How many of these illegal sail boats have you protested?
You do realize you're being part of the problem?

This is actually an advantage of Portsmouth if it is maintained regularly - it will move the handicap ratings based on the demonstrated and normalized performance of a class whether it is a SMOD or a box rule. If the F18s or A-cats get faster by developing upside down sails (or whatever), their Portsmouth rating will move accordingly.

However, I think your perspective about sail shape is too absolute - a big head can actually be slower depending on the conditions. In box rules, because they are limited to an exact measured sail area, to place sail area in the top is to remove it from the bottom and past a certain point, we start to make trade-offs from one sailing condition to another. Where the rules and sail design come together is in making a sail that is good and tunable in a range of conditions (since we don't allow each other to change sails during an event). Just because it's different or radical doesn't mean it's automatically better.

Now this thread has become quite hilarious! Keep it coming. I just finished dinner and had some dessert. My popcorn is almost finished. Maybe I'll top it off with some butter BS!

BC

I think a little red herring is in order. You guys are great at mixing popcorn with red herring sauce.

Do you feel the USSA PY prescriptions for mainsail modifiers are FAIR for ALL Class owners?

Simple question, EH?

Frankly, I don't think any handicap system is completely "fair". They're all only good approximations. All have strengths, all have weaknesses. None are exact. Some of you are looking to hold handicap racing to a level of precision that will never exist.

I just want to make sure, Bert:

Are YOU making sure that the N20 and the F18 NACRA, both of whom have non-stock sails...

both their results AND the fact their sails are aftermarket are indeed duly reported to the Portsmouth Committee? From the results posted it appears you did indeed mention the N20, but the NF18 is not noted.

Regardless of your opinion, Portsmouth is clear in that a non-FACTORY sail, regardless of size differential, immediately takes a hit. Should the size be larger, it then takes another.

You may cry 'unfair' all you want but the rationale is that if the boat owner isn't trying to advantage with his aftermarket sail then he wouldn't bother with one, so the burden is on him and he takes a hit.

Huh? F18 sails do not have to come from any particular manufacturer. They just have to measure in. We have an F18 in our fleet that has Nacra hulls and a C2 mast and sails. It is still an F18 and it is rated as an F18. No questions.

I may stand corrected, but I am under the impression that the 'formula' classes F16 and F18 are manufacturer-driven classes, and as such my statement stands.

In any case @BoK, you say that your example has manufacturer sourced parts, however mixed round.

However, Rice's Viper F16, Pedersen's NACRA F18 and Smith's NACRA 20 all have custom sails. I suppose then the question is whether the Formula classes are manufacturer driven or not (except for the NACRA 20 which has no claim to 'formula' status).

As a scorer, then, I say this distinction should be made clear in light of my earlier statement in regards non-factory sails.

It can get a little complex here but Portsmouth recognizes (somewhat loosely) the various rule sets and establishes a number for them. The Hobie Tiger was an example of this complication - Hobie maintained strict "Hobie" rules for the Tiger that were more restrictive than F18. Tiger sailors had a choice to race under the Hobie rules or F18 rules and Portsmouth (for a while anyway) recognized both classes.

F18 and F16 have handicap numbers for their formula classes and though some may have manufacturer specific numbers (I don't think they do now, though) the handicap number used depends on which rule the boat is complying with.

Tami
The deal with Formula, A class and Tornado sails is the presence or absence of the measurement sticker. If the owner has paid for the independent measurement he is class legal and registers and races using the ratings table (Schrs or Portsmouth... no adjustments).

If he has NOT paid for the sticker and independent measurement ... he is not class legal and MUST take the hit on his PN rating... Mind you, It's the exact same sail.

The Sail shapes and proportions between two F18 measured sails could be quite different. The class uses's a Formula to compute sail area and there are different ways to skin the cat. So long as both are measured in.... the racing is "fair" using handicap ratings. For the scorekeeper, either he registers correctly or a competitor protests him for not having class legal sails.

Bert obviously does not believe that street legal F18 or A class sails equate to fair racing under portsmouth stock numbers.

