We race every week under SCHRS with Nacra 20's, F18, F16 and A-Cat. There hasn't been much whining at the bar lately. None as I recall, even when the splits were under 5 seconds. The team that sailed best that week usually won. It is very difficult to argue with a formula.

Of course you would since the F18 owes other boats less time under SCHRS. I could find a lot of ways to argue with a formula that tries to cover something so dynamic as boat potential. Have you seen the number of variables that go into the formula? Those guys have put an incredible amount of brain power into it but who says it's any more accurate than our current Portsmouth numbers? How do you prove it? The fact that nobody complains is hardly proof of anything other than the fact people accept handicap racing for what it is.


Reference SCHRS rules

Well, real-time entry is the ultimate dream, but in this case, I was referring to making it easier to get existing data into the system, if for no other reason than comparing new/proposed systems.

There are so many systems in use, it's crazy. Everyone has their favorite, and when you work for as many different classes and OAs as I do, you learn to be OK with delegating to the local expert. Other times, you have to take ownership. It's sometimes a delicate balance.

Mike

Jordonna is in huge favor of SCHRS and is already reviewing our race results under that system.

Jake You must talk about Accuracy along with Transparency... it does not serve the debate to consider only one factor.

Accuracy assumes that their exists a perfect single number rating for a boat. Now... even if we knew that number... the fact is that the racing rules of sailing will add noise of a few percent. So...the precision of your finish time is plus or minus a few percent. Basically the tables use one decimal place and you can have two classes tie on corrected time even tho one beats the other across the line. Handicap won't resolve close finishes as well as one design. That is the nature o the game... Accuracy of any table is always debatable.

We obviously want an accurate ratings table and accept the limitations of finishing by time and not position. BECAUSE accuracy is in the eye of the beholder... we count on the national and international sanctioning bodies to declare one table is accurate and approved.

Of almost equal Value as Accuracy is Transparency... Do you know the factors used in generating the rating because it is likely that you (or someone) will disagree with the accuracy of the table for your boat or theirs. Transparency addresses HOW you get to an accurate table.

How you get to an "accurate" table of boats is one of three ways.
Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder SO...we count on the sanctioning bodies... ISAF and US Sailing to declare one or all acceptable. US Sailing declares three handicaping systems accurate. PHRF, Measurement and Portsmouth. They differ in transparency.

Portsmouth... collects data for yardstick and active one designs and generates the table. Problem is. Not enough quality data for new designs racing against the yardstick boats exist. All data have to be filtered. The races used to calculate a rating may be historical because 100 data points are used. The problem is with getting valid quality data and major corrections have been required to fix problems that were caused by bad data. One off boats get ratings (to be user friendly) that are not valid.

Measurement. A committee works out a formula based on the sailing physics, curve fits to data, etc etc. The rating table is based on the published formula applied to all boat classes and the measured parameters of a specific boat or class of boats (one design) Examples are MORC, HPR (Monohulls) SCHRS and Texel (cats.) This table is the most transparent.

PHRF... A committee works out their best judgment based on declared parameters and measured values and the observed performance on the race course.. This is a local committee which takes into account local issues like current etc.
Transparency is low because the committee meetings are private... but you can appeal your rating. PHRF tables exist for monos and big multis' PHRF tables differ a lot across the country.

I believe that SCHRS is the best solution for both Accuracy and Transparency PLUS it is sanctioned by ISAF.

Calling me biased is pretty unfair. Any given week we'll be racing on a Nacra 20 or F16, if we can't get the F18 mast up in time for a midweek race. Besides, we were racing under 2012 SCHRS tables which have the F-18 and the A-Cat as equals. Any given week we'd win or they'd win, depending on how much upwind vs. downwind work was involved and the wind strength. This was for a 2008 Nacra Infusion w/o long boards and older generation A's without curved boards or t-foil rudders.

That goes for the other classes. The newest F16 designs are equal in performance to the F18's, which isn't surprising since that was the design intent! I will say they are a tiny tiny bit faster in light air, but regardless of conditions the better sailed boat wins and the corrected time delta is on the order of seconds for a 1 hour course.

We ran the numbers both ways before switching. Maybe there was one boat that swapped positions with another using SCHRS vs. Portsmouth after an entire season of racing. The delta just isn't there and SCHRS is fully transparent, plus does a better job of handling one-off's like modified ARC22's.

Again, absolutely not defending Portsmouth above all others, but there is a process in place to get a provisional number for a new boat. The process is neither fast nor perfect, but is part of the program.

If you guys are serious about putting together a proposal to change to a new system, please be sure to include strengths and weaknesses of all aspects of the systems being assessed, including Portsmouth.

Mike

Portsmouth can be transparent but as I mentioned earlier, the statistics that go into it are complicated. Heck, I probably have the document that explains the math but few of us would probably understand it (Jamie Diamond is probably one of them). I would venture a guess that the complexity of it, and not having the original people available, would be a hurdle if we had data to compile.

That said, I really appreciate the energy (and people) that made DPN. They were brilliant people who built a system that has the potential to be an exceptionally accurate handicapping system. I don't have a problem racing under the numbers as they stand today - I feel like they are fair and accurate. It also has the ability to adjust for different wind strengths that SCHRS does not - and Sam just stated how who wins under SCHRS depends on the conditions.

I made a MHC proposal in 2009 to use a marriage of the two systems - use a measurement based system (adopt from SCHRS) to establish provisional DPN number for a new type of boat until enough data is had to zero in on an accurate rating. We've been talking about this for a long time.

Handicap racing is what it is - and I don't expect it to be the ultimate test of my ability. However, for the reasons stated above, I prefer DPN if we can keep it actively adjusting.

God bless Dick Blanchard (NAMSA) and Darlene Hobock (USSA) - long may they live.

Carl Reigart is the new leader, and he welcomes data, and ideas for growth.

How many OAs around the country, especially the deep south (GYA), wish to roll over to a new system such as SCHRS, Texel, or local club inventions?