This from a well known cat designer -

-You pulled my trigger when you asked "what boat or boats are not rated fairly by the Portsmouth handicap rating"? The most outstanding example of a misrated boat is the Tornado. Remember the selection trials for a new catamaran to replace the Tornado in the Olympics? The Tornado without spinnaker at a PN of 64 beat the tar out of all the new boats with PNs in the 59 to 60 range. How is it that a 64 PN boat can do this so easily and consistently to boats rated 4 to 5 points faster?
Does this mean that all these new boats should be rated in the 65 to 66 range or does it mean that the Tornado should be rated in the 58 to 59 range? One or the other case must be true! We all know that a 1970 Tornado built with fiberglass mat and no core and 100 pounds overweight is not competitive with a 2000 Marstrom Tornado but they have the same Portsmouth number, 64. Why is this?
Good Sailing,

Carl Said:
This from a well known cat designer -

-You pulled my trigger when you asked "what boat or boats are not rated fairly by the Portsmouth handicap rating"? The most outstanding example of a misrated boat is the Tornado. Remember the selection trials for a new catamaran to replace the Tornado in the Olympics? The Tornado without spinnaker at a PN of 64 beat the tar out of all the new boats with PNs in the 59 to 60 range. How is it that a 64 PN boat can do this so easily and consistently to boats rated 4 to 5 points faster?
Does this mean that all these new boats should be rated in the 65 to 66 range or does it mean that the Tornado should be rated in the 58 to 59 range? One or the other case must be true! We all know that a 1970 Tornado built with fiberglass mat and no core and 100 pounds overweight is not competitive with a 2000 Marstrom Tornado but they have the same Portsmouth number, 64. Why is this?
Good Sailing,

MH:
You can point to many inconsistancies in Portsmouth racing. They are too numerous to even begin to list. However, every year I turn in my scores to the Portsmouth Committee and every year they get corrected to be closer to the right answer. I don't like the Porsmouth racing the clock but it is all we have currently and therefore support and try to improve it. The Portsmouth Committee does look at inconsistencies that are sent thier way. I recall looking down the new numbers one year and seeing the Cathouse 20 listed as slower than a Nacra 6.0. I was shocked as I knew the Cathouse 20 was basically a lighter Nacra 6.0. I informed the Committee and it was corrected quickly.

I don't think Portsmouth is really a point for disscussion here as we will have no immediate effect on Portsmouth racing other than asking them to give a number to the NAF20 class if we desire.

Mike Hill
H20 #791


Mike Hill

I agree with Mike here. What we are trying to do is develope a Formula where 20 foot boats race head to head first to finish. It is that reason that I do not endorse sail modifications for weight or seperate standings for light/heavy teams.

We will have to be "portsmithed" for rankings with other non formula boats. I have had discussions with US Sailing about this issue. I have said that we would prefer another system but as this is the system that USS endorses than we will happily live with it as a class.

Carl, thank you for your compliments. I do have someone interested for you but I need a $ amount and what that gets them.

I think we have adequate box rules already agreed to. Lets get a committee together and begin jotting down the rules. Anyone interested in being on the committee please private message me or email me.

Thanks
Steve

Thanks Mike -
You are of course right ,--only posted it in responce , to answer a direct question ,.
Porthmouth or ISAF or Texel are not perfect in all regards , -they attempt to average ALL designs . p USES av times , and a long list of design modification factors ,--the others use design measurement ,--which do benifit by looking at race results and av finish times ,---It is an almost impossible task , - The people involved do a wonderfull job , and have my admiration for tackling it .
-Prefer the design measurement , it allows a natural progression and readily connects to Formula ,--iTS ADVANTAGES ARE READILY CLEAR, NOW BEGINNING TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS WE construct formula classes.

-Will post comparing the CURRENT Fox at 418 LBs and smaller main ,--with the current Inter 20 at 388 and 15 sq ft larger main and how the two may be equalized under the proposed sail area to total weight rule ,--

Maybe this will help all to clearly comprehend it . --
Again just understanding the conplex problems , existing conditions handed us and goals we wish within the class are half the battle.

Thanks Mike -
It is amazing how some will presume to scold others for using a word like idiotic in their posts then the next day post someyhing far worse themselves , --
In posting any statement ,concept or rules proposal you had better be prepared to reverse the scenario and apply it equally . -A look in the mirror .
--Class goals are for equal FAIR SAILING for all , and encouraging excellence and seaworthiness in design .

If we agree and stick to these over riding principles we will be O K.

Carl