PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
<br>
<br>Crew Weight
<br>
<br>ISAF prepares the guidelines under which sailors can go to sea to race sailboats and does not micro-manage the sport, leaving the sailors, through their classes or associations, to play the game fairly within those guidelines. There are naturally exceptions to this as seen in the Right-of-Way Rules and one I would like to impose which is to allow only one scoring system for Fleet Racing but that is a whole other subject.
<br>
<br>With regard to crew weight and the control of such, ISAF says that a class can initiate weight limits. What limits they impose, what scales they use, or how often they test is totally up to the class and the sailors. On the general issue of weight testing, I personally would like to find other simpler solutions than the inherent medical problems caused by quick weight loss imposed by trying to make a limit.
<br>
<br>There are many ways in my opinion which can help if you wish to control crew weight. The skill of being able to gear down and steer well has been replaced by "Where's the Beef!!"
<br>
<br>Several years ago, I had calls from two top-ranked women 470 sailors. The first, from Spain, said that ISAF must demand the trapezoid course as she had special sails, mast and had trained for this course. The other, from the USA, gave exactly the same reasons and demanded the old Olympic Course.
<br>
<br>After reflection, being one of the smallest Finn sailors in captivity, it became obvious that the reasons given were nonsense and that the Trapezoid favoured lighter sailors, because of the downwind finish, and the Old Olympic Course favoured heavier sailors, because of the upwind focus.
<br>
<br>Being a Finn Sailor, I always noticed that at the Finn Gold Cup the heavy sailors dominated because the first weather leg was 2 miles long. Also in big seas they have an advantage because you need the weight to drive off, while in flat water you can pinch going higher but a little slower. In the events where the weather legs were reasonable and on enclosed waters the smaller sailors were competitive.
<br>
<br>I tried to convince the Star sailors that they should not allow crews to go in front of the mast downwind which allows the gross crews an advantage both upwind which is obvious, but also downwind because they can pull the stern out of the water reducing drag so they win both ways. If they stopped the crews going on the foredeck (or standing up on any deck) and had downwind finishes the weight of the crews would go down. If they cut the roach of the sail back to where it was fifteen years ago they would depower the rig also. With these changes the crew weight would be reduced as it would not be fast to have so much "Beef". If they got rid of the hiking belt and made them hang by their thumbs the crew would have to be fit also.
<br>
<br>In the big boats if you had to keep all parts of your body inside the life rails, then "beef" would not be as important. Also I have sailed in water ballasted boats and they are great which cuts down the "beef" required.
<br>
<br>What to do about Dragons and Etchells and like boats, I do not know, but the overview is that weight limits in all sports introduce many unhealthy medical considerations.
<br>
<br>This is a challenge because allowing "More Beef" also is not good for the broadbase of sailing. We are facing the problem in the Yngling for Women in Athens. Hopefully we will try other solutions first before we impose a weight limit. A Trapezoid course and finishing downwind with possibly 1 1/4 mile first weather legs will help, instead of Windward/Leewards finishing upwind with 2 mile first beats. ISAF going to two races a day on shorter courses finishing downwind will also ensure that the weight of the crew does not escalate.
<br>
<br>Athens, so I am told in July, has good wind, but offshore, which means flat water which will also be important as smaller crews will be competitive. Sailing is a weight sensitive sport as most sports are.
<br>
<br>How ISAF addresses the issues is a great challenge and I do not think there is a simple or uniform solution.
<br><br><br>

Hello all
<br>
<br>I reposted Henderson's comments in response to the discussion started by Kirt on reaching legs and Portsmouth racing. Obviously crew weight(s) with respect to course configuration are major issues at the championship level within one design classes. This debate in Portsmouth racing would be exponentially more complex.
<br>
<br>I suggest that the Portsmouth committe might wish to elaborate on the statement that "races should contain equal proportions of 3 points of sailing. beating, reaching and running." I think that the inherent noise in the data collected won't allow much more of an answer then some guidelines with respect to course configuration.
<br>
<br>With reguards to Alan Maguire's point about reach legs.
<br>IMO, I agree that reaching leg's are missing in most of the regattas that I have attended. Perhaps the balance between tactical racing and adrenalin rush speed runs has shifted too far in the direction of tactics. Begining cat sailors do one thing well ... (reach)! Remember your first cat! We need to encourage these folks to continue racing. Fleets and Divisions might instruct their PRO's to shift the balance back a bit! The fun factor can be also be increased by maxing out the speed (not just the competition)
<br>
<br>Take Care
<br>Mark Schneider
<br>Tornado with chute. (just make sure I am not tempted to carry that sucker too high:)
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>

