Mark made an interesting post here and I thought it worthy of a new thread. Mark's original Post:

One of the underlying assumptions of the Portsmouth system has been negated and that is why the rating for the Supercat 20 is inaccurate.

The assumption is that the class of boat being rated is being sailed competitively. The idea is that a group of competitive sailors will figure the boat out, maintain the sails in competitive shape and compete against other classes of comparably skilled racers. The elapsed time data will allow the class of boat to be rated accurately relative to its peers. The Supercat 20 is not been actively raced in 2002 nor has it been actively raced for the last 20 years.

The recent data used to calculate the current rating has been collected from a small number of casual racers competing in small local regattas using the original sails. I don;t know when this boat class has conducted a nationals much less a one design event. The problem is that the latest data points have gradually supplanted the 20 year old data. The old data was used to compute an accurate Portsmouth rating. Portsmouth used to rate this class of boat as faster then a classic tornado. Usually this is not a problem because few competitive sailors choose to rehab these old designs and spend the cash for new sails etc etc. (When was the last time you saw a Prindle 18 with new sails competing at a major event.)

The monohull Portsmouth fleets face the same issues. Sailing World had an article several years ago describing how Dennis Conners took a 20 year old phrf boat and put a top of the line bottom job along with new sails and good hardware, and dry sailed the boat. He cleaned up in the San Diego PHRF fleet. We all recognize that handicap racing has this limitation.

Darline H has asked me and another sailor several months ago (well before the steeple chase) to look into this quirk in Portsmouth, collect some information and propose some solutions. Since I have put the boats away for the winter, I should be able to get going.

One solution that I am considering proposing is to sort the boat classes into two divisions, Competitive and One off or inactive. I would define those classes that are competitively raced as those conducting a nationals with at least 7 boats in attendance within the last 2 ?? years. The Portsmouth calculation would remain the same for these classes of boats. We must change the method for updating the one off boats / dead boat society classes of boats. We would not continue to routinely update the database which has lead to the observed drift of Portsmouth ratings upwards. Instead, the ratings would be frozen at levels which accurately estimated the boats performance relatively to its peers in the past.

Another proposed solution is to not let Portsmouth ratings correct upwards? If a boat class earns a rating of 61.0 then the only thing that poor equipment or sailor skill can do is degrade the boats performance and raise the rating number, however these corrections would not be accurate and unfair to competitors competing against the sailors of these types of boats.
I am very interested in any critiques or comments.

Thanks
Mark Schneider

Mark,

You guys are right on the mark as far as I am concerned. I really like the idea of keeping a rating from climbing upwards but I can't escape the feeling that there should be some sort of exception. However, at the same time, you don't want to make things overly complicated.

Take a look at the JF18HT for instance. Immediately some of the best sailors have participated in the class and the rating has quickly dropped...I dunno...I guess it still shouldn't go back up. I don't think I can really put a finger on my reservations just yet (anyone?).

The more I consider you’re ideas, the more I like the ‘2 year active’ classification. I wonder if it would be possible to gather some of the old rating information and put together some scenarios of today’s ratings if this were in place 8 years ago or so (I might be able to help - would really like too - but work is pretty fanatical at the moment). I think that would actively prevent the rating rockets (except in the case of Rick White’s Hootered wave ) but it would take a long while to take effect – unless it were made retroactive.

I gave some thought to the active and non-active ideas and I don't believe it solves any of the problems associated with the Steeplechase results. The problem lies in that the ratings are based on bouy results. If a race ends up being a reach these PN ratings are basically invalid. But most distance races don't end up being just one long reach which makes the PN numbers usually work well. I don't believe there is an adequate solution to PN number problems in distance racing unless you changed the system around totally to include the types of courses that the boats use during the race like 10% upwind, 40% reach, 30% spinnaker.

I believe a smarter split would be between spinnaker and non-spinnaker boats. This would help bring similar boats together. If the race was really a reach reach I believe a decent sailor would have won it on a Tiapan 4.9 (on corrected time).

