Texel Rating System
http://www.texelrating.knwv.nl/
Brilliant rating systems as most already know. The required basics of catamaran design are factored into the equation. It has a proven history based in earlier similar rating systems and is proven to work well.
Some minor revisions may be suggested or updated for use in N A due to basic minor geographic , average weather , and existing catamaran design variations.

Some questions and proposed topics for revision.

The original version intended to have a windspeed modification factor.
-
Beam would ideally be a factor in adjustment to higher wind strengths when it is most efficient and becomes a larger functional advantage to increase potential speed. The windspeed factor seems to be needed in Texel ratings to include beam as a function of cat design.
A proposed simpler solution may be to just have 2 windspeeds. One with crews on the trap and one below wind speed. Mid 3 range on Beaufort scale, 8-MPH -to begin . There are reliable wind speed meters also. This becomes a simple determination for R C and is apparent to all racing. If half or fluxuating above and below 8 the rule would encourage the upper speed be applied as standard practice to avoid any controversy in R C duties.
–
Board type being factored in an added windspeed factor rather than a constant 3% factor
would be an improvement when comparing the two present board skeg types differentiated in Texel , this along with beam in an added windspeed modification factor. Some added factor may be also required concerning angled lifting foils or boards, -again best handled in a windspeed factor when like added beam these features become effective advantage in the upper range. Adjusted wind speed numbers would reflect these design features.

Rated sail area –main and jib ,-it is a good safety factor limiting luff to some extent and is standard accepted practice. We should encourage all sailmakers to list rated sail areas of all sails on the sail itself along with their logos.
Spin area ,-rather than a set targeted Max size per L boat with a set percentage increase to the rating without spin, --a scale may be applied to handle increase or decrease of spin area allowing more flexibility in sailplan design. In N A. it seems more races are in lighter average wind strengths so this may be a needed addition.

Texel does an excellent job of rating similar types of modern catamaran design .
All modern catamaran classes and all Formula Classes should be encouraged and structured to race in class groups .
What Texel lacks is an ability to rate older catamaran designs in handicap, not having measurement to factor in older sail plan configuration, -mast and rig weights, less efficient board and rudder configurations, and many other lesser design aspects common to older cat design. . –
The ideal solution may be to add an improved yardstick type rating, -per current P ,- a designated Handicap Class only category added efficiency factor. The existing list of Catamarans would be categorized as requiring this added handicap based on age of class and original design.

The ideal solution is for classes to update and allow modification periodically. The Tornado and A Class are two good examples that have longevity as a result. Those that remain in older original form that do not, --many that we affectionately refer to as dead boat classes that really require a handicap would be so classified and given the P-Rated added reduction.

The basic Texel number and windspeed applied will correct many inequities currently in P Rating.
Obviously a C Class Catamaran with basic specs of 25 ft Length, -300 SQ FT Sail area, -is potentially much faster than an Inter 20, -but current P-rating has it rated slower, numerous other examples exist.
As other rating systems acknowledge there is not enough accurate data to verify a yardstick system.
Resent problems exposed by race results bear this out.

Texel applied with slight updates that may be needed along with handicap class designation for those older designs that require it to stay competitive and that would most sail in a handicap class are an ideal way for N A Catsailors to structure racing.
Local club sailors should be encourage to use an individual handicap system, the ideal form being based on membership encouraging them to participate based on their own times. The updated rating system would be a point of beginning for individual handicap numbers, or present system used in small club applications.

ISAF –rating and Texel are very similar, -an adaptation of Texel for use in N A as suggested would bring all to a very similar rating system in use. Differences could be narrowed from there over time to one universal rating system for catamarans, --just need to get the guys down under on board also.

In N A current M C members mentioned some willing to work on this,
It is time to add an interested committee of volunteers to work out the system, --this along with standard race outline practice encouraging class groups to race will help the sports future immeasurably.

Happy New Year
Carl

The ideal form of racing is in class groups . In larger events with numerous classes in attendance beyond orienting racing towards these classes a handicap class is needed and event organizers may wish to add an overall trophie based on ratings .- For distance races particularly like the Tybee 500 and other similar distance races this adapted N A Texel rating is ideal and eliminates most rating problems.

One conversion problem is Performance cat which builds different versions in N A and for use in Europe -
Most cat design now is the same particularly with numerous international classes ,-Hobie 16S --A-Class --Tornados ,--Formula Classes ,-Tigers Nacras -F-18s -F-16s -F-18HTs -and F-20s more and more in the future.
Recognizing this and establishing race structure and rating systems that compliment this trend are the best course for the sports future ,-and seems inevitable.

Both the Euro N-6/0 and the I-20 -Formula 20 have a 96 rating in Texel Rating.
The N A vesion Inter 20 has 15 more sq ft in larger main and is lighter at 390 LB. --

The Euro 6/0 has a smaller sail plan also .

Do any have Euro 6/0 specifications -
Do any have current Texel rating numbers on both N A versions -6/0s and I-20s --

thanks Hapy 03
Carl

I Think you should read the Texel rating this way, the answers marked with ? I am not sure of, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

LOA = Length Over all
RL = Water line
WS = Standard Weight ( kilograms)
MSAM = Main sail Square meters (m2 )
VLM = Mast length ?
MSAG = Jib Square meters ?
VLG = Length forestay ?

I think the I20 N6.0 matter is easily solved if they also put in water displacement as one of the weight points .

Hi Rob

If you have the Euro version N-6/0 sail area main jib spin ,-
just for comparison purposes to the N A version that Performance Catamarans uses that would be great .
The Texel site is very thorough-explainations are clear -and concised.
Rated Length -Rated Sail Area -Rated Weight inc average crew -that forms the basic rating formula ,-then add percentage for spin use .

The windspeed factor as originally planned now added in just 2 catagories would be simple and clear enough to be actually used .
Just crews on trap or not wind speed number High or low to determine and apply to that set of windspeed rating numbers listed .
The upper windspeed could then be used to rate effects of beam . and board type efficiency ,-at higher speeds when they actually become a speed increasing factor.-Seems needed in Texel , again as originally planned.

