will we make everyone happy? No, but we can make it better, no doubt. Whatever we decide, we need to all buy into it(bipartanship) and give it a valiant effort to get it right. If naysayers spoil the fun, then it cetainly wont work.

That would be easy if using Sailwave or similar software. You just check the box for which handicap system you want to use...combining them might be difficult but comparing them easy.

Then how come the F17 still has a peach of a rating then? Or are all the US sailors sailing them badly?

Last time I looked it was about 4% more generous under USPN than under SCHRS or Texel, We do not even have the up-to-date measuremnets for the F17 as no-one will send me one; I've been waiting 10 months! I made a guess last time I compared them.

Does ANYONE have a measurement certificate that confirms the data-points of the F17.

I never say the "protested" one form Carnac last year, and I have an owner pestering Nacra EU for one, but they do not appear to be able to provide one.

I think we're starting to get somewhere in this discussion now. The system did fall apart for a while but it had nothing to do with the system itself. It was because the actual calculation/database system was taken on by a new person with the goal of modernizing the software that manages it. The process quickly got complicated and there was basically no rating calculation taking place for over 1.5 years...the F16 fell squarely in this void. At present state, the previous computer system is in use again by Darline which is why we started to see some timely changes again. However, it is in need of some modernization....which would be a good time to implement some improvements if it's seen fit by the Portsmouth Committee.

Scooby

The Nacra 17 is a regional class. IF CRAM does not turn in their comparative data against the other starts... the rating will never adjust. (I have no idea whether they do or don't)

The Nacra 5.5 uni had the same history. The boat started out slower then a hobie 17 (74.0) and raced for several years at 74.5 It was very popular in CRAM as a one design and they did not turn in data.

Eventually they did turn in data and the number dropped to 69.5 or so.

But do not N17's sail ate the Alter quals events?

This is the underlying problem with returns based systems, people can abuse/manipulate them if they so wish; RYA PY drops boats out of the list if they do not file returns. Does USPN do the same?

nothing ever gets "dumped" from the Portsmouth ratings but they get a "bracket" in the system indicating that not enough data was available to establish a sound number. If the number in the portsmouth table looks like this: [64.1] then it is a reference number. Boats with brackets on their numbers are not permitted to compete in the area qualifiers for the US Sailing Championship.

Simon, for the record ANYONE can submit results to the DPN committee. Problem is very few submit results and I believe this more out of apathy than manipulation.

What insight do you have the DPN data is being abused and/or manipulated?

None; it's just I find it really odd that for example the N17 would be about 102ish under SCHRS (but without data I cannot be sure) yet it comes out at about 106 when you roughly convert the USPN to SCHRS(I used the F18 on both systems as the base).

We sail the the EU spec boat (heavier, smalller mainsail) on this (1.067 with a 19sqm kite, 1.073 with 17sqm kite). Something feels wrong somewhere.

We were doing OK sailing the EU spec 17 at 1.067 so I am concerned that I have not had a certificate form Nacra so I can confirm the rating for the N17.
Afterall there was a little agro at the last Carnac regatta about it; I would have HOPED Nacra EU would have fallen over themselves to provide the certificate to get a new rating for the boat.

Dear all, It seems a shame to drop this subject, I’ve got a question on this, I’ve got a A-class racing nationally under SCHRS and we get a lot of heat from other classes when I mention that the A does not rate well under SCHRS. Just to give you a bit of background on this, I used to race F18’s and have been a national champ a number of times in F18/ Tiger class before I moved across to the A. But since getting the A a few years back along with some other good sailors any A just cannot get to the top of the fleet at events when I know if I was back in my Tiger I would easily have been up there. The conditions have to be just perfect ( very light airs, flat water, very short courses) before an A-class can start to rate to SCHRS.

Thus my question is if I believe all the chat about that SCHRS is rating the A perfectly and I’m crap, why is it that the A-class is getting time under PY? For example in Australia the A and F18 race under Victoria Yardstick ( I know nothing about the Aus racing so I may be wrong on this, please correct me if need be) and it give the A time on the water, and that nation has some of the world’s best F18 and A class sailors racing against each other and there is no chat on the web complaining about their PY system. Am I missing something fundamental here?

Aus PY 2008 numbers http://www.vic.yachting.org.au/site/yachting/vic/downloads/Yardsticks07_08.pdf
Aus PY 2005 numbers http://www.vic.yachting.org.au/?Page=12596

The same story with the USA’s PY DPN numbers, the A is given time against the F18.
All the Best
Rob

I think its a problem schrs has rating singlehanders against two man boats .
SCHRS has a few other flaws and anomolous assumptions that I won't go into as schrs has no intention of ever addressing them .

But

I think an answer may lie ahead in that SCHRS can be used as a measurement system to identify a "starting " rating and then use the new PY system in uk to continualy update ratings there after (the new PY system in UK will allow clubs to compute race results and publish to PY system at same time, with the py system computer analysing in real time ) these two systems coupled together could iron out the anomolies that exist in SCHRS . alternatively Texcel ratings could be used as starting point .

SCHRS caters well for the majority , who in handicap racing tend towards favoured boats , whilst doing something like above could even the whole field .

As you may guess I'm a disgruntled minority , however heartened by the progress rating systems are making in uk .

The mono hull sailors are desperate to find a way of initially rating new or adapted boats into py ,

We are lucky in having two measurement formulas , SCHRS and Texcell to get ball rolling

Yes I too agree that a measurement system of some sort should be the starting point for DPN as well.

