The Hobie SX has a larger sailplan, longer wings then the 18 Magnum and I believe a different mast in addition to the spin. The boat never caught on in the US as a racing class. Matt Miller would be the best source of the history of this boat.

If your point is that the rating for the SX is too high... that requires a look at the history of the rating. The PN committe recognized that recent data on boats that are not actively raced in a class or in portsmouth or are out of production or antiques are likely to be using 10 year old sails and the rating may have crept upwards (unfairly). This was corrected for by using the rating data when the boats were new and actively campaigned.

I don't know if the SX rating was evaluated at that time.

Take Care
Mark

Mark, you have hit a big sore spot with me when you even mention the Hobie 18 SX, and its history. I don't think Matt Miller was around back when the SX started, but I was.

I think it was back in the late 1980's (early 1990's?) when the Hobie 18 was still the biggest one-design cat class in the country next to the Hobie 16.

We went to the Hobie 18 Nationals in Erie, Pennsylvania. The factory was providing the boats. When we got there, we found out that it was not a Hobie 18. This was their way of introducing the Hobie 18 SX. SURPRISE!!

The boats had the bigger sail plan but did not have the wings on them for this introductory regatta. Apparently, the sailors were being used as guinea pigs to test this new sail plan. Whatever the factory was thinking, it certainly was not a Hobie 18 Nationals. Nobody had ever sailed the boat with that sail plan before.

Fortunately, I was not crewing, but I was watching from a cliff overlooking the bay when the boats first went out to race. I watched all the boats capsizing everywhere.

This was a class that had mostly male-female crews. This event was devastating because nobody knew until they arrived that they were going to have a bigger-horsepower "motor" on their boats.

So much for the benefit of sailing and getting to know a one-design boat for 10 years. I guess that is what can happen when the factory is in control.

You don't experiment by introducing a new model or version or whatever at a National Championship. You do surprises like that at the Alter Cup so nobody has had any experience in sailing the boat or sail plan before.

Ohhh sore spot.

why do you prod me so?

CARL, CARL, CARL,
I guess you will never change and become a productive member of the sailing community.
Still ranting and complaining about the Portsmouth system without doing anything constructive,
even having a legitimate proposed system.

Now, in a vain attempt to impress us, you resort to re-posting over-detailed,
incomprehensible verbal vomit from some other pseudo-intelletual with a superiority complex.

NO CARL, WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED.

Hobie 18SX specs - Sail Area 240 sq ft
Hobie 18 specs Sail Area 240 sq ft

Either the NAHCA website is wrong or the boats have the same sail area. The SX has a taller stick (additional 17.5" vs stock Hobie 18).

I have sailed both, and raced the SX for a year without the wings. Great boat with great numbers...and no slouch when fitted with the spin. Could be the ultimate portsmouth distance racing machine.

Chris.

Always entertaining ,-and a VERY unwitting self irony to your personal opinion that seems so often directed on a public sailing forum towards others.

i·ro·ny [ rənee ] (plural i·ro·nies)


noun

1. humor based on opposites: a type of humor based on using words to suggest the opposite of their literal meaning


2. something humorous based on contradiction: something said or written that uses sardonic humor


3. incongruity: incongruity between what actually happens and what might be expected to happen, especially when this disparity seems absurd or laughable


4. incongruous thing: something that happens that is incongruous with what might be expected to happen, especially when this seems absurd or laughable

look up the term self irony for further -
quote "
over-detailed,
incomprehensible verbal vomit from some other pseudo-intelletual with a superiority complex"

The article added at the end of the previous post ,--under added article for any interested ,--which generally means its off topic so read only if your interested ,---seemed interesting upon reading it earlier that morning,-so it was shared ,- and illustrated how in this age of instant communication numerous people, in varied vocations are benifiting by shared knowledge,-in that instance science .As applied to the historically problematic means of devising various rating systems { --which is the subject--the numbers game } --the attempt or at least discussion of ideas on how to pool knowledge of existing workable rating systems to improve them and the sport is and always will be a subject of great debate and differing opinion , and will always be pertinent to any discussion on rating systems.
-
This intent and endeavor would seem to most to be productive ,-or--as you put it --"to change and become a productive member of the sailing community" -
Your humorous self ironic error is falsely believing that anyone not agreeing with sam is not a productive member -etc etc -then compounding the absurdity with self ironic personal opinion which as most realize is more realistically applied to the source -or yourself.

