Who is the -CAT- that won't cop out, when there's danger all about...


the -BMF- 18 and -BMF- 16!

I guess I'll have to rename my boat, the John Shaft!

Can you dig it?

Kris,

Good luck finding one. My sense is that no one knows (or cares about) the difference. If I had to guess, the folks that started it all probably actually thought they were creating a formula rule.

I highly doubt you're going to get a "definitive" answer, especially here...

I still struggle to see where this would matter to anyone, other than maybe a Volvo or AC-level boat builder. Even the sponsors at that level care less about the boat rule, and more about the event (prestige, ROI, etc.).

Are you putting together a campaign? That would be COOL!!!

Mike

I've always thought Formula meant something completely different...

Isn't this a formula:
F18 = 18' length

I'm pretty sure you need some funky symbols like %,^,or@. The = thing is just too easy.

We could always invent a mathmatical formula, input all the Box Rule numbers, such that when you do the math, the "answer" comes out to either 18 or 16.

Where's Wouter?

To me, that formula on the bottle seems to be missing a symbol or two. Has anyone solved it?

Mike

In our case (F16 class) the formula used extensively was the Texel rating formula where the result wasn't some 12 meters but rather a performance number (The F18 rating as a matter of fact).

Later in the class history we simplified the rules to a more box-rule type of of class. Example; there used to be far greater freedom in sail area and luff length then now; then we used a formula to calculate a rated sail area and only limited that. Now we have simple max limits in area and luff length.

Other then that I agree that we are all (the F-classes) more a box rule setup then a formula setup. We choose the F-name in order to follow in the footsteps of the F18 class. Not much thought went into that particular aspect of the class.

Have modern, high - aspect mainsails jumped out of the box and now require rating adjustments to build a new box for fairness?

The 'Box Rule" was discussed during the MHC meeting this past fall. Carl Reigart, Portsmouth Committee Chair, expressed concern regarding fair ratings for designs under 'freedom of development.' Following an informal discussion we moved on with no concensus as to whether 'Box' boats should continue to be protected by "Class Rules," or whether they should be penalized according to the current USSA Portsmouth rating modifiers.

My stand is that if an A Cat or "Formula" sailor buys a boat with a used main, he gets a base rating. If he replaces the main with a shiny new mainsail with a different shape, he gets a MN @.995. Unless he/she has an unlimited budget line, he/she better make a wise choice. Eventually, the Class Rating will be controlled, for all Class designs, in fairness under the PN Committee.

Check out the real meaning of 'Corinthian Sailing' sometime. You might agree that the AC is the purest example of "Corinthian Sailing." How many of us can afford that arms race?

PHRF and PN handicappers need to be at home now.

What's the logic there? To stifle development and create a massive headache for race organizers. Class rules dictate what's allowed for each class.If the sail doesn't fit the class it already get the penalty. A rating committee should rate the class not individual choices that fit with in the class rules. That would be a HUGE mistake unless you are looking to completely destroy portsmouth racing.

Errrr...I have a problem with that. Because my sails are shiny doesn't mean I'm any faster. Portsmouth is a rule to establish a handicap on the boat's demonstrated potential...i.e. if Randy Smyth / Matt Struble / etc. were sailing that class of boat on a boat in great shape. There are a lot of examples of Portsmouth getting things right here. Your proposal is to further complicate things by considering Portsmouth as an number based on mediocre / average result...and that's not what it's intended to do or be. Nor is it how a handicap system should work. A handicap system should rate a boat's absolute potential so that if it is sailed to 100% of that number, it will likely win. Development classes are not progressing at such an incredible rate that the system can't keep up....rather, chances are that some of the better sailors in each area are sailing in these classes.

I don't have a horse in that particular race being as it is US only, but that has to be some of the muddiest thinking by a committee I have ever heard of?
Almost a case of "I'm bored - what can we overcomplicate next?"

High aspect mains with heads approx. 75% of the foot length are showing up on NACRA 20s and the "Box" Formula designs in our neighborhood.

Maybe we should deep - six the modifiers until the Alter Area Semis roll around, and then we can react.

Are 'Box' boats exempt from the modifiers?

My post was simply my opinion. I have sent photos of the sails and my post to Carl Reigart, Chair of the USSA Portsmouth Committee, for his review.

Owners, in our area, that have selected the new mainsail are accepting the .995 hit because they know they are faster. Sail development in the A Cat Class is providing the stoke.

Jake, Mark Twain disliked adjectives as well. How about 'new sail with greater performance range?'

During my 'brief' tenure as race organizer, race officer, and competitor I have learned that sometimes it is best to address issues in advance and not wait on the bar talk to influence a major regatta.

Mr. Reigart and his committee will decide if any action is warranted. I guess I need to get used to seeing more Formula 16s and A Cats rip through the NACRA 20 Fleet in winds over twelve knots.

A Nacra 20 with a non-Nacra main should get a hit on their handicap anyway.

The point I was making was that while some of these development classes have the "potential" to see someone develop a particular sail suited for narrow wind ranges, it just doesn't happen. Added to which, nobody is making some gigantic leap in performance just because they have a big square head sail. While the appearance may be startling, it just isn't that much of an advantage and these things tend to gradually develop and speeds slowly increase over a long period of time...which is enough time for Portsmouth to continue to adjust ratings.

