Poll: Choose your basic formula development strategy
<br>
<br>I think one goal of this discussion is to consider HOW to sort out racing teams onto appropriate boats that optimizes fair competition overall using a formula rule system.
<br>
<br>One solution. Graduated minimum weights that are close to the optimum weight to race the boat. EG. 330 F18... 350 F20, balanced against fixed rated sail area.
<br>
<br>Second solution. Combined boat weight/team weight balanced against graduated sail area.
<br>
<br>Third solution. Do nothing. Let the marketplace rule. Let everyone try to get to the 330 lb minimum and fight it out for market share. May the best solution win?
<br>
<br>
<br>Here is the poll:
<br>Which solution do you favor and believe will be more popular in the marketplace for sailors, builders and sponsors. (You must consider all three or justify why you exclude one of the groups)
<br><br><br>

Hi Mark
<br>
<br> Have to conclude since you have added a 3rd option never brought up by any others that this is your intent in posting .
<br> Do nothing ,-
<br>
<br>-You have stated a mission of keeping Porthmouth in place in the past , is this your over riding agenda here .
<br> -Believe I have always been direct and honest and would appreciate the same .
<br> This agenda is fine , but should not be hidden -You race a T so there is no direct interest presently ,
<br>
<br> -If this is the agenda it may not be appropriate to present yourself or a poll as being impartial .
<br>
<br> thanks ,--just curious
<br> Carl<br><br>

Option one with slightly bigger ranges and including combined weights everywhere.
<br>
<br>example
<br>
<br>F20 combined min 775 lbs = iF20 weight + min crew = 420 + 355 lbs
<br>
<br>F18 combined min 710 lbs = EU F18 weight + min crew = 400 + 310 lbs
<br>
<br>F16 HP no combined minimum (solo sailing !) but an adviced combined maximum of 500 lbs = F16 2-up min + crew = 220 + 330 lbs.
<br>
<br>This way F20 gets all crews from 330 lbs and upward depending on the weight of the design.
<br>
<br>F18 gets typically all weights from 310 to 350 which is the optimal big rig range anyway.
<br>
<br>F16 HP all the solo sailors and crews up to 330 lbs
<br>
<br>This way no class has hard bounderies and can extend a little bit into the range of the other class without really eating away in it.
<br>
<br>330 lbs is light for competitive F20 sailing and 330 is heavy for F16 sailing. Ofcourse at this weight the F16 can keep up with the F18's but not with their own lighter crews.
<br>
<br>The F18 will then perfectly cater the 310 to 350 range which is a bit heavy for F16 and a bit light for F20.
<br>
<br>Deal ?
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br><br><br>

Now with a system like this I expect a lively secondhand trade at all dealorships. Eventually there will be only 3 classes to which each builder can build designs too and it will be relative simple to trade in particular formula class boat for one bigger or smaller depending on your particula situation.
<br>
<br>Youths can migrate up and beginning family fathers can migrate down. And all have considerable fleets of competitive sailing.
<br>
<br>And Carls idea of graduate sail to weight is devided into three main groups. Which is easy to comprehend and explain and which Steve can sell.
<br>
<br>
<br>Wouter
<br>
<br><br><br>

Mark, I side with Carl on this one. Sorry.
<br>
<br>Wouter, I like your proposal on formula division of classes. I do not advocate the combined weight formula. Carl, you talked me out of that one, then jumped over to my old position. Whats up with that? You've confused me.
<br>
<br>Wouter, the NAF20 boat minimum is 385 (proposed) we do not want to adhere to iF20 because it just does not work. THe heavier boats= 420) are too rearward thinking and the smaller SA is not good for US conditions.
<br>
<br>Rmember that there is a proposed 40 lbs corrector that a crew can use in the class. Is it unfair to them? No. Is it a safety issue? NO. Boats should not turtle. If they do it is because their masts are not sealed. And I don't care who you are once the mast fills your screwed (been there have the t-shirt).
<br>
<br>So actually the crew weight range as proposed is 310 - 400. (310 + 40 = 350) 350 being class minimum. Is this fair yes. Is it fair to the 400 lbs team yes. It a hell of alot easier to add weight to the boat (for the light team) than for a heavy team to talk your crew into cutting off a leg to get down to 350lbs. Yes that was a funny and absurd comment, just as about as absurd as saying husband and wifes can't compete because they do not weigh enough -- Hell add a few lbs to the boat and quit crying.
<br>
<br>Getting Cranky -- time for bed
<br>Steve <br><br>

