Is it Fair?:




Is it fair
for sailors with OLD out of production designs to have a rating continually adjust upwards because their boats are old and soft and the sails were shot years ago.
Currently in Portsmouth … This can and does happen! Sailors with old boats believe that their rating SHOULD be adjusted upwards relative to the hot new boats. Not sure but in measurement areas, Can this sailor ask for a new rating because his boat is much heavier then the original rated boat?

IMO… Portsmouth should announce a rule that Ratings will NOT update to slower ratings for a boat class ONCE it has stopped holding national or regional championships. The reason is that the assumptions of the Portsmouth system are violated and the outcome would be unfair. Measurement rules should not re rate a class boat unless the owner makes significant changes and pays for a new individual boat rating.


Is it Fair:
To list the original Dart Hawk or Inter 18 as slower then the current F18's (US Portsmouth). However, If you grabbed the latest and greatest rig for the boat and updated the bits ... What should it then rate? Are you rating the rule… OR the designer’s best guess at optimization? If you rate the designers boat.. then you need to rate each individual boat class within F18’s (Scooby’s suggestion). …If you change a piece of equipment in the rated parameters, do you then have to get individually measured?

IMO… you rate the rule…. The F18 rule has not changed… so the Hawk owner is just like the owner of a 15 year old P16 with 15 year old sails asking the Portsmouth committee for a slower rating… NO you can’t do this… that is a slippery slope to destruction. In any system… you assume the boats are maintained in racing shape, good sails and actively raced by a population of sailors around a balanced course… you can’t adjust for old age and dated equipment. The Hawk owner can upgrade his equipment or not and then pay for an individual measurement. In Portsmouth regions, You would need to have the Hawks racing in sufficient numbers in their original configuration at a regional championship to collect valid data. If not… they should use the measurement rating and interpolate the data into the US Portsmouth system. If some parameter is NOT spec’d by the F18 rule, then you should sample the representative F18’s every two years and re measure and recalculate the rating. This should keep the rating current and fair without stepping on the class or formula rules.

Is it Fair to have a Tornado with an Alu mast rated the same as a Tornado with a carbon mast which performs better in all wind conditions (you can't break it by dumping the sheet in a big blow down wind... so now you play it eg faster.) AND it's lighter with less inertia at the top.. The Tornado Class has tightened and tightened its rules to become virtually one design so as to maintain their Olympic status. Development occurs in jumps… (carbon mast) and in increments.. (better sails and sailing techniques).

IMO, This situation differs from the F18 example. In this case, the class changed the rule and allowed a tightly regulated carbon mast while grandfathering all of the Alu masts. So, I think that this change warrants TWO entries into the measurement handicap table giving you the Tornado Classic, Tornado Alu, Tornado Carbon
Since the Classic is not raced in nationals any longer… I would FIX the Portsmouth ratings and just monitor the race data. Once the Alu mast stops showing up at the nationals or after the rule change. … It’s rating should be fixed and not allowed to drift slowly upwards either. The measurement rule will calculate the effect of the lighter mast on the rating and publish 3 ratings.

The changes in sail design and techniques are part of the game… Perhaps these types of classes (F18, Tornado, Prindle 19’s) should be hit with a small fixed development correction factor in a measurement rule that strictly controlled SMOD one design class don’t have to use (Nacra 20, Hobie 16)

The A Class differs from the tightly controlled Tornado, and the more loosely controlled F18 box rule. In that their class rule does not specify many of the parameters rated in the measurement rules. The solution would be to require periodic measurement of 3 representative class boats every couple of years and add in the fixed development correction factor. This should keep the actual boats on the water rated fairly with respect to the rest of the world. The older A designs are just like the old F18’ and Prindle 16’s and can’t ask for a ratings break IF they still compete in the one design regattas. If development kicks them out of the game… they can be listed separately like the Tornado (alu) or as in the USA. A class (200 or greater)

Finally, what should you do with new ONE off boats or radical upgrades of older designs or classes with fewer then 20 boats racing. The CFR 20 is a good example of a ONE OFF while one Supercat 20 was radically upgraded in the states and the M20 has 2 boats while the F16’s are just approaching critical mass in the USA 8 boats at an upcoming regatta..

In Portsmouth Regions, we should not pretend that we will get a fair rating relative to the other classes for these boat through statistics! (Every assumption of the Portsmouth system is violated)! We should change the rule and state. These boats will be rated using a measurement rule, interpolated into the US Portsmouth rating function of similar boats until the minimal criteria are met (number of boats at national championship, etc) any changes that you make to your boat that effect a rated area result in the need to re-measure your boat. Once you hit the Portsmouth criteria., we will use all of the recent data to calculate a fair rating. In measurement areas…the owner must pay to have the boat individually measured to secure a rating and take the development class hit.

AS always… comparing apples to oranges is tough. So comparing spin to non spin is always tough. Comparing modern to classic designs is easier but still tough.

In the end... you have to decide what is the fairest solution and get people to agree.