Also you mention {we} -exactly who is it you think you represent ? and how are personal attacks directed towards other cat sailors on a public sailing forum being " a productive member of the sailing community" -as you apparently assume you are?

Please contact me directly with personal issues you seem to have. Please call or send a private e -thank you -

cool it dudes. This is not productive. Take the defensive stuff off of the forum. Sam, you have great points, Carl, you are as comitted to sailing as anyone.

Read before you submit. Think about how "every one else" will receive it.

Stop the Hatin'

EPA

*Yawn*As I sit here slowly digesting my Thanksgiving turkey *burp* and reading the forum I am struck by the consistent unconstructive and negative quality of samevans posts...

Here are ten examples from recent posts:

Context


Context


Context


Context


Context


Context


Context


Context


Context


Context

I wanted to see a debate on Portsmouth # and different
boat designs But I think it went off Track.

Doug Ramsey

Are you looking for opinions on which horse for which course you should choose?

Or what boat is a ratings beater?

Maybe if I new which Horses have the advantage I would avoid racing them. If it's common knowledge that certain
boats have a advantage why not change there #. Maybe US
sailing would listen.

Doug Ramsey

Doug,

Naturally it's a little more complicated than that. The system is a reliable statistical calculation based on actual results and to start making 'rule of thumb' corrections would open up a nasty political mess. However, the weak link is us...the sailors and the regatta organizers. In order for the Portsmouth number to be computed correctly, it needs the largest possible field of data. However, regatta results aren't always submitted (I would say 'rarely'). The best way we can help make these numbers more acurate is very simple: Send in your regatta results to US Sailing Portsmouth Committee!

Although there may be some ways to improve the system, it is not broken. Ask around at your next regattas if the results are sent in - offer to take care of that task if it's something that the organizers aren't very interested in. All the submission forms can be found here:

http://www.ussailing.org/portsmouth/forms.htm

That's the point...

Nobody is standing up and claiming XXX boat is a ratings beater!

The tough part of this game is to keep things equal. For instance, if you run unbalanced race courses eg WLWL and then finish up at the weather mark for a last windard. Boats with spins are not favored. Hell, if the RC sets a small course with several laps on a breezy day ... two things will happen, your I20 crew will die and you will have a hell of time sailing to your number because all of the sail change transitions cost you time and are a significant percentage of the race.

Bottom line. Any handicap system (Texel, ISAF Portsmouth) is most accurate when similar boats are rated and raced. EG all spin boats.

Mark,

Totally agree with you there...spin and non-spin boats are difficult to handicap together because of they are so dissimilar in the performance range. Whenever possible they should (and usually are) scored separately...at least around here.

Mary remembers the Hobie 18 SX Nationals just like I do and I sailed in it: this new tall rig tended to pitchpole much more readily than the stock TheMightyHobie18 that everyone was used to- 20+ knot air. Having no picnic tables did not help much, but I never did get blown over- it was pitchpoling that was the bloody nuisance. The bottom of the bay at Erie must have 500 battens on the bottom, as the new sail design had just a strap across the batten end. These straps tore off on the first tack in a breeze because the battens were so long, and some boats nearly lost every batten on the first capsize. Not much development time was involved, I think, eh? Lots of breeze that regatta! Good job that no new spinnakers were available for the regatta. Boy, would that have been fun! I never saw a H18SX beat a stock TheMightyHobie18 round the cans, but nobody much tried. Thus the PN#s that are posted.

You're right -- pitchpoles. I was really glad I wasn't crewing in that regatta.

Hi Mark hi Jake
just wanted to take a few minutes to politely point out contradictory concepts of P rating per your own examples provided -

lets start with the most current provided ,-the horse example --
Handicaping for horses is to applied betting odds only --horses are not given time because they run slowly ,-or have an H or P brand ,--
are they? .
this would only promote poorly trained inferior horses .