With a windspeed factor added to Texel as outlined based mainly on beam along with factoring in board types would correct larger beam cat designs like the Tornado with 10ft beam in higher wind .
The results of numerous races bear this need out .
The Steeplechase results here resently as example .

The other aspect suggested of adding an efficiency factor based on P-Rating to older boat classes to help keep them competitive in handicap class seems the ideal accurate solution to rating all cat design together ,-
It becomes a combination system applied only to older boat design where needed.
Again class racing groups should take priority in all racing ,
but rating classes need to be accurate and reflect reality on the race course.

3-main topics for adaptation for a N A Texel Rating

1-Windspeed modification factor
1-a -based on beam -and board type

note; S A is governed by rated area

2- Spin area scale applied ,-rather than set limit per L

scale per L Catagory based on spin area per ft .

3 -proposed application of P Rated numbers as an efficiency added factor applied to older existing design in original form based on age and design criteria.
An added percentage based on mean high average in L catagories
Understood P-Rating will correct assumed creveate in system and adjust to more long term historic rating numbers used applied to older design .

Once established list all cat design -classes with N A Texel Rated numbers --review--
, current problem is different points of beginning and scale differences for the P rating and Texel -ISAF Rating , so scaled differences in individual boat comparison would be needed.
The vast number of boats are International Classes and have common specifications and sail areas between continents ,
Some have minor variation of sail plan and require a recalc of base rating , Performance brand cats being the main one .

2--Windspeed ,-above and below 8 mph --trapeze and non trapeze average conditions-

Beam effect = power is directly related to beam in trapezing conditions, so 10 % extra beam produces 10% extra forward drive, but drag is related to the cube root of speed so 10%extra power will result in about 2% extra speed.
Upwind and downwind considerations differ as well as spin and non spin applications . -1.5 for spin av and 1 may be proposed in non spin .
Each will have a recalc for the upper wind speed in catagory .

Boards in current Texel are given 3% in differentiation between board types and non ,-This reflects lower speed ranges but requires a reduction in higher speed ranges also recalc in the upper wind speed mod rating . to 1 % av.
A catagory left for angled lifting foils is also needed in the upper wind speed mod. calc .

-

Windspeed modification factors -

Per previous post ---only 2 --an upper and lower ,--trap used and not used conditions windspeeds are proposed---Most all could easily understand ,-accept and readily use this 2 windspeed system --trap and non trap av. conditions .
Beam -effects on upper windspeed =,-2% upwind - less downwind -variables between spin and non spin ,--average 1.5 for spin ,-and 1 for non spin types proposed average effects based on standard 8.5 beam cat design .
Beam may be taken from standard trailerable 8.5 ft beam as easily calc. point of beginning ,-each ft above would result in a lower faster rating for spin rigged cat designs . -example a non spin rigged S C with 12 ft beam would incure a 3.5 * 1.0 rating adjustment in the higher wind speed range. The spin rigged Tornado a 1.5 *1.5 =2.2.5 faster adjustment in the upper windspeed range rating .
Cat design with lesser beam below 8.5 would recieve similar calc applied reflecting less beam distance relative to boat and crew weight .
Wings would be calc with 0.75 of one wing width added to boat beam . this reduction to factor average hull weight/ -crew weight relative to beam effects.

Boards -
Current Texel allows 3% in differentiation between board and non board types which is accurate in the lower speed range ,-but changes as speeds increase .

Good explaination is mentioned by" Frenchie " in a design discussion post ,-
{This a phenomenon which is called "DYNAMIC SINKAGE" by naval hydrodynamicists and that corresponds roughly to an additionnal 20% of the initial weight over 18 kt. Now, if a standard Tornado can hold a 340 lbs Side-Force, the trigonometrically associated Down-Force at 12° heel is 340 x tan( 12° ) = 72 lbs, which means 10% of the 716 lbs of initial displacment of the crew...so Jake, you can see that "suction effect", far from negligible, is TWICE the DOWN-FORCE effect...}
end Frienchie --thanks -
Numerous other design related factors also help non board type design in the higher speed range ,-assymetric hulls ,-skeg efficiency increase , rudder configuration -rake etc.

The effects of this on non board types is more hull acting as lateral resistance to side forces at higher speed .
Daggerboards are at least partially retracted downwind ,-and often partially raised upwind in higher wind speed conditions as well .
A windspeed calc from 3% to 1% in the higher windspeed is proposed for non board types.

-Board type concerning angled and lifting foil types in the upper wind speed catagory will be required based on new design development . An added windspeed catagorization and calc where these become effective can be added .

-The rating rule ,-like the sport itself needs to periodically update ,-revise and develop.
Hope this helps form the basis for a N A Texel Rating System , more ideal for distance racing ,along with proper class oriented racing structure,-and applied for major races in N A .

Carl

3 -proposed application of Porthmouth Rated numbers as an efficiency added factor applied to older existing design in original form based on class age ,-original form and design criteria.
An added percentage based on mean high average in L catagories.-

-Texel uses rated sail area --rated weight ,--rated length ,-as its base formula ,-beam is proposed factored in winspeed along with board type correcting speed potential of design in upper wind range on average.
What Texel presently can not factor is the numerous lesser design aspects of catamaran design common on older catamaran classes .
As mentioned it would take a complete individual component comparison of all aspects of each design to accomplish ,--
very time consuming and expensive ,--presently .

Rig configuration ,--mast weight ,-material ,-mast section efficiency ,-related to moment ,-. Sails ,-material -weight ,-configuration below RSA . SPIN -snuffer type ,-efficiency ,
Board aspect ,-foil section ,-depth. cant-,-rudder config weight aspect ratio. efficiency ,-hull design ,-girth station measurement ,-volume P C number . etc . partial list --
You get the idea .!!
If the idea of a rating system is to handicap boats so all have a chance to win races then this is required .So ,-another option we have is to use and apply an average time handicap --readily available --that gives a good general indication of how these lesser design features common on older boat classes effect race results . P Rating needs to correct current problems in this regard and use more consistant historic averages applied to these older boat classes .
--It becomes a combination system ,-though only applied to older boat classes that require a handicap application due to these lesser design features .
Handicap class catagory corrections would range from 1 to 3 % adjusted from the base design rating of L W SA. and windspeed adjustment .

