The USS website seems to infer that they're already doing what I suggested (the crowdsourcing thing) albeit in a slightly 1990's way:

A second tool is a Graphic Display of Imputed Handicaps as an Analysis Tool that allows sailors and handicappers to develop a picture of whether a given boat is sailing well above its handicap, within expectations, or well below its handicap. By plugging fleet data into a spreadsheet for a series of races, handicappers can develop a picture of how a given boat is performing by calculating an imputed handicap and tracking that in a graph format. - See more at: http://www.ussailing.org/racing/offshore-big-boats/phrf/#sthash.z3T6v253.dpuf

But I suspect that's important for the boat designer/builder to have that 'soft' number and show that this new widget "dominates the fleet"

So while the sailor may not push hard for the rating, perhaps the builder does?

If I understand you correctly, Jake, I would agree that DPN would be better than PHRF because we're comparing beachcat designs, rather than "apples to basketballs" in the mono- vs. multi PHRF system.

I just spent most of the day measuring my Isotope to generate a SCHRS handicap for it. I agree that it isn't "rocket science", but it is not as simple as you make it out to be either. There's no guidance on how to take measurements, and many of the calculations (all the mast, boom, and sail areas) must be done outside of the SCHRS spreadsheet.

I took some values from the factory specs, measured what I could, used some measurements that were taken in slightly different ways than diagrammed, and guesstimated one (I didn't want rig the boat in the rain). I'm not sure I got things right, but if so, the Isotope is faster than I thought. According to Portsmouth DPN, an Isotope (1-up) is 2.3% faster than a Hobie 16 (2-up). According to the SCHRS number I derived, I owe a 2-up H16 11.3% According to DPN, A Hobie 18 is about 4% faster than an Isotope, but SCHRS says I owe a TheMightyHobie18 almost 2%. On DPN, I've always sailed nearly even against a Hobie 17, but SCHRS says I owe an H17 over 12%.

Maybe I got the measurements wrong. I'd be happy to measure my boat with someone experienced with SCHRS. If, however, an Isotope really is that much faster than other sloop-rig catamarans, then I'm less skilled than I thought.

Excellent feedback, Eric. I applaud your initiative.




This is indeed one of the ways the Portsmouth Committee generates the provisional numbers, as I confirmed while helping Craig navigate this.

I've said it before, the best path forward may be to just get someone (here) to step up and join that committee. It's ultimately a volunteer job regardless of which system is used. People do like to just jump online and use the tried and true system, so there's something to be said for that.

Of course, that would add a step and require a dedicated volunteer.

No easy answers, but maybe we should put together a concise list of pros and cons of each system and publish that. We can add tips and tricks as they develop. Thoughts?

Mike

Mike... My understanding in reading the committe's correspondence was... you can generate all of the provisional numbers you want... he won't publish a number without race data. They know how to generate a provisional number... that is not the issue... Race data is their issue. A volunteer cat sailor can't solve that limitation unless you think that this individual should be hunting down race data from OA's that don't send it in. In my opinion... getting race data collected to support a provisional number is the job for the Builder/OD Class association. This was the way it was done in years past. Why the OD organization?... because they are supporting their members going racing. If the class association doesn't care and won't support their members... Oh well... I guess they are on their own here.

Not sure what role the MHC should play in evaluating handicap systems. I would leave that up to each cat club and OA running a regatta.

What we could do is work with handicap committee to get a list of measurers who are willing to measure beach cats according to the ISAF SCHRS standards and some examples of pricing. Then publish this custom list on the MHC portion of the web site.
You could also inform the public on the status of unrated new boatsin portsmouth and SCHRS.


Alternatively... you leave it up to the builder to get the boat measured and generate a base OD rating.... Then sailors who make modifications to the OD config get those changes measured and incorporated into their one off rating.

I'll do it, here are my terms:

DPN is reviewed against SCHRS and any numbers significantly out of balance are adjusted. Because Mark is full of BS and the DPN committee does use SCHRS to create numbers (good on them!) this shouldn't be a big deal.

Current committee has no jurisdiction over the beachcat tables

The Multihull Council may observe and feedback will be accepted and the feedback may on may not be acted upon

SCHRS is offically offered.

Yes I'm a member I had to join to take the Instructor Training class.

Oh, and I'll have this knocked out by the end of the year.

So, when do I start?

Dave.... move on.... Never said this...

What is a fact is that the PN system requires 5 race points to get a provisional entry. You seed the program with a number.... of course the PN committe uses texel and SCHRS and their butt to generate a portsmouth number... (that is called PHRF...)

It ain't portsmouth until it gets data... you need 15 data points to remove the brackets in all the windspeeds.

Why do you want to bust the balls of the PN committe. They are just running the system as designed.



Cool.... now we just need a snappy title for your personally tested and approved table...
How about Cranky Old Ugly Fart Handicap Table. or COUGH for short.

I'm not so good at the branding.... I am sure some one else will give your system a better title.

Of course... most people would just use SCHRS since they clearly don't have the wisdom, insight, foresight or the sheer chutzpah that you clearly have.

Ding,

Most of that sounds good. However, per the regs, we don't own the system, we work with other committees, on an advisory level.

Regrouping the Alter Cup committee took a long time, and a lot of convincing due to this, but we got what we needed, have a diversified committee of cat sailors running the championship, and are viewed as a success for taking this approach.

Mike

Boat measurement is indeed a very underestimated task. The diagrams in the various "how to measure" documents may look simple but there are different ways to interpret them from different configurations and the accuracy of the measurement is a direct correlation of the measurer's ability to understand the intent of the measurement. It's not something that I would trust to just anyone. This is where you set yourself up for silly stuff like foot-strap-gate at a world championship.




