| Thread: Anything Not Covered? #4877 12/19/01 06:19 PM 12/19/01 06:19 PM | Anonymous OP
Unregistered
| Anonymous OP
Unregistered | | | | Re: out of our scopecrew weight
[Re: samevans]
#4880 12/21/01 08:45 AM 12/21/01 08:45 AM | Anonymous OP
Unregistered
| Anonymous OP
Unregistered | HI Sam, We do want those organizations to join NAMSA as Association Members and offer the same to them as we do any other Association that belongs, i.e., CRAM, CRAW, NAHCA, et al. And I certainly agree about the rating systems. However, where NAMSA can do some good is to make strong suggestions about ratings when they seem a bit insane. For example, at this point a few people make decisions on modifications that perhaps handle a situation they know about, but does not best serve the multihull world in general. For example, for a boat that is normally with one person, sailed by two once had a modification. Now, it is based on a percentage of the minimum crew weight. However, most classes do NOT have minimum crew weights, so what are they to do. And the same weight problem works in reverse. Still another thing is having a spinnaker rating and then another for distance races -- just makes no sense. That is why for our Key Largo Steeplechase we simply do not acknowledge those esoterically-designed mods. In other words, we don't want NAMSA to handle ratings, but we do want to offer input to those working with them. Thanks for you postings. Very good! | | | Re: Thread: Anything Not Covered? #4882 12/21/01 12:24 PM 12/21/01 12:24 PM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 12,310 South Carolina Jake
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 12,310 South Carolina | Rick,
The first line where we name the organization specifies: North American Multihull Class Association, Inc. But the Acronym is NAMSA. Should this be North American Multihull Sailing Association instead? I know it's a tiny point but it could be cause for some confusion in the future.
Jake Kohl | | | Re: NAMSA "Showcase" regatta
[Re: samevans]
#4883 12/21/01 08:37 PM 12/21/01 08:37 PM |
Joined: Jul 2001 Posts: 344 Arkansas, USA Kirt
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 344 Arkansas, USA | Sam-
I agree with you NAMSA should essentially divest itself of handicaps IF we want to cont. w/ PN. However, I DO think NAMSA could go far towards improving handicap racing by:
1) Resurrecting the old "Monterrey Multihull Classic" type regatta where the manufacturers/classes get to provide ONE boat each and then everybody races (Could break down into relatively comparable groups if desired). For new boats this could be very valuable for setting handicap numbers and for "evolving" classes it could help "adjust" the numbers as well as serve as a "check" for the current numbers.
2) Presuming NAMSA will be conducting/supervising handicap regattas it can repeatedly "measure" the performance of many boats and/or crews and provide this information in a standard format for handicapping assessment.
3) Again, assuming it is involved with regattas, it stands to reason that a particular handicap "system" (PN, Texel, ISAF, etc.) will be "endorsed" by NAMSA and NAMSA can standardize boat/crew "configurations" hopefully minimizing boat variability for the sake of comparison (like NAHCA rules for Hobies are more "strict" than for "open" regattas so one never knows if one is racing a H 16 that is Hobie class "legal" or PN "optimized").
What do you think?
Kirt
Kirt Simmons
Taipan #159, "A" cat US 48
| | | Re: what is a "NAMSA "Showcase" regatta"
[Re: Kirt]
#4884 12/27/01 12:12 PM 12/27/01 12:12 PM |
Joined: Jul 2001 Posts: 390 samevans
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 390 | Sam-
I agree with you NAMSA should essentially divest itself of handicaps IF we want to cont. w/ PN. However, I DO think NAMSA could go far towards improving handicap racing by:
*NO, NO, NO. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. NAMSA should have nothing, zero, nada, nix, zip, to do with endorsing, recommending, administering or enforcing ANY handicap system. They all have existing organizations to administer them and it is the resposibility of regatta organizers to use them correctly.
1) Resurrecting the old "Monterrey Multihull Classic" type regatta where the manufacturers/classes get to provide ONE boat each and then everybody races (Could break down into relatively comparable groups if desired). For new boats this could be very valuable for setting handicap numbers and for "evolving" classes it could help "adjust" the numbers as well as serve as a "check" for the current numbers
*No it wouldn't. Factories would bring "hired guns" and classes would bring whoever. Hardly a fair comparison. The Portsmouth works because it is based upon numbers from many races with many different kinds of racers.
| | | Re: handicap system
[Re: majsteve]
#4888 12/27/01 10:00 PM 12/27/01 10:00 PM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 12,310 South Carolina Jake
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 12,310 South Carolina | Steve,
While I see your point, I side with Sam. I admit that I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Texel rating system to determine which system is better - but I do believe that it would be tougher for us as "multihullers" to gain greater acceptance in the sailing ranks in the USSA if we branch off into a different handicap system. It's tough enough getting the monohull world to open some events to multihulls. Expecting them to open up to us AND revamp their software AND learn a new rating system isn't going to help us achieve greater strength within their organization.
Jake Kohl | | | Re: handicap system
[Re: Jake]
#4890 12/28/01 11:01 AM 12/28/01 11:01 AM |
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 195 Texas majsteve
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 195 Texas | Ok, I do hear your thoughts, views, and insights. Additionally I respect them and feel this debate is healthy. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way (joking!).
