No, I would assume that he means best VMG downwind

Mary,



It is actually a less accurate way of describing a situation where a crew tries to sail as deeply as possible without taking a negative hit in downwind VMG. I use this shorted yet less accurate phrase to keep the test readable.

May I should write "With the best downwind VMG as they can"




Actually the numbers do correspond with the numbering of the preceding listing. I chose to exchange the -3- and -2- lines to first comment on upwind and downwind as these are more important and are currently implemented in NMBR. The reaching part CAN be implemented easily but isn't as of yet. However I'm planning to do that this weekend as it is an action of a few minutes and it doesn't impact in any way on the currently reviewed ratings. It will be an adaptation in the underlying framework that will stay dormant untill used when producing distance race handicaps for a given race. But even without this particular modification the NMBR can be use to produce more accurate distance race handicaps then the other rating systems. It's just that it is so easy to get some extra accuracy out of it.


Wouter

Okay, now I am really confused. Here are the descriptions of the divisions of the course, as you gave them:

"Pretty much we can devide any race over three main courses.

-1- Pure upwind sailing (as high as one can)
-2- Pure down wind sailing (as low as one can)
-3- And the widened area of reaching (anything between the regions of -1- and -2-)

-1- is most impacted by righting moment and pointing ability.
-3- is most impacted by having a spinaker or a jib
-2- is mostly impacted by good hull design and efficiency of the traditional sailarea (only main and jib)"

So why do you first have 1, 2, 3 and then have 1, 3, 2? In the second case it looks like the 3 should be 2 and the 2 should be 3. In other words, the digits are transposed.

Ehhh, I think you are correct, Sorry

I've reread my post and indeed I think you are correct.

I switched over the numbers but the not the phrases following the numbers (as was intended).

So, yes the bottom listing should read :

-1- is most impacted by righting moment and pointing ability.
-2- is most impacted by having a spinaker or a jib
-3- is mostly impacted by good hull design and efficiency of the traditional sailarea (only main and jib)"

Thanks for spotting that one Mary !

Wouter

I forget the best part for distance racers. Well forgot to mention it as it is implemented in NMBR.

And that is that no RC will ever have to face the problem of a crew entlisting themselfs without a spinnaker in the last possible moment when it has become clear that the distance race is going to be an all upwind beat while the others are required to carry their spi hit.

The NMBR system, after punching in the course parameters, impacts the spi hit only on the portion of downwind work in the race. If there is none then there is no spi hit for the spi boats as well. So when using NMBR in this setup every crew can entlist in any way they like and luck of having favoured conditions will not lead to unfair ratings.

It is difficult to sum up all advantages of NMBR in a clear overview as there are a considerable number of them. Best way to look at it is like this. NMBR is mildly more accurate than its alternatives and noticeably more accurate when looking at rear boat or boats with extreme ratios like the A-cat. HOWEVER the biggest advantages are found along the lines of ;

-1- avoiding pre-race hassle with crews jockying for a favourable rating by milking the known problem points
-2- general ease of use and ease of creating more fair rating numbers for distance races.
-3- transparancy of the system; leading to a higher acceptance of the system by the sailors

when the system becomes official its (internal) workings will be fully documented online and available to all. NO SECRECY, NO MAGICAL PROCEDURES leading to remarkable new ratings.

-4- Much improved rating handling and ease of chosing the right group and calculating corrected times by the RC.
-5- Much less work required to maintain the system.


Wouter

Couldn't wait ; So this distance stuff has been implemented.

Actually it had a few positive side-effects.

It took out an correlation between the spi hit and the heeling/righting (overpowered) compensation. The effect of this in the old system was neglectable but still it is nice to have made them fully independent.

Another side effect is that the spi hit is now defined in the ACTUAL speeding up that a boat experiences on a downwind leg when adding a spi. This solves the "how can a spi boat only get such a small hit" issue for ever. The current hit is that a cat is 25 % faster under spi than the same boat without a spi on the same downwind leg. The expected tweaking in the near future may adjust this hit a little bit but this sure feels more real than 4 % already, doesn't it ?

So distance racing guys. The things you want to see in a handicap system are now available as well. No more "100 % upwind sailing with a spi hit while the other ..." blues anymore. If the race is all upwind with tacking than the spi hit is not excersized. Only thing the race organisers need to do is type in "100%" in the input field called (ratio upwind work) and all ratings are compensated. Spi hit is gone and heeling/righting compensation is taken over 100 % upwind work.

