It's called Schadenfreude, 'cause you know, I'm an A$$hole and all. It's kinda fun seein' you take it instead of dish it. Also I got better results on the F-18 than the 20, even with a screwed rudder system.It's frickin' faster on more points of sail,deep down is the only one it's not. I find it hilarious how you have to puff yourself up defending the number when it's obvious to those who have sailed both. Plus where do you think those hotshots in the class came from? N20. I also find it funny how many people are mad I sold my boat.

If you back the boat down to clear weeds in the tacks it's not that bad, I've done it on the A, so it's not conjecture.Downwind not so much. Also remember that the Marstrom never changed numbers when they got curved boards, they didn't have to. It's in the class rules, like a ARC/Supercat. They can go to foiling boards with no number change too, I believe. That should really twist you up.

David, you did not piss me off. I had been stewing over the portsmouth issue since last years Florida 300 and when you did not answer my direct question, I blew a "fast acting fuse".

Brucat, I don't have a beef with you either. That ball is not in your court and you have tried to help me out. I only cc'ed you on the emails so you would be in the loop and might provide additional assistance if possible. I will continue to copy you on future emails but there will only be one more probably tomorrow and I WILL NOT acknowledge any more mandates because it is OUR race.

It just really pissed me off when I specifically requested a week before the event not to be sent an answer because it was too close to the event and we were just going to use the numbers they had been racing at for the prior two years.

Then they sent me provisional numbers right before the event and mandated I use them. I am sure that is the reason one of last years participants is not registered this year and really I don't blame them the way the whole thing went down. Put me in a really bad position and they still have not posted a rating for the boat after numerous requests. If they actually based that "mandated rating" based on a sailors suggestion, I really need to switch rating systems. Next question is did the MYC get the rating from US Sailing? If so was it sailor suggested?

We are looking for numbers for both the Nacra 20 FCS and the Flying Phantom so we can rate them against each other. Because they cannot beach start or beach finish, they are not eligible for the overall. We are just trying to give them as fair a race against each other as we can.

Sorry for the rant and hijack. Our event is only two weeks out.

Instead of using 'subjective' PN numbers, isn't there some mathematical formula, where the weight of the platform is factored with the amount of sail area to give a theoretical target speed?

I'll bet the guys who are designing the foiling AC boats have that formula somewhere, can't we just borrow it, plug in the numbers for the smaller foiling cats, and get some factual potential speed numbers, vs. using subjective, weed clearing, slow taking, good skipper/bad skipper induced numbers?

you'd think the manufacturer(s) would want to share polars to sell more boats (which would also reduce the chance of sandbagging for a sweet number).

But yes, comparing foiling vs. non-foiling is even worse than mono- vs. multiuhull.

What did the moth class, and to some extent the A-class, do when their boats started foiling? Did they come up with some handicap or just split the fleets entirely?

which reminds me.... did someone say there was a phone app that helped you record polars for your boat by sailing around with it?

edit - Sailtracker app says it displays polars, but I can't tell if that's based on actual performance or a pre-established formula based on lenght, displacement and sail area.

Haven't heard of that Jay, but it could solve a lot of problems!

Craig, I don't know why you keep using the word "mandated" when referring to the PN. For ANY rating system, the numbers have to be assigned by a central authority or there's no hope at all for the system to have credibility. Sounds like you disagree with the number that was issued, which is OK, but I have two questions: Wasn't that number assigned based on sailor input and/or EU data? When you finished the race, did you provide the race time data and subjective feedback to the PN committee?

Mike

Craig... can Kattack upload information to US Sailing for their DPN/PHRF database?

If so that would be a really cool feature and provide almost real-time data which (if there is enough over time) could build somewhat realistic ratings for boats as well as classes..?

Moth and A class are one design/box rule , there is no handicap.The PN is the same, no matter what. Foils rate the same as non-foilers.
Saying foilers vs.non-foilers is worse than Mono vs multi is dead wrong, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that statement. Foiling boats aren't the
X-Calibur of cats, they optimize decent pressure downwind performance at a sacrifice (drag) to upwind and light air performance. These are early days still for foiling boats and this will be the first stateside distance race with them in it. There needs to be region (North America) specific results to come up with a number. Give them a chance, if it's still wrong then go burn down your CVS. It's really immaterial anyway, they aren't even being scored in the race, just match racing each other.It seemed last year that the F-20c number was fairly arbitray. I'm not sure how much re-calculation gets done since Darlene passed away. Maybe Craig could score ,unofficially, with other programs too. Such as
SCHRS (?) or Texel, I'm sure that's just what he needs is more work, but it could be done post facto or by someone else. Maybe Mark Schneider, he DOES know his scoring stuff. Timbo the measurement rule you asked about that would measure everything is PHRF and we DO NOT want to go down that road.

Ha! I'll get the torch ready for my local CVS... Because burning down my own house (or store) will certainly get something accomplished

The mutli vs. mono comparison figured mainly with original arguments about multis not being able to point, and therefore gave up light air upwind performance for off-wind speed.