Portsmouth simply can't generate the data to do what Jake and his sail fairy believes which is to fix the ratings with non existent race data. Bert basically agree's with me and says... well, in the absence of statistics... we use other tools... the PHRF rating tools! My position is that Portsmouth is Broken and PHRF is not the best option. SCHRS/Texel have been used for YEARS for beach cats and is widely accepted by most hard core racers overseas as fair as can be.

I do agree with Jake on one point... the precision of a rating system is WAY OVERSTATED.... it ain't one design folks. .... boats overlapped WON"T be discriminated in PN or SCHRS. In a tight race on handicap.... the numbers fall where they do... Is it truly a measure of who won that race... .. who knows!... the precision of the rating system just can't do the job..

Also, people must realize this is just part of handicap racing. ... if 10 perfectly sailed Identical boats hit the A mark stacked end to end.. with 9 on starbord and 1 in first place on port.... the Port boat will come out 10th based on the RRS. a rating system of ANY KIND simply can't do any better. The rating systems we use (portsmouth and SCHRS and PHRF)have resolution that matches the real world... (This is why you don't use the 8th decimal places to decide a winner)

Thx Jake. Went and looked and I see that there now are basic numbers for the various F-classes, ergo not manu-specific, you're right. Haven't had any formula boats at my races, good to learn something new.

On another point, fwiw, some time ago both Hobock and Diamond told me that if in doubt (without measurement proof), to always hit the unknown boat hard, because it's more just to hit the one than (edit: take the chance on punishing) the fleet. I wonder how often that concept gets applied...

Mark, what is your point here? I know I've seen this discussed in other threads on this forum, but the logic escapes me.

In the game we play (per RRS), the port boat is NOT first to the mark. He may physically be at the mark first, but has no rights and has made a poor strategic decision to place himself in this tactically-disadvantaged position. This is true in OD racing, so why would anyone expect a different outcome under a handicap system?

I think we may be saying the same thing, but your comment "a rating system of ANY KIND simply can't do any better" makes it sound like you (or someone) thinks that a handicap rule should "fix" this.

If someone were to complain that because the ratings are based on real-race data, which includes such strategic and tactical situations, they are not a true representation of a boat's speed potential; that's a different discussion, which would require a different approach to data collection for the PN system.

Mike

I owe Senor CatandaHalf numbers on mainsails for larger multihulls using the Texel.AUS aspect ratio changes.

The head and leech profile on a couple of new mainsails for the Corsairs (Dash750, C-24 MkII, C-24 MkI, F-27 Formula) has changed for boats already sailing or sails in queue for delivery. The head is wider. Some sails keep the same measured sail area.

One new mainsail had Area equal to 0.01 meters of the class rule. Another mainsail was 0.03 meters of the class rule and MGT is not on the leech.


Mainsails under SCHRS the rating remains constant with isaf Measured Sail Area (CM) and constant luff length, I think from reading again last night.

Mainsails under Texel.NDL the rating changes on E, fair enough.

Fuzzy statement: it looks like area up high under Texel.AUS will get a faster tcf, ~similar to Texel.NDL with a shorter mainsail foot (E). The direction of TCF change is known, the magnitude of change is unknown until numbers are pushed thru Excel.

The prelim Texel.AUS results look like a T.Speer diagram on lift and minimizing induced drag. Net, a couple of the new sails need to send in their numbers, get measured or declared mainsail specs before their PHRF numbers are set.

Probably the last scenario, I suggest?, based on an earlier dialogue with Mr. Schneider.

Mike...
This rating table is the ruler we use and the issue is... how many fine gradations of the ruler does it have to measure this f18 development.

So... the data we collect is finish time on the race course.. This data has to be accurate if you want to evaluate the true performance of the boat and add more gradations to the ruler.

The simple point here to illustrate the problem is that the RRS of sailing have a huge impact on how we measure the performance of the boats because it effects the time the boat goes around the course. The measurement of the boats performance is just not accurate!
The nature of the game (RRS, wind shifts, currents, and less then perfect sailors and other factors) effects the performance times measured and is just noise.

