Actually Bob, that is a misconception. If "someone" , i.e. a single sailor, is to do this then the rating number will only convergence to a "personal handicap" for the sailor and not so much to the real handicap belonging to the design.

Basically, the ELAPSED TIME results are dependent on the design, on the skill level of the crew AND on the skill level of the crews on the other boats. These three influences can ONLY be seperated from one another when a significantly large pool of sailors are racing each design directly against eachother, thus creating the data. With one person this is simply not the case. Especially not when that person is not of the same skill level as the crews on the other boat types in the fleet. And of course how does one know when such a person is or is not of the same skill level ? Read the last sentence again and think about it some more.

This is why yardstick systems (and all statistical systems) fall down in such a glorious fashion when the racing scene collapses (small data pools). Think about the SC20 and its rating or even the FX-one rating.

Wouter

Hi all,

don't intend to tell the US sailors what to do, but hope I can tell you about my own experience in OZ, which may add more info into why it is important to try and get near the right number sooner rather than later.

My interest in the F16 class started when fitting spinnakers to the Mosquito class I was sailing. Luckily it already had a single Yardstick for one or two up. So we started racing and found the Yardstick correction for adding a spinnaker to the base number was too easy to win with, so Tim reviewed results and approached the VYC yardstick committee with that figure. This was put into the system and has only moved by .5 since, however at mixed events the front Mossies with spinnakers have continued to clean up unless it is blowing 25 kts. plus.

I came under constant criticsm for winning races in the open fleet on Yardstick and so have the other top sailors, but still the number has not changed, because the starting point was to generous? So one of the reasons I decided to go full F16 was the winning on Yardstick criticsm. I wanted to race for the front of the fleet and avoid the Yardstick criticsm.

I was lucky that when I approached the VYC Yardstick committee (one person)about the F16 yardstick, he agreed to use the number I suggested and had been using for a few races so had some results. It was based on adding the spinnaker factor to the Taipan Sloop Yardstick and rounding down. It is very hard to win races in mixed fleets with, but I would rather that than the criticsm I had when racing Mossies in mixed fleet. I know the F16 is capable of mixing it at the front of any fleet and Matt and others have shown this in the US.

If I where in the US I would be doing anything I could to get the number changed now, as when your number is near the front of the fleet, where your top sailors sail the boat, the class will get respect, which also helps to grow the class, we all know the F16 is fast, but to other sailors and prospective buyers only the handicap proves it.

It's good to only see one F16 in the VYC yardsticks, it is just one class afterall.

There was a comment made that "Nobody knows how the F16 DPN were decided" and this is not true. Both Darlene Hobock (Chair of the US PN Committee at the time) and I know because we did it. You have to remember this was at the birth of the Class when the current interest/boats/etc. was a pipe dream. There were only TWO type of cats in the US at the time that could legitimately be considered "F16's" and those were Taipan 4.9's to which spinnakers could/had been added and a lone BIM 16. NOBODY on the planet had any idea, realistically at that time, of how fast these boats were. The boats were new to the US and spinnakers (of the "modern" type- although this was several generations of design ago) were new to the Taipan and the Taipan was new to the US. Australia had the largest and most active fleet of Taipan 4.9's on the planet and I think you could say they had a few "rock stars" sailing them (as sloop and uni only mind you) - Glen Ashby, Greg Goodall, Jim Boyer, to name a few. So we used the Aussie VYC numbers for the Tornado vs the Taipan in sloop and uni configuration (BECAUSE the Aussies had PROVED there was a true performance diferential between these two configurations even when the Taipan uni was "optimal"- ie uni specialized sail and mast, etc.) as a basis to assign "provisional" PN's to the Taipan 4.9. Shortly afterward when we wanted to get an "F16HP" class going (anybody remember those days??) I simply petitioned Darlene and the PN Commitee to apply the standard PN spinnaker modification to the Taipan PN to get a "provisional" number for the F16's. At that early time I was one of the few guys sailing the 4.9 uni (and without a spinnaker prior to the F16 days) but we had Glen Ashby, Greg Goodall and Jim Boyer all sail and race the sloop (no spinnaker) over here and submit those numbers as did Lars Guck back in the early Taipan 4.9 days. Those experiences dropped the DPN 4.9 numbers and hence the F16 numbers (since they were based on the 4.9 numbers) but prior to the Blade there were not very many of us in the US racing F16 so numbers were naturally scattered and few and they were for Taipan 4.9s fitted with spinnakers, NOT fully optimized F16's like the Blade which have a much wider beam, thinner/deeper boards, "latest generation" spinnakers, and optimized mains (vs the original 4.9 "squarehead" that looks like a pinhead next to a new Glaser main!).
SO- Was it our original intent to have a single "F16" DPN? YES, because it was our original intent that the boats be raced uni or double "heads up" as a class.
Did we know if this was realistic? NO, it was our "goal"! Did we have ANY date to support this contention at that time? NO-so the PN Committee did the best they could and assigned 2 numbers. Does it appear we may have met this goal? Perhaps- but again, until a large, comparable "data set" is achieved we won't know. I believe in some of the European "boat parameter" handicapping systems the uni actually rates FASTER, rather than slower, so they actually have the opposite problem there when handicap racing. IMO the important thing is that, AS A CLASS, F16's race "heads up" against each other. By the way, IMO it is the nature of the beast that "Formula" and "development" classes will get faster as more people get involved and drive competition between builders/sailors/sailmakers. Just as the Inter 18 or original configuration Tiger for instance are no competition for the current generation/configuration of F18's.

