Wouter.

I totally disagree that in order to make the rule work you can choose any class that is a development class.



I agree with you, but my reason for objecting to the Tornado is that it is/was a development class (and the single wire tornado is now almost a non entity and so may actually be getting slower as all the good boats are converted to T2001’s)

Do you actually need to have a focal point in the rule, once the basic numbers have been calculated……? Boats speed will change as they are developed (F18 will get faster, Dart 18 will stay the same)

I understand that at this point in time (to establish the rule) you need to start at some point, and test your rule.

Ie, the rule must ensure that the following results come out from the rule (and many others too)

Inter 17 is slower than Inter 17R (F17)
Tornado 2001 is faster than F18
F18 is faster than I17

And so on.



But the rule you propose is measuring theoretical performance, not real world (crew dependant) performance. ‘Driver skill’ is not relevant.

Or does your rule propose to give boats that are di8fficult to sail (ie have more sail controls for example) a more favourable handicap ?

BUT, I applaud you in trying to come up with a new method. Just don't tie it to one class as the Texel and SCHRS have been once you have a formula.

I don't read all these rating threads, because I don't understand them. But I do have questions:

How many ratings systems are currently in use by beach cats, and where is each used? For instance, is the Texel system used throughout Europe? Is the Portsmouth system used anywhere besides North America? What is used in Australia? South Africa? The Orient? The Caribbean?

Also, is there currently enough interaction (racingwise) among these various parts of the world to make it necessary or advisable to have the same rating system for cats worldwide?

Would it be easier to compare relative boat performance, as reported from different regions and continents, if we knew they were all using the same rating system?

In the UK we mostly use SCHRS, some races us Texel. When racing against Dingys we use the RYA Portsmouth numbers.

Hi,
Is it a coincidence that you (Wouter) are proposing a measurement system at the same exact time that USSA is proposing a measurement system (IRC)for monohulls to possibly replace the PHRF system?
See: http://www.ussailing.org/offshore/irc/

I have a few comments and questions:
1. You're killing us with verbiage. How about less words and showing some numbers on 10 "popular" boats? Then take these numbers and apply them to several races that have already been completed and published to see what changed and what stayed the same?
2. I personally prefer measurement systems to "Results Based" systems like yardstick and PHRF for both mono's and cats alike, so I am with you on this. However, just as in any science, you don't know what you have until you measure it, so the results must ALWAYS be considered.

Here are three quotes from Einstein that you (we) should consider:

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be".

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction".

And the best for last:
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted".

3. What info is needed and what type of measurements (if any) has to be done? Will we rely on the manufacturer's data (who always lie on the weight) or will there be a "certified" measurer (as is proposed with the new IRC system)?


Thanks and good luck with your proposed project.

Steven Bellavia
Hobie FX-1, Sail #211

>>How many ratings systems are currently in use by beach cats, and where is each used?

-1- Texel rating : Europe, Asia, caribian althought it is continiously in conflict with ISAF.
-2- ISAF rating (SCHRS) : Europe and caribian. Continiously in conflict with Texel. Its stable base is France
-3- VYC rating (yardstick) : Australia and some asian regions. This is just one of a few systems in Australia but arguably the most dominant
-4- Portsmouth (yardstick ; US version diffes from UK version) : US and UK not much else.
-5- Than a few local systems that are somewhat related to other systems.


>>For instance, is the Texel system used throughout Europe?

No, UK is swinging between ISAF and Texel, France is ISAF and Texel is mainly oriented in North Europe.


>>Is the Portsmouth system used anywhere besides North America?

Yes, IN DIFFERENT FORMS is has sister systems in Australia, UK and some local regions, However these are not compatible with eachother. Often these system use a TEXEL or ISAF system to calculate a yardstick for a new or rare boats because they have no other means to give a relatively good starting point,

>>What is used in Australia? South Africa? The Orient? The Caribbean?

