Mark,

Its lack of information and dispersal of safety requirements for distance races to new teams, because the organizing authority assumes the big boats are following Chesapeake PHRF rules and the small boats CRAC rules. CRAC is a bit less formal...

As to saving time, that is a very bold statement to make when racing under PHRF...F18 rating hasn't changed in years...if you show up with a Shark then we will be afraid.

We want to include everyone, fleet turnout is too small as is, just looking to prevent catastrophe and get banned entirely....is there a reason the gov cup doesn't have a beach cat class??

Mark,

Well said, thank you.

I have enough of a problem with a certain monohull class that believes other boats should't be allowed on "their racecourse". I don't need the same attitude from other cat sailors. The water belongs to all boats, regardless of their hull count or sail plan - and even to boats without sails at all.

To say that a non-spin boat is a hazard because its skipper does not understand spinnaker sailing is baseless and insulting.

1. Just because my boat isn't rigged with a chute doesn't mean that I don't understand how a spinnaker changes a boat's sailing angles and speeds. Please don't impugn my intelligence.
2. I'm responsible for controlling my boat. You're responsible for controlling yours. As long as we both do that within the rules, the presence or absence of a spinnaker shouldn't affect our safety at all.

To keep the sport of sailboat racing alive, we need to include new sailors - not exclude them.

Sorry for the rant - this is a sore subject for me.

Regards,
Eric

Eric,

Appreciate the protest information.

I apologize if I came across as not inclusive to all sailors, especially as there are some very capable and skilled teams on Hobie 16's, Waves etc.

Background: this race is in open water, and teams have shown up with rigging that is 10+ years old, 30+ year old Prindles, Hobies etc. that have not been thoroughly inspected, suffered gear failure, managed to make it to shore but fail to inform race committee, and then prompt contact with local authorities. That looks bad on our community, but could happen to a well prepared spin boat just as easily.

Another factor to consider in distance racing is elapsed time, sun setting etc.

I'm sorry if I'm overreacting. I sympathize with the safety concerns surrounding open water sailing, and understand the need for well-maintained seaworthy designs with adequate lifesaving and communication equipment.

Nevertheless, I think it's a mistake to equate "rigging that is 10+ years old, 30+ year old <boats>. that have not been thoroughly inspected, suffered gear failure, managed to make it to shore but fail to inform race committee" with "boats without a spinnaker".

Sincerely,
Eric

Eric, I agree with all of your points regarding protests and the rules, and share a lot of your concerns with respect to spin/non-spin. There can be challenges running slower designs on long distances when there's marginal wind...

All, I think that in the case of distance races organized by others, it would behoove us to work in conjunction with the OA. Appoint a cat sailor to be the class captain, run inspections, work with the competitors to ensure basic expectations (safety plan) are met, etc. This could be the one small step that raises us above the rest, or could even save a life...

Mike

Hobie 16 ratings have been set in stone... its a yardstick boat in portsmouth. SCHRS adjusted everything 2 years ago.

Gov Cup... Nobody has ever gotten a fleet together and asked. but Since it's a night race... unmarked fish traps suck... It has been pirated at least three times by single boats.

...feel free to insert image of lead balloon dropping here...

Mike

Mike the suggestion is good and makes perfect sense and the lack of response is pretty normal. Heck we can't get people to go to regattas and now we want people to volunteer their time to organize and run inspections. Only the true believers will put their hand up for that and they are a dieing breed my friend.

Thanks Ding. We need to do something to turn the tide, I'm open to suggestions.

The idea that we can just show up and pay to join a regatta puts us at the mercy of other groups' decisions. Easy and painless in the short-term. Not exactly a recipe for long-term success.

Mike

I guess it depends on what you're looking to get out of said event(s). Out to sail, out to race with friends, global domination of your fleet/region/class, etc.

I had a long response typed up yesterday, but thought better of it and deleted it (spared you all).

With regard to distance races, there seems to be a lot of interest. However as part of the OA, it scares the heck out of us from a support and liability standpoint. I don't think a "your on your own" statement on the SIs is going to go too far in the courtroom if an incident happens. I'm no lawyer, so maybe it would, but I doubt it.

Logistically it would be really tough to ride herd on a fleet stretched out across a 20+ mile leg. With 1-design you have a chance, but with a mixed fleet, forget it.

How do you manage the risk and still let the guys with unknown abilities join in the fun?

Edits... I missed Jeff's response...

Jay: None of the above. Simply being invited back so you have events, period.

All: Jeff presents the real issue, and it's not limited to distance racing. One of the goals of the MRC is to help here, but each of us needs to own a piece of it; otherwise, we'll be branded as leaches (or worse).

Mike

I'll happily do the inspections...these boats aren't all being launched from the same area, and that is part of the problem. I'm not running all over town on race day to inspect boats when we barely make it to the line on time ourselves.