Understood P-Rating will correct assumed creveate in system and adjust to more long term historic rating numbers used applied to older design .
Existing P COMMITTEE may work up an applied system to adjust rating numbers. Propose an average in length catagory be used based on updated dpn rating numbers.

Once established list all cat design -classes with N A Texel Rated numbers --review--

, current problem is different points of beginning and scale differences for the P rating and Texel -ISAF Rating , so scaled differences in individual boat comparison would be needed.
The vast number of boats are International Classes and have common specifications and sail areas between continents ,
Some have minor variation of sail plan and require a recalc of base rating , Performance brand cats being the main one .

Proposed - potentially -a vastly superior rating system .-
Modern cat classes do not require handicap ,-let the best design -sailing skill win based on basic boat measurement .
Allow older boat design with lesser design features a handicap to remain competitive in handicap class.

I,d be very pleased to work on perfecting this proposed N A Texel Rating with others interested .
Carl Roberts

Spin area scale applied -

current Texel -
For boats up to 22 ft. (6.71 m.) provided with a spinnaker the rating will be lowered with 4 points, if the spinnaker area and the spinnaker boom satisfy the following conditions.

Maximum spinnaker area
Boats up to 16 ft <4.87 m.: 17 m2

from 16 up to 19 ft. >4.87 m. <= 5.80 m.: 21 m2

from 19 up to 22 ft. >5.8 m. <= 6.71 m.: 25 m2

For catamarans who use spinnakers larger than the stated limits, the spinnaker sailarea will be rated at 11% effective, and added to the total sail area. This means that the deduction will always be more than for spinnakers which are within the limits. The deduction depends on the size of the spinnaker.
end Texel -

--proposed revision for N A Texel Rating

Texel changed its base rating formula in 02 to correct a bias towards lighter weight boats in its base formula, but differences exist between lightweight spin boats and heavy.

-The rule currently applies a 4 point factor to all catamarans per targeted spin. size limit per length catagory ,
irreguardless of boat weight . Spin and non spin boats are differentiated with 4 being an average applied , weight is a factor in downwind speed.Large weight variation of boat weight exist between the same L spin rigged boats. The consistant factors being RW -RSA -along with L -per spin L catagory .

A needed addition proposed may be a Weight to Spin area ratio applied to the av. 4 point spin use. Simple RW to Spin A ratio.replacing the targeted spin area catagory and 11 percent RSA penalty for spin sizes over current targeted sizes per existing rule .
This would allow heavier spin boats to compensate by having a larger spin , and conversly light weight boats to reflect added advantage with spin rather than a set average for all .
The W to Spin Area ratio would base from 4 and vary approx. an added point in either direction on average .
Would like some advice -recomendation on this simple applied W-Spin A ratio formula .

Formula Classes are accepted with the base rating under Texel -see 01 changes ---basic spin sizes per rule are established . Spin sizes do vary in Formula Classes per weight . This proposed rule change would be complimentary and integral with Formula concepts as accepted.

The genius of this type of rating rule is to allow catamaran design the option to modify and update and develop -per A Class -Tornado Class and other cat classes with longevity due to allowing update and modification. -
One way for all catamarans to update and modify is to target the same rating number as other catamarans in length catagory ,-added spin -snuffer systems ,-modern mast -sailplan -board -rudder configurations making them competitive with current design . Again the genious and another advantage to this handicap rating system along with it being much more accurate ,-proven ,-complimentary and integral , and directing the sport in a much more positive direction with the ideals of racing per ISAF rules -.#2

-summery -
3 basic revisions to current Texel proposed for use in N A

a W to Spin Area ratio formula needs to be worked out per concept outline

a WINDSPEED MODIFICATION FACTOR -high and low as proposed in outline .

3-a handicap added factor based on corrected DPN rating applied to older cat design in original form meeting specified design criteria common to older design. -

-Once the Spin Area to weight formula is finalized -

and a system outlined for applied added handicap to older original design catamarans .

Then a few non international class types will be recalc -
followed by a revised boat list with N A Texel Ratings
-for comparison in use .

Carl

ISAF Rating for small cats http://www.schrs.com/

The approach taken by ISAF RATING - schrs differing from Texel is basically to take base standard sail area calc. for non-spin and apply the following for spin.
-basically plus 10%* max.spin area - minus- max. jib area
which reads { +10% * CSPI -CJ } -
Note; -interesting that jib area is subtracted-but is a correcting factor on average, jib efficiency with spin is negated to a large extent, this also eliminates the need to rate non-jib types separately.
Roller furling jibs are often used effectively with spin rigged cats increasing their efficiency in many conditions.

The ISAF RATING provides very similar end rating numbers with Texel ,-but has this variation in spin rating -and other minor variation in calc .

Average comparison --rough estimate, --Texel uses 4 points -
ISAF uses 10% factored into S A -
On average spin area is just over area of main and jib in the majority of classes. -This brings it to 5% on average after calc - then subtract jib area per ISAF Calc and we end up with an approx. 4-point average, which Texel uses.
Texel then uses targeted spin area, which further simplifies the process by standardizing sizes per Length. Then penalizes spin area over max. targeted size by 11 % added to rated SA .

Before spin. were widely used a simple method needed to be applied and a uniform point of beginning to further simplify spin adaptation to existing cat design was applied as then needed.
Spin sizes are now established with numerous classes based on Texel size target areas. Most Formula Classes use max per L catagory.
The need for variation is developing particularly in lightweight F Classes and the larger size range up to 22 ft often with more beam and sail carrying capacity. Designers should decide ideal spin area per L- B
. The Texel rating is ideal but may update periodically along with the developments in our sailing craft oriented sport.