In order : VYC (dominant but one among several), transitioned the ISAF, Texel/ISAF and some surviving local yardsticks, Texel/ISAF.


>>>Also, is there currently enough interaction (racingwise) among these various parts of the world to make it necessary or advisable to have the same rating system for cats worldwide?


The catamarans scene is small enough to make it wise not to waste volunteer efforts in maintaining several different system that appear to produce largely the same ratio's between the various designs. I refer to Sam Evans comparisons of a while back. he showed how little difference there was between the texel system and the Portsmouth system in ratings.

What is the point of making it more difficult to oneself then is necessary ?

Also grouping the world into one systems allows the committee to use alot more data and the quickly investigate new boat where ever they are designed and launched. Right now a new design that has been sailing in Europe for years can still cause troubles in the USA when it jumps the atlantic.

You tell me , what is the advantage of having several if not many different uncompatible systems.

You eventually end up creating conflicts as found in the Caribian regatta's where US I-20's are amazed to be sailing of a different rating. I understand there were other reasons for this conflict but having a single system certainly makes it clear of what your getting into well in advance.

In additions I understand that there are several groups that would like to do nothing more then cocooning themselfs up in their own little OD classes and local catamaran organisations but is this decision made out of emotion or because such a thing is really the smart thing to do ?

I say lets make a impact and solve many issues in one strike. Sure even the new system will have its quirks, however the idea is to have less of them when compared to others and to make it simplier for everybody to use such a system.

I'm not allowed to say this but a measurement rating system does also a good job of keeping track on measurements and builder claims. Arguably a measurer based system can not survive in the US because of the localized cat sailing scene there and the large distances. Why not use the unique situation in Europe where this is possible to benefit the US ?


>>Would it be easier to compare relative boat performance, as reported from different regions and continents, if we knew they were all using the same rating system?


Most definately yes.

One good example, The Taipan 4.9 would immedaitely have had the right rating in 2001. Why because its ratio to the F18's would have been known much sooner because of the race data available.

In principle all rating system work to some extend, there is nothing wrong there. The question is wether we can get an even beter system is we combine the efforts of all committee to the betterment of one system. I think the answer to that is a simple one.

Compare it to this. The metric system to the Imperial system. There is a reason why modern American car use the metric system and standardisation. It is just a shot load easier when interacting with the wider world when everybody speaks the same language. Was the imperial system bad ? No, but there were just more advantages to using the metric system.

Actually the metric system is a construct as well. Key points here were the ease of calculations in a decimal system over a 12 inches in a foot : 3 feet in a yard; 1750 yards in a mile system. The fact that 1kg is closely approximated by a liter of water and the fact that it is scientifically alot easier to define a force and derive a weight from that than to define a weight and derive a force from it (as is the US system).

A similar thing is smart, wise and attractive in the catamaran sailing scene.

Wouter

Steve,

All very good points and I will follow up on them. Please give me a little bit more time as I do really need to lay the ground first. I have a working system so before the weekend I will post it.

I didn't want to post it right away as then some people would look at it, try to found a race result that contradicts it and write if off completely on one (freak ?) result.

I'm killing you with verbiage because the proposed system HAS KNOWN OFFSETS, I'm not arguing that there aren't but just that their magnitude is smaller than in the alternatives and that at a certain level there is not much to gained by going more accurate and more complex.

I also needed to specify where the mods have been applied; to the know problem points

However I'm reaching the end of the ground work and will post a link to a working excel sheet soon. So you all can look.



With regard to US sailing :

There have been informal contact in the past even as far a 2 years ago. I've been at it for a while. I do not know wether one thing caused another. I do understand however that Yardsticks are losing ground as the fleet has become very diverse and getting accurate data to drive yardstick systems has been problematic. Some people are mabe recognizing that when a measurement based system gives acceptable results that then there is no point in putting alot of work in a yardstick system.


Point 3 what is required ?