SCHRS is updated yearly, F18 is the yardstick. Portsmouth ratings for catamarans haven't been changed since 2006?, the person responsible is sadly no longer with us...a fair bit has happened in the F18 fleet since then, including but not limited to the advent of wing masts, modern hullshapes that can be driven much harder, longer, more efficient daggerboards, and advances in sail technology. Again, I'm only worried about a Hobie 16 correcting if it is a reach, and then only in certain wind ranges. I'm not saying they aren't fast, safe boats (one hasn't shown up to race this event fyi, they are more than welcome!), IMO better built than a lot of boats out there, but the mere fact that an outdated rating scheme is used makes it tough for them to compete against more modern equipment.

You guys need to get out more...

This is an area MRC needs to improve (communication of the following, at a minimum):

The Portsmouth system is handled by a committee, chaired by Carl Reigart. He comes to all of our meetings and begs us to submit data. With this data, numbers can be fixed.

Other members of the current committee include Bob Curry and Jamie Diamond, per the website: http://offshore.ussailing.org/Offsh.../North_American_Portsmouth_Committee.htm

Data is to be submitted directly to US Sailing headquarters (there is a form with the address here): http://offshore.ussailing.org/Portsmouth_Yardstick/Reporting_Forms.htm

Data is power. When a Hobie 16 corrects in front, people blame the numbers (except when we beat you to the beach )... But, as Sam notes, the F18 ratings are so out of date that they're probably getting an unfair advantage at this point...

Hope this helps.

Mike

The numbers are only as good as the data. You should ask yourself when was the last time any of your results were submitted your results to the Portsmouth committee?

Was that aimed at me, or in general? I mentioned twice that the system needs new data...

Mike

The system needs data. well that is a problem and solutions are unlikely.

All of the dead boat society are at least 10 years past their last one design race. Data for these boats is garbage in and garbage out. (violates at least one of the assumptions of the Portsmouth system.) These ratings ... right or wrong should be set in stone.

Hobie 16, 17 and 18 are active one designs and the ratings for these boats simply should not change because you have 30 years of data where they have been the most popular class in NA. The boats have not changed... nor should the rating.

F18's and F16s are limited development classes which get faster over time. This is a problem for portsmouth because the boats coding does not reflect which generation of F18 is setting the rating for a race. Bottom line... The current f18's have a soft PN rating

Moreover, F16s don't have a lot of one design racing So when boats do race handicap the quality of the data is less reliable. (violates one of the assumptions of the Portsmouth system. Bottom line.... the PHRF origin for the F16 rating is probably OK because

Finally, the F18 and F16s need to race against a yardstick boat... eg the Hobie 16 around buoys in a 45 minute or so race.
Not many of those races exist in the USA these days. They race one design and their is no yardstick boats to compare them to.

Portsmouth rating for the A Class is just ridiculous because the
A class are unrestricted development and rating A class means taking the current fastest one. Since the fastest ones now are foiling down wind... Your A class rating is just gonna suck.

Nacra Carbon 20s, Marstrom 20s, Flying Tigers are essentially one off boats.. Fleets do not exist... the Rating calculated is for the skipper... not the boat in this circumsance.

The Nacra 17 is racing one design and the best solution will be to PHRF the rating.

Bottom line....The data have to exist ... IE... that is qualified data before you can run the portsmouth system.

Perversely, the fact that the PN table has not changed in years is a feature... right or wrong... the numbers are set in stone so people just deal with it.

The Portsmouth Committee needs to ID the few surviving Handicap regattas that meet the standard assumptions and get their result times to even have a shot at updating the table.

Sending in race data is not the solution right now to portsmouth updates.

Mike, this simply is not going to happen. Even in the best of times when Darline was driving the bus the data was a trickle and was never statistically significant. Any time the numbers were changed they were done with a best guess and good intentions (much like the SCHRS change).

I suggested to Carl years ago that an audit be done comparing the DPN numbers against the existing popular handicap systems (Texel, SCHRS) and make adjustments where the audit indicated and zero was done. Part of moving forward is recognizing what doesn't work and formulating a plan that might. Until that happens we will mark time for another 10 years, point fingers and do nothing!

There isn't a single revelation in any of the recent threads. Waiting for a consensus or depending on a survey is pointless. Choose a direction select a handful of believers and move forward.

Mark...

No data = no fix.

Some data = some fix.

Lots of folks would argue that some improvement is better than none, and most of us accept Portsmouth as an imperfect solution that takes marginal effort.

Personally, I'd have zero problems moving to a different system, but years of debating has resulted in zero support, and more importantly, zero volunteer base to make the sale and implement.

Arguably, today's Hobie 16s are at least somewhat faster than the old days, even 10 years ago. Incremental changes have been made to stiffen the platform, allow greater mast rake, and improve handling of running rigging to make adjustments and maneuvers easier. Since Portsmouth is based on performance and not strictly design, an excellent case can be made to update the number. Having said that, the difference probably isn't much, and we'll need a bunch of new data to make a dent in the existing pool.

Mike