With regard to these (one-way) distance races I dare state while standing on solid ground that NO other rating system even approaches the accuracy of the NMBR system.

Note : All ratio's imaginable for "portion upwind", "portion downwind", "portion reaching" can be entered as long as the three added up result in 100 %. This means that all and any race course shape can be accurately rated under NMBR by having it produce custom numbers for your race.

I'm actually quite pleased with this version 7 of the NMBR-system myself.

Expanding the system took only 60 minutes and that was because I couldn't find a typo that stuffed things up. It convinced myself of how good the basic framework really is. It is definately the most flexible system available, by far.
And it does exactly what you expect it to do. Even more so, the framework is not even that high tech. One could explain its internals to a novice on the back of a local diner napkin.

Now lets see if we can get this NMBR show on the water !

Regards,

Wouter

Firstly the ratings for a typical windward-leeward bouy race :





Secondly the CUSTOM ratings for a specific one-way distance race on a given day (Steeplechase, Tybee 500, etc)




If you don't spot the changes right away then look at the following boats

F18 (stays at rating 100 by design, it is used a pivot point)
Hobie16 (has to sail seriously faster, when compared to pivot F18, due to having a reaching leg and hardly having any spi leg for the F18 to stretch its legs)
A-cat (has to sail alot faster, relative to the pivot F18, because their is so much upwind work for it to excel in)

These are 3 extremes, All boats are affect proportionally. The reason that the F18, F20, Tornado, M20 and SC20 don't change rating is because these are simply impacted by negative factors as much as the positive factors. For example the M20 gains on the upwind but looses alot but not having much spi sailing as well. These two apparent compensate eachother largely and its rating only drops on point in the heavy air.

Think really hard before you reply to these numbers, some numbers may sound weird at first but really, they all make sense when you analyse what is REALLY going on.

Of course the CUSTOM ratings converge back to their standard values when the distance race course input approaches that of a typical bouy race as we all expect would happen.

I will admit to the Shark rating being a little bit harsh but then again that boat is so outdated in its design. It has the same general dimensions as the H20 but still can't seem to speed up till within 12 % of the H20 speed under USPN. And it only just reaches 86 % of it potential speed as predicted in its handicap. That is what old technology does to performance of a catamaran ! This problem point has been identified and we are discussing how to adress it.

Have fun, comparing boats and numbers.

Wouter

.

Wouter,

As many times as you have insulted America, Americans and the USAF over the past several years,
how can you expect us to drop our system and help you convince the Texel and ISAF to adopt your little "brain fart" system?
WHY DOES THE USAF HAVE TO BE "the first step"?
Did ANY American ask you to invent a new system?
WHY DO YOU NEED AMERICANS?

YOU live in Europe, where the ISAF is based.
YOU live in Holland, where the Texel system is based.
YOU claim to have close personal contacts with the various European organizations.

Let us see if you can con your own countrymen first.

I see that you have set yourself up as the final arbiter of any and all changes that anyone may suggest.
Of course that is because you know more than anybody else.

If anyone adopts the "BF SYSTEM", will you immediately relinquish all rights and authority over it to the organization adopting it?

(note to reader, after the first few compulsery insulting remarks to Sam I will seriously adress his "points")


Because, well, such an acceptance would piss you off and that in itself would be enough reward for me. Do you feel more important now ? I appologize for totally forgetting about you Sam, but then again you have been so quiet lately.

And as a serious response to your questions.



I know I have insulted you many many times and have nothing but total disregard for you but don't kid yourself that that is because you are an American. You completely earned that honour by your having your own special kind of charming character. Of course, I divert as the main question is :"what has all this to do with rating catamaran more accurately ?"





Simple. because one has to start somewhere one choose the area that is most susceptable to chance and arguably USPN is more open for that at this particular time. Simply put, there are rumour of US events adopting Texel or ISAF and US sailing is open to new idea's while NO event in Europe and NO rating organisation in Europe is seriously considering bringin a Yardstick system back. For exately the reason why US sailing may want to consider chancing systems. Less work involved in maintaining the system, no more swinging ratings, no more convergence time for new designs and related upheaval, no more massaging of rating numbers by carefully calculating crews. Simply Put US sailing is sensitive to that while the area's already using a measurement system are not. US sailing is also the area to gain most by using NMBR, BY FAR ! Furthermore I don't need or request their help in convincing ISAF or Texel, a choice by them to use NMBR would be all I need.