I answer this in relation to the NMBR system : All of the texel measurement and the measuring of width. You will find that Texel publicizes all of their measurement data and that they have the biggest collection of cat data. This means that not much needs to be done to put the NMBR in effect.

No, we will not rely on manufacturer data. We'll dependent on the system of independent measurements as performed by Texel and or ISAF officials and that of class based verifying committees like the one in F18.



With regard to yachts, a measurement rating system can clean up here as yachts are so determined by a few simple factors. Example : no yacht significantly beats Froude's law. And this is really a harsh limit.

Steven, I will satisfy your requests soon. Pardon me for the extra day or so that it will take

Wouter

>>>Do you actually need to have a focal point in the rule, once the basic numbers have been calculated……?


No, but there are advantages to overlapping the theoretical case with a real case. It makes processing data and experiences easier and it will make the work required on RC's less strenious. Remember how one argument for the F18 was that this allows a large portion of the corrected times to be determined by just copyign the elapsed times ?

If such a opportunity for simplifications exists why not take it ?

>>Boats speed will change as they are developed (F18 will get faster, Dart 18 will stay the same)

As einstein said "everything is relative" ; does it really matter which viewpoint you choose if you are comparing both to eachother ? The only difference if the direction of the change, the amount and speed of it will be same in absolute terms.

Also, the catamaran scene, especially the racing scene, is more and more dominated by boxrule based classes like the F20's, F18;s, A-cats, Tornado's and possibly the F16's and F17's. Is it then wise to choice a stationary class a your viewpoint ? Or do you help yourself by choosing a development class that moves in the same direction and with the same speed as the other classes that dominate the racing scene ?


>>But the rule you propose is measuring theoretical performance, not real world (crew dependant) performance. ‘Driver skill’ is not relevant.


That is true but the foundations on which to base weighting factors and future modifications must come from real life data. Therefor the ability to seperate design performance from crew ability is an important one. This is easy with big competitive classes and not so much so with smaller classes that race mainly OD.


>>Or does your rule propose to give boats that are di8fficult to sail (ie have more sail controls for example) a more favourable handicap ?


No, That is something that will always be difficult to rate. Such a thing will always add much more complexity than can be justified by the gains. Designers must be expected to design boats that have a minimal level of comfortable control. Measurement systems, in basis, rate the potential a given setup has when properly designed. If a design choosed to not implement a downhaul on his boats than this does not impact on the magnitude of its potential even though it will make it harder on the crews to achieve that potential. But then again measurement system allow crews to modify and adjust their boats in non-key points without rating hits. Yardsticks systems however have the added responsibility to check wether a given boat is still compliant with its OD status in every respect. Rating committees, sailing organisations and Race committees have many times expressed that they rather do without such an addition responsibility.

For that reason the approach of a (box rule oriented) measurement system was chosen. It is more flexible and cuts down on responsibilities and work that nobody is waiting for.


>>BUT, I applaud you in trying to come up with a new method. Just don't tie it to one class as the Texel and SCHRS have been once you have a formula.


Well, trying is a to strong a statement. It may seem this way for the coming years but if the F18 classes, for example, choses to drop its minimum weight and increase sailarea than it will move away from the base rating of 100 and decouple itself from the reference number.

It is more like: for the immediate future both things travel along parallel roads, but may well diverge at a later time.

Thank you from participating in this discussion and I appreciate your comments. They are the wet stone on which the system needs to be sharpened

Wouter

Potential simplifications

(not all have been implemented into the working NMBR system excel sheet, sometimes more research is required)


-1-

Replacing rated hull length by hull length overall. Simply measurements and input to the rating formula.


-2-

Replacing aspect related efficiency of sails by a much simpler to use linear regressed fitting. Replacing a expression of 4 higher order terms by an expression in the following shape : rated area = (constant + factor * aspect ratio) * sail area.