Intresting --we have a detailed guideline and ISAF presidents commentary, here being used to apply to porthmouth rating ,-but we in the U S totally ignore the ISAF rating system for small catamarans .
<br>--
<br> For the many reasons expressed in previous posts -[see weight correction factors ] -We should examine an honest comparison of rating systems available -
<br>
<br> -comment from Colin ,-author of Sailwave scoring -in responce to an earlier post ---as follows -
<br> sailwave allows us to score races using the existing 3 main scoring systems ,P -ISAF and Texel -for comparison and objective annalysis would again request that this information be posted on catsailor or made available to all to access ,and again suggested that we start posting results in these various existing rating systems for several major races around the country . Many sailors have downloaded the sailwave scoring system and would enjoy the opportunity to compare and comment on the merits of the rating systems, beginning a meaningfull dialogue, and leading to improved and better rating systems.<
<br>Colin.---
<br>I'll add a facility to change rating systems for real when I get the chance - i.e. change all the values in the competitor details as the rating system is changed (as per the rating system library). Hmmm, could extend it to loop through a list of r systems, scoring as it went, generating some stats...
<br>
<br>Colin Jenkins
<br>www.sailwave.com
<br>
<br>-Suggest again that race results and all scoring info are made available on Catsailor for this comparison ,-
<br>
<br> Thanks much
<br> Carl
<br><br><br>

I don't know much about the ISAF system,,, but we did do an experimental comparison of results from a distance race this summer, between our standard PN's and the Texel system. The differences in the overall results were not enough to change the 1st place in the event, however it did switch around the 2nd and 3rd placings.
<br>
<br>What I did find odd was that when I was preparing, prior to the event, to score by both methods, I had some difficulty finding a rating for the H20 Miracle. One would expect this to be a fairly well known rating, but with the differences in boats between NA and Europe, I am not so sure. The Texel ratings listed a # for a Hobie 20 Formula, but this rating was considerably slower than the H21 and H21F ratings listed. See http://texelrating.knwv.nl/
<br>So that did not seem to be the logically correct value. My next step was to turn to the formulation tables,,,
<br>See http://www.texelrating.knwv.nl/descript.html
<br>UH OH,,, not enough time for all that measurement and calculation prior to the race.
<br>So my next step was to contact a region which is using the Texel ratings, and ask what they rated the Miracle at,,, which was 102, and seemed more in line with what I would have expected. But I am left wondering beyond a shadow of a doubt if that is indeed the correct Texel rating for a H20 Miracle. Does anyone out there know ?? Is there an official measurer somewhere whom can be relied upon to confirm Texel ratings for the many many variaties of cat's (let alone the common ones) in both NA and Europe ??
<br>
<br>
<br>I must admit,, that as an experienced scorer and racer, my first experience with the Texel system left me with more questions than answers. And I know that was not the intent of the Texel systems authors.
<br><br><br>Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
<br>Alan Maguire

Thanks Alan
<br> Would be very interested to see the results for each -
<br>
<br>-Have enjoyed watching the newly formed U K cat sailors reconfigure and reorganize cat sailing there , They sail under the ISAF and sometimes Texel and can be very helpfull ,-Check their excellent web site for more info ,--http://www.catamaran.co.uk/--
<br>-Believe some basic questions could be directed there and to Colin at Sailwave ,-most have been worked out .
<br> There would be some translation , a few variations in boats to adopt for use in the U S . -Sounds like you got it right --102 is also on the ISAF for H-20 though it is called Hobie 20formula - there is a catagory for Formula 20s at a 94 rating for the -the Inter ,-Fox ,-Storm -etc.
<br>-
<br>-Would like to see distance racing particularly go to these rating systems ,-as it much more readily allows the evolution into equall Formula type classes .
<br> Hope the Worrell 1000 in the future adopts this philosophy,-do know Mike W is very interested in it,--It would be much more interesting to see a number of mfg. cats of equal length ,beam weight and sail area, H Fox Inter 20 -etc,- to all line up together and drag race for 1000 miles .It would be much better for the sport as a whole , and connect us a bit more with the rest of the catsailing world .
<br>
<br>-Mark -enjoyed meeting you in Muskegon ,--are'nt you glad we mentioned the drysuit .--Do understand there is a tremendous time and effort invested by many in Porthmouth and do appreciate all those who give their time effort and energies ,---let us know how to work with them on this ,-
<br> The more we all understand rating systems in application to cat sailing and racing the better .
<br> Thanks again -
<br> Carl
<br>
<br>-site again >
<br>-http://www.catamaran.co.uk/<br><br>