On a final note I reviewed what boats would qualify under Mark's idea and here is the list.
Hobie Wave
Hobie 14
Hobie 16
Hobie 17
Hobie 18
Hobie 20
Hobie Tiger

Nacra 5.5 Uni
Nacra 5.8
Nacra 6.0

Inter 17R
Formula 18
Inter 20

F18HT (Bim)
Tornado
A-Cat
Shark
Isotope
Mystere 4.3?

I don't know about you but I don't think this list is makes for any fairer competition.

Just some thoughts,
Mike Hill
H20 #791

Hi Jake

Think if you just put hobie bob mast head floats on all boats it would go a long way to make them more fair ,--no wait ,-just add a float bob and make each one carry a 50 gallon cooler of beer ,---yea thats it ,--now we're on to some real equalizers for racing ,-think no one will care how the thing is scored by the end ,or if they make it there , at least they won't run out of beer ,--fun racing may as well be real fun .

just my offbeat humor again ,--couldn't resist

We obviously need better different structure for distance racing .
Happy Holidays

Carl

and then there's the problem with boats that never have had class racing...ARC22, RC30, etc.

I'm not entirely sold that the Portsmouth rating doesn't work well in distance racing. I will agree that it has weeknesses but no system that allows sailors to pit a Hobie 14 against an Inter 20 is going to be perfect. What it does do is allow us all to get out on the water and compete on a reasonably level playing field. One could probably develop a separate P rating for distance races but I think that's overcomplication to achieve a minimal gain. However, I'm sure there are improvements we can make that will not overcomplicate the duties of the race committees but still offer larger gains in accuracy.

We must also consider the focus of the different systems under which we can race: Handicap, Class, Formula. The very serious racers will buy a boat for which there is substantial class or formula support. Others want to race their boats because of it's uniqueness or because of it's availability. These folks are happy with the Portsmouth rating racing and if they are not, they will find a way to get a boat that has a class or formula following (if ya' can't beat 'em - join 'em!...anyone know of a used Supercat? ).

I bought my 6.0NA because I wanted a better benchmark of my ability. I enjoyed racing the 5.2 and improved a tremendously but I got to the point where I couldn't tell if I was doing better or if I had a soft rating - so I upgraded. It's easy to get wrapped up in the inaccuracy of handicap racing but we should accept it for what it is: a lesser yardstick than class or formula racing.

Mike,
good points, the angles make a big difference for distance races. This is a tough issue...
And here's another thing to consider: fast sailors competing make the boats faster. In other words, the newbie on a P18 may have an easy rating, but he/she doesn't have anyone to tune against, and generally sails with old sails. Also, old boats are slower. If almost all of the P16's in the U.S. are waterlogged and flexible, then this is actually very representative of the "actual" boats being raced.
While it may not be good if Randy, etc. decides to sail a brand-new P18, this rating IS accurate based on the current sails being used and the level of tuning within the class. I don't know... seems to me that it's a tradeoff between accuracy within the system from a mathematical perspective and a sort of "self-handicapping" system.
That said, personally, I would be inclined to support the sort of "ratings can drop, but can't go up" idea suggested.
I don't think we should go back through the portsmouth #'s and "revive" the lowest #'s possible, however. This would be unfair to those in the "dead boat" classes, as a lot of tuning has been lost. It's been a slippery slope, and maybe it's better to just see that it doesn't go further. I think it would be better to just force the classes to perform at at least their "current" levels. Then, we don't slam the newbies with beat-up boats with impossible #'s and lose more sailors.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is this: We're all leery of some great sailor coming along and blowing us away on a "dead boat" because of it's cushy rating. But on the other hand, if this happens on a regular basis, then the rating will be adjusted accordingly.
Frankly, I have a strong hunch that Bill Roberts exploit this weekend was to prove a point, not to win a trophy. More power to him. Hopefully, more people will do what he did. And guess what - the # will drop, and the rating system will self-adjust. I'm not sure what system is better, but I just thought I'd point out some of the advantages.
Just my take on it.

Michael Coffman
t4.9#32

Hi Mike

You raise the point that a handicap system (Texel, ISAF or Portsmouth) that is designed primarily for windward leeward or Olympic triangles will be flawed when a distance race turns into a reach. I agree and don't have a solution for this one.

