Why do we have to suffer with SCHRS, come on ISAF get the finger out.

http://www.watersportverbond.nl/content.asp?me_id=468%20

The Taipan 5.7 ratings are sort of interesting:

--Taipan 5.7 w/spin 2-up rated slower than F16 1-up
--Taipan 5.7 w/spin 3-up rated same as F16 1-up

I sure as heck can't sail to those F16 1-up ratings!

Wirebound,

Texel and SCHRS are very similar !

Over the last 3 years the systems have started to diverge noticeably. Texel is continiously update and the committee has really tried to adress some of the earlier problem points (A-cat, singlehanders, spi boats vs oldies). I haven't seen SCHRS do that at all yet.

Wouter

You must read the ratings data better to understand this. The number you quote for the 2-up version is WITHOUT a jib. And there are 3 persons onboard in the other rating. Addition crew weight of a 3rd person will do that to your rating.

With respect to the F16 1-up ratings : I still think them to be better at directly equal to F18's but the rounding off boundery is right between the F18's and F16's So in 1-up mode we end up 1 point faster and in 2-up mode we end up 1 point slower. Under Texel 2005 and early we had perfect equality between the F16's (2-up) and F18's. Rounding off rating number will do this sometimes.

Please note that when going from Texel 2005 to Texel 2006 the F18 became rated faster. From 102 to 101.




Now you know how much more potential you can still get out of the boat, because it is definately there.

I'm not a top quality skipper myself, I know what I'm doing but I should be able to pump a few more % out of the boat still. However take a look at the result this club race of last year, look how close the elapsed and correct times are.

http://www.wvz.vuurwerk.nl/180905.html

Conditions were windforce 4 (about 15 knots, sometimes more) and a good chop over about 2-3 foot waves with a short wave period. You had to get into a tack really well or the waves would have you blow it. It was tiring, so alot of crews dropped out in the later races. Notice that I'm in the middle of the F18/I-20 fleets on elapsed times.

Now, also look at the open 15 sq. results of Hans Klok (1st places) this guy shows what more can be won by just improving sailing skills. That guy is 6 minutes faster then all of us per hour. He has a good boat but is definately a very fast singlehander. In his case every works just as it should be. For a time (about the first round) I was actually leading race 3 then I blew it by going the wrong way, I had to gamble. I decided to go really close to shore thus getting out of the tidal current but there was more wind out to sea. But HEY, I had been working the mainsheet and spi sheet hard for about 2 hours already (notice the conditions), I was really nearing the end of my endurance. I was shacking the cramp out of my right hand on the reaching leg to the offset mark.

I'm perfectly happy to race F18's on the same handicap, in either mode. Season 2005 really showed me that it fully possible. That and the fact that Gary Maskiel is winning a score of Australian races on his F16 which is also rated equal to the A-cats/F18's as well.

All that is needed now is more personal improvement.

Wouter

Scooby Simon, you are right that SCHRS and Texel are similar in that they calculate a rating by boat measurement, but Texel is alway changing, trying to keep up with cat development and keep the game fair. SCHRS in 2004 removed a carbon mast tax, that it! They have not taken their finger out since 2002? Correct me if I'm wrong here, just using the information off their web site. To top this off, on their web site the e-mail address to the committee do not even work? ANYBODY HOME?????

If I'm hijacking your thread, then tell me to butt-out and I'll be happy to do so! That said, the whole argument is butt-backward! You guys want a system that equalizes the performance of different boats! That is an insoluble paradox!

If you wanted to measure performance, it would be easier, or at least doable, to agree upon a standard course, whereupon a "perfect" boat, sailed by a "perfect" sailor would have and arbitrary score and everyone else scored less, regardless of the boat type.

Example: Agreed upon score is 1.000. An excellent sailor on an excellent boat would achieve up to 0.999. A lesser sailor and boat combination would score nearer to 0.000.

If you have positive scores, then by definition the course would need revision. It might be possible to apply such revision by formula, but actual performance over the long term would be the acid test.

Then, if there is still the need to "equalize", apply a handicap as in golf.

SCRHS is being revised as we speak. I believe new numbers will be out soonish, I have no idea when.

Wow, SCHRS has seen the problems and doing something about it, Hats off to them getting on the problem, now all the people that are having problems with SCHRS, this is your chance to get your say, send Olivier Bovyn an e-mail.

