I've already got too much on my plate with Endurance Series, Florida 300 and now Hiram's Haul. My boat has been dry docked over a year now. Plus I HATE numbers.

****.

Wow... Jake and Dave agreeing with me.... about the need to make Portsmouth...extinct... The less I say the better...(grin)

Can someone point me to a single windward leeward race with a Nacra 17 racing against an F18 or a Hobie 16 in the North America region. The more numbers of boats in a class helps alot.

(I really would like to see the link to the results page)...

Mind you... The Portsmouth assumption is that the single Hobie 16 or the single F18 is sailing the boat to its rating... eg... This is the ONLY data that will lead to a rating for a N17.

The issue is not about reporting data.... the fundamental problem is generating data.

The only practical, transparent, non political solution is SCHRS... (Texel is in dutch... while SCHRS is in english.... QED)

Boats that need to be measured are
Supercat 22
Hobie 20 (USA version with comp tip)
Nacra 6.o NA
Isotope
Shark

Bastard configurations where you single hand your Nacra 20 are an issue as well.

Until you actually measure a few of each of these classes.... guestimate the rating and use the published table.
Sandy Hook Catamaran Club, and West River Catamaran Racing do this now for their weekly racing.

They use Texel here in Singapore. I can ask if they have a copy of the rule in English.

I think Mark was saying that SCHRS is basically Texel in English.

I think we can agree to disagree whether the real problem is data reporting or generation. While most events are OD (and always have been, BTW), what data we do have is not being reported.

In practice, smart RCs don't mix spin with non-spin. No one racing wants to sit around that long waiting for the non-spins to finish (or cause the faster boats to wait), and no matter who wins, the numbers are blamed (even more so so than when like boats race together).

As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?

Before you say that changing systems will improve dealing with new boats, it will only replace one problem with another. PN works for the most part, but the committee needs some new blood to get it back on track. The other systems will need measurers and administrators, and a lot of setup, communication and promotion, in addition to just new blood.

The grass isn't always greener. Has anyone asked sailors, OAs and RCs using the other systems for their thoughts on the pros and cons of each?

Mark, you've been the biggest proponent of making this change, but have not stepped forward to implement, why should we expect someone else to? We can't get folks to send in data, do we really expect to be able to support a new system?

Again, I'm not saying we MUST use PN, but I for one am not yet convinced that there's a better solution. Show me the data, the proposal, and the team who will implement, and I'll go to bat for you at US Sailing.

Mike

This is spot on. PN is a very good rating system. You have percentage of time handicapping with different wind conditions to take into consideration. As a system it is very good. The only issue is what will be the same with any system. Who is going to update the rating to increase reliability and fairness. Let's figure out a way to get it more updated.

Cheers.

You're right Mike, and I apologize. I should be using the generic "handicap" term rather than any particular system...

Firstly, I accept handicap racing for what it is:

an excuse to take my "dead boat society card" around buoys while making a lot of noise (and occasionally humping a barge buoy) in order to drink and tell lies later

That being said, if I were REALLY grumpy about how bad I sail where would I start the process of changing my rating?

Would I have to start with knowing all my measurements (let's assume it's a stock boat)?

And then I would need a lot of results from area regattas with similar design boats (most are now heavily modified)?

Did I miss that page on the US Sail website on how to change a rating?

OMG! I remember someone made that argument back in the 60s!
An early foiler.

The idea of gathering meaningful statistical data is a fantasy and we really need to stop hiding behind the idea that if we could get race results the system would fix itself.

How many regattas have a single start same course format? Now that area qualifiers are gone I'd venture a guess that the number is extremely small. You also need to keep in mind distance racing data is NOT considered in the statistical analysis.

DPN has simply evolved into a PHRF model which is easily the worst handicap system on the planet! In all fairness even Texel and SCHRS are PHRFish in there arbitrary adjustments.

I would be perfectly happy if the DPN numbers were bounced off Texel and SCHRS numbers and any place there was a large deviation an adjustment would be applied. Not perfect but still better than not doing anything at all.

FYI, I did make this same proposal years ago and it went nowhere so I'm not remotely intrested in working with the current committee.

Wait what now!? You mean to tell me in europe the beachcat center of the universe the F18 is rated significantly slower compared to the A cat and F16 than in the US (DPN)!? Interesting, Todd H. any comments?

The lower the number the faster the boat.

The SCHRS has developed into quite a meaningful handicap method for Cats, it has got a lot better over recent years and already has a foil input for the lies of the A's. It does not quite yet handle weight correctly in my opinion but it has got better.

Where it does fail and fail badly is the conversion to PY numbers, we regularly sail in mixed fleets and I can't think of a Cat handicap winner in the entire time I have been racing at our club.

The RYA and Sailwave have combined to try and get the PY handicaps more reliable with automatic downloading of results and suggested club PY numbers. With very few clubs running mixed cat and dingy races, there simply is not enough data to really establish meaningful results and as the PY smoothing software will only make small ammendments each year, it will correct itself but may take more than a few years. Most clubs in the UK seem to use the SCHRS PY conversion.