ISAF on the other hand is known to reconsider their current system and so we WILL work them over simultaniously as USPN. In addition ISAF will most likely be very attracted by a juicy bone that expantion to the US sailing scene presents.

Texel (my own old system) will get a more harsh treatment therefor so much for favouring what is closest linked to myself.





What does the US Air Force have to do with it ?

If you are talking about USPN then all I can say is "a step has to be the first, Some consider this to be chosen for that as a honour others rather be the last step. So on what ground do we choose to take either way ? "

Besides aren't you happy that finally somebody is making the effort to adres all the complaints and misgivings in a rating system ? You are likely the guy that complaints about a desease all his life and than scolds the party producing its cure for only doing it for the money.

Who gives a damn ! End result is that a cure is available and ready to be used. THAT in itself should be all the convincing you'll need.





Should I have been asked by an American ?
Would that have made a significant difference ?
Is cure designed by an American always fundamentally better ?
What if I say that a group of Americans DID ask my to design it and that you were one of these ?
Remember the Carl Roberts discussions (including me) about PN and measurements systems a few years back, and how you liked to shut him (us) up by challenging that if we thought something better was possible that we should then proof it by designing such system and have it working ?
Would you have asked wether an American party asked for this system if it was designed by an American ?

Answer all those questions for me first please.





Who said I needed them ? I want them to be included because I value what they can bring into the system. What I do need are volunteers who are capable of regarding themselfs as cat sailors working to implement a better system over being Americans first. Obviously considerations of nationality or even ethnicity are far far removed from any action or intend linked to the NMBR system. Such considerations would amount pure and simple to bigotry and be far removed from any useful interest in producing a better system.





First I'm not conning anybody. I have layed bear the internal workings of the system to various parts of its implementation and have produced is numbers for all to see and test. I also supplied working excel sheets to various (US) parties who have shown interest in testing the system on their race data. Till now the result are considered to be very good.

Secondly, I did try to convince my own country men (sound so much like a term a bigot would use) of the system. Actually I had a system ready in 2003 and had in its entirety proposed it to the Texel committee. The two persons currently in the committee as everybody, else had resigned over various disagreement matters, looked at it - found it all very interesting - and did absolutely nothing with it. Well, they suggested that Texel would be expanded with a reefing compensation for high winds, as if Beach cats reef their sails when it blows past 12 knots. You have to understand that the current Texel system is run by the original inventor (former accountant) who is, I believe, now 84 years old and a volunteer who knows alot about sailing but very little about the underlying physical principles and scientific studies as were preformed over the years at universities etc. The other, more experienced, members resigned in the past because of getting tiring of banging their heads against the wall. I admit that my decision to resign factored this in.

So in a way the USPN approach it already the SECOND step. I guess you will now cry foul that I didn't make the USPN the first step in this multi year project. Anything to stake poor old Wouter , right ? And the rest of the catsailing community by killing off a better system (as confirmed by AMERICAN parties testing it on actual race data). All because off personal satisfaction.





Call me arrogant but regarding matters relating to NMBR, I MOST DEFINATELY AM the guy who knows more than anybody else. Worked with it for years now and intimately known all its finer details and why certain carefully chosen balances contribute to its superrior accuracy.

Who else is better qualified to act as a final arbiter ?





Why would I hand over all the control to a local organisation like US sailing, Austrlian Yachting Association, Dutch Surf sports Federation, French Association of sailing , etc, etc.

Mostly likely several local organisations would feriously object to any local organisation fully controlling a system that impacts on all associated area's around the world.

If anything the control and rights should be handed over to an seperated international body like ISAF or to a newly created organisation that would enclosed committee members of all associated area's.

You surely weren't proposing I would hand NMBR in its entirety to US sailing were you. That would be like handing it over the French if we were to reverse the perspective. I'm not that dumb. Such a thing would seriously impede NMBR's growth and acceptance and we would end up with endless Nationalistic inspired quarrels that would benefit no-one.

So Sam are you part of the solution or part of the problem ?