I wonder which one of the problems they will fix?

So what are all the "problems" with SCHRS

As far as I know there are 2:

1, The website e-mail addresses don't point to real emails and so they don't get answered.


2, One handicap is wrong. The reason was that the SCHRS rule stated that the handicap for the F18 was 1.01. This was based on measurements taken from the Dart Hawk (I believe). The F18's have now changed somewhat and so the F18 new needs to be re-measured. The problem is that the F18 rules do not measure everything that the SCHRS rules do and so not all F18's rate the same under SCHRS. Consider the A class, These should all be measured before they get an SCHRS number. Perhaps all F18's should be measured !

So what other problems are there ?

scooby_simon,

Weight
Beam: Righting moment
Efficiency of kites: very quick development here
Regular updates to keep the development classes in check with the one design classes

In the F18's class the Capricorn when measured to SCHRS comes out with a number well below the F18 101.

Tornado's, F18's, F16's etc have moved forward with speed but the likes of the Dart 18's etc have not (nature of one design) but the ratings have not kept up.

No system will every be perfect, but if you have a statement saying "The purpose of these regulations are to enable trampoline multihulls of various types to race together on a comparative basis, and to protect the interests of the owners in keeping development under control without hindering further research"

You need to keep your finger on the pulse

How did you hear that they are looking at changing SCHRS? has ISAF payed for more development?

According to Texel I should never have to buy another boat again. Just sail the one I am on well! Tornado has done very little to improve itself apparently since the 70's.The Taipan 5.7 is a dog.The Hobie Fox is faster than everyone thinks.My mystere6.0 should be able to tangle with anything out there and swallow F18 and F16 alive .Excellent can't wait to get started.

I would start by buying a pair of reading glasses first and actually READ for which boats the Texel ratings were developped because :





Its rating has only gone down from 100 to 94 and from 1970 to 1998 the classic tornado was the benchmark of the system with an ASSIGNED rating of 100.




Actually NO TAIPAN 5.7 in its standard form was ever measured by Texel officials. Only two WEIRD modified T5.7's were : One without a jib and one with a standard crew of 3 persons instead of only 2 person. It says so in its rating details. The owners tried to create a rating killer that way, didn't work well.




Typical US sailor based misunderstanding. The US sailors compare the FOX to the US version of the Inter-20 and then call the FOX slow and profess amazement that Texel rates the FOX of comparable performance to the European (and thus slower) version of the I-20.





Mystere is of of those companies that has build 10 different version of any model the ever launched with often the European models differing from the US model significantly. So is you M6.0 the same as the European M6.0 that was measured my Texel ? In mysteres cases it is mostly not.


Wouter

All I can say is that I have some things on an unofficial basis.

As for keeping current, yes, this is why SCHRS should be changing.

The actual problem was that the F18's were just given a blanket rating. IMO the F18 (and other formula classes that allow development like F16, F14, Tornado etc) should [color:"red"] not [/color] be given blanket rating and should (as the A class do) have to have the boat measured and a measurement certificate stamped with the SCHRS rating.



Finally, most of us agree that measurement systems are the best. Come up with something better !

I did.


Wouter

Scooby... What measurment parameter differs on the F18's that effect the SCHR rating but still allows heads up competition within the F18 class. If the capricorn is racing the tiger and infusion heads up... What measurement could you make that would discrimate between the boats?

This simply makes no sense.... Ditto for the A class....
Yes... they are changing their hull shape... but NO measurement system (that we can afford) will take into account these differences.

In fact.. if your measurement system DID discriminate between the F18's... you would have a real problem.

Ergo... a yardstick system with enough data COULD discriminate between fast and slow A cat designs... Then again As Wouter will point out... the differences are likely to fall into the noise... (that's why we round off the numbers and don't carry the floating point to nnn decimals)

Take Care
Mark

1, It is not my measurement system, I am not a member if the team that admin's it, I just believe in it (with some tweaking)

2, SCHRS measures a number of things to come up with a rating.
2.1 Mainsail area
2.2 Aspect ratio of Mainsail
2.3 Jib
2.4 Aspect ratio of Jib
2.5 Area of mast
2.6 Area and aspect ratio of the plates or centre boards
2.7 LOA
2.8 LWL
2.9 Area of kite if applicable
2.10 weight of boat

3 however The F18 rules do not measure all these and so it is possible (beneficial?) to build an F18 that measures lower that the original rating 0f 1.01.