You make that point that similar boats should be scored together and that lumping them all (spin + non spin) together is unfair. I agree with you, the distance races that CRAC hosts score the two groups seperately. We score everyone together and award one trophy for best corrected time. Human nature dictates that everyone wants to know how they competed against the entire fleet. (Basically you want to know your overall finish, your finish within spin or non spin and then your one design class finish position and depending on which one was the best will determine what you remember and tell tall tales about. If the Taipan 4.9 had competed.... you can add the giant killer factor into the equation of how do you want to report the results as well!)

The problem with the steeple chase result is with a refurbished supercat 20 and the rating creep over the past 20 years for supercat 20's. Over time, these boats moved down the pecking order and the rating became inaccurate.

The changes that I am proposing would be taken by the Portsmouth committe as they consider each year's rating list. This would require a policy change on the part of the PN committe only. (Race committe's using portsmouth would not do anything different ) Racers sailing older designs might find that their rating dropped to what they once were back in the day when their boat was among the top dogs.

You listed all of the boats that are actively raced in the US and Canada. I believe that the ratings for these boats are viewed as accurate. Based on the Steeplechase results, the elapsed times support the notion that even for this very very atypical race, the ratings for the popular classes, I20', Nacra 6.0's, Tornado's, and F18HT's seem reasonable.

Everyone should remember that in a 4 hour race, the small differences between boat designs that are usually lost in the noise of the racing around a triangle for 45 minutes are magnified. Moreover, as wind and sea conditions change over this period, some designs are also favored or burdened. Everyone should keep in mind that this is not a perfect game and the winner's are determined by the rules as well as sailing skill. For instance, in the Steeplechase... Rick White refuses to use the distance rating for spinakers in distance races. From the reports that I heard, choices made and execution by the race teams determined the outcome... not the ratings (if you exclude the supercat debate)

(Hell, the damn swiss are playing by the same rules as everyone else and seem to have a clear advantage in the cup racing ... which perhaps leads to a very interesting dilemena of : Where would they race the next Cup?... Last time I looked at a map...Switzerland was land locked! Lake sailing does not seem fitting for the America's Cup)

Take Care
Mark

Hi Jake

back in the day, the Nacra 5.2 was rated the same as or faster then the Hobie 18! Today a hobie 18 is rated faster 71.5 versus 72.5

Not a big deal but further evidence of rating creep for a dead boat society design.

Take Care
Mark

Hello Michael

Thanks for your perspective.
I am curious. you wrote
I don't think we should go back through the portsmouth #'s and "revive" the lowest #'s possible, however. This would be unfair to those in the "dead boat" classes, as a lot of tuning has been lost.

Actually, I don't think that its lost... (Most of the active racers in America started on one of these dead boat society desgins... just ask them... I am sure they would share their widsom. In fact, I don't think that its actually soughtg after or used by these racers! Consequently, why should the rating system take into account the racers apathy.... similarly, why should the rating take into account old tired equipment that breaks down or works poorly. I think fairnes requires an accurate rating for the boats design.

you wrote:
It's been a slippery slope, and maybe it's better to just see that it doesn't go further. I think it would be better to just force the classes to perform at at least their "current" levels

Good point... had not considered combining both of my proposals.

you wrote
. Then, we don't slam the newbies with beat-up boats with impossible #'s and lose more sailors.

Perhaps.. but I think that this is the role of a B fleet organization to solve... not the role of the rating system. Handicap racing has enough complex factors to account for already. The racing sailor buys into the rule ONLY if they believe that it fairly rates the boat.... the minute your rating takes into account sailor apathy or lack of skill... you will see the racers start to loose interest in the game. Sailors will accept that one particular design is optimal in waves, etc etc. However, if the scale(rating) apears tilted in favor of one class then the rest of the sailors will loose interest in this game.

For instance, the original F20 rule resulted in a clear win for the ventilo 20 design and so EVEN THOUGH all of the other designs were optimized and legal in the f20 rule... the interest in the racing class collapsed. In contrast, the F18 rule was sufficiently robust that any number of designs could compete fairly and evenly... in fact only the recent capricorn design appeared to threaten the competitive playing field and was outlawed.