You got that right. In fact, a significant number of certified officials that I have come across on the smaller-than-national level suffer from a real lack of practical application. The same would be true if you set up a measurer certification system where nobody fails to make the cut. A measurer certification process should also include standard tools to carry out the measurements and a real world qualification tests where a certain number will fail...but then you will have a hard time finding the people willing to submit themselves to such a critical process.

I'd like to think that the number of folks willing to undergo this type of scrutiny would be low enough to keep out riff-raff, but who knows?

BTW, I haven't heard recent discussions on this, so it may not have reached critical mass yet (to become a real program), but it had high-level interest about a year ago.

The idea was to certify local measurers, who would then be able to work across systems and classes. Mark, were you involved with any of these discussions?

Mike

Mike... about the measurement program... No... I heard about the idea from the local guy doing an HPR measurement that I was involved with.

It seems like a bit of a unicorn tho...

In my area... we are back to PHRF and IRC for the higher performing big boats.. the beach cat fleet uses SCHRS.

They guestimate the Supercat 22 rating and go racing... no flying boats that want to go racing.

Thanks Mark.

All this talk about no race data. Isn't there data available from Europe? All we need are the boat types and times, correct? Why can't we solve the DPN dilemma with data mining?

I know that the Portsmouth Committee does not see this as their role (not even for US data), but since it's in our best interest to make this work, maybe we should own that task (assembling and reporting data sets).

Mike

One of the challenges with "data" is format and getting the information both in a complete and consistent configuration. The creator of Sailwave was willing, at one time, to put an "Upload to US Sailing" link in the software that dumps the data to an FTP site. This would solve both of those issues for people that score their events using Sailwave. Collin did this with a couple of handicap organizations already within the software. Regatta Network, who is already in bed with US Sailing, should EASILY be able to do the same and their scoring tool is getting easier to use (if regattas can swallow the fees to do so - most of those fees are tied to registration and money handling, though).

I went down this path previously but hit a roadblock at trying to have an FTP site setup to receive the data at US Sailing. It's a big "EASY" button if you genuinely think they can do something with race data once it's collected.

The excuse/complaint from Carl is that people request numbers (usually with short notice), but never follow up with race data after their event. As Mark mentions, there are other factors (like the fleet sizes), but the main thing is data reporting.

I've asked why they don't proactively download it themselves from online results, which turns into a dead end (volunteer resources, etc.).

Your FTP solution seems like a logical solution to end that excuse. What was the roadblock?

It's certainly not the entire solution, as not everyone uses those programs or will remember to push the results, which is why I think we need a motivated data junkie to join the committee and solve it from the inside. Can't be a bull in the china closet, that won't be tolerated.

Mike

Mike, a good place to start. A very reliable source told me a few months ago that Jack Giehart (Executive Director of US Sailing) had told him that he was completely unaware of the status of the Portsmouth system and who ran it. They continued to talk about how there should be handicap racing in dinghies in the U.S.

I've tried to obtain Portsmouth numbers for 3 boats this year, one Nacra, 2 RS Sailboats.
I started with the email on the U.S. Sailing Website "PortsmouthNA@att.net), those kept getting bounced.
I reach out to a friend of mine at U.S. Sailing, Nate Titcomb who is in charge of PHRF and etc, apparently he is supposed to oversee Portsmouth to some extent.
Nate tried to help me get in touch with Carl Reigart (in charge of system) several times with no luck.
I finally ended up doing some research, found Carl's number andI spoke with him. He admitted that the system is out of date because no one sends him data to update it. He told me to send him data from another email address of mine, he received it and acknowledged it but I never heard back.
I actually just sent the email again now, but I have to admit my bandwith for dealing with this is low.
If someone could take this up the ladder at US Sailing it would be awesome.
Personally I think the US needs to move on from Portsmouth and adopt something that rest of the world (starting with Europe) with a system such as Texel or PY.

Mike

Before you solve the data REPORTING problem.... First you should ID the Data.

Who are the 5 owners of N17s that have competed in a handicap race on their 17 and what are those events? Assuming the data is qualified... Just that data alone would get you a bracketed entry into the table.

Note... Paying Randy Smyth to race a boat 5 times and be first to finish will not get you a rating... All you have done is generate Randy's personal handicap on that new boat.

Now you can bend the rules... say by deciding not to adjust the PHRF seed rating with Randy's statistics and publish the seed number... BUT it's not portsmouth.... It is a complete ratings table of many but not all portsmouth ratings.

You could ask the Nacra dealers for this data. If they hope to sell the boat in the US.... Recreational Racers will start out in open fleets.

Reporting data on Hobie 16s racing F18s (if such data actually existed) does not move the ball.

I agree with Todd.... Its time to move on... Sailors and their clubs should pick a Euro based measurement system and go racing.

how about the next Alter Cup be Phantoms? Then take times and you can get the provisional DPN. Of course, that means a lot of folk have to buy the boats (or mfg. supplied)...

Jay... The alter cup is a one design championship. It contributes nothing to any handicap analysis or system.

You need a race with two different classes of boats.

IF you collected times on the fleet of phantoms... you would then calculate the rating for each helm and notice just how poorly the third place team sailed to its rating. My point... for portsmouth to work... you need A LOT of quality data.

Just for grins... try to get a 2015 list of WL buoy races with a Handicap class

They have to race against other known values in the rating system, otherwise the data is meaningless.

It was US Sailing. Didn't want to setup the FTP site.