Why not dump Portsmouth and adopt one of the other systems? Texel for instance?

I'm not convinced Texel is better. Please keep in mind there is only one multihull regatta per year per area that requires the use of DPN. Any other regatta can use any system they want.

Can you explain why please; Texel and SCHRS come up with similar numbers; we will be using SCHRS this weekend for around 200 boats on 2 courses and 9 starts.....

All handicap systems are flawed and I just want to be sure that the system to replace DPN (if that does happen) is more fair in more conditions on more race courses than the system we currently use.

I'd also want to know if it's easier to exploit (loopholes) than the current system.

If there are flaws (and there will be) what's the process to get it corrected.

The list goes on and on, and to be honest I'm not sure I'm the right person to champion this cause. I'm already donating a fair amount of my time with the F18 class and the Alter Cup Qualifiers. I also volunteer to do the regatta scoring as much as possible so I can guarantee the numbers get sent to Darlene. The thought of convincing the masses to dump DPN in place of another handicap system just makes my head hurt. This task needs to go to a believer and clearly I am not a believer.

We have always used Portsmouth ratings in OCRA with excellent results. We have had many different classes of boats racing and it is proven accurate except for boats that do not get sailed often in areas that report their race results. That is why it is so important that every regatta report results to Darlene Hobock. The more experience a class has in Portsmouth, the better the system rates it based on actual finishes.

That's why I believe a measurement system is better. Rate the boat, not the racers.

If they're all flawed, why not use the one that requires the least work? Wouldn't the system with the least input be subject to the least human error?

SCHRS and TEXEL are measurement systems. Pick one. SCHRS is being used here in the States.

As far as I know (and I admit, I dont' know much) DPN is based on race results. What is SCHS and Texel based on?

Is one of them based on math, i.e. a measure of the boats, length, weight, sail area, etc. put that into a formula and come up with a number that is used instead of race results? I don't want to see this turn into the old 12 meter AC rule, but I think design input can produce a fair number.

The USPN system is now matching texel and schr with respect to the accuracy of the current ratings.

The advantage of a Portsmouth system is that you can race dinghy's and cats at the club level.

The current issues are maintenance.. The amount of effort by volunteers to maintain the database is large and not matched by fleets who don't send in their data.

The second issue is one of class size. New classes don't generate enough portmsouth data to quickly get to a proper rating. The F16 class has not run a north americans yet. A major assumption for portmsouth to generate fair ratings is that the class is actively raced.

Texel provides a trapeeze rating and a low wind rating which is close to the USPN 4 windspeed rating system. SCHRS is a single number rating.

The challenge for all rating systems is to rate the lightweight boats.. like the A cats and F16's which fly a hull earlier then the heavy boats. For USPN... we should split Beufort 2 from Beufort 3 to account for this performance bump. For Texel..we would need to figure out how to rate the light weight boats with respect to flying a hull faster then the heavy boats.

Both SCHRS and TEXEL use weight in the calculation.

If they are going to take into account the "lightness" factor, for light air and light boats, then they also have to take into account the heavy-ness factor of heavier boats in heavy air, where the lighter boats are overpowered and the heavy boats are getting into their groove, right?

That's the problem, that and the wind keeps changing!

SCHRS uses the4 BOAT weight, the CREW weight and the righting moment of the boat plus crew (Hiking or trapezing) as part of the basis for calculating the rating.

We went thru a big exercise to rate light boats better a couple of years ago that resulted in the A class and F16 rating changing.

Texel and SCHRS generally produce similar performance differences between boats; Texel only uses 2 decimal places in their rating (so giving scope for some "designing to the rule" as you can "gain" 32 seconds buy making the boat rate just above the click over point to the next rating as the rating is rounded to 2 decimals); SCHRS uses 3 decimals.

We do provied a guidance conversion for SCHRS to the RYA Portsmouth rating; I am sure a similar guide could be calculated for US PY.

There is nothing wrong with Portsmouth. Your first mistake is trying to race apples and oranges. Second is no system will be able to factor in the changes in the wind that occur in just one little triangle race. Your variables are wind speed, wind direction and the force of the wind as it changes the higher off the water. Thinking you can measure a boat to take all that into account is always glossed over. The ever changing wind..come up with a rating system for that...Portsmouth tries with diferent speeds, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The other systems are no better. The more you try and make something simple, the less accurate you get....

deleted