So In essence... the ruler we use is marked off in 1/4 inch steps because of the noise in racing. ... you estimate where the performance is between two hash marks for boat classes. Now...do we need more gradations... ie should we use more decimal places to calculate finish times in a SINGLE close races?... The noise that makes it difficult to measure a performance handicap exists in every sailboat race... one design or handicap... but you can't take more samples and average the result of that skipper to eliminate these factors. The bottom line is that it does not make sense to use a ruler marked off in mils when the noise for the single race result is so great? Our 1/4 inch scaled ruler (PHRF, Portsmouth or SCHRS) does a good enough job at resolving races as best as you would expect.

Another way of saying this is... the resolution of the handicap table (PHRF, Portsmouth, SCHRS) is limited and matches the noise of a sailboat race. We have a pretty good ruler to measure with... It just is not going to resolve rat's hair differences in performance. Take it to one design if you want to eliminate the boat factor.



No... we can't fix this... and I am not looking for someone to fix it...
Simply recognize the limits of a handicap race. One design will do a better job of sorting out the best sailor from a sailor who differs by just a rat's hair on that specific race.



Well this is true... The accuracy of a performance ratings table will depend on the nature and quality of the data. (Portsmouth has no data in 2011... and PHRF is not transparent) but my take home point would be... SCHRS is pretty good as a fair accurate ruler and very transparent to the users because it is a measurement system with a published formula. Its resolution matches the game. Searching for a better performance based ruler alternative is pushing the law of diminishing returns.

You might remember a Sailing world speed comparison test of the hot 20's back in the recent day. Supercat 22, Mystere and Hobies, Nacra 6.0's... Smyth, Danniels and others sailed the boats on timed legs and the data was published. Still it's a long way to go to create a performance based handicap system from this data. Very interesting... but not worth trying to build a handicap system from it.

The argument that started this is that the formula class development have speed improvements that are class legal... but undermine the handicap system. The fleet is not treated fairly.
My point... Data won't be available to sort this out and get a new accurate rating because the noise is too great and in the end... you can't resolve a handicap race that precisely anyway.

PHRF solutions... eg a hit for a class legal change that is different then last year's model should be .005 etc. are not transparent.. (Why .005?)

In the end... a handicap race won't be able to resolve the slight speed increase that the latest F18 development produces.. In one design racing... you will see the difference.

Before we start with PHRF fixes to impossible problems.. we should move to a transparent system first.

Mark,
Weren't you doing a calculated study on SCHRS ,what are the results.
I think one huge thing you overlook is, who is going to go around and measure the boats and how many sailors will you lose because they don't want to deal with the headache or expense.
Why are we even worried about big multis or PHRF? This thread was started by someone who had a beef with new beachcat sails.let's stay focused instead of taking the same tangent road that always gets taken.

Account for the rules in a measurement system? Shifts, wind, rules, etc. - all these things are applied equally to all boats on the race course by the very nature of "racing"...you don't need to normalize the results for them.

Portsmouth also uses the better sailor in the most substantiated (with overall handicap data) class in the event as the basis for the calculation - i.e. to determine what the potential of the boat was given those conditions. It takes most of the conditional issues out of the equation. The data also has to be consistent in order to be factored in and the numbers need to mostly make sense before the system uses them to change anything. For instance, if a Hobie 14 beats a Supercat 20 tall rig, or a boat rated 68.1 comes out with a rating that should be 130, the data is obviously skewed or inaccurate and isn't considered.

I'm not arguing that it's perfect (or even near perfect) - but to suggest that Portsmouth is flawed because of port/starboard rules or by the conditions on the course is not being truthful to the system.

I can see the purist view of wanting to keep the ratings separated from any other variables. This would require a different system of collecting data, and possibly an entirely different method of measurement (race times certainly won't cut it).

I think the bigger problem is course management vs. how the ratings were set. If the ratings were based on races with an equal number of windward-leeward legs, racing on an all-downwind course (distance race) destroys any boat without a spinnaker.

However, I see this as a problem that doesn't need fixing. There are few (if any) real events involving mixed fleets anymore. And, everyone knows the system isn't perfect. Most people who attend open class events are aware of the limitations and are probably there for a different reason anyway (such as the experience of said event).

And, by the way Mark, this entire discussion is a tangent. The orignal point of the thread was a question of Box vs Formula label for the F16 and F18 classes (why anyone would care still eludes me).

Mike

I say screw class, box, formula rules, and screw handicaps. Run what ya brung.

Wish we could all afford to bring an AC45