But I think history (and evolution of design as well as changed sailing tactics - footing & downwind gybing) has pretty much debunked that. I suspect evolution of foil design (and upwind foiling as seen in moths and the AC) will do the same.?

But I can see why handicap systems will never come close to actual prediction of performance. Faster boats will always be able to find better conditions (either on different areas of the course, or different time-periods at the same area of the course).

hmmmm... pair that sailtracker app with THIS windex, and I think you might get some pretty accurate real-world polars?

I like that this instrument appears to have a compass in the direction arrow, so it SHOULD be able to adjust for a rotating mast (it says it works on them) to display TWA...

Kind of pricey, but isn't that true of most things?

That wouldn't quite work (you'd need to know when the races started and finished, etc.), but this is close to being a great solution.

At the annual meeting in WI, I asked the PN committee about having race data automatically communicated to them from Regatta Network, or any of the other online scoring programs. He wasn't completely against it, although it would probably take some sort of technical tweak.

What we really need is someone from our end who cares about it enough to join the PN committee, chase down our data, and make sure the numbers get updated. Solve the problem from within...

Mike

It seems to be the common trend for people to use the AC-72 as the all around foiling baseline. They are apples and oranges when compared to a beachcat foiling boat. They have huge amounts of sail area and manpower to get the boat foiling and control it. An 18 or 20' boat does not have the same power ratio nor board/sail handling capability. The foiling hype has succeeded in making those who haven't been involved with them ,think they are a magic bullet when that's NOT the case. This year in the US A class, more non-foiling boats have been on the podium than have. With time and development that will change, but are you trying to handicap the boat for 2018 or now? If the Fl.300 is all off the wind , expect them to dominate and handily, but that's their forte', not up wind work. Distance racing has never done well scoring on PN and this is just more of that. Like taking a hit for a spin on a boat that isn't rated with one, and never getting to use it. Been there done that, it sucks, but that's PN distance ratings. These guys maybe bringing a mini-gun to a gunfight or they may be bringing a six gun, all depends on the point of sail.

Don't care, not interested in sailing against foilers.

I thought you weren't interested in sailing against anything other than an F-18?

You're not. Just in the same body of water with them, at least for the Fl.300. Is that OK? If not you better start organizing your campaign to stop foilers. Map out your local CVSs.

What Todd said. emphasis... its a DISTANCE RACE! Why you think a one number system can handicap such a thing is nuts....

IF/WHEN you take times for your one design race BUOYS race.....and calculate the actual rating for your 3 5 and 7th place finisher... you would be stunned at your actual sailed rating...

SCHRS has been working on how to do this flying boat rating thing over the past two years.... they use the euro data to validate their formula... NOT curve fit to the non existent race data. Its the best we got..

Fact of life... Portsmouth should GO AWAY for use in cat only racing.. It is great for trying to race a sunfish, laser, Hobie 16, foiling A class and an F18 at your sailing club on the lake. ... BECAUSE IT IS JUST FOR FUN and to fire up the BS at the bar..

Given our turnouts these days... an accepted handicap system is essential to even race. IMO... SCHRS is your best option.

Notice i used the word ACCEPTED... obviously .. the lack of transparency in the Portsmouth scheme is a big problem... This is the first time a competitor has failed to enter because of this issue that I recall. ... Understandable tho!

Seems to me it's not that hard for real engineers to come up with a formula that will predict the top speed of a given platform, it's not rocket science, it's basic; weight and drag, vs. lift and thrust, and apply it to any foiling cat. I'm pretty sure the guys at Boeing and Airbus have been doing it for many years. I'll bet the foiling C cats have already figured it out too.

The question is, how are the class rules going to be written? Are they going to allow development to find the most efficient foils?

Here's a thought, have two 'rules' for PN's. "Straight boards" and "Curved boards".

We already have the numbers for straight (non-foiling) boards. The guys who want to foil need to come up with better boards, so they can foil on every point of sail. The Moths did it. The Phantom did it. The AC boats did it. Just do it. But to try to come up with a PN for foiling vs. non foiling, is just like Kite Cats vs. mono-slugs.

Modeling a foiling cat would be extremely difficult actually. It is a much more dynamic system than a passenger plane, and more importantly much less studied. One of the biggest factors is that the crew weight is a large portion of the overall weight, and that is another dynamic component. Sure I could write the equations for level, steady flight based on a bunch of assumptions and approximations, but that wouldn't come close to acting as a vpp.

It may be possible with some of the high end modeling softwares, but it certainly isn't cost viable to use a software package like that for a rating.

In addition,

The game here is to model the entire FLEET of Catamarans built since 1960.... So.... start with the SHARK and end with a flying Carbon 20...

and the data set... is sparse and suspect. Enjoy!

Exactly Mark, it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with any meaningful PN numbers when it comes to the foiling boats so... what's the point?