********!?
<br>By the way. Portsmouth is not some secret group with some hidden agenda that is subverting the world. I am not playing a fxxx game trying to thwart your noble intentions either.
<br>
<br>I think you have a valid point. Your complex scheme might work.
<br>In my opinion its NOT PRACTICAL. That's it.
<br>
<br>Don't like the poll I suggest... I am not wedded to it Go for your own.... Or just beat on the drum louder
<br>
<br>Im done.
<br><br><br>

Steve fill in 385 lbs instead of iF20 weight, I don't mind the actual numbers, they are not that important nor are the sail areas. That is as long as F20 positions itself above the weight ranges for F18 and others.
<br>
<br>Fighting over the same crews is far more harmfull than adding 15 sq. ft to the I-20 mainsail. The first kills off my class and the F18 and than the F20 will have no path leading up to the F20.
<br>
<br>Or even worse F18 and other classes start to fight back and thus killing us all off because no sailor likes to withness a big brall.
<br>
<br>So, fill in what ever you want to fill in as long as min F20 crewweight stays at 350 lbs.
<br>
<br>Sleep tight.
<br>
<br>Wouter<br><br>

Hi Steve -
<br>
<br> We are tackleing a difficult set of existing conditions , -
<br> people are all over the board with different concept and types of formula system , and no one know which type , or which poll , with what type is being reviewed ,
<br> Trying to understand basics of each persons perspective , to understand their goals for the class { agenda } - to be able to answer them more clearly ,--definitions may be required that all can refer to , -
<br>--On the total weight , -believe your correct on that and did revise the thinking to include total weight in the formula , it is the formula itself ,-or means of allowing total weight in it that is different . -
<br> Will e and try to provide a clear definition .
<br>
<br> Thanks for all the work behind the scenes in contacting potential sponsors and boat US , and several mfg. -
<br> Beyond hammering out rules it is an essential part of building this class .-A wondefull skill that I do not have , --I can't even get a Worrell team sponsor , so just raise money for charity instead . -Sail for Sight -
<br>
<br>-An open forum is usefull to gather basic info , connect , but that,s about all.
<br>
<br> thanks again Steve -
<br> Carl
<br><br><br>

Hi wout
<br>
<br> Left out are the 18 HP CLASS --this looks good -
<br>
<br> new 16 designs ,--along the same design as 18 HP -no jib taller mast ect.
<br>
<br> potential new lightweight H P 20s ,--lighter smaller sail plan , -light sheet loads ,-easy to sail for ALL people --
<br>
<br>Sail Clubs people -Boats -designs ,-their excellence is what will attract sailors to any particular type of boat or class --
<br>
<br> Please look at Matt and W F ,-most likely the next U S T -Olympic team ,--Matt is involved with the F-18 s --W F is promoting the 18 H P class ---They will both sail both types of cats , --mainly the Tornado in training ,-and they both have As and other cats they sail . There is no discussion of dividing up .
<br>
<br> We do obviously need more inclusive broader rules to allow all cats at a given L-within Formula Classes to race together .
<br> This 20 rule proposed -a total weight to sail area formula allows that to occur.
<br>
<br>-Carl<br><br>

Hi Mark
<br>
<br>-A simple question based on your previous mission statement of keeping Porthmouth in place .
<br> Only requires a simple answer .
<br>
<br>-The extent of name calling and dropping in the post is very disappointing . -
<br>
<br> good luck to you in your endeavors ,
<br> -Carl <br><br>

This from a well known cat designer -
<br>
<br>-You pulled my trigger when you asked "what boat or boats are not rated fairly by the Portsmouth handicap rating"? The most outstanding example of a misrated boat is the Tornado. Remember the selection trials for a new catamaran to replace the Tornado in the Olympics? The Tornado without spinnaker at a PN of 64 beat the tar out of all the new boats with PNs in the 59 to 60 range. How is it that a 64 PN boat can do this so easily and consistently to boats rated 4 to 5 points faster?
<br>Does this mean that all these new boats should be rated in the 65 to 66 range or does it mean that the Tornado should be rated in the 58 to 59 range? One or the other case must be true! We all know that a 1970 Tornado built with fiberglass mat and no core and 100 pounds overweight is not competitive with a 2000 Marstrom Tornado but they have the same Portsmouth number, 64. Why is this?
<br>Good Sailing,
<br><br><br>