-3-

Replacing the higher order rating formula by the much simpler ti use linear regressed fittings. The regression in this case is actually quite good. The higher order Texel rating formula can be approximated within 2 % margin by the linear expression : TR rating = 148.922 -2.750 * rated sailarea -6.141 * rated length + 0.132 * rated weight


-4-

Discard the virtual weights of boats that Texel does. Example Texel specifies the F18 to weight 173 kg = 180 - weight spi gear. Just use the real weight of the platform and raise the spi hit with 1 point. This leads to the same end result as the current texel system because of the largely linear behaviour of Texel (see point 3); The 7 kg deduction Texel uses is equal to deducting 0.132 * 7 = 0.924 of the rating of every boat that has a spinnaker. Boats that are measured without spi gear need to add 5 kg's to their boatweights when fitting a spinnaker. This 5 kg is substantiated by real measurements.


-5-

Discard ISAF spi size impact for a simple fixed hit. By accident the Texel rule has create a situation where all boats of the same length share the same spi area. All spi's can be seperated into three major groups around clear concentration points. These points are 17 sq.mtr. 21 sq. mtr. and 25 sq. mtr. By coincidence a fixed hit seems to be fair to all three groups. At a later stage and after more data research some refinement in assigning the spi hit can be included, but for now the single hit seems to be effective and easy to use. There is however a need to do something with oversized spi like that on the Tornado's, Supercats and Nacra 6.0 NE. It is suggested to hit these with one extra handicap point. If smaller was faster than they would be sailing with a smaller spi so some hit must be assigned. However experience and aerodynamic limits (Theory) suggest the gains to be relatively small so 1 point seems to be enough as well.


Wouter




-4-

No. I don't think a rating system such as this needs a focal point at all once the formula has been stated. All boats just need measuring and weighing and you plug this into a spread sheet and bingo you have a rating.


Your example of F18 reducing weight or increasing sail is exactly what I think any rating system should not be "sold" as tied to a single boat as the focal point. I think it would be good PR to say that the rule / formula was worked out in this way using the F18 performance as at 2004 as the point of referance, but from that point on all ratings are free-floating. Eg, someone puts a Masthead kite on an F18, you can just adjust the rating as such. I put a bigger kite on my 17, my rating changes too.

The F18 becomes 15Kg lighter - I believe entirely possible as the new Nacra F17 is 13.4KG lighter (I have been told) than the Current Inter 17 (Euro version).

Both the Texel and ISAF systems have the very funny setup that putting a spi on a cat-rigged boat only gets 1/3rd the hit than putting a small jib on it. This is not only wrong by a gut feeling ! It is also easily proved that this theoretically wrong. Goes like this; Biggest gains of jib are on reaches and downwinders; only a small gain is experienced on the upwind. When a spi is set the gains of a having a jib on the downwind and shy reaches are nullified by the gains made by adding a spi. So only the small gain of having a jib upwind is left. So this leads to the situation were the spi hit must be bigger than the jib hit when looking at putting either one of these to a cat rigged boat.

This is actually the situation where both texel and ISAF make the largest errors.

Luckily it isn't encountered often

Wouter

Here I provide an implementation of the NMBR system.

I write AN implementation as I've build in a few fine-tune dials. These can be tweaked in order to have the system reflect the reality better.

I've performed an initial tweaking on the data/experience that I had. However it should be regarded as a starting point.

It is not possible to tweak an individual design, I'm strongly opposed to that and think it is direct cause for abuse. All tweaking impacts on all cats. It impacts on some more than others, just like physics would work in real life. This is in my opinion a safeguard against abuse and unfounded tweaking. The way it needs to be done now is that a phenomenon that gives cause to differences must be identified first and by founded by physics. After which it can be implemented or tweaked and all boats get a proportional correction dependent on how much they were affected in reality.