The ideal update to the rating may be to substitute the targeted spin areas per L category ,---AV 4 POINT application,---and penalty over calc .
Replace this with a similar ISAF rating approach, --adding a 10% spin area {the CSPI number}}on to the base equation that factors in W ;L- SA- and Spin Area


Texel lists all non spin and with added spin categories,
Many classes now are spin dedicated classes, -those few that are not can be listed twice w spin and non-spin.

This application allows variation in spin area as per design criteria per designer, -or per modification per N A sailor without penalty added. Again most spin sizes per class are now established.
Future and current potential HT Classes like HT F18s will benefit from such a spin rating revision update, --but also conversely be corrected with the jib subtraction aspect of this proposed N A rating system having no jib as several future spin classes may opt.
Also the foreseeable need for future H T Formula 20 or Formula 22 Classes to emerge capable with added beam and sail carrying ability to require larger spin sizes than per current category max .

Summery

1- Wind Speed mod factor as proposed ;per previous outline
2- Update ;revision of spin rating --per outline;

3 ;needed;handicap added factor

Would like to work on this aspect handicap added factor based on DPN rating ,-applied to older design in handicap classification with fellow interested catsailors that see the need for this refined and improved combination rating system .
Taking the best elements from each of the current catamaran rating systems in use and formulating a future universally accepted international catamaran rating system.

Carl

Criteria for handicap classification and handicap factor added CALC;
NOTE; applied to older catamaran design with lesser design features partially corrected per rated weight -rated sail area rated length ,and board type allowance rating factors.

1-Age of class 10 years or more ,-boats in original unmodified form .
2- Design features common to older catamaran design including but not exclusive only to
A Heavier boat weight than average per class listing
B- -Larger heavier mast section ,-fittings and rig ;plus sail material type
C;Sailplan configuration below measurement limits ;lower aspect ratios.
D---less efficient low aspect board and rudder configurations
E---Hull configuration & type ;forward 3rd beam;deck edge o h and misc .

Note; any class may petition for handicap added factor to rating per criteria-outline
Inc. Catamarans above 22 ft generally in modified form per owners specs.
Trimarans and proa configurations rated per separate integral category .


All modern catamaran design development and limited development Classes.
Including all A Class ,-Tornado,-18 sq ,all Formula Classes do not require handicap added factor .
Larger classes generally in modified form .-per individual boat specs .
New catamaran classes receive a calculated base rating along with all modern cat classes as well as all modified existing classes with spin;snuffer systems and other modifications added.

Note; Older existing boats modifying w spin snuffer would also be encouraged to update and modify sailplan to a modern lighter safer one per Formula rating target in Length category, but may recieve a spin only added rating .

Listed for handicap classification ;and handicap added factor per DPN rating-
DPN to revise current ratings .
Handicap added factor to be averaged per current modern design rating per target rating in Length category .
A .50 average applied to older lesser design features as listed, -being compensated and corrected in scale per dpn rating numbers to comparable Length modern cat design non spin per Length category.
Estimated average .50 is corrected in handicap per rated weight ,-rated sail area ,measurement proceedure ;rated Length -non board type , currently in base rating .

1.545 conversion factor from Texel to dpn rating to establish target modern catamaran design rating in each Length category based on current Formula class rating no spin,--per rating conversion. {thanks Sam}
Example Tex. rating Formula 18 no spin =106 / conv factor 1.545 =68.60 {per list below} r.to 10ths

22ft modern cat design target dpn =60.60
21 ft target dpn=62.60
20ft target dpn=64.60
19ft target dpn= 66.60
18ft target dpn= 68.60
17ft target dpn= 70.60
16ft. target dpn= 73.60
15 ft target dpn =76.60
14 ft target dpn =80.60


Example ;Calc. For H A F --[Handicap Added Factor} --
14 ft ;category

Example calc
;dpn target rating for modern comparable cat rating =-80.60
Hobie 14 design cat rating per current dpn rating =86.9
H-14 dpn ;86.9 ; 80.60 the difference being 6.3in dpn rating from modern cat design rating in Length category .
Rated target rating using conversion number and formula rating numbers in Texel compared to H-14.current dpn rating.
We have a conversion number from dpn scale to Texel established at 1.545
1.545 * 6.3 = 9.73 *.50 =4.86 ->-5
Tex rating of 134 + H A F 5 = 139

H-16 Example calc.
H-16 target 73..60 dpn =76,1 =2.5 8 *1.545 *.50 = 1.99 H-16 117 +2 =119 rating with H A F

The added H A F {Handicap Added Factor } per dpn rating will theoretically adjust rated time allowance to the equivelant modern cat design in Length category .

Again due to lesser design features common to older catamaran design as listed above not fully factored into basic design rating of rated length weight and sail area.

H-20 Miracle original form dpn rating 64.9 target 64.60 .30 81.545 =.46 =rounded < no change in rating 101
typ. non spin 20 rating 100
rated up in N A for added S A

Rating target in each length to be seasonally updated per recommendation of Rating Committee.
Dpn numbers would be converted to H A F numbers for each class listed below, then added to adjusted new rating per revision and wind speed modification factors also added .

Note; non board types per example will drop 2 points per windspeed factor in upper range.



Classes for added H A F - older classes with lesser design features per criteria outline.

Alpha Cat 15 -& 18
Aqua Cat ;12 ;12.5 ;14 &18
Baracuda
B-lion
Cal Cat
Catfish
Chesire
CLD 1.8-4.9-5.5
Cougare
Dart 18
Dingo
Dunlap
G Cat 5-0 &5.7
Gemini 3
Hardcore 16
H-14 &T
H-16 &TS
H-17
H-18 & m
H-20
H-21 & 21Sport
H-Wave -
Isotope 1&2up
JMP
Lynx 14&17
Musketeer
Mystere 50-5.5
Mystere 6/0 -& xl
Nacra 50-5.2
Nacra 5.5 ;uni
Nacra 5.8
Nacra 6/0 ;O & N A
Pacific Cat-2-18&318
P;Cat 2/18 ;3/18
Phoenix
Prindle 15-16-18 ;18-2
Prindle 19 ;20
Reynolds 21
Sea Spray;15 & X
Shark
Sol Cat ;15 18 20
S upercat 15 ;15s ;17-19-19xl
Supercat 20
Trac 14 ;16-18
Venture
Windspeed 15

Carl,

I told myself that if you talked to yourself more than 10 times in the same thread that I was going to call in a psychologist...consider this a humorous (and friendly) warning!

