You guys are starting to figure out this "Sailing" thing.

A measurement system eliminates personalities and incomplete/flawed reporting data.
I think that is the single best reason to use a measurement system. Jake, could you please elaborate on why you don't like a measurement system?

I'm trying to think of the flaws. Anyone already using Texel please feel free to point out it's flaws as well, since you have much more experience with it.

Because a measurement system can't possibly account for the vast number of variables that ultimately contribute to the potential speed of a boat. For instance, how you calculate the speed improvement provided by a full lifting foil? What about a foil that provides partial lift and doesn't clear the hull from the water? How about a foil canted at 45 degrees vs. one canted at 20 degrees? How about a manufacture that got the incidence of a canted or curved foil correct vs. one that got it wrong? What about a rounded bow vs. a plumb bow or a full bow with high volume vs. a narrow bow with it's volume down low? An undercut stern? A high mounted trampoline vs. one with not enough height to clear waves?

What about the differences in performance between a strict SMOD class that hasn't seen a sail shape evolve in 15 years versus a box rule MMOD class that sees new and more efficient sail (and hull) shapes every year? Though the sail areas stay identical, we've seen this in the dichotomy of the N20 and the F18s as the F18s continue to make slight speed gains around the course due in part to advancement of their hull and sail shapes. The technical measurements of the boats remain practically the same.....I could go on but the existing measurement systems are very strict and unforgiving and lack the ability to refine their figures beyond a sheet of numbers and very complex formulas that do pretty well but are, at best, no more accurate than the performance based systems we have (they typically even carry one less decimal point).

That said, it does have advantages...but you ask for the weak points.

Tim,

Having experience with CCA, MORC and IOR rules, once the rule is in place, sharp designers find and expoit the "unmeasured" parameters of the rule.

I suspect but don't know for a fact that Texel and SCHRS might have filters that prevent this.

Jake has stated that he and Wouter were onto something and it collapsed when Wouter had a "Wouter Moment" and Jake bailed.

I would propose to go back in time to that "moment" and see if there is a way to work beyond personalities.

I have similar situtions in my real job and am willing to step in here, if asked to.

I am leary of "can-o-worms" senarios and this might be a big C.O.W.

However, it is reason to drink RUM... and someone has to do it.

"...as the F18s continue to make slight speed gains around the course due in part to advancement of their hull and sail shapes."

And when was the last time their P number was changed to reflect that, or the A cat P number for that matter?

Jack, I agree with the loop-hole thought. I hope some of the European sailor will give us their take on it. And I agree on the rum.

Now that the Falcon is out, looks like the F16 number needs another adjustment.

Nooooooooooooo, I can't even sail to the 63!!!


Mike

It was a joke, I just said it to tweek Tim.

I know.

I've had my rating lowered 3 times already, it's YOUR turn!

No worries, instead of putting yours down they could always adjust his up.

The point is they keep adjusting the F16 number down yet they are using F18 and A cat numbers that have not been "adjusted" since...When? And if you want to talk about "new developments in hulls and rigs", look no further than the new F18's (new masts) and A cats (new...everything).

The F16's really haven't changed shape much and haven't changed rigs or sails, at all. In fact, the newest F16, the Viper, weighs more than the old Blades and Taipans, but uses the same mast/sails.

Now, a measurement type rule might be open to some designers exploiting the loopholes, and we have seen some of that in the A cats already with the banana bords, wing sails, etc. but the A cats are more of a developemental class anyway. Yet, if any of those developments have made them faster, why hasn't their number been adjusted down too?

You can legislate out some of that development by outlawing curved boards, wing sails, etc. and I think most other classes rules already do that, F18, F16.

So why not just rate them by the box rule they fit into, as Texel does?

Hey us too, weird.

Can someone just answer my question? When, as in what year, was the last time the F18 and A cat P numbers were changed?

One weanie per thread, bub. Get in line.

For your consideration, I scored a Formula 16, a Formula 18, an A Class and a Nacra 20 for a one-hour elapsed race using the Portsmouth, Texel and SCHRS ratings systems. Here are the results:

SCHRS Corrected Results:

Formula 18 (1.005) – 59:42

Formula 16 (0.994) – 1:00:22
Formula 16 owes Formula 18 0:40 per hour

A Class (0.979) – 1:01:17
A Class owes Formula 18 1:35 and Formula 16 0:55 per hour

Nacra 20 (0.939) – 1:03:54
Nacra 20 owes Formula 18 4:12, Formula 16 3:32 and A Class 2:37 per hour


Dixie Portsmouth Corrected Results:

A Class (64.5) – 1:33:01

Formula 16 (63.0) – 1:35:14
Formula 16 owes A Class 2:13 per hour

Formula 18 (62.4) – 1:36:09
Formula 18 owes A Class 3:08 and Formula 16 0:55 per hour

Nacra 20 (59.3) – 1:41:11
Nacra 20 owes A Class 8:10, Formula 16 5:57 and Formula 18 5:02 per hour


Texel Corrected Results:

Formula 16 (102) – 0:58:49

A Class (101) – 0:59:24
A Class owes Formula 16 0:35 per hour

Formula 18 (101) – 0:59:24
Formula 18 owes Formula 16 0:35 per hour

Nacra 20 (95) – 1:03:09
Nacra 20 owes Formula 16 4:20, and A Class and Formula 18 3:45 per hour

But I'm really drunk right now, so all this could be really wrong.

Since 2002 the A Class has changed twice. From 65.2 to 64.6 and then to 64.5

It's been a while since I sailed an F18 or N20 against each other directly (since they both seem to have strong classes that show up in enough force to be scored separately)...however, I do firmly believe that the F18 has been getting faster in relation to the N20 based on the on-course interactions having actively campaigned both platforms. Hard to say though, since I haven't seen much direct data...that's mostly gut feel.

Too late ,lotsa weanies in this thread. The thread's even named after one of the weanie gnome leaders.

A certain bunch of F-16 guys on this forum whine like a bunch of bitchy little girls. Your class is relatively new and hasn't settled into it's number. You've got more sail area and a kite, can run in 3 different rigs and y'all are still cryin'. Get a grip. There's all the talk about how fast the F-16s are and how they are gonna spank the N-20s and F-18s elapsed, then the same bunch starts crying abot their number, pick one will ya. It's wearin' thin.
Tawd

The F18 number changed in the following years:

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

The F16 number changed in:

2005
2006
2008

And the A-cat... it's the winner in this little race... it's number has changed every year from 2001 - 2008, excluding 2007 I can't find tables for 2007.

So Timbo... what was your point?

2001 - 65.5, it's changed every year since ending up at 64.5.

And Tim, before you get all "1 point in 7 years"! The A cat class is as old as dirt!

You had a nice run Timbo... move on already.