No handicap system is going to be perfect...it's a balance between maintaining a system that is easy enough to use that everyone can use it while still being accurate "enough" for competitive racing.

According to your viewpoint, Randy can take a high aspect out to ABYC for the Alter Cup. What am I missing here?

The obvious rebuttal should be, "No, the boats are supplied by the manufacturer for rotation among the challenging teams." Am I close?

The NACRA 20 Class Rules - now that's bordering on arrested development at best. So the NACRA 20 Class owners, the Hobie Class owners, and the Hobie 20 guy (say someone like Brian or Kevin) that wants to convert from pinhead to high aspect must live by the rule while 'Box" designs are free to improve their sails without fear of a penalty.

Then let's deep six the MN modifier and make it fair for all owners. Again, Carl and his committee will be the decision making team. He may feel there is NO material prejudice in the Rule practices.

Have the high aspect mains been showing up in your area in the last month or two?

"A Nacra 20 with a non-Nacra main should get a hit on their handicap anyway." In the face of 'Box' boat freedom under the Portsmouth Yardstick, isn't that principal a bit hypocritical?

Mahalo for taking time with this discussion.

A Nacra 20, or any boat, with a non-factory sail takes a .995 hit automatically. If it's bigger than the factory it takes another hit.Same for jib and same for spinnaker. If it bothers you that an A cat is ripping through your course, then my suggestion is sail your boat better. They might be about even upwind but you should smoke them downwind. I own one of each(n-20 and A cat). In the defense of the N-20s w/ the big heads they have done that because of no factory advancement of the sails.I've wanted to do the same but have held back BECAUSE of the hit. If your competitors are not taking the hit, YOU should protest them. Trying to change the entire structure of the scoring system, and screwing everyone who plays by the rules, because your local guys aren't, is BS and let's them off the hook in the end.I think you are going about this backwards.
Here are your modifiers.
http://offshore.ussailing.org/Portsmouth_Yardstick/Tables_2010/MH_Modification_Factors.htm

As far as box boats not fitting the rules: A cats sails have to be measured and certified to race in their class. Just because the head looks bigger doesn't mean the sail is any bigger. Generally they take sail area from the less useful lower area and put it up top where it matters more.
I think you may be a little confused on how the system is supposed to work.

Wow!

Obviously... the Portsmouth system is fundamentally broken. Why this is so has been thoroughly debated before. Others are taking a critical look at it and saying err... yes it is.

There is NO FIX to portsmouth in 2011.

Simply declare it Performance handicap system and let your local board run a set of ratings...

The pretext that the table of adjustment factors are accurate is a giggle... That is why they are not allowed in the Area Qualifiers.

A better solution is to use ISAF SCHRS...

Todd

The Portsmouth Rules on what constitutes a CLASS have never been codified.

We have single one off boats in the ratings table in the past.

Even better... find another owner... agree on the details and create a new class.... The committee will make up a rating and time will tell if the world thinks its accurate or not. (most likely... they just calculate the SCHRS rating and squeeze it into the PN table.... sausage making is never pretty... but using SCHRS to make a Portsmouth rating is pretty fair.... Much much better then PHRF solutions.)

Hey now,

We are headed in the same direction in PHRF Multihull corrections. If ya don't think the F Boat trimaran owners are pushing out the box, then have a Coors light and take a nap.

USSA and area association handicappers for displacement and sport boats have been protected by the "backstay angle." How much head design and development can occur on a J 29?

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, so to speak. At this point in time the PY Committee may need to check for a "double standard."

Factory driven Classes are being prejudiced under the system. 'Box' boats are receiving "get out of jail free' cards at most regattas. I'll take the Goodall main from our Viper and lay it over the Schurr main in the loft this week for a picture.

Comparing the big multihull problem to the Beach cat problem is not a useful comparison. The big mulit's only race handicap and I can think of at least 5 unique handicap rules in play.
(California, New England PHRF, Chesapeake (measurement) Great lakes and Florida PHRF handicap systems. Certainly the Chesapeake raters don't want to change to PHRF)

Now compare that to the beach cat scene.
Fact of life... the racing classes where racing sailors campaign a boat are hobie 16, A class and F18s... with the F16's hoping to grow. They simply do not want to handicap race. The remaining classic Hobie classes are also one design.



The huge number of boats on the PN list are now 15 to 20 years old and they simply are not being raced ... They show up for a club race or epic event once a year or so...

The actual need for a handicap system is really quite small. A 20 year old boat with 10 year old race sails will simply NOT sail to it's number... I don't care who is on it. The rating system should not show you any love either!

The only other popular factory boat still racing is the Nacra 20 and they have refused to move with the times. ... rewrite the class rules and they have no problems... (and a better ride)

So... for 2011.... There are only two buoy races in the mid atlantic and north east that will have more then 10 boats in handicap... WRSC Pumpkin Patch and the Canidequa Open. Given the landscape in 2011... use SCHRS...
We have no area qualifier scheduled in C.