Wouter

Well the soporific effects of excessive turkey does it again. We enjoyed a very fine deep fried turkey, and I thought I'd contribute our injection recipe to the debate on catamaran hanidicap rating systems.

The original recipe came from a fellow called Earl Richard - who lives in Baton Rouge.

2-3 cups White Wine
1.5 oz margerine
1 table spoon onion powder
1 table spoon garlic powder
1 table spoon black pepper (finely ground)
1 small bottle of tabasco sauce (59 ml)
1 table spoon Zatarans liquid crab & crawfish boil

Warm the white wine and add all the ingredients and whisk. Inject into the turkey (about 13 lb bird is ideal) and allow to marinade over night.

Then rub with Tony Sachre's seasoning and commit to the peanut oil (pre heated to aound 350F). Fry for 3.5 mins/lb. Delicious!

And much more rewarding than listening to you two trading insults.

Chris.

The NMBR website is up :

Yes, between all those posts I typed over the last days I also found time to make up a bare but working website.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~whijink/NMBR/

Over time this site will be improved and the info enclosed will be expanded.

Writing good content takes time y'all

But something needed to go up now, so that we can accomodate the growing interest and there is good news. But more of that in the next post

Wouter

Good news, NMBR is influencing and having effect.

I running down the list of all larger rating systems and contacting their respresentatives and one system has expressed being influenced by the techniques developping in the NMBR project and is currently implementing various parts.

Another system has ran some of their own actual race data through the system and found it to perform quite well, if not to say very well.

Now, this thing is growing over my head in a serious way.

So I will plead for help of you guys, the same that have expressed how things should or could be better in the past. But may be even more of all the people I roughed up in the past, because some of these have access to boats and data that are very attractive to us. But I ask also the help of the sailors that normally let everything blow over.

This is our single, biggest and best chance at significantly improving handicapped racing for the next 10 to 15 years.

I'm not saying this lightly, this is really true. I know what I had to do over the last 4 years to get to this system and to get it going and believe me this sure ain't happening again soon.

So who is with me ?

Bill Roberts ; I want to rate your boats accurately above all else but I need really good measured data on that. Can you help me here.

W.F. Oliver and the javelin 2 guys (F18HT's sailors also welcome) ; same there, we want to rate you accurately above all else and found that you guys represent a very valuable optimizing key to us. Wanna help getting your own boats rated accurately on either side of the atlantic ?

Inter 17 sailor : Same for you; you guys also represent a very promising optimizing key for NMBR. I only need your race data and the willingness to take along a GPS for one afternoon and blast around somewhat.

Hobie 20 sailors : Mark Schneider found your ratings to be suspect while all others were really good. This can only be caused by errors in the input data. Any of you want to help us get the right specs for the US Hobie 20 (a boat that never made it to the EU except in a few cases where the boat was modified)

US I-20 sailors : we want to finally get a properly measured area for the US I-20. can you help us ? Think of the benefits you guys will get when sailing at the Caribian regatta's. I can't elaborate but I can likely make it worth while for you guys even on the very short term.


With your help and some GPS tracks and measurements I can boost accuracy of NMBR well beyond Texel, ISAF and ANY yardstick system ever deviced. I'm not playing big here, I REALLY mean it.


One more thing,

I'm willing to set the example and pull the car for ONE YEAR. After that you guys will be on your own and can wait for ohhh, a year of 15 for another fool to come along and do all that I have done on improving ratings. Goz, I sure ain't gonna do this again.

So we all better shape up and get this thing flying. We will all get a better open class racing scene in return.

To the sceptics, how will you feel when in a years time it will turn out how unique this time frame really was and it was all lost do to some sceptism ? Then you will have both been wrong and the reason why a better way didn't make it.

All the guys who have mailed me in the past weeks, thank you for your support and I fear I will mail you all back the coming week and ask for some of your time and effort to help this project.

The best to you all and lets show the world what we can do.


Wouter

I like tis one
scratch teriyaki sauce

teriyaki

4 lbs. sugar 2 lbs. 1.33 lbs. 1.00 lbs.
3 lbs. ginger root 1.5 lbs. 1.00 lbs. 0.75 lbs.
15 bunches green onions 7.5 bunches 5.00 bunches 3.75 bunches
1 lbs. garlic cloves 0.5 lbs. 0.33 lbs. 0.25 lbs.
4 gal wine soy sauce 2 gal 1.33 gal 1.00 gal
6 cups sherry wine 3 cups 2.00 cups 1.50 cups
2.5 cups cotton seed oil 1.25 cups 0.83 cups 0.63 cups
4 lbs. brown sugar 2 lbs. 1.33 lbs. 1.00 lbs.
chablis

Combine all and simmer for a SPELL, strain and cool. Then marinate everthing in the refrigerator!

