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?
You are not rating the rule, as the F18 rule (as I have said a number of times) does not measure the same things as SCHRS.
IMO… you rate the rule…. The F18 rule has not changed…
back to my other example again; I build a boat that does not have a limit on dagger board size (as per F18), it does not have a mast height limit (as per F18) and it does, but does have a "beam to mast top limit". For my first boat I build it with very small daggers and a very short mast. THis boat then (say) rates to 100.
We will call it the scooby1 design
I then decide that I messed up my boat design and so add very large boards (that are not controlled in my class rules as this will make it point much better) and I also go for a much taller mast). Under your proposal these 2 boats whould rate the same. however the 2nd version WILL be quicker; maybe only 3-5% quicker, but it will be quicker. Fair, I think not.
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
Which is exactly what SCHRS is going to be doing
I believe.
Old F18's will rate at 1.01 and new(er) boats will rate at something else for racing using SCHRS - I've never suggested the F18's should handicap race at their F18 championships.
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..
This is why SCHRS and Texel exist; once you get the measurement criteria correct, you can fairly rate these boats by just measuring them. Wouter said above that people turned up with what they thought were "ratings" beaters at Texel and it was not the case. Ergo the rule works.
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.
So you want to use a rating rule and a "portsmouth rule" !!!!!!!!
In the end... you have to decide what is the fairest solution and get people to agree.
I don't; SCHRS and the ISAF do;
I would be happy to use either SCHRS or Texel assuming they are coming up with similar answers.