In summary, I think that the wink wink.... your rating is a little bit of a gimme does not serve the racing public. All this having been said.... this is really a tempest in a teacup... The vast majority of boats actually racing seriously in the US and Canada are fairly rated.

Take Care
Mark

Hi Mark, Thanks for volunteering to take on this project to make Portsmouth ratings even more accurate. Thanks also for letting us know and asking for our input. I agree with you that Portsmouth handicapping does an excellent job already. Having raced the Steeplechase 9 times myself and helped to run it once, I know very well how conditions can favor some given design to make it outperform its rating. If a boat has a "sweet" spot and the course favors that, then look out! I can think of three designs like that in past Steeplechases: The Mystere 6.0XL which Robbie used several years ago on another windy reach to sail out of sight and set the new record that year. About four years ago the close windy reaching favored the Taipan 4.9; allowing it to sail past fast twenty footers to leeward! And maybe three years ago the new Marstrom 20 that Robbie sailed upwind in light-mediun breeze just dazzled the rest of the fleet.

As you pointed out with the America's Cup example, even rating rules will experience the same phenomenon - the various aspects of the rating rule will create boats that differ in what conditions they excel in. Some will do better reacing, some will be closer winded, some will be best offwind with a spinnaker. So when you get a distance race with one prominent condition, you will quickly determine the boat best suited to that condition.

Too few people consider the sailors. The three best crew finished in the top three positions, boat for boat, each on a different class of boat. That is usually what happens.

Finally, the best aspect of the Steeplechase, as in most distance races especially, is just in participating! I can remember finishing well in some and badly in others but I always was glad I raced. Regardless of how the race is scored, the competitors get a real good idea of skill levels out there and the relative performance of the boats involved.

Best regards,
Mike

You're probably right with respect to fairness...
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but here's the reasoning behind my suggestion of beginning "now" rather than retroactively: better to make the less noticeable changes first, and see if that solves the problem in the future. It's not that I'm convinced the "old" #'s aren't fair, previous arguments notwithstanding, it's that, since I don't see a lot of 1980 P16's winning regattas, and if we can solve the problem gradually in the future without disheartening some new sailors, I'd prefer that.
I tend to root for the underdog - personality flaw
Anyway, good luck with the project. Sounds like you've got some great ideas.
Michael Coffman
T4.9#32

The Royal Yachting Association in the UK runs a similar Portsmouth scheme but does not publish ratings for little-used classes unless they have had a certain number of returns over some time period. They drop off the current list and the scorer must refer to older lists to get a rating for older boats etc.

I don't know the details but it may be worth talking to them? See http://www.rya.org.uk/Technical/yardstick/. The RYA categorise ratings into Primary, Secondary, MoreReturnsRequired and Recorded; giving the user of the scheme some idea about the confidence the RYA have in published numbers; while also encouraging some classes to send in more returns.

Regards,
Colin J
www.sailwave.com

Colin,

I think you just presented a simpler solution. If the boats don't have ??? amount of activity in a given year (say 20 race results or better), then no handicap change will be made.

But then you've got a problem with the 'one off' boats like the M20 that we hardly ever see. It certainly still needs a rating and a settling in period.

What if we marry the ideas? A rating can only get lower unless there are more than 20 data points in a year - unless the boat is 2 years new.

Great Thread!

Whew , the amount of self congradulatory pronouncement on something so inaccurate is a little overwhelming . There are dozens of other boats that will produce similar scued race results under P rating.

-other misinformation corrected -

The first Euro F-20 championships will be held in 03 with more than 100 expected .
http://www.catamaran.co.uk/IF20/IF20.htm

Portsmouth in general is flawed especially for distance events.

1) If the boats are not very close in actual performance, most often they end up sailing in different winds across the time span of the race. i.e. the wind rarely stays stedy, it either fills or dies through the day, and the boat sailing during the most wind has a significant advantage.

2) The wind speed and direction favor certain boats beyond the small corrections for wind strength. A H16 in a big blow on a reach will correct out way ahead of the new big narrow spin boats, while the same boats racing down wind in light air will destroy a H16 on time and reality.