I'm working like nobodies business to get the system fully operational and available for the clubs that want to use is parallel to their current systems. There are some of these :

Okay, latest news :

NMBR vers 7 = operational -

Meaning it can be used to score your own fleets. Accuracy right now is AT MINIMUM equal to Texel/ISAF and UPSN despite the fact that 160 boats (rare or rarely raced boats) don't have a confirmed width input yet.

When this input has been completed the system will ALSO in these cases make a jump in accuracy.

But important point is that input of ALL REGULARY RACED boats are fully confirmed and these ratings are at their best accuracy. (additional accuracy will become available after final tweaking)


So lets see this means that OVER 200 designs are now rated under NMBR and at minimum accuracy to USPN and Texel/ISAF

Go to :

http://www.xs4all.nl/~whijink/NMBR/

To access these ratings.


Wouter

Is there somebody that would like to help us with getting the widths of various confirmed ?

This is a job that can be done from you lounch chair surfing the net.

I got a few helpers now but :

1 is running race data through the system to find problem boats and compare accuracy to yardstick systems

1 is working his butt off getting documentation sorted and publized so that ISAF/Texel/VYC and USPN can read up on the system as well as interested sailors / organisations. (That's me if you haven't guessed that yet)

1 is running over the stuff I produced for errors and anomelies. After a while I get word blindness and can't see obvious mistakes.

We three don't have the time right now to do searches on the internet to find out the width of boats like Nacra 5.0 and 500 and SC20's

Anybody or group of body want to help us out here ?

Sadly no pay just eternal fame and the satisfaction of being part of something that improves you much beloved cat sailing scene !

Mail me at WouterHijink@hotmail.com

Wouter

Wouter,

Is it your intention to keep the NMBR name? I ask because it has been mentioned to me by a few folk that it might be a good idea to add it to Sailwave; which I have no problem doing; I just wondered about the name because something can't always be 'new'...

Good point - That's my pet peeve at work when engineers name something "New" in the system...like "Spider, Transmission, New".

Actually guys I'm of the same conviction.

HOWEVER, I don't think we can change the name at this moment.


I choose NMBR as a code name for the project when still associated to Texel, than afterwards there was no immediate reason to change the name and now because of the rapid developments in all area's I don't think I can change the name without causing disrupting confusion.

I think our best bet is this stick with the NMBR name for now and refer to it in talking as "NuMBeR". When the situation has stabilized enough in a while, say two or three years from now we can put through a name change.

Actually this also one thing I learned at F16 project. I still get mail to F16HTclass@hotmail.com and see people referring to 16HT's and we only carried that name and mail adress for the first 3 months in 2001. So no, I really don't think we can change the name now, although I would love to do that. But we can chance it before the identifier NEW has become meaningless.

Maybe in 2 to 3 years call it WMBR = Wind dependent Measurement Based Ratings ? I should have done that in 2002. To late now. But then again I didn't know in the beginning that the two wind dependent series of numbers would be a permanent feature. It is like naming Chicago Window 98 when the project was started in 1992, you just don't know if it will be launched in 1997 (win 97) or 1999 (win 99) stuff like that.

So please use the name NMBR for now Colin and Jake.

Wouter

(P.S) maybe we can find a new meaning for the N part. I mean we are stuck with the abbreviation but not so much with the acronym. )

Colin, thank you and please read my reply to Jake's post it answers your question.

But I'm in doubt now; What do you guys think, can we still change the name ?

One question to you Colin.

I must admit that I have never worked with sailwave. But I need to know how easy it is to change rating numbers in the input files. We have over 200 designs in the NMBR database now and I'm sure that a few input will turn out to be slightly wrong. You will make a typo here and there when punching in that much data. But Im most concerned about the US boats, several differ sligtly from the EU version and I'm expecting their measurements to come in over the next weeks but I want to have a sailwave version ready so a few clubs that requested it can use it and gain experience. How easy will it be to distribute corrections of this kind ?

Wouter