Again I stress this NMBR system is not perfect and I myself can identify some outlying points that look a little of the mark. HOWEVER, I do believe these outliers to be a lot smaller than those that are present in the alternative Texel/ISAF and yardstick ratings.

As of yet I have identified two issues of concern :

The comparison between double handers and singlehanders when a spi is added. I have a feeling that here a phenomenon is at work that limits the performance of singlehanded spinnaker boats that has not be incorporated yet. They all seem to underperform to their ratings. The spi-less singlehanders seem to be alright but the spi singlehanders aren't. One easy solution would be to reduce the spi hit that these boats get and thus make is less than the spi hit on doublehanders. This has however not been implemented yet as I have very little race data that compares the spi equipped and non-spi versions of the same boats. I'm hoping that my current contacts with the US raters can help me here. Anyways, research is continuing here.

The second issue is that to get a ready to go system I've made use of the Texel formula as the working core. I use it less than the orgininal Texel system and that allows me to take out a few defined issues. However there is one issue that I feel is fundamentally wrong with the Texel formula. I truly believe that it makes an error with the M20, M18, A-cat, F18HT and other lightweight boats that are LONG for their displacement. These boats have cut down on wave-making drag in an enormous way but hardly on the wetted surface area. Of course in light winds there is hardly any wave-making drag. Below theoretical hull speed wave-making drag can be pretty much neglected. However Texel still hits longer boats with several points.

There is one experience that I can't tweak into the system as it is. Glenn Ashby has mentioned in the past that he felt that the Taipan 4.9 in the light stuff was very comparable to the modern A-cats. And when looking at low speed drag (wetted surface dominant) such an experience is supported by physics. However it is not by the Texel/ISAF formula's. For the sceptics under us I have confidential data where an World Top-5 Tornado crew on a sloop Taipan raced several races against a World top-5 A-catter on his modern A-cat in the light stuff (around 5 knots). The Taipan crew won all races except 1; there were some 5 races in total. The physical model I derived by other means completely supports such an outcome; Texel and ISAF core rating formula does not. The thing was that wetted surface drag was completely proportional to the other factors and sail drive thus making the drive/drag ratio of both boats very comparable. On this data and others I think texel and ISAF may be off by 3 % in rating the M20, M18, A-cat, F18HT and other lightweight and long boats. (on decreasing order)

Best thing to do would be to regress a new rating formula and replace the formula derived from Texel by that one. I think that would solve the final issue with the NMBR system.

Again, by using the Texel formula the NMBR can never be worse then TExel or ISAF only better as it is corrected for other issues.


What is incorporated in the given version of NMBR ?

-1- Boats get a larger hit by adding a spinnaker.

The 4 point hit was rediculously low especially to the cat-rigged boats. It felt wrong to the sailors as well when looking at the speed gains on the water. The endresults and errors were masked by other "corrections" so the the Texel system did alright in most situations. Mostly by luck and coincidence. One of these was that the jib hit kept on counting when a spi was added making the ratio between sloop spi baots and sloop non-spi boat correct. Of course in relation to cat-rigged boat the whole system went completely beserk.

-2- Sloop rig boat adding a spi gets a reduced jib hit

Simple reason : because that is what happens on the water and in theory. The gains of a jib are lost on the downwind legs when a spi is set and takes over the workings of the jib. We are left with only a smaller gain on the upwind due to having a jib. This phenomenon is now reflected in the rating system

-3- Speeding up or slowing down of boats with increasing winds is incorporated

Simply because this happens. Great example is the US I-20 to a Hobie 16. In the light stuff the difference is alot bigger than a 20 knots. We all know that and we have all seen it. Similar things are reported by Dart 18 sailors when comparing themselfs to H16's. A similar thing is encountered between the I-17 and I-17R as well as between the FX-one and I-17. For this we have abundant anecdotal evidence and race data. Brobu on the virgin Island has commented on this often on this forum

