The answer to that is easy, give them a shorter course. Difficult for point-to-point, of course, but can be done.

Mike

Not sure I'd hold up the Alter Cup as the poster child of a reorg success story. Turning the Atler Cup into just another weekend regatta and then calling it a success is substantially lowering the bar. I really hope that isn't the approach for solving this problem too.

Using your logic I have suggestion for the Alter Cup.

Bring back the Alter Cup format using supplied boats. Difficult yes, but can be done.

Ding, do we really need to rehash this four years later?

First post: The new committee is viewed as a success by US Sailing. See below for why the format changed (along with lots of other mismanagement of the qualifiers, etc.).

Second post: It's 100% financial. I dropped this goal when Bert reported that it would cost $20,000 to get 10 F-16s.

While I sought out and respect the opinions of the former committee volunteers, had I stuck to demanding that we continue under the old format (and in the unlikely event the US Sailing BOD went along with this), the Hoyt-Jolley fund would be depleted by now, and the event would be dead.

So yes, I'd say working with US Sailing, to keep the championship alive, while being viewed as a cooperative group, is a success. YMMV...

Mike

I'm sorry, I'm in Ding's camp. No disrespect to the winners of the new format. But to me it really meant something when you had to win your area qualifier, and then go on to a round robin event competing on identical platforms.

The current format is just another "open" regatta...

Only if the cruisers are significantly slower than the "race" fleet. In this case, your "cruising" fleet may be foilers...

And cruisers typically just take their own times (or should be required to post their track or photo of GPS showing time & coordinates. They're not getting trophies anyway...

I fully agree with this, and would prefer that as well. I came into the "job" trying to make that happen.

The history of the event told a different story, especially in the later years. Most qualifiers were either not properly run or did not garner significant attendance. Hence the large number of invitations.

Again, this did not happen overnight, and was not done without a lot of thought and effort.

The reality was not as rosy as the rearview mirror. Even if we could fund it, we'd need to overcome the qualifier issues.

Mike

how many USS members are multi-sailors?

If there were enough members, perhaps an additional $10 dues per year would fund 20 boats for the Alter Cup. Which could then be sold after the event, proceeds going toward the next Alter Cup boat purchase?

The Cup would get boats, the mfg. could probably get them built efficiently (since the order would be for 20), the selection of boat design would be made 1-2 years prior so the mfg.(s) would have lead time.

And my dues would go to something we can all see/participate in.

Maybe with the option of not having to supply your own boat, the participation in the feeder qualifiers would be higher?

sorry to hijack yet another thread...

This is really off the topic and if they are cruising but sailing with the racers, what's the point in doing a race other than possibly getting in the way. Please focus on ratings systems not cruising.

I agree with Ding and Mike.

Unfortunetely:

Which of those boats don't have SCHRS numbers, and DO have DPN numbers?

Let me know if/how I can help.

Mike

Too late for this event. I have had a prior work engaguement and wasn't scheduled to be there till late Saturday anyway.

We will look toward getting boats rated for future events. I will hopefully have my 12'6" wide Supercat 20 with many changes measured at the Miami-Key Largo.

Thanks for offering help!

After admitting defeat, I went back through the thread and the quote above summed everything up. This is the hell I am living in right now. Change is tough and the politics and implementation does not make it any easier. We need change but it is not going to be easy and there will always be pushing from all sides.

The last thing I wanted to do this month was to try to take on switching systems. Now that I have tried it, I have a better idea of what is needed from all sides. I have a lot better understanding what it will take to make it work and what it will take to do correctly. Unfortunatly to do it correctly will take money.

Mark and I had a good chat last night.

My conclusion is that we almost need a third/hybrid system. At the very least, some changes to the existing rules (with the challenge of not diminishing their integrity).

Of course, that's going to take volunteer time. If money can solve the problem, even better.

That, and I need to start spending more time on the phone with more of you.

Mike

Real.Mischa showed up with one at one of the tybee 500s he competed in though I don't recall if he actually used it or not. It created a rule edit for the next year specifying the NA sails only for the N20. Just need to be aware of using an existing SCHRS number that might use that smaller kite.

That sounds right. We had a small fleet of them in New England for a while, and I vaguely remember some discussions about sail area differences with the NA boats.

In any case, this is just one more consideration to share with OAs/RCs looking to implement the systems: be sure you are looking at the correct rating.

Mike

Found this post looking for something else.

The fact that US Sailing considers the current format a success speaks volumes about US Sailing.

What is the balance of the HJ fund?

Why does the AC have to be every year? Why can't it be held when the funds are there to support it? I know the answer but I want the MHC chair to say it out loud. You're still the chair, right?

Going along with US Sailing's wishes and diminishing the AC into a weekend regatta is just sad and you calling it a success because US Sailing is happy is a huge disappointment. I think you forget who you are supposed to be representing.

So what's the status of:

Safety at see recommendations for long distance offshore multihull races.

A handicap system that reflects the platform updates that have occurred in the last decade... the LAST DECADE!

Clearly going along with US Sailing is not moving these issues forward. Maybe playing nice isn't all it's cracked up to be?

"Maybe playing nice isn't all it's cracked up to be?"

It took awhile but you finally figured it out! D-PN is dead and the AC needs to be when funds can accommodate it.

Do you have something to offer Ding, or are you just content to fire off demands from "the good old days?"

Actually, the MHRC has very little to do with running the championship. We are officially in an advisory role per the bylaws.

Having said that...

None of the championships have to be held every year. Lots of things have been evolving with other disciplines. Ours was viewed as a success, at least until this past year when attendance dropped when hosted on the F18s.

When we looked at the budget to run this as a provided-boat event on F16s (when Bert was running the AC committee), the cost was $2k per boat. To go back to the provided boat format would mean running the event once every 10 years.

Many comments, from many sailors, told us that another week-long event (on top of OD class NAs and/or Worlds) was not sustainable, as people only have so much vacation time.

These economic and time constraints really haven't changed much over the past few years, we just took action to work within them to try and benefit our sailors. It's a vast minority that feels like we need to run it the old way or not at all.

As for the safety stuff, we're working on that as well. Progress has been slow, primarily due to trying to get agreement on what "requirements" are vs "recommendations" and even getting agreement among sailors and OAs on what particular safety items are a good idea in the first place.

Mike