Originally Posted by Isotope235
Originally Posted by David Ingram
Seriously look at the damn site, look at the diagrams, if you can read a tape you can measure a beachcat including the sails! For f#@$ sake you don't even have to do the math there is a spreadsheet for that!

I just spent most of the day measuring my Isotope to generate a SCHRS handicap for it. I agree that it isn't "rocket science", but it is not as simple as you make it out to be either. There's no guidance on how to take measurements, and many of the calculations (all the mast, boom, and sail areas) must be done outside of the SCHRS spreadsheet.

I took some values from the factory specs, measured what I could, used some measurements that were taken in slightly different ways than diagrammed, and guesstimated one (I didn't want rig the boat in the rain). I'm not sure I got things right, but if so, the Isotope is faster than I thought. According to Portsmouth DPN, an Isotope (1-up) is 2.3% faster than a Hobie 16 (2-up). According to the SCHRS number I derived, I owe a 2-up H16 11.3% According to DPN, A Hobie 18 is about 4% faster than an Isotope, but SCHRS says I owe a TheMightyHobie18 almost 2%. On DPN, I've always sailed nearly even against a Hobie 17, but SCHRS says I owe an H17 over 12%.

Maybe I got the measurements wrong. I'd be happy to measure my boat with someone experienced with SCHRS. If, however, an Isotope really is that much faster than other sloop-rig catamarans, then I'm less skilled than I thought.



Boat measurement is indeed a very underestimated task. The diagrams in the various "how to measure" documents may look simple but there are different ways to interpret them from different configurations and the accuracy of the measurement is a direct correlation of the measurer's ability to understand the intent of the measurement. It's not something that I would trust to just anyone. This is where you set yourself up for silly stuff like foot-strap-gate at a world championship.


Originally Posted by brucat

I know that certification alone doesn't make you a good official, so let's not go down that rat hole.


You got that right. In fact, a significant number of certified officials that I have come across on the smaller-than-national level suffer from a real lack of practical application. The same would be true if you set up a measurer certification system where nobody fails to make the cut. A measurer certification process should also include standard tools to carry out the measurements and a real world qualification tests where a certain number will fail...but then you will have a hard time finding the people willing to submit themselves to such a critical process.


Jake Kohl