Hi Jake -

Thanks ,-
been sick as a dog for the last week ,--so have had some time to work out this proposed combination rating system .
private e would be just fine in the future ,-readily available ,-thanks . Cumpulsive --yes guilty ,--a little crazy ,--yes -guilty ,
7 Worrell 1000s --gotta be --
but I always worry more about the people who think they are perfectly normal ,---Jake ?
Tryed to walk through the thought process in constructing the outlined REQUIRED IDEALS AND GOALS of a rating system and applied calculation for it .
The H A F based on DPN numbers needs some refinement before being finalized ,-please take a look and help walk through the calc for your 6/0 .
Currently need the N A and Euro 6/0 specs on sail plan and to recalc N A sailplan . Will work on producing a complete list of N A ratings -The proposed spin calc would allow the larger N A version 6/0 jib area to be subtracted to spin area per calc outlined per ISAF rating measurement proceedure . --Should reduce the 6/0 w spin rating . No change per windspeed mod factor would result due to standard beam measurement for the 6/0 and all standard beam cat design..
Any size spin could be calc. and rated accurately -270 size --300 size --346 size --400 --also any configuration could easily be rated --Express version 6/0 --Original version ---Euro version ,--any updated or modified version 6/0 or any catamaran accurately --
-
supply spin size and list any modification made and we can walk through it .

dpn numbers are used as a handicap added factor --

Hope some others will see the need for a better more internationally oriented integral compatable rating system and care enough about the sport to get involved .

Resent race results ,-and distance races exposed another major fault , understand dpn numbers will be revised based on more long term results ,--this is still very much a hit and miss process, --We can however cross check with other rating systems in use to increase our pool of data and help correct and better average rating numbers as well as understand a better more accurate rating system as outlined .

When N A catsailors put in the time ,investment ,-dedication to the sport required ,particularly in distance racing sometimes 100 miles or more in legs , many believe the results in class preferabley or in rating system should actually have a verifiable accurate basis.
The investment for teams in major races is substancial and deserves the best most accurate rating system we can devise, this as proposed and outlined is a combination rating system .

Will list outlined ideal goals for a rating system at the last post on the thread -
Now that it is outlined and the 3 areas requiring update or modification adressed --1-windspeed factor ,-to base Tex.
--2- spin rating system per ISAF
--3-Handicap Added Factor -per P Rating
can proceed to refine these aspects then produce rating numbers for comparison in use.

If you see some error or ommision in the outlined proposed rating system please propose an improvement to it .
That is why it is posted ,-again just walking through the process and have coresponded e-mail and have asked numerous questions and cunsulted with several others over the last couple years on different aspects applied as outlined . It is not finalized and does require revision and improvement before comparison in use to current rating systems.

thanks -

Ideals and goals for N A Rating System

Like many others I believe the ideal sailing class may be one that only limits sail area, -nothing else .It would produce fascinating interesting very efficient sailing craft.

The ideal racing on catamarans occurs on One Design Classes which we have numerous brands of in N A.
The largest percentage of H- sailors and P brand sailors. -Development Classes like the A-Class that allow numerous brand types to race together, and Formula Type Classes of very similar design and sail plan type are also in this ideal O D but more inclusive requiring boats to rate in design feature to maximum allowed per rules of each.

The ideal rating tool in our future will be an extensive CAD computer design program that can account for all design features of any comparative design in great detail, beyond current simplified abbreviated rating formulas used. The basic measurements of Hull, -section girth, -shape type, board rudder area type, -mast type-weight ;girth, - rigging type ;weights of each,;sail area, -spin area ;snuffer type, -hardware types, -weights of sails hulls hardware complete elements of each design. All design factors could be defined and analyzed in direct comparison ,each design feature rated and factored into a total lengthy equation by all submitting detailed Cad drawings of each that would allow this tedious process to occur with great accuracy. BUT, even this will not rate boats if the intent is to handicap. Infinite variables of human capabilities, -sea state, -wind speeds, -current, -wind direction, the variety of design types and features, and unknown or new development in design make this an impossible task.

Preface to rating discussion first the true intent of racing catamarans, -its ideals and goals must be understood and defined. Is the intent of ratings to determine the best type of boat in racing conditions of a particular set of measurements and specifications, the basics being Length Beam Weight and Sail area.
We have the ideal one design; development and Formula group racing for these ideal forms of racing, -Should a rating system at its base is an extension of this ideal form------
Or is the intent of rating catamarans one of attempting to find a system or rating formula that allows a variety of different design types ;good or bad, --to win races. If so then artificial averages and a means of limiting or handicapping must be devised penalizing some faster design, -rewarding slower ones with favoritism in some form as a compensating factor.
;If it is this handicapping of lesser design in length category then it would ideally only be used or applied when good class type racing was not available when using either a measurement design rating or Yardstick type rating system based on averaging times being inherently inferior. Both types of rating systems in use both average times and measurement design in combination with differing base and using the other method secondarily to it to accomplish its rating objectives.

Some way or means is required in measurement to classify boat types as a beginning definition basic to our understanding. Measurement design based rating from a design theory perspective only would still have numerous flaws within rating boats and problems to resolve if the intent is to handicap and limit all boats in the concept of equalizing speed potential through handicap time allowances. Dependent on ones intent of rating boats cognoscenti of the inherent flaws and faults in averaging boats performance relative to one another in their diverse design forms, thus the folly of rating diverse boat design. Rather than preferred ideal class racing groups.
The problems of very different performance characteristics in the infinite variety of-sea and weather patterns and intended uses and specifications per designer THIS BECOMES AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK. To accomplish fair sailing for all ,-BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY IMPROVE CURRENT RATING SYSTEMS IN USE.-We can cross check existing rating systems , learn a tremendous amount in the process and the benefits of an international similar rating system with much larger pool of race results and data help verify this improved accuracy .