Alan,
<br>
<br>When you come across a boat that as not been measured in the EU than you use the Texel Excel calculator which you can find at : http://www.geocities.com/kustzeilen/ under de header home links.
<br>
<br>As you can see you only need to weight the overall boat weight, measure waterline length and determine luff length and area of both sails. A good measurement takes time but a quick and dirty will surfice when you are pressed for time. I can tell you how the Texel measures do it, by now they are quick.
<br>
<br>Hobie miracle is very rare in EU and often called Hobie 6.0. However I have a friend that owned a Hobie miracle and raced it. So I can call on him if you want too. Onather option is that you mail this question to Geert Ruesink or Nico Boon whose e-mail adresses are given on the texel homepage. They are the "public affairs" duo for the Texel rating.
<br>
<br>I've been looking at Texel and ISAF closely due to F16HP and can explain you most things about the systems. I must admit that the describtion is somewhat vague and could be worded better. Still Texel is the only system that is publically documented and easily accessable. I had to look really ahrd to find the equations of the ISAF system.
<br>
<br>Mail me at wouterHijink@hotmail.com or maybe we can have a short phone conversation where I tell you all I know and write down the questions that I can't answer so that I can find that out for you.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Guy,
<br>
<br>A note of caution, even though ISAF is heavily based on the Texel system the two systems are not perfectly equal. ISAF uses the original set of 7 complex equations while Texel has been simplied by a regression methode which produce one interpolation formula that arrive at similar relative results but is easier to handle and explain. Typically ISAF produces ratings that are 2 points lower than Texel but in a relative sense they produce very similar results. So the Hobie miracle 1,02 in ISAF equal to about 104 in Texel.
<br>
<br>ISAF also rates genaker somewhat differently and handles, is expanded to incude aspect ratio of boards and corrects for carbon masts and uni rig sails.
<br>
<br>I have both Excel calculators and have the transcription of the ISAF internal workings is either of you is interested.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Thanks for the resource Wouter,,
<br>
<br>I will take a closer look at it on the weekend. I would like to test why the Texel ratings see the H21 as being a significantly faster boat than the H20 Miracle. I presume that I will find that the Euro-H21 and the NA-21 are different boats.
<br><br><br>Keep at least one hull in the air !!!
<br>Alan Maguire

Wouter<br><br>

Under Texel (from the excel downloaded from the www.texelrating .knwv.nl site) It is listed as Miracle 6.0 and Miracle 6.0 carbon
<br>
<br>Miracle 6.0 101
<br>Miracle 6.0 carbon 103
<br>
<br>Miracle 6.0 with spi = deduct 3 points
<br>
<br>So normal miracle with spi is 98
<br>
<br>Under Isaf it is known as :
<br>
<br>Miracle 20 WITH 20 SQ.MTR.!! SPI and has a rating of 0.98
<br>
<br>
<br>Notice that a few strange thing happen ex. the carbon is rated slower than the alu masted one this is because it was a rare boat overhere and it never became a class. Therefor many modified their boats to sail with smaller or larger jibs or whatever and caused these strange numbers. If there was a clas than a class rating would have been determined now only individual rating were calculated and each new H20 miracle was required to have its own measurement form and number. In the excel sheet I have you can read the measurement taken and compare them to your USA class legal measurement and determine wether the rating numbers are correct for the US. Mind you Texel and ISAF typically come out at less surface area's than what the builders supply, reasons unknown. Both system performs really accurate measurement on the sails.
<br>
<br>If you want one or both these excel sheets with meaured data (very helpfull) than mail me and I'll send them to you.
<br>
<br>My friend is looking up his measurement form and will tell me his miracle rating numner (Carbon normal sails)
<br>
<br> Hope this helps.
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>

thanks Wout ,
<br> You mentioned the explaination on the Texel site ,-
<br>-agree it is an outline rather than a detailed explaination , but does spell out the basic concepts applied .
<br> an overview of the rating system and simplified explaination of how the power formula is derived in laymans terms would be a great benifit to all .-
<br>-
<br>-great work on the F-16 s -looking good -
<br>
<br>
<br> All the best -
<br> Carl
<br>
<br><br><br>

Hello Carl,
<br>
<br>The outline was enough for me to make the Texel calculator, The ISAF system was alot harder and I didn't finish it because I got a ISAF calculator from a friend.
<br>
<br>The Power formula is explained somewhere on the site but I forget where. Nevertheless, the maths used in deriving a single formula from experimental is challenging at best. Some things just have to be accept. It should suffice to know that teh formula was derived from other formula's derived by (university) researchers by a regression methode.
<br>
<br>And indeed the new class is looking well.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Alan,
<br>
<br>I've got an official measurement certificate of the miracle of my club collegue. It contains the individual measurements from which the rating is eventually calculated. I've got it digitized but I'm not going to post it on the forum because it is a personal document.
<br>
<br>Mail me and I will mail the certificate to you if you interested.
<br>
<br>The ratings of his miracle carbon were :
<br>
<br>Texel sloop = 103
<br>Texel sloop + spi = 100
<br>
<br>ISAF Sloop = 1,01 (when I use the Texel data in the ISAF calculator
<br>ISAF Sloop + spi = 0,98 (when I use The Texel datain the ISAF Calculator.
<br>
<br>The measurement certificate says it used the one -design class measurements for calculating the rating for his Hobie Miracle so I guess that the measured was the same as the US version. Seems to me that the Hobie 20 Miracle is just a relative slow 20 ft. boat
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>