Many catsailors would be willing to scrap the boat brand handicap as a result of P rating and replace it with a betting handicap for all regattas in 05 -- {joking}

and instead race all in similar length beam weight sail area classifications .

To answer Mark,s previous last post directly ,-there are numerous examples beyond the T provided earlier of unfair rating numbers as is true of all current rating systems ,-
All rating systems are inherantly unfair in some form due to the need to generalize and simplify rating systems .-One can scroll through the P rating and find numerous examples of older cat designs in particular with similar Length beam weight and sail areas rated much slower in P rating only due to the fact that they are not equiped with new sails or raced competitively -and crews are not trained to sail them near there true potential.} New rating numbers are inconsistant and often in conflict with design measurement rating also , again none are fair in all aspects.

You both agree that quote --
"Mark,
Totally agree with you there...spin and non-spin boats are difficult to handicap together because of they are so dissimilar in the performance range. Whenever possible they should (and usually are) scored separately...at least around here" --

So most concer that boats racing need to be grouped and started in similar groups based on speed potential.--Mark previously provided the example of larger boat rating systems using a base model to achieve a model rating number and modifying a boats rating from that base model ,-this idealy in each length based classification for starts --
It would seem the ideal model in cats would be based on the accepted Formula class in each Length category ,-then a non spin classification added in each Length category.
This best achieves the stated goal by both Mark and Jake of grouping boats in similar performing classes for racing .
The F-18 class was concieved by a group of sailors using the design measurement ISAF rating system and forming the ideal specifications for a base model 18 ft length catamaran .
This illustrates the compatability of having a systematic design measurement based approach to rating and the benifits of it -again which serves to promote equal general classes of boats for racing in very similar base model groups ,-as per Mark,s example now widely accepted and used .
When a rating system is needed for smaller groups only
it seems a combination rating system based in design measurement with a time to distance yardstick factor added would be more benificial to promote sport in the true sence and intent of sport.

The ideal or best type of racing is as pirate tx stated to begin the thread --quote -"I think a fair race could really only be done 1 design. Because all the boats perform different under different conditions & Different Level's of sailors
set the #'s by there racing results. Most of the regatta's
I go to its 8-20 boats all different makes and models.
Maybe 1 day the the sport will make a come back and
there will be enough boats at a regatta's that there can be 1 design fleets racing one another. Until then its a #'s game thats really not a fair playing field. But its what we got!"--end quote

Instead of stating its flawed and all we got ,-racing cat sailors should be stating lets improve the sport for all and race when possible in larger groups of similar designs,--not based on brand name ,-but instead with similar length beam weight and sail area base models -in spin and non spin classes , and lets adopt a means of rating boats that promotes and encourages this to occur over time ,-with room for new development and inclusive of all cat and or multihull types .

Outline recommendations for a combination rating system would use ISAF and Texel base rating formulas {both being very similar} refined with a wind speed modification factor added at trapping speed ,this would allow design factors of beam -non board types, aspect ratio of sail area inc spin , and other measurement factors to improve the theoretic comparative speed potential of similar cat design , and also the needed chang from the general 100 base scale used in ISAF to the time to distance traveled scale used in P rating for real comparative annalysis.

Again ,the goal should be to promote the true intent and ideals of sport by racing very similar boats based on basic design measurement specifications and there by over time assisting the promotion of and helping creat larger classes and class groups of racing catamarans.
all the best
Carl

I found the same thing sailing the SX in 20+ downwind without the chute. We were way in the lead on one race when we caught a big puff and began to stuff. I jerked the steering to head dead down but she just dug in and slowly flipped over forwards - turtling with me under the tramp!

We learnt to uncleat the jib at the first sign of digging in after this incident. This saved us on a number of occasions. It seems the jib really drives the bows down.

We never pitchpoled with the chute up - mostly capsizes whilst learning to sail with one hull out the water or getting over ambitious carrying it on a reach in light air.

Chris.

Both SCHRS(ISAF) and Texel differentiate between board types, and aspect ratio of the sails and mast.