.
There are exceptions and innovation to design types that still could not be rated comparatively, solid -wing sails, -and foiler types being two notable exceptions that require a separate category being outside the scope of standard design practice. Thus some of the folly of rating boats fairly. Rating design needs to be very careful not to define it to an extent that limits design or to inadvertently confine it to limits of standard current thinking, -or to limits of beating a rating equation with design that may produce undesirable or unsafe features. One main problem historically with measurement design based rating or formula rating such as past Americas Cup 12 Meter rule. Designers eventually find ways to outsmart a handicap or limits within a design based rule not its intent at all. -Remember keel winglets?
To avoid such scenarios a measurement design based rating would need to be as simple and basic as possible.
We can not measure or account for the art of design by measurement and just defining and applying standard accepted engineering practice. How efficient or how well all aspects of any design work together, -how integral they are to produce a boat that sails and handles efficiently can not always be defined even within a computer program capable of tens of thousands or evan millions of calculation. Some C-Class cat design go through this type of design process and of course Americas Cup Yachts with their huge multimillion dollar budgets go through this type of design trial and error process with CAD systems -

New yet to be understood design innovation is unknown, -ratings should not unintentionally limit design innovation with undue complex assumption based on current standard practice. The current practice of defining design and measurements of hull sail area length etc. and assigning an efficiency or penalizing those over a certain current limit in luff length or sail area or hull overhang or board type set up an artificial means and intent in design to manipulate the means of measurement practice or design feature itself as opposed to improving safety efficiency of design itself .The human skill factor is always an unknown quantity also. Skill level of each and the development of sailing techniques from trial and error in tuning and racing teach design over time.
One good example is some that use C F masts downwind with a chute downhauling the mainsail to extreme and allowing the flat top portion of mast to absorb gusts by bending more to leeward with each one. A pumping speed effect is the result at some windspeeds though can lead to a broken mast in others.
This technique was never anticipated by the original designers or could be factored into a rating equation.
Many other racing techniques and boat tuning systems are used and develop in each class over time , another good example is downwind A Class technique {wildthing} ;hull up technique,-improving boat performance.
. These along with the ever-changing wave shape size patterns, -current; -wind direction and various strength change combinations of design features cause their measured effectiveness to be an average estimate only that changes with each weather pattern. Assuming a taller mast and more sail area is faster is not true in above 15-mph winds between similar design. A wind speed factor is a good solution, though difficult to interpret , recommend using 2, a trap and no trap less wind speed at 8 and above ,--and from 7.9 below windspeed as base.
Problems with design based rating lead some to believe a yardstick type rating system is the ideal, both types use combinations of the other but place its basis in one or the other method. . So, - what is the intent of rating catamaran types. Is it to establish ever changing current average finish times of skippers of very different ability on each cat design type in class compared to one another of those currently sailing that type? What does this really accomplish.
It is in effect a handicap based on times of skippers in classes; the unverifiable false assumption is this somehow all averages out. We all realize top sailors are in the most current active classes. If handicapping human capability is the goal then set up a system to handicap individuals Do not confuse or falsely assume a system that averages times in classes will produce anything other than this average current time of those skippers in class. P rating produces a look at average times of classes , a seasonal snapshot of skippers times ,but unverified as to how well sailed comparative to true speed potential.
We can choose to use measurement design rating as a basis instead, -in doing so obtain a more accurate versatile base rating system that potentially allows us all a better understanding of design. We can then add a Handicap Added Factor ,based on DPN ratings applied to older design with lesser design features where correctly applied. This seems a much more constructive and beneficial roll for a rating system and for all those involved in the sport.

The basic box rule often used of Length Weight., ----Sail Area ; and Beam each forming one side is the basis for most development classes and where most design definition begins for catamarans and what several classes are based in. A key to race organization and structure is to encourage boat designs to race in similar class groups, -Size;length category brand type -spin non-spin;types in separate starts.

A rating system should not attempt to define and regulate all design to be equal in all variables of skippers abilities or sea/and wind infinite conditions encountered, -it is an impossible task to be fair to all. Some type will be favored over others dependent on who currently writes the handicap rules.
Those writing rating rules have to accept that some design types will favor certain conditions and excel in them, -light air flyers or other types in high wind and seas. The best designs will take care of their owners in all conditions and can be determined by the designer of each and the marketplace to eliminate poor design. A simple design based rating system can &;MAY, -reward safer seaworthy design in catamarans by constructing the basic calculation to favor less sail area which shapes faster high wind speed safer more easily righted -handled boat design. If we accept the reality of inherent flaw in averaging and rating boats then this very simple design rating is more beneficial.Handicap can then be added as applied to older design based on lesser design features and age.
ISAF for small cats and Texel measurement design based rating are similar.
Current Texel design uses this calc and formula
TR rating = 100 / (0.99 * RL 0.3 * RSA 0.4/ RW 0.3)
RL IS rated length RSA is rated sail area RW is rated weight -
Link http://www.texelrating.knwv.nl/

ISAF .rating for catamarans SCHRS is very similar ,-there are a number of elements in this very similar rating system that may be applied also to a combination rating system , -using the best elements of the 3 main rating systems in use .

Each uses a set of defined set procedure of measurements with efficiency limitations based on these measurements. Those design features beyond set limits are penalized or given a favorable reduction in calc. Method.
The simplified base rating of Texel and improved elements of rating in ISAF rating for cats seems ideal , some updates and refinement are periodically required of any rating system .-
The ideal goal of any catamaran rating system is to allow designers and sailors decide their ideal average target and accept this without attempting to limit or rate efficiency or inadvertently limit or shape design or reward poor or slower design features. Lets not fall into the same historic dead end of shaping boats to beat a rating rule, MEASUREMENT PROCEEDURE OR LIMITS BASED ON CURRENT THOUGHT, -or the inequities of a yardstick average time based rating system .
All rating systems must periodically update and develop along with our sailing craft design oriented sport . but hold true to the ideals and concepts of allowing creative design to continue to develop towards better faster safer sailing craft to benefit all .
Allow race results to tell us what type of boat is truly the most efficient and best with a simple measurement design rating in its purest simplest form which will reflect actual race results in category. .
Then apply a handicap added factor to older lesser design as needed to help keep them active and competitive in rated racing class.
This philosophy is basically an extension of existing Formula Class type racing and very integral with it. This rating would give us the best type or most efficient type comparatively in L-B W &#8211;S A category and could be applied to all modern boat classes of similar non spin or spin types ideal for buoys or distance racing in any conditions or design form.

