Jeremy.... those sailors who get creative with their boats... don't use up volunteer time! They pay to get their boat measured.

Volunteers are needed to get the race data... send the race data in... Track down regattas that haven't sent in race data. (Darline scoured the internet for data). Process and score the race data... evaluate the changes.... In each country with a PN system.

SCHRS has volunteers as well but their efforts serve the world wide community of cat racing. Great bang for the non existent buck!

Do you really think your gripe is going to help progress cat sailing?


Cheshirecatman
[/quote]

IN A WORD -----YES.
THhis thread is asking Texcel or SCHrs if airing my "gripe " again ! lets people know about the intricacies of the schrs formula/s - then yes it is helping those choosing a system and progressing cat sailing for them, in the USA there may be many cats built and not schrs measured pre 2007 with short waterlines that would be disadvantaged relatively if the US sailors adopted schrs .

As for your other comments , I help administer cat ratings at my club --- the only cat class racing club in Scotland , I have helped others with ratings in the past ,but would find it unjust to adjust mine , partly as i've sailed cats for 20 yrs or morre i can still sometimes sneak a lead on my less experienced rivals - I would prefer a rule that MEASURESALL BOATS IN THE SAME WAY .There are calls for Texcel in my club , but i'm still pushing for schrs in the hope one day it will sort it self out , I want lots of cats racing , I don't care about winning , just peeps to race againstge .
I spent 10 years sailing "one design" hurricane 5.9s in their developing guises , but lost regular crew .
Hence my return to solo sailing . If you can point me at a class where 118kgs is competitive I would be most obliged , oh and if you have a miracle way of me losing weight that would be good too , when I became insulin dependant I was only about 75kgs !! and 6'2" , ironic isn't it !

I agree that timeliness could be an advantage to a measurement based system - but how long would it take to derive the formula to account for sail improvements? It wouldn't happen the day the change happened.

You have hit on the crux of the issue here. For me, it boils down to your claim that Portsmouth is inaccurate. If someone can quantify that there is a significant inaccuracy (other than the already explained delay in correcting the F16 rating) you will change my mind. I'm not steadfast that Portsmouth is the answer - I just don't see the effort in switching to return much advantage.

+1

We are only talking about championship or qualifying events. It is not the responsibility of the race organizers to supply measurers. Somebody like Krantz would have no problem I am sure getting his boat taken care of if that was the question to race in an event like this.
All systems of handicap have some flaw. The DPN relies on a lot of assumed equal competition of sailors – something we do not see across the range of boats any more. SCHRS and Texel are calculations based on physical measurements of the boats. This provides the least biased formula, but they have some very serious flaws as well. See some of the other many posts on this.

Shy of developing foils like the Moth (and then the calculation would change anyway) no slow evolution really has created too big a gap in how this system seems to work. A change such as square top sails and reverse angle bows that are all common now happened across all the newer classes at about the same rate as changes in the calculations would have occurred. We seem to bring ourselves all along. Interestingly enough then the 1 design boats like the H16 should be left out in this, but you will see almost no change in the ratings difference even given the “developmental” differences in the other classes. Even in the 1 design there are changes and a new 1970 H16 is in no way competitive with a new 2010 boat. Sails, pylons, hardware, beam and rigging changes, plus the simple evolution of 40 years of sailors learning how to make them go.

Not that I agree with handicap racing but I do feel the DPN is more bogus than some of the others given the state of our sport now.

Completely WRONG.

I tell you the PROCESS IS FLAWED and BROKEN....
The F16 rating was FIXED BY FIAT... not by data. Tha Nacra 5.5uni rating was fixed by time over 5 years. the SC 20 TR was reset to it's historic rating by fiat following rating creep as the Portsmouth process failed.

I am not picking out current ratings that are inaccurate!. I am not blaming anyone... the quality and amount of data don't exist and the process is flawed.

I point to failed procedures and data that took a long time or extraordinary action to fix.

The NacraF20 is a reason to fix the system for the important events like Area Qualifier moving forward.... It's provisional rating is not a problem today. I do not see the PN process improving.

With respect to the need for a development factor in a measurement formula and how to implement or why you need it are best addressed by someone like Simon or the Dutch with Texel. I personally don't see a big problem here.

John:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. But, this where you and I disagree fundamentally: the procedure you recommend, this is just my opinion, is unwieldy in that it is primarily a bureaucratic procedure requiring a significant amount of volunteer time and effort.

As I see it, USS is a volunteer group funded by the membership and imo, those paying should determine the rules. If there is a simple majority of paid members who want a change then change should follow. My remedy is to call for a vote on the matter; if there is a proven desire for change proceed accordingly. If a vote for change falls short of a majority...end of story.

Cheers!

Time and effort to make your case to another paying member that you're asking to vote your way is not misspent. I'm one of those who is not convinced that a change is the answer, particularly when the shortcomings in one system are counterbalanced by an alternate shortcoming in another. The case has to be made; simply calling for a vote won't get it, certainly not for this member. It seems you find the task of making a case too daunting. The end is either worth the effort or not.

Mark, the F16 change was supported by data. The process was slow to recognize the F16 issue due to extraneous reasons that I've already explained multiple times.

Mark,

You have bully - ragged this for two years I know of.

Show up in Phoenix with a proposal and support or deep - six this chatter.

Bert Rice, MHC Secretary

I don't have a case! I'm for a measurement system, particularly Texel, because it doesn't have a reporting requirement and all the heavy lifting is being done in Europe.

I wrote off handicap sailing a long time ago. And, like Mr. Ding, I'm signing off.

If you want to resolve the matter, call for a vote...or not.

I've said it before; when I was Chair and again when I was Technical Director of SCHRS; I now operate as a member of the TC on a consultative basis. We ALL have day jobs.

If you believe there are issues or imporvemnts to be made. Write it up with suggestions. The process has not changed since I stepped down; please submit papers suggesting amendents to Willaim via the SCHRS.com website. We meet fairly regularly either in person or via Skype.

All papers will be considered; those that propose solutions to perceived issues moreso :-)

I think Texel has an up-to-date spreadsheet and calculator which you can use to generate a rating for unknown cats.
Handicap sailing is always a bit tricky in terms of keeping everyone happy but IMHO Texel is a very fair system.

That's what I had begun to think reading the posts... So I would think that basing a measurement system solely on design calculations may not take into account "real world" sailing performance (like faster in chop/swell), which could appear as "a sweet rated boat", right?

So Tad's "cheater" boat which can sail in "fourth mode" would obviously have a "sweet" rating if only the design were used to come up with a number...?

Do you have the $$$$$'s for the airfare???

I don't .... thats the biggest reason I'm not volunteering.

And I suspect neither does Mark .....

But he has a very valid point .... as I try to compete on a P19MX that has a "DPN" rating set by Mr Randy Smythe's finishes. Do you think I could ever sail a P19MX anywhere near close to Randy's ability???? I would like to see a handicap system based on physical measurements of the boat .... not on a few races w/ one of the best sailors in the world setting the pace ...

Harry

Ditto here, David Webb, of Wichita, ruined the P15 number (76.2). You try sailing one two tenths off a Hobie 16! (76.0) Texel numbers look much better.

What about a system that uses both reported statistics and measurements? Is that something that is even feasible?

average the texel and porthmouth numbers?

Portsmouth was begun as a calculation based on parameters (like waterline and sail area) that was refined by data over time. I think maybe the calcs became outpaced by development? The initial numbers for the last few boats I remember getting provisional ratings seemed too slow against real-world performance.

Yes if everyone used SailWave to score their races, I believe it already has a "reporting " feature which could gather race statistics from all over the world rather than country specific.