Carl Said:
<br>This from a well known cat designer -
<br>
<br>-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?
<br>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?
<br>Good Sailing,
<br>
<br>MH:
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br>
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br><br><br>