I'm looking into using SCHRS for some regattas and I'd like to get the good and bad of the system. Can you please PM me with the 'anomolous assumptions that you wouldn't go into'.

Thank you in advance.

I can tell you in the US under the PN system the A has a sweetheart rating. Mostly because the good sailors never race in the open classes. So the times never get turned in. I know I was sailing well one weekend and had a heck of a time beating them boat for boat against my I20. I think an A should rate right about the same as an F18, possibly faster. Definitely not slower.

Mike it really depends on the region.

The 'A' sailors in the southeast are pretty vocal about their rating against spin boats. If I announced that the Area D South elims will be scored using SCHRS I would get skinned alive.

Mark Smith finished second right in front of Bob Hodges at at the Area D South Elims in very light conditions, which is where the 'A' works its number to the fullest.

With the light amount of data that's turned in I really don't see the 'A' number going anywhere up or down.

Rob,

As stated below, under the AUS and US PY, the A has a very handy rating as it does not get raced much.

The A rates about the same as the F16 and they do OK against us on Handicap, and against other boat.
Chris was Flying at the Grafham open and that was hardly suitable wind for single handers such as the A.

(Remember each A needs to be measured to have a PUKKA SCHRS as the A class rules do NOT COUNTROL the same things as the SCHRS model uses to rate - Mast height and thus mainsail luff length being the main one).

The A DOES exel in the lighter stuff and so WILL struggle in the big stuff with such a high aspect ratio rig.



To answer Codblow (again) SCHRS has to make an assumption about crew weight, thus we use the worldwide average that is 75kg for an adult. Some will be lighter, some will be more.

We CANNOT implement a "actual crew weight" element as this would:

A, mean at EVERY EVENT and every race you have to weigh EVERYONE and re-calc the rating - it would be impossible.
B, Protests on weight of the crew anyone? - another nightmare
C, Inaccurate or differing scales? Had a big curry the night before?

We will not be implementing a "Crew weight" based rating element. End of story.

These two statements sum up the problem the USA has with using Portsmouth. If you can't generate a hundred races in each of the 4 wind speed categories with races of the major OD classes sailed by the top sailors in the class ... you won't be able to do anything better then more or less fair ratings.

Mike, the problem is not that OA's don't turn in data... they have no data to turn in.

Examples.

Tradewinds, 5 A cats and 12 N20's.... NO Portsmouth Data!

Area C Which has 12 N20's, 2 F18's and 40 A cats in region.... No Portsmouth Data from these boats. (only 4 boats competed)

On the Chesapeake, WRSC has 12 N20's and 15 A cats. We generated 1 regatta in 2008 of race results for Portsmouth. BUT... the top A class sailors finish top 20 nationally... the N20 sailors don't compete at nationals but usually don't finish better then mid pack historically... so the underlying Portsmouth assumption is just not valid. Result... even this data is pretty useless.

We did not have any other data comparing a 20 to an A cat around a standard course in 2008.

Toss in another new class which does not have OD nationals or much OD fleet racing and a second class which is very strong in a region but with a history of their popular single handed class rating trailing the true performance and it becomes very difficult to handicap designs with performance data.

Finally, with the advent of spinnakers... the time a boat is sailing down wind with 2x the sail area has decreased versus the time it goes upwind. Even worse the down wind speed is non linear, the spin sweat spot is in that 7 to 14 knot range. The A cat has a constant amount of Sail area. So it becomes very very difficult to rate the two against one another if the formula (SCHRS or Texel) and the race course don't match.
For Portsmouth, this fact makes data collection even more difficult. When race data are included from non traditional race courses or from non W L courses the statistical noise increases dramatically.

The A class, Hobie 14 and Hobie 17 have always been tough to rate against the sloop boats... it's much more difficult to rate them against the spin boats.

IMO, We should spend the money and get the Nacra F17 rated (in all of its configurations) so that SCHRSS and Texel have accurate data and then evaluate the rating table from a world wide perspective based on experience of the top sailors in the major classes. Decide if their is problem and then what to do about it.

Mark,
There were results of at least one race in 2008 turned into Darlene that included: N20, F18, NF17,F16, A-cat, Tornado (both with and without spin even) P-19, H-17 and I think a N5.8. I know because I was copied on that email and exchanged a few emails with Darlene. If you are truly in the know about such maters and did not see these results then there is a problem. Otherwise the data, though limited, is getting recorded.

The problem you've got there is that there is a drastic difference in performance potential throughout the wind range between a main-only and a main/jib/spin boat. If the A isn't flying a hull upwind, it will still probably get to the top of the course first, but the spinnakers are going to whiz right by going downhill. If the A can fly a hull upwind but not downwind, it's going to be pretty even. If the A can fly a hull up AND downwind - it's probably got a bit of an advantage.

It's evermore important to use wind specific ratings when racing such dissimilar boats because they behave so differently in the different wind strengths. The wind corrected ratings between N20/F18/A-cat seem to support this performance characteristic.

And Another Thing to Overcome Common Logic:
Whilst the spin boats are flying giant spinnakers while the A-cats are still using their tiny little mains only, the lets say "Alter Cup Area D" course can (randomly) be an even number of legs or odd. Usually, spin boats catch the A cats near the finish line because of EVEN-numbered legs. NOW- Guess what happens if there are an ODD number of legs: A-cats smoke 'em, and the F18 guys cry, moan and complain.

Totally agree, we need to reinstate the downwind start and sail leeward/windward for one and a half lap

This spis are hardly giant
A catters are free to add a spi, but they (rightly) choose not to.