Respectfully,
Kirt
("The Old US F16 Fart") <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Yes, the SCHRS rating system (of which I am chair) rates the single handed boat faster. The data we have supports this.

So Mark, do you suggest racing uni at the two up rating of 65.2 and reporting that to Portsmouth?

Robbie, Tshan you confuse two things here. Determining a PN Rating and Handicap racing.


Determining a PN Rating.
What you and the F16 class must do is
Report the elapsed time for the first F16 main and spin, the first 2up F16 and the elapsed times for the first of any other class of boat sailing that same course within oh… 10 minutes of your start. Don’t count on the RC… It’s the last of their worries at the end of a regatta.

Remember…ONLY ELAPSED TIMES MATTER… the corrected time, the rating used, the finish position are irrelevant. You also need all configurations of the F16’s. and windspeed.

You can’t count on the RC doing this… Duplicate information won’t hurt the PN Committee if the race gets submitted twice.
So… even when you get a one design race off… Collecting and reporting info on the other races running the course will serve your cause and have complete integrity.

Handicap Racing.

Everyone agrees that the sailors want a level and fair playing field.

Over the past year and 1/2 the consensus among US F16 Sailors is that the rating is way too slow for both configurations. (not to mention your competitors point of view)

The first approach to this problem was to use the faster rating of the two. This was adopted by the Chesapeake sailors and Florida sailors

Now, Race results, EU race Results, ISAF and Texel ratings document that the current ratings are about 7% too slow.

So, that leaves you Robbie with a decision…. What rating should I use for the Regatta this weekend? If I use the slow rating… I know that I have an unfair advanatage.. HMMM>.


If you leave up to the RC… they will score you according to the USPN table.… (they have no choice)

So, IMO, Now you have an integrity issue…. You know the rating is wrong, the playing field is not fair and you have a huge advantage over everyone else in the race.!

When you say… Sigh… we will just keep turning in results and hope that ratings correct to the fair rating… What more can we do ....that is the system.…

That is just crap.

As an individual…you can ask to use a faster rating which is in line with Texel and ISAF SCR. The RC won’t care…the Portsmouth committee won’t care…

In fact… that is already what the majority of Florida and MD sailors are doing…. They sail one up and use the faster two up rating.

You can also as a class… persuade your sailors to use a proper rating.. When they register for a race… they say… Please use this rating… it is faster across the board then published ratings. Thank you.

I believe this is what Wouter is suggesting with the term RESET the rating.

Every race that you compete in will now be a fair contest between you and the other sailors.

Now… nothing can stop other F16’ from using the published ratings…. So be it.
But if you believe the F16 rating is way off… tben you will be racing with integrity.


Robie wrote…
Some say use the UNI rating, report it, and it will get changed.
You say sail with the faster rating report it and it will be the only one to be used.

You report the ELAPSEP TIME>>> NOT the corrected time… not the finish position, not the rating. The RATING that you choose to race with does NOT MATTER to the PN Committee.

The only thing you, Robbie should do is report exactly the configuration that turned in the elapsed times to the Pn Committee and wind conditions.

Now I am confused, how can I (Robi) help Tom Shannon (US Class rep) to get rid of the UNI rating all together?


What can I do when I race, with the numbers, in order to be scored with the 65.2 rating and it gets reported to Portsmouth?


Just to be clear… the 65.2 rating IS NOT REPORTED OR USED BY PORTSMOUTH… only elapsed times matter.
What there is to do is report elapsed times for all classes of boats.

Robbie wrote

Other than asking the RC to score me with the faster rating, what can I do?

Well… you can get the class to generate the consensus Fair Rating for the F16., Ask class members to use this rating when they go racing… take on reporting elapsed times to the PN committee for every race and not depend on the Race Committee. This will get your published rating in line as soon as possible.

Take Care
Mark

Why do you need to submit data that distinquishes between uni and sloop F16? Just submit F16. This is probably where the whole problem has arisen. If you want to have one rating, only submit one set of rating data for F16.

Well ISAF has the single handed version faster..