I guess the point I am trying to make is this. There is nothing in the charter of USSA or the by laws of USSA. That prohibits a class association or affiliation from marketing itself. Basically, there is nothing that USSA can do if we (NAMSA) operate more like a corporate structure ( as in CART, IRL, NASCAR -- all of these I believe fall under the structure of scca(I think thats the correct one). All of this comes back to one point ---- MONEY. If Namsa has a strong structure then sponsors can be pulled to fund work that NAMSA sees that needs to be done. Once the dollars begin to flow then USSA and YC's have to take notice due to thier need for money (ours, yours, everyones)
Basically, NAMSA sets up the rules, governs the quality of the product, and then acts as a voice for the product (us) to USSA. Sailing has never marketed itself. Its been used by marketers but without any focus or direction the image of sailing is diluted and vague. Basically, if you tell anyone your a sailor they think you sail a 1920's vintage J boat, drink martini's at the YC and are an aristocratic butt. Thats the image that sailing has. Now reality is that most of us are poor miserable hacks who just want to leave the work week behind, get the wind in our hair(if we have any left), and maybe have a beer or two(or more if its been a bad week). Thats the image here in the states.
In Australia sailings image is much different and it is viewed as a powerful, athletic sport. WHY????? Marketing and direction. Direction needs structure. Structure needs support both financial and personal. NAMSA does not need to come to the table with its hat in its hand. (I have seen deals fall apart because weakness kills). If you come to the table with a good product, thumping your chest then people want to be with you.
Namsa needs to direct sailing. Not only be an advocate for sailors rights --- god that sounds clintonian. If Namsa comes to the table with directions then YC's can follow them instead of just guessing what we want which is what I hear from most YC PRO's. YC's are hungry for new blood (money), membership in most areas is falling and active membership is falling faster. Most YC's are just marinas in most of the country anymore with the old timers saying the same things we hear at our regattas. We need to adopt a rating system, bring forth the software (free to the pro's) and say this is what we want and this is what we are prepared to give in order to get it.
Steve | | | Re: minimalist approach
[Re: samevans]
#4893 12/28/01 02:32 PM 12/28/01 02:32 PM |
Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 195 Texas majsteve
member
|
member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 195 Texas | I also agree with Sam I really don't care what system we use. Just endorse one and then politic to have it run the way we want. If NAMSA supports X rating system then it needs to be prepared to support it at the YC level.
Sam, there are alot of things that WE can accomplish if we try. The best way to make a stew is for everyone to bring what they can to the kitchen. Then lets decide what we want to make versus setting closed focus agendas based on what someone else has done in the past. (ie hobie, pc, or other sailing classes). Namsa needs to be different, it needs to be a governing body, an advocate, proactive, market focused, basically run like a business. We need to agree on what we can do, are willing to do, or want to do individually. Then figure out what the "assoc" can or must do.
I propose a conference call with all persons interested in helping out. Hell, I'll even pay for it.
Steve | | | Re: you don't agree with Sam
[Re: majsteve]
#4894 12/28/01 05:56 PM 12/28/01 05:56 PM |
Joined: Jul 2001 Posts: 390 samevans
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 390 | i am sorry Steve, but despite the fact that you say you agree with me, you don't.
I don't understand why, with all of the important issues we have, you insist on monkeying with the HC systems. The formulas used by PN are standard mathematical norming equations that must work across all makes of boats.
Let me repeat! NAMSA should be HANDS-OFF the HC systems.
Who said we were making stew?
Who wants stew?
Stew is what you get when no one is willing to make a decision.
If something has worked in the past, we should use it.
NAMSA CAN'T be that different. We are the same people, on the same boats, going to the same races. We are just trying to improve what we have been doing.
I will not be a party to any private conspiracy to control NAMSA. I expect every discussion to be held in public, so that there won't be any surprises like the infamous "Hobie-centric memo".
As I suggested, Rick has started several different threads so that we may discuss the different portions of NAMSA and arrive at decisions.
If you have specific proposals about specific issues, then make them in an appropriate thread.
If you have a new issue which you wish to propose, then start a thread.
Get specific IE: committees? task forces? etc.
All NAMSA issues should be openly discussed, first individually till a consensus is reached, then as a whole to be sure they work together. None of this "throw it on the wall and see what sticks" garbage. The time for broad statements and "hand-waving" is over.
You want "Professional"? I have helped write contract documents six inches thick and that is how we do it. | | | Re: you don't agree with Sam
[Re: samevans]
#4895 12/28/01 06:46 PM 12/28/01 06:46 PM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 12,310 South Carolina Jake
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 12,310 South Carolina | Like Tami said, the time for this is not here yet. We have more important matters at hand - like getting a working constitution and officials in place. Propose that you guys agree to disagree for now. We don't even have an organization yet with which to decide if we want to play with HC numbers or not. I'm sure everyone has a strong opinion on this subject (I do too) but trust that the right thing will be done when the time comes. The important thing now is that everyone reviews the recent drafts presented by Tami and MajSteve - we could really use some input.
Jake Kohl | | | Re: PN vs Texel
[Re: majsteve]
#4896 01/02/02 11:29 AM 01/02/02 11:29 AM |
Joined: Jun 2001 Posts: 833 St. Louis, MO, Mike Hill
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 833 St. Louis, MO, | I've been the scorer for my club for a few years now and I have a unique understanding of PN numbers. They are a better system than Texel because of the Wind correction factors. I have been amazed at how well PN works. When PN numbers don't work no system would work other. PN doesn't work in extremely light races and races that change into reaching races. PN does not work very well for distance races normally.
However I've looked at Texel and it doesn't work when the wind is light or the wind is heavy. I think it might work when the wind is 10-12 and that's about it.
The entire US uses the PN system. That is a great statement for it's worth. Many clubs would not use it if it was seen as a flawed system. We need to support the US sailing PN system or try to get US sailing to change the system if needed.
The fact that we are united in the US under the PN system is really nice when we travel to regattas and can trust that the system will be the PN system and we will be scored fairly.
Mike Hill
H20 #791
Mike Hill N20 #1005
| | |
|
0 registered members (),
420
guests, and 87
spiders. | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | Forums26 Topics22,405 Posts267,056 Members8,150 | Most Online2,167 Dec 19th, 2022 | | |