Carl Said:
<br>This from a well known cat designer -
<br>
<br>-You pulled my trigger when you asked "what boat or boats are not rated fairly by the Portsmouth handicap rating"? The most outstanding example of a misrated boat is the Tornado. Remember the selection trials for a new catamaran to replace the Tornado in the Olympics? The Tornado without spinnaker at a PN of 64 beat the tar out of all the new boats with PNs in the 59 to 60 range. How is it that a 64 PN boat can do this so easily and consistently to boats rated 4 to 5 points faster?
<br>Does this mean that all these new boats should be rated in the 65 to 66 range or does it mean that the Tornado should be rated in the 58 to 59 range? One or the other case must be true! We all know that a 1970 Tornado built with fiberglass mat and no core and 100 pounds overweight is not competitive with a 2000 Marstrom Tornado but they have the same Portsmouth number, 64. Why is this?
<br>Good Sailing,
<br>
<br>MH:
<br>You can point to many inconsistancies in Portsmouth racing. They are too numerous to even begin to list. However, every year I turn in my scores to the Portsmouth Committee and every year they get corrected to be closer to the right answer. I don't like the Porsmouth racing the clock but it is all we have currently and therefore support and try to improve it. The Portsmouth Committee does look at inconsistencies that are sent thier way. I recall looking down the new numbers one year and seeing the Cathouse 20 listed as slower than a Nacra 6.0. I was shocked as I knew the Cathouse 20 was basically a lighter Nacra 6.0. I informed the Committee and it was corrected quickly.
<br>
<br>I don't think Portsmouth is really a point for disscussion here as we will have no immediate effect on Portsmouth racing other than asking them to give a number to the NAF20 class if we desire.
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br>H20 #791
<br>
<br>
<br>Mike Hill
<br><br><br>

I agree with Mike here. What we are trying to do is develope a Formula where 20 foot boats race head to head first to finish. It is that reason that I do not endorse sail modifications for weight or seperate standings for light/heavy teams.
<br>
<br>We will have to be "portsmithed" for rankings with other non formula boats. I have had discussions with US Sailing about this issue. I have said that we would prefer another system but as this is the system that USS endorses than we will happily live with it as a class.
<br>
<br>Carl, thank you for your compliments. I do have someone interested for you but I need a $ amount and what that gets them.
<br>
<br>I think we have adequate box rules already agreed to. Lets get a committee together and begin jotting down the rules. Anyone interested in being on the committee please private message me or email me.
<br>
<br>Thanks
<br>Steve<br><br>

Thanks Mike -
<br> You are of course right ,--only posted it in responce , to answer a direct question ,.
<br> Porthmouth or ISAF or Texel are not perfect in all regards , -they attempt to average ALL designs . p USES av times , and a long list of design modification factors ,--the others use design measurement ,--which do benifit by looking at race results and av finish times ,---It is an almost impossible task , - The people involved do a wonderfull job , and have my admiration for tackling it .
<br> -Prefer the design measurement , it allows a natural progression and readily connects to Formula ,--iTS ADVANTAGES ARE READILY CLEAR, NOW BEGINNING TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS WE construct formula classes.
<br>
<br>-Will post comparing the CURRENT Fox at 418 LBs and smaller main ,--with the current Inter 20 at 388 and 15 sq ft larger main and how the two may be equalized under the proposed sail area to total weight rule ,--
<br>
<br> Maybe this will help all to clearly comprehend it . --
<br> Again just understanding the conplex problems , existing conditions handed us and goals we wish within the class are half the battle.
<br>
<br> Thanks Mike -
<br> It is amazing how some will presume to scold others for using a word like idiotic in their posts then the next day post someyhing far worse themselves , --
<br> In posting any statement ,concept or rules proposal you had better be prepared to reverse the scenario and apply it equally . -A look in the mirror .
<br>--Class goals are for equal FAIR SAILING for all , and encouraging excellence and seaworthiness in design .
<br>
<br> If we agree and stick to these over riding principles we will be O K.
<br>
<br> Carl<br><br>