The correction factors don't cover it. A new big delema for me as most of the racing where I just moved to is no longer 1 design, but portsmouth.

I doesn't matter as long as I'm sailing. P.S. where can I get one of those 50 gallon coolers to mount on my tramp.

Matt

Matt wrote:
;.... A new big delema for me as most of the racing where I just moved to is no longer 1 design, but portsmouth;

;Portsmouth in general is flawed especially for distance events. ;

;P.S. where can I get one of those 50 gallon coolers to mount on my tramp.;

End of quotes.

That's the spirit... Distribute those drinks from the cooler and persuade everyone that they have the wrong boat... and gee your type of boat would be perfect for them!

Failing that and when everyone sober's up... Realize that the overwhelming number of racing sailors are racing handicap in the USA (PHRF or Portsmouth).

1) Remember that even in the worrell 1000 with the same 1 design boats.... competitors are finishing 4 hours after the leader... Holes are a fact of life!

2) Nobody is pretending that you could race Hobie 16's with spinnaker boats and get accurate results.. Most races group the big boats with spins in a separate division from the little ones so that you don't get skunked by a Hobie 16 while on your Marstrom 20 or vice versa.

I personally follow the this piece of advice from Jim Teeters

Taken from his article on the US Sailing site

"Finding the right rule for you and your boat is much like a marriage. There is no such thing as perfection. you need to review the pros and cons with a cool rationale intellect, yet go with your gut instinct and what looks attractive. There can be a wonderful honeymoon of great racing (winning more than your share) or and abrupt disenchantment (loosing more than...) The rule needs to fit your pocketbook as well as your outlook on sailing and the commitment to racing you are willing to make. In the end, you must be willing to accept the flaws in your choice, adapt your expectations to what is realistic, and work with the volunteers who run it. Finally, embrace your rule with loving arms, for an unfair rating (yours) makes for great bar talk."
Jim Teeters

Great advice in my opinion

Take Care
Mark

You are right about the complexity of the system. Portsmouth is hard enough for some RC's without making it too much more complicated. However there is a definite need for a way to prevent the depreciation of the ratings as a boat is raced less over the years. In fact, one of our Fleet Members chose to race SC20 knowing of the advantage of the depreciating Portsmouths. To take further advantage, He has adapted a new Squaretop ARC22 mast/sailplan setup for his SC20 which gives him a minor Change in his DPN's but a huge advantage in performance which are NOT accurately reflected by the adjustment in his DPN's.
It would seem that DPN's depreciate with the aging of the boat. There ought to be a way to reinstate the DPN's back to the original rating when a Racer refurbishes his boat back to "New condition " performance standards.
Just my .02
CARY

I race 3-4 regattas a year where results are turned in for handicapping purposes. I sail a G-Cat 5.0 w/Sq Top, no other mods from original. We have 2 similar G-cats with that rig, and 3 other 5.0's with non sq top rig. These guys may race 1 regatta where numbers are sent in. If The 2 sq tops win the open class races the majority of the time, and these are the only numbers being sent in, is that right? Dont you have to have the cross section of all sailors good and novice to accurately reflect your numbers. I think we are the only G-Cat 5.0's racing, so what do we do?

David Mosley
www.seacats.org
G-Cat 5.0 507

In answer to Zuhl. It's up to the race committee to solve this ratings problem prior to the race. You can't show up with a Hobie 20 rig on a Hobie 18 and expect to just get dinged for a larger main. The race committee has the abitity to set the number at what it deems fair when something does not conform to standards in the system.

The answer to Dave's question is harder. The only thing that the ratings people have to go on is the results that are turned in. If you know of more results please turn them in to Darlene. If you want to make a case of it turn them into the PN Committee (even if they are on paper) with your observations of unfairness. The PN Committee is a group of very experienced racers that can correct ratings inequalities. I saw them correct a problem that I brought to their attention concerning the Cat House 20 a few years back. They did it very quickly which impressed me.

Mike Hill
H20 #791

Not that I ever would, but does that mean I can locally protest someone's Portsmouth rating even if it were derived from the USSailing information properly?