The only one missing is beam (and the last time I talked to anyone closely associated with SCHRS, this (including beam) was under discussion)

Hi Scoob
interesting subject --ratings ,--finding, creating or development of the ideal rating system has eluded all so far ,it has been a problem throughout sailing history in all sailing classes ,-see the history of the Americas Cup as one example of ever changing rating systems , yet the intent and sport has remained much the same .

The quote was from a post below on an outline of ideas or a recomended method of combining rating systems , design measurement and yardstick types together,which seems possible.

Adding a windspeed category to ISAF -Texel design measurement type rating systems would be the ideal means of factoring in beam ,as beam becomes a major factor only when the wind picks up to trapping speed ,-for many modern cat designs around 8 mph winds . 2 windspeed categories may be the solution to add the beam equation to the rating system . Texel originally intended to use 2 windspeeds ,If this approach were added Texel can easily adjust its equation to reflect lighter wind speeds in which the actual ELAPSED time differences of various boats are greater, then use the lower number in the upper wind range along with certain design factors that change more in the upper range .
Believe the total power equation was factored originally by 100 then revised to 102,-but this may simply reflect most regattas being held in higher windspeeds ,again where varied designs finish more closely in actual elapsed time around the course than in lighter winds at slower speeds where speed differences and elapsed times between them are greater.
Non board types [H-16S etc. }are given a handicap factor in ISAF -Texel,but this average factor becomes lesser in the higher wind speed range . As the hulls or assymetric type hulls are depressed further in the water and begin to work at higher speeds they become more effecient and effective At higher speed more upwind lateral resistance is from hull form so again there is the availability by adding a 2nd winspeed based category to adjust the non board types rating to reflect this.
The occurance of non board type cat designs often winning or placing high in Texel rated events in higher wind conditions explains ,and is partially the cause of this and would be remedied with the wind speed non board advantage being reduced in the upper range.

Understand the rated sail area method of measurements that equate main and jib aspect ratio ,-but does not currently consider spin aspect ratio,-only spin sq ft , Texel uses one penalty for all spinnakkers over a certain size in length category , It penalizes any spin over 270 in the 20 ft length category for example. Spin aspect ratio on modern cat design should be a factor in rating .
The whole rated sail area equation may be reviewed and simplified though I,ve been told by noted designers that many modern mainsails could reduce area and maintain the same mast height resulting in a higher aspect ratio mainsail and have nearly identical sailing performance through the mid windspeed range and better once in higher windspeed overpowered conditions encountered. light wind condition are only marginally different with the advantage to sail area .Yet sail area is heavily penalized evan in the upper wind ranges as most know that have traveled to the islands to race under Texel rating in high wind events.
Development type classes like the A class eventually find the ideal mast height and mainsail aspect ratio within a limited sq ft -which is 150 for the A class .
Perhaps this may be applied or simplify the rated sail area aspect of rating.
Reef systems on cats are beginning to be used again, so again maybe a review of rated sail area and rating equation for cats is due if a windspeed category is added .

This higher windspeed category could also allow other design factors to be considered ,but at some point the system becomes too complex for any except a few to fully comprehend so it must at some point deal in generalities and leave it to the designers of sailing craft to develop and perfect design without consideration of artificial handicap aspects that have so often in history shaped undisirable features to beat the rating game .-
That is why the wizdom of the ISAF rating states clearly the preference to race boats when ever possible in OD or Formula classes . That seems the best answer.

I,m no ratings expert or great statistical annalysist or mathmatician but just enjoy the discussion of ideas on the subject and comprehend the basics of design and applied rating systems ,the outline recommendation to attempt to combine the rating systems may try the 2 windspeed approach in some refined form as elaborated on and think it is important to change the scale to the P rating system and factor in actual times in class as a percentage of total final rating number each season. P rating attempts to equate the rating number with real time to distance traveled . This being more easily used for comparative annalysis and verification of final rating numbers accuracy ,and also a means to rate with other sailing types and mono classes if desired.

I,m in the Great Lakes area but try to follow the interesting events and reports and stories in the UK through the catamaran co uk site
all the best scoob
Carl