Hi Steve

69.2 * 1.02 = 70.6 for the FX1 one up without spin.

By comparison, a Nacra 5.5 uni is 69.7

This does not seem out of bounds for comparable boats given that your configuration has not been actively raced (IN ANY configuration) in the USA.

I disagree with you that the boat should be listed in the ratings table as a class boat because where would you stop. Should Tornado’s with square top mains and classic jibs have their own separate rating?

Portsmouth has always followed the lead of the builders. Performance is constantly renaming their boats… eg I17R is now Nacra F17…. Inter 20 became Nacra Inter 20 and now its Nacra 20 and the tables reflect their wishes. Hobie Cat has decided the class rules and the class will be a main and spin rigged boat and that’s what they tell the Portsmouth Committee. (But they will sell the thing in any number of configurations) The PN Committee wants to accommodate the sailors as well and lists boats that are NOT supported by the builders… eg the Nacra 6.0 NA with NE chute! They do their best to make sure that no matter who defined a class, the ratings are accurate and fair.

Scorekeepers like the fact that boat configurations are named in the PN table… It makes their life a whole lot easier to register a boat with a known configuration. For example, the Taipan 4.9 is a PIA. The boat races… Main only (uni), Main and Jib two up, Main and Jib one up, Main, Jib, Spin (F16)… Main Jib Large Spin NON F16, Main Spin (uni). The NIGHTMARE is the Hobie Tiger, Is it racing as an F18, eg complies with the jib and spin sizes and crew weight rules. Is it racing as a Tiger. Large sails… smaller crew weight… AND it’s impossible to just look at the boat and tell…. (Basically you let the other F18 sailors police their own) At least with the Taipan it’s easy to count sails and people.

Should your boat FX1 uni be listed separately?

No, I don’t think so because you don’t have a class boat. My definition of CLASS with respect to Portsmouth racing is the following. The term class applies to a boat configuration that is raced by several sailors in the same race against other class rated designs. EG. the race will take the top FX1 finish time of several sailors and compare it to the top Nacra 5.5u finish time of several sailors for calculating the rating and this process over time separates the crew performance from the boat performance and generates a solid rating. The assumptions are that these boats are in good racing shape with adequate racing sails and actively raced. Personally, I believe that in order for the boat to be rated as a class boat that it be actively sailed during the year and evidence would be if it had participation at some kind of "nationals" at least every other year. This criteria is a way of saying the boat rating is dynamic and it’s rating should be adjusted annually in comparison with other racing boats using the statistical procedures that are the Portsmouth system.

Previously we discussed the creep that dead boat ratings suffered… EG 15 year old boat with 15 year old sails and a new racer data starts to RAISE the rating of a once popular boat (EG supercat 20). Your problem is the other tail of the distribution.

Boat configurations like the FX1 without spin or the CFR 20 are not a class by my definition. (The CFR is a one off prototype) The race data should be handled separately when it’s used to generate ratings on an ongoing basis. If the boat configuration appears in race data frequently, then as a matter of convenience to the scorekeeper and the sailing community the boat configuration should be listed…. But the data should not be weighted the same as the popular racing classes and this should be noted in the ratings.
There is a practical issue of listing the boat in the PN ratings in that unlisted boats or boats with modifications (eg yours) would not be eligible for use in an Area Alter qualifier. (Whether this is fair or not is subject of another thread)

Take Care
Mark