Texel treats one up and two up differently

So to should USPN....

Its the only fair thing for all of the racers on the course.

Now... What you do in your one design start...is your buisness.. If you want me to race with a naked cupie doll strapped to the pole to be a card carying F16 member... so be it.

I want one! I'm gonna name it "Bob Curry"!

Ok, I got you. Portsmouth doesn't care what I use as a rating at a regatta. I personally feel that 65.2 is more accurate than 67.1, so I will use that number when I register (since I am full of integrity).

After I hound the RC for the elapsed times, I'll make sure they get sent in. Part of the required data is "code or class" of boat. I assume, I'd send in F16U when applicable, even though I subscribe to the F16 rating (I know, Portsmouth doesn't care about ratings).

It just seems silly to have the F16U rating, if no one uses it.

Please make up my mind! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I used 67.1 last Saturday and have registered for Juana's with 67.1.

I don't care what number we use, but I do hope we will all use the same one.

How about choosing this rating as a basis for fair racing the f16 (1) and the F16 (2)

This is the current F18 rating. The Texel and ISAF ratings for one up sailors would predict a slightly faster then this rating.

62.4 65.9,64.1,61.3,59.5


You would have a level playing field with all of the other 2 person spin boats

There will be some F18HT's there and some I20's - why not just 59.whatevertheyare?? Haha. I know you won't believe this but I believe the data system works (if everyone posts all their scores) - I just hate having two ratings that my boat conforms too; one is totally bogus and the other is suspect.

Not to belabour the point, but I still have these two questions:

1. If no one uses the F16U handicap will anyone care? (analogy: if a bear craps in the woods, ..... well, you know).
2. Why have a rating that no one will claim? 95% of F16 racing is under 65.2 (my guess at the percentage, no data to prove it AND I'd assume a lot of that racing is 1-up).

It seems like everyone would be better served by loading all the data in one single F16 config. BUT - I said I would go with whatever the US Sailing guru's say is the WORD. Get Jamie to respond to my last email and I'll go with it....

It is ironic that, the ONLY times (except for Tiki's last admission) that 67.1 was used was in Alter Cup qualifying (twice, diff areas). Hmmmm. RC made them do it. Hmmmm. In one case it didnt matter too much, but this last (Not-a-Regatta; that started this post - Sorry Oley) he would have won at 67.1 and 65.2 and whatever the F18 rating is he would have been in the hunt. I'd hate for that rating to factor into someone being eliminated from the AC finals.

Do any 1-up F16 sailors want to keep the 67.1 rating? I have not talked to any. Speak up. I am open to hearing all opinions.

Drop the 67.1 ive never used it.

Drop the 67.1.

ISAF SCHRS ratings can be found here

Drop the 67.1

At the qualifier we were orginally scored at the 65 rating since they looked at the blade 16 rating. With this we were 1 and 2 in place. Then RC said sunday they saw the uni rating and were going to use that. Well I am not sure what was used in the end as I never saw final results and since there were not enough races it does not matter.

To me if we all agree that the 67 is just way off base (which it looks to be) then as a class lets all agree to use the 65 only, and no one report the uni setting. This will lead to no data for this config and then after a while be dropped from the portsmouth numbers. Trust me they will drop numbers off the chart, they did this to me about 3 years ago, dropped the over 200 lbs A cat rating and when i showed up with my old wooden A that weighed over 200 i had to race at the same rating as the new a cats and got killed on time correction. Well asked the portsmouth person why the number was gone and was told since no one seemed to be using it they got rid of it. Well that will probably happen to the uni if no one uses it.
The other thing is to just get so many people on these boats that at every event we have our own class. Then straight up no matter what the rating is.

The only fair answer I can see is to vote as a group in the US on how we are gonna do this and then stick to it everywhere. Otherwise it can get confusing on what is the proper way to go.
I do not want to do well in races cause of an unfair number but also this is the system we all agree to sail under and the number is set (meaning the 65) so as of now that is the number we should play by. We can petition the commetitte to reset it lower but until that is done we should sail with this number. I know it might be unfair and other groups will grumble but we did not set the number there because we wanted an unfair advantage. Kirt and the old dogs set it where the orginal f16s seemed to fall. Let us hope that the commettiee takes the advice of the class officers and combines the numbers and drops it some.

Well that is enough wasting time typing at work.

Does the F18 have ratings for 1 up or 2?
Could the F18 be a uni without the jib?
Big or small chute ratings?

No.
There is a modifier that can be applied to those boats that aren't normally thought of as singlehanding- or were never designed to singlehand. The issue with the F16 is that it is meant to be sailed 1 or 2 up.
I am sure plenty of people sail F18s solo occassionally, but I seriously doubt many people race them that way. Besides, I have a hard time righting the blade every once in a while, I can't imagine trying to right a 400lb cat.