In summary the SCHRS and Texel are good to getting very good, the PY is getting better with its automated downloads of data ( bigger pool of boats in bigger number of races ) somewhere in about 10 years time they should finally converge.

You know... now that we have some great GPS tracking units and analysis software, isn't it time the Race Committee's started setting courses where the A and C marks are exactly 1 nautical mile apart, and then they could keep the lap times or total time for each One Design race, and then we could compare the real speeds of each fleet.

Still, even the best guys who consistently finish in the top places will tell you they have never sailed a 'perfect race'. So even they are not always sailing the boat to it's maximum speed potential, but at least if we are all using the same distance/course, we will have a better comparison of relative speeds between different classes, than we have today.

Now... what to do about the Foilers? I say we should have a "Speed Week" type event, where all the top foiling teams show up and again, race around the same 1 mile course for best lap times. Then put them on a long reach type course, over a measured mile (or two or three miles) and again, look at the times/speeds.

One day of A to C type racing, second day is 'drag racing' for best times. I think that is the only way were are going to be able to nail down realistic handicaps for foilers.

Looks like the same ratio to me. I think you're stretching again trying to justify your gimme number while bitchin' about JC's. Shame on you.

Wait, now we're looking at data and saying that the PN numbers are actually pretty good? What are we ever going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks?

Timbo, we track our marks by GPS already, so that math is easy regardless of the distance chosen (simply divide the time by the calculated distance). One mile legs are very short for our boats, so you'd need to do a bunch of laps to have a good race, and the spin crews will hate you for that.

Mike

Administration is International ISAF committee with Representation by national members. I represent the USA.... Happy to hand this over to an engineer who could contribute a bit more then I can!!!
(but you know that)

Your premise that there is an accurate rating table is a unicorn…. Find one system, used in the world that sailors agree is “accurate”
I have done Jakes calculation comparing time deltas for each and every update of the ratings….. It’s a matter of opinion what is accurate… as Todd replies to Dave…. Looks like the ratios are the same…. So…. You can argue this … till you die.

So, you won’t find an accurate ratings table under a rock or patch of weed…
What you will find is a group of owners who forge a consensus… that XXX sucks but it sucks less then all other attempts in the past…. AND we are willing to pay XXX for its administration.
The group of owners then go out and get Official Sanction for their rating system… Big boats now favor HPR…. And pay 500 to 1000 to get their boats measured while the last great hope… IRC (pay about 100) has collapsed in the US.

So... the last time we made a change... from NAMSA to US SAILING... There were no compelling issues driving a switch…(as their is currently) Rather… US Sailing, with Darline at the helm decided to work extra hard at getting beach cat ratings updated in the US Sailing run successor to the Dixie Portsmouth system. There was no “The Man” telling clubs and sailors what to do…
So… monohull sailors saw the regionally run system now administered by US Sailing (and the Dixie label was dropped…. )had value as a national system run by the National sailing body and supported it. US Sailing Sanction mattered for widespread acceptance…. Likewise, Catsailors, decided that national sanction was important and cat clubs around the country voted to run their events under US Sailing Portsmouth.
The current UPSET is that US Portsmouth won’t do its job of nationally sanctioning a rating (bogus or not)… So… national sanction matters to race organizers…. Because it does.
So… in the US…. What could you do…
Step One, get the active one design classes to vote on their preferred handicap system.
A dated Portsmouth system that creates ratings for all recent designs using PHRF principles to stay current Or a measurement system administered by ISAF via the SCHRS committee.
Step Two, get Organizing authorities who run handicap races to make their preference clear in their NOR… (Sailors ask for and get what they want)
Step Three, Ask US Sailing to make the recommendation that beach cats use SCHRS for racing and Portsmouth/PHRF for mixed fleet (lasers et al) racing.
Its about getting a consensus and authority sanction for a system with transparancy and pretty good accuracy
.
At the national level, It starts with the OD classes who represent their sailors and do their part to LEAD. At the local level, some clubs have already jumped from Portsmouth/PHRF to SCHRS

SCHRS is transparent... the rating formula is published and applied to all cat classes to get a rating. NO PHRF principals/ vodoo opinion applied. No need for large amounts of QUALIFIED race data to get ratings.

Yes… its spring time again.!

Thanks Mark,

I disagree that the PN committee "won't do its job." They are not very responsive (a big problem, but solvable). They take time to issue a provisional number (in theory, this is better that knee-jerk). They need race data to validate/update the ratings (we need to step up).

You seem to have a vested interest in a different system (you're an ISAF rep?).

Jake's calculations show some pretty dramatic differences (still, no one has recalculated some regattas to see if the results would have changed).

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but until that is explained and addressed, I have to conclude that changing systems is a horrible idea at this time.

Edit: BTW, good luck convincing anyone, especially H16s who never see spin boats again after the weather mark (unless it's blowing 25-30 knots), that they should change to a system which gives them LESS time!

Mike

Interesting that the "gimme" number didn't work out all that well for you and that's with probably one of the most tallented multihull crews in the US. Is it really that hard to do as you're told?

Interesting that you call it JC's number and not the the F20c foiler number Todd.