-4- Removing a jib impacts more on a spi-less boat then on a spi boat and in the last case the sloop boat is only a little faster around the cans. (When large reaches are included things may be different. Nut that is distance racing)

Thanks to Tornado Alive I had a good key to tweak the system to. By accident he and his trainings buddies ones races together where one of the boat had to sail without a jib. Because they were trainings buddies we knew how the crew skilled compared. Downwind = No difference, Upwind : in the puff the VMG was comparable. In the lulls the cat-rigged tornado fell slightly back and had to drop a man from the trapeze while the sloop tornado crew could stay out and continue. This suggest that maximum righting ratio (the same in both cases) kept the boats fully powered up tot the same drive as long as the wind was strong enough. When it wasn;t the extra drive of the sloop rig gave the sloop an advantage dispite having to sail a little lower. At the bottom of the excel sheet ( or picture of it) you see this example in rating numbers. By virtue of general rules impacting on all other baots this phenomemon has been extrapolated to all other boats. This solves a big issue that was present in both Texel and ISAF and does closely approximate what a Yardstick will show after several years of gethering data and converging (if ever gethering enough data)


-5- Boards, skegs and asymmetric hulls are all hit differently now

Boards are better then skegs, skegs are better than asymmetric hulls. I've decided against including a formula for boards efficiency in this system like ISAF does for two reasons. I think the formula used is inaccurate. I base this on experiences expressed to me by the Stealth designer. Secondly; it assumes that the hull itself is relatively unimportant. In case of the Stealth we had some good data that said that smaller and low aspected boards only tended to be disadvantaged in the medium wind range. The Stealth design went through 3 different board setup before settling on one setup with the F16 version. The funny thing is that sails tend to show a similar behaviour. Flat in strong winds, fuller in medium winds andback to relatively flat again in the light stuff. It appears boards behave similar. The ISAF formula does some funny stuff by looking only at aspect ratio and not at size. All in all ; I felt that the used formula introduced more errors then it provided increases accuracy. When noting that measuring boards is another thing to do I decided against a complex board rule and keep only adjust Texel where we could do so easily. What we did was keep the boards hit (we can increase or decrease that when necessary) and gave the outdated asymm hulled boats an extra deduction in speed (1 point) when they satisfy the "3 out of 5" rule


-6- 3 out of 5 rule; old boat society

All cats satisfying at least 3 of the following conditions gets a rating one point slower
-1- Cat has assymetrical hulls without boards or skegs
-2- Cat has a mast unsupported by diamond wires or extra shrouds
-3- Cat has a pinhead mainsail
-4- Cat doesn't have a downhaul system nor a mast rotation system that can be continiously adjusted
-5- Cat doesn't have a smooth (rounded) transition from its sides to the deck (deck lips as on H16 and P16)

This ends the abritrary good will points that we included in the Texel system and improves on ISAF that doesn't recognize that these boats are less efficient in design as cat designing has progressed.


-7- Oversized spi hit.

1 point faster if your spi is oversized. Definition according to Texel and ISAF system. It is to much to explain why the Texel spi rule works. It was a lucky guess when it was implemented but it seems to work well. If you do math on it you'll find that it forces the spi's to a constant ratio to the boat size. It keeps drive and drag ratio constant. However we have oversized spis on some boats. We can't forbid them. So we enter the simple rule that 1; no designer will fit an oversized spi when he thinks it is slower. 2; more than enough data suggests that oversized spis are really limited in gains (Nacra NE vs US I-20 anyone ; Tornado vs EU I-20 ?). So 1 points seems to be the minimum (36 sec on hour) and also seems like a good maximum. It sure does simplify things alot. ISAF formula for spis doesn't seem to discriminate much.