The need for a Handicap Class that then compares older boat designs and allows them a handicap allowance is still required for those not wishing to upgrade or modernize their boat. Most all boat classes and design go through periodic changes and updates or they become dead boat classes. Tornados and A Class cats being the best examples of Classes that have long established existence due to updating and allowing development.
Those that wish to keep older class design as is without updating it need this handicap rating class to race comparatively usually having heavier boat weight, -older sail plans, -heavier masts and rigging, -board and rudder types, -and hull configurations.
The ideal solution is to apply a Handicap Added Factor - allowance that factors in these older design features.
The ideal way may be to add the average time based yardstick system as an added factor to the base formula when needed applied to older class boats where needed. The ideal way to obtain handicap times would be a speed trials week with top crews on various points of sail in a variety of wind speeds and sea states. After numerous runs switching crews on each a reliable average speed could be determined. This not being practical the current P-rating numbers could be applied as a percentage of the total. Again this only need apply to a handicap class.
If an event organizer wishes to add a total overall handicap along with class trophies
This simple pure design based rating would provide ready base numbers to begin, a consistent accurate effective simple means of rating modification like spin or main sizes. Ideal for distance racing of similar rigged catamarans. Any could easily calculate the base rating.

Concepts for groundwork for the ideal combination rating system , where the existing cat rating systems seem to be directed . .

Hope some will join in the attempt to formulate this simple rating system with these outlined concepts in mind as a much more beneficial roll in the sport. Current problems with this ever changing more complex P-rating seem unacceptable, current design based rating must avoid the temptation to control and limit design in its limited measurement procedure and calc. Again no rating system can calculate or average out this infinite variety of design and physical wind seas combinations along with varied human capability. Would really enjoy others input on this proposed rating formula.
This along with consistent race organizational practice and structure to place priority on racing in similar class groups as most catamaran sailors prefer as a truer test of sailing skills will benefit the sport and catamaran development {immeasurably}.

Carl

So you have been working on this system of yours for the "last couple years" and have nothing completed?
Why do you come up with these ideas that no one is interested in?
There are twelve response to your original post, ten of them are you talking to yourself and one is jake making fun of you. Don't you get it?
Why don't you go back to your NAF 20 forum where you can rant to yourself ad naseum? There are 81 threads there, 50 of them were started by you, God only knows how many times you answered yourself.
You tried to glom onto the Tybee 500 with your class and they told you where to stick it.
The "Class website" that you yakked about for so long is just a short page on somebodies website.
You come up with these things and all you want to do is browbeat us into doing the work that you won't do.
TAKE A HINT.

Hi
--
Don't have any ulterior motive other than helping construct an improved rating system , believe the outline is a good basis for it .

It is nice for N A Catsailors to have choices . numerous class choices -and potentially rating choices as well .
This is much better suited to distance racing and major events . Timed handicap rating may be much better suited to small groups and club racing applications . Event organizers may wish to choose the best application and rating type for their event or distance race.
posts just skip them --simple-

Freedom of choice , basic to our ideals .

Working on a Worrell style distance race with several others, prefer it be Formula class oriented but would like an accurate rated class also to include all types of design types and class types that may not have a sufficient number for a class.

Have fun -its sailing

Dear sam,

I' don't think your reply was fair. I was reading the postings with interest.

One reason for a new rating system could be, that with a calculted formula, you can change your boat (different sails, different number of crew members), report the changes and get a new rating in no time.

Thats the way we doit here in Switzerland when diffrent cat-classes sail together. One race I sailed (distance race), there was a old Shark (~20 feet) (wodden cat with bridge deck) with a huge squaretop main sail and no spin. The guy who sailed it, reported the changes to the rc, got a new rating and made second after correted time.

I think thats fun.
Good sailing!

Posting a series of related rating ideas and concepts, --very boring stuff, --just questioning different aspects of current rating systems, Trying to compare them in different ways from different perspective points and combine the best attributes of each of the main rating systems in use.

The basic equation uses r-Length -and r-Sail area div. by
R-weight in proportion to reflect differences in relation of one catamaran design to one another defined by these basics of design elements. Good proven base equation that is itself developmental and has been refined and improved in use.
The base equation provides approximately on average 90% to 95% of the total rating;what we are left to distinquish in rating calc is the remaining 10 % -spin non spin being the largest portion of that remainder , beam ;board;handicap and - windspeed effects making up the remainder of calc and formula added as reflecting these design and handicap features in proportion to each other .

Around this good base foundation we can build or add other features to reflect these other elements of design. A simple 2-windspeed modification-rating category allows this to occur.
2 windspeeds easily identified by all as trap or non-trap conditions. The goal being to reflect beam effects as wind increases, board effects correction, -and rated sail area configuration differences and how they change and relate to rated weight along with rated Length in the upper range .
.
Additionally added in the upper windspeed range catagory .---With any rating system multiplying by elapsed time the duration or time sailed is much less in upper wind speeds to distance , so total time to make up a time handicap allowance on a slower rated boat is less.
The other movement in the upper speed range applies to proportional design speed potential increases .
Scaled differences based on average time are not directly proportional, lower speed time differences are greater to distance traveled . Speed differences are greater in rated scale to MPH or knots between the extreme ends of rating in lighter wind conditions. The difference in attempting to rate catamarans that reach speeds in the upper range of up to 25 knots ,---as compared to dingy monohull types with often total hull speed limits of 6 knots becomes apparent.
Any of us that race in mixed fleets with monohulls realize that once we on catamarans can lift a hull clear and pop out on the trap speeds increase rapidly over monohull design.- Less form drag ;wetted surface frictional drag proportions in ln light wind to higher wind conditions- ;righting moment ,-apparent wind all increase and build proportionately faster on themselves in the upper wind range , particularly apparent wind in the reaching and downwind mode.. Cat design often exceed true wind speed to one and a half times for this reason.
These design related reasons explain the non proportional increase in the upper range and narrowing of total time differences that need to be reflected in the upper windspeed rating range .;Again very differently than monohull counterparts with hull form speed limitation. av 6 .;This is why rating systems do not translate well between the types . The distinction not made in average time rating systems is that this is reflected in the total race duration time being less , which on average may hold true for monohulls , but again due to much greater proportional speed increases in the upper wind range we should see reflected not only less proportional time to cover distance incrementally to scale but also an actual narrowing of rated time due to these design features and greatly increased proportional speeds.

