it's not all that important. Me thinks this is a jurisdiction issue and an organizing authority issue ... I suspect that the MHC has nothing but and advisory role in this matter to the Championship committee. Whatever, the Roberts rules solution...

The question remains.... Should we change it?

Sounds like three votes for measurement!

Mark, you're correct that the Council has an advisory role. You'll note that the Council's excom is made up of primarily the Area Reps who conduct the Area Eliminations (i.e., your target audience). If you want the Alter Cup Committee to adopt a different handicap system, I think you'll want to finish your comparison/contrast and present it. I'm inclined to support a move to SCHRS, but not without the due diligence.

And Mike's point should not get lost in the discussion; the only reason we're even talking about this is because the Portsmouth Committee years ago lost the spark plug that was Darline Hobock. She took the committee back under duress, but her heart (understandably) wasn't in it. We'd need to consider who is keeping any handicap system current, and what the likelihood is for continued viability.

Once you go measurement, you never go back. Go measurement not only for Area Championships, but for all open regattas.

I also think all H16s should sport the kite, too. Just kidding.

Change to measurement. It won't solve all problems but it will negate the reporting requirement.

For the record the handicap system used for any open regatta is up to the Organizing Authority of the event with the exception of the Area Qualifiers. So, if you're putting together a regatta just put the rating system in the NOR and you're good to go.

"...there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data..." In what day (or age) was it ever easier to communicate finish times? With today's technology, it could be done from the water at the end of each race.

True... but technology is not the problem. I got nothing to report!

Area C Portsmouth Regatta weekend buoys events.
Rock Hall YC open class (Hobie 16, 17, 18)... and the 16's made class. We don't expect the H16 rating to change... ever!

Corsica River 10 boats... Hobie 16, 17 and 18 and two A cats...

Fleet 32's Spring Regatta... The portsmouth start was very small(memory) (results never published)

Area C championships canceled for want of interest.

Everything else in Area C is one design... even if you have 3 or 4 boats... that is the mindset.

Working your way down the coast.... Next set of results are spring fever which have 13 or so boats in two divisons.... all members of the dead boat society.... Bad things happen to the ratings when you use these data to replace the data when these dead boats were actively raced one design.

Bottom line... the events to collect the data no longer exist in my area.

RE Texel.. The race is popular, They use a handicap rating system. They review it annually and periodically update the ratings. The sailors don't seem to complain about the ratings. My analysis of the ratings indicate that it's pretty fair. Those are the reasons for why I would choose it. Never made a cause and effect argument.

Changing handicap systems will not change the popularity of an event.. Using a measurement rating system will allow a new boat like the F20 to race tomorrow without a load of crap and do so fairly.

I agree with you... changing the handicap system will not effect the popularity of any event. I am not making this argument. However.... one wiff of a complaint like... you are winning because you have a cheater boat... is a real turnoff to everyone. Transparency goes a long way to dismissing the "cheater boat" complaint...

Much better to argue that plate calculation is off by 2% based on your interpretation of the effective Reynolds number at small angles of attack! Tends not to inflame the rank and file!

Administering a measurement system! Problem solved... Texel already does it.. ISAF already does it. Nothing special about the wind and water in the US. If a one off boat wants to get measured.... the US has ISAF certified measurers. They make a living doing this work... A catamaran knowledgeable person would be Carla Schiffer when you need to get your frankenboat rated.

John, The initial idea was to analyze some regattas and use the various rating systems to re-score the events and submit a report. Unfortunately the racing scene changed so quickly that I don't have the data to make a fair comparison. In my other post I noted the status quo of handicap racing on WL races in my region.

The only reason it's an issue in 2010 is that a new race boat has joined the US scene.

I can write up a status quo report of handicap racing. Publish it on this thread for comments. Amend the report as I see fit and submit the entire record to the MH committee... Will that be helpful?

With respect to choosing Texel or SCHRS. I am not a fluids engineer or boat designer and so I can't evaluate or make the case for one scheme or the other on technical grounds. If someone would like to step up and write that portion... Outstanding.

There is a political/philosophical issue as well between choosing Texel or ISAF SCHRS. My suggestion would be to request some advice from the world MHC council and include that advice in the record and this thread. Would you be able to get a brief statement from the World MHC using your contacts?

SCHRS is an ISAF ratings system; the Multihull Commission reports to the ISAF ExCom.

The International Multihull Council was formed prior to the Commission's formation, and has been suspended while most of the same people sit on the Commission.

The issue remains; unless someone is interested enough to put together something for consideration, or step up and helm the effort to keep multihull Portsmouth alive, or attend an event where handicapping is needed, occasional virtual conversations like this one are kind of pointless. We've been exactly here many times before and nothing has changed. Move the ball forward, I dare you.

Carl Reigart is the current Chair of the Portsmouth Committee. There are three multihull sailors on his roster, none of which are currently active volunteers (AFAIK). He would be the one to start with if you want a provisional number for the new Nacra 20. Currently, the new boat isn't eligible to compete at an Area Eliminations, and still wouldn't be with only a provisional number assigned. Looks like this is already done. :-)

SCHRS and Texel have numbers for the new boat already.

Jeezus... just read the other thread. That's some muddy soup.

question:

how does a measurement system take into account changes in handling technique? For example, would the A-cat rating be the same before and after the adoption of "wild thing" downwind?

how about a non-spin boat adding a spin which will allow much different downwind angles/speed?

As everyone keeps saying a handicap system is an approximation at best. Before you suggest something like "lets rate technique" think about how you would quantify such a thing and who or how it will administered. And to drive the point home further, we aint doing a real good job with the current (simple) systems.

The only thing on the table is if the Area Qualifiers should use a different system other than DPN, and right now that cause is a bit leaderless.

The only drawback I know of to Texel is that cruising cats have no chance against beach cats. My guess is that is because the former generally spend all their time on two hulls or the formula doesn't take stuff like "bridgedeck saloon presented surface area" into account. Other than that most people seem to be happy about the latest incarnation (It did take them a while to account for the extra area a square top produces vs a pin top).
When it comes to organizing a race, Texel spends a lot of time and effort actually physically measuring freaky boats that show up. Don't know if that makes it less work compared to sending in the results for a yardstick.