-8- Singlehanders are relatively faster in light airs then in heavy stuff

Self explanatory; On of the major bitch points about using Texel and ISAF. Now resolve in a simpler way then Yardsticks do (namely US PN with 5 groups)


-9- Two rating numbers assigned to easily recognisable conditions

Race committees no longer need to bring a windgauge on board and do repeated measurement. Big bitching point of the RC's; at least over here. Now the RC can look out of the boat and estimate how many boats are fully trapezing when going upwind. More than 60 % => high wind rating. Less then 60 % => light wind rating. Sure we can still find border cases where an offset can be found but these are MUCH smaller than Texel and ISAF and Yardsticks groups are either not used often or have insufficent data for all groups to be dependable. Especially when rating new or rare boats. It is also alot simpler to use and each boat gets a correction proportional to how much its suffers. Not perfect but close enough


-10- Some things but it is already late and I'll let you chew on this stuff to begin with


Good luck !

Look in the next post for the excel data sheet , I removed it to make reading the above post easier


Wouter

..

Hi Wouter,

Take your time - it's worth it.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Here's a super simple formula I derived for time-on-time scoring:

TOT Handicap = .0673 x (SA^.584) x (DISPL^-.325) x (L^.624)

where SA = total sail area in square feet
Displ = displacement in pounds
L = length in feet
the ^ means raised to the power

Sorry, no width consideration - but this was just a quickie attempt. (that seems to work rather well, though).

If you invert the TOT handicap and divide by 100, you'll get numbers very close to the USSA D-PN's for most boats (in non-spin config). Try it!

Take care and good luck!

Steve

Wouter,

Quick questions

1, What identifies an over size Spi - is this the same as the Texel definitions ?
2, Would you mind sending me a copy of this to scooby_simon (at sign) ntlworld.com so I can have a play with it later and print it so I can understand it properly. The excel will not print in any way that will be readable from here.

Steven,

This exactly what I mean !

Many sailors think yardsticks like US PN adjust each rating to little quirks in each design, but it is actually not alot more than a large table of numbers that follow a very simple formula.

This is exactly the reason why Texel and US PN give very comparable results despite appearing to be very different. Of course a few exceptions exist.

If we know this then why not make it easier on ourselfs and use this knowlegde to make the system alot simplier and more transparent. Arguably the benefit of a Yardstick is largely a believe that it could be better even though in reality it may not be much different from a measurement system.


Thank you for your support, I need it and it seems others are convinced by it that this is something we cat sailors need to get of the ground. I've been contacted by some already, some even with influence. Hopefully we can get this of the ground.

I will let you know when you can be of assistance. Actually you can already. You can spread the word around in your local area of cat sailors. We need sailor support to convince the power that be that something can be done about many complaints that sailors have of the current setups.

If we all together don't ask and demand such a thing than we will never get it.

Sure they will ry to shoot this done but as our moto says; It may not be perfect, but is may well be better !

So lets go !


Wouter

Speaking of Jibs and Spinnakers.
How about the Hurricane 5.9. They can put on a Spinnaker, use a slightly smaller jib and stay at the same SCHRS Number

But adding a little weight too.

The Hurrricane 5.9 jib was always too big anyway.

Scooby,

-1- Same as Texel definitions (for now) meaning

up to 16 foot => bigger than 17 sq. mtr.
16 to 18 foot => bigger then 21 sq. mtr.
18 to 22 foot => bigger then 24 sq.mtr.

I'm considering two small modifications, but they are something for a later stage. For now this works well enough. To give you an idea. Have different limits for singlehanders. Currently an A-cat can have 21 sq.mtr. and that is a bit much.

-2- I don't mind, everybody and anybody wanting to see the excel sheet can have it as long as they agree that it is my intellectual property !

It is in your inbox, Scoob !

Wouter

A cat with a 21 kite would be (very) silly

Got the sheet

Thanks....

Quickly spotted one slight error, the weigh od the Inter 17 is 161 with the Spi rigged (and it makes a difference of one point on rating)

Also, I dont really think an Inter 17R(spi) is quicker than an F18 in light and the same in heavy.

But it is a start

Good work