Slower rated boats may have either less length - being an average factor now,-more rated weight which includes av crew weight -on the wire in upper wind range ,--or less rated sail area, again requiring a reflective correction in upper wind range . ; These 3 main rating factors singularly or in any combination of them per design variation need to be adjusted proportionally in the upper wind speed category .

For the upper wind speed category a total rating number as calc for each class may be used as a correcting factor percentage added. We see Portsmouth ratings move approximately 3 to 5 in most classes incrementally though the windspeeds as listed ,-an average 4 pts in scale ;converting and -relating to 2.5% in scale rating effect.
The base rating being inverted used as correcting factor.
This will reflect a narrowing of differences in ratings in the upper wind range along with changes per beam-- boards-and other windspeed factors.
This will correct differences between spin and non spin types in the upper wind range . Estimated average would change -approx. av 1 to 2 % of total rating factor . Again we are adjusting this final 5 % from base rating in proportion from one cat design to another.

3 additions or changes proposed ---

1-The spin equation added per ISAF simplifies the system and helps reflect the spin area added in base equation with the weight factor.
Smaller area high aspect spin design is more efficient per same area, and should be added to the ISAF spin equation now added to replace the 4 pt spin and area above penalty in Tex.

2-The handicap added factor-converting Portsmouth rating as applied per handicap for older design with lesser design features. --Outlined but requiring development.

3- :The windspeed mod. factor calc.-reflecting beam, --board correction , -and rated L-rated weight-rated sail area inc. spin correction in the upper wind speed category .

A future category for lifting boards and foils may be added -factored into the upper wind speed when they become effective.

Also if required a future hull category reflecting P C and potential planning capability, also effective in the upper range may be added in the upper windspeed calc .


Added note;
Developing ideas concepts for a combination rating system --

Started down the wrong course with added spin cal to the current 4 pt. The better long-term solution is to use the alternate ISAF spin rating equation as outlined above .

Also considered an updated or new rated sail area calc -
but the current is standard accepted practice, and seems to work well.-It is good to periodically review all aspects of rating, this may be revised in the future. Again class oriented racing should be priority in catamaran events with rating class ,and an overall rating place awards added .

What is proposed is a combination system ,-still needing some development ,-but the basics outlined .
Combines elements of all 3 rating systems Texel -Isaf,-and Porthmouth --abbrev. --T I P . catamaran rating .

-The calc. as proposed would be - Tex base -remains the same -
ISAF added spin and other minor rating features added,----

Plus HAF -
Handicap Added Factor based on Porthmouth rating ,-
.-Cetainly under this proposed combination rating Porthmouth is reflected and older lesser boats through handicap do have favorable rating numbers , being added and adjusted much moreso than current rating .

Rating formula

TIP rating = 100 / (0.99 * RL 0.3 * RSA 0.4/ RW 0.3)
spin catagory add {+10% * CSPI - CJ * Eff %}

HAF calc number as applied to classes -

added 2nd catagory for upper wind speed .
per outline --sub calc. required ,-
-2nd catagory listed -

Carl,

Well, now I'm the one at home sick with nothing better to do (hoping to get better for the drive to Key Largo Wednesday!). Contrary to Sam's post, I was only trying to be humorus and friendly...and here as well:

You're beginning to remind me of the Energizer Bunny..."keeps going, and going, and going"....

Hi Jake

Hope your feeling better soon ,--just go Wed . that Florida sun does wonders this time of year ,--of course I,m way up N .
Ice fishing and playing hockey on the lake with a little B ball this time of year.

Part of the Worrell team will be at the Tradewinds on the new Jav 2 -Gale and Dave ,-I can't get away this month .
Say HI to em if you get the chance ,-thanks
race well and have fun -

On the T I P rating ,-It seems perfectly logical - take the best attributes of each system and combine them -
The danger is it becomming too complex ,-but believe a good group like the current rating committee and or others interested could develop and refine the system as basically outlined integrating Porthmouth handicap rating onto the base rating and using improvements for spin rating and other minor features used in ISAF rating .

If you followed the TIP rating and applied it to your N -6/0 for example it would correct many aspects per design .
NACRA 6/0 n a

Length: 20' (6.10m)
Width: 8'6" (2.59m)
Drafts:
Boards Up: 5" (12.7cm)
Boards Down: 38" (96.5 cm)
Sail Area: 264 sq. ft. (24.5m2)
Weight: 420 lbs. (191 kg)
Mast Length: 31'7" (9.63m)


The spin efficiency rating -spin rated number would consider spin aspect ratio and correct the chute rated area in proportion to any size spin chosen ,just as current rated sail area per main-jib accomplishes . Also the 6/0 would benifit from the ISAF calc method for spin area that subtracts rated jib area. -
The base Tex. number for the N A version 6/0 is not favorable ,--but add the spin rated calc -H A F and windspeed factor and it appears to reflect design features and sail plan effects accurately.

Will work on developing the H A F ,-and windspeed which factors in beam ,-sail area inc rated spin +L / W effects ,-and board effects ,with future catagory for angled lifting boards and foils as well as hull form and planning ability ,-which we are already beginning to see develop per new designs .