You have totally missed my point about the SCHRS rule, it is the fact that the classes that don't fit the rule are developent classes and their class rules are more open than those of SCHRS (or wouters formula for that matter)

I'll take the A class first.

The A class rules allow a very free hand on what you can do. No maximum mast height for example, just a max sail area. So you could (if you like) have an A class with a mast at 15m high (or more) if you wanted, it would be VERY quick if you were a good enough sailor to keep it upright when the wind came up - However you would have to be VERY good - hence why most NEW A classes are now using 9.5M masts (I think they got up to about 10.5M before they decided this was too high)

Everyone knows the current (say Flyer) A class is VERY quick in the light stuff - it is a light boat with a tall mast (around 9.5m I believe) and it is still quick (in the right hands) in a blow.

Considering this some more, would An A class tipping the scales at 200kg (as an example) win many races - No(but it is still an A class); would an A class with a 15m mast win many races (yes if there was little wind), so if the A class worlds were at a "light wind" location, everyone would be quite legal to turn up with 20M masts (ok so they would not be practicle, but do you get my point?), they then go down the road to a handicap regatta and clean up as they are still on the "old" A class regatta.



So, what has happened in the years since SCHRS was launched? Well, A classes have got quicker by having taller masts (this effects the SCHRS rating), BUT most of the A class sailors have been saying, "I sail an A class, thus I must sail using SCHRS 100 which was defined some time ago" (this is wrong, as I have said above. Go and look up the A class rating here, notice it says "See measurement certificate". This is because the A class rules do not FIX the same paramaters that the SCHRS rule fixes in order to produce a rating. Thus if you were to measure all the A classes in the UK, not all come out with the same number.

If you (currently) look up the F18, you will see it says 101; I would think this will change.

I've been told not by an SCHRS Measurer, but by someone who measured a Flyer to see what it came out at that the Flyer A class measures at 0.97 and that a Capricorn measures at 0.98, I am not sure what the paramaters are that effect the Capricorn Rating, but it may well be that the dagger boards make a difference, SCHRS (as stated above) uses boards as part of the calcualtion, the F18 measurement rules here state that there is a max weight for boards, but no max size.

Lastly, to re-visit this (again)



Because they are racing to a box rule that allows development; it is no different than International 14's; The F18's are racing to their class rules at an F18 regatta. The fact that an old Dart Hawk will never now win always gets fogotten then we have this argument.

If you ask people what they think of the Dart Hawk (the boat I believe was measured for the initial SCHRS number for F18) people will say, nice boat at the time, but slow now.


F18's have quicker over the years.

If the Tigers / Capricorns and Nacra Infusions were not racing as F18's (hang on, let me finish) and it was found that the (say) the Capricorn was considerably faster would you expect them to have the same rating - I would not.

you say this above so, if (again) the Capricorn is faster, is it fair to people who do not have F18's that when racing on Portsmouth handicap (or SCHRS or Wouters system) they are at a disadvantage because the F18 Handicap does not indicate that the class as a whole (i.e. the Capricorn (and one assumes the Fusion) being quicker) has an advantagous handicap.

If we want handicap racing to be fair (and I agree it is difficult and we need to try and not end up with an IMS type rule) then we need to indicate where there are problems (the F18 being the current hot topic along with the A class) and address it.

If they want to go race as F18's on equal terms then so be it. I'm not going to stop them, but my money would be on a Capricorn/Fusion (as long as the quality of the crews was equal).

Classic example of this is the fact that (so far, I believe) that no Spitfires have come along to an F16 event as they are rated slower and so feel that there is no point. It's only 1% between F16 2up and Spitfire, however it is about 6% between F16 1up and Spitfire.

[color:"red"] There is a fundemental problem with SCHRS which I believe is being addressed, that a development class (or box rule if you prefer to call it that) was "given" a rating when it should have a "refer to measurement certificate" as the F18 rule (and others) do not measure the same things as the SCHRS rule [/color]

Like I said, Texel is more fair. Your Tornado example actually underlines this (as well as the others like the supercat 20). I mean how much different is a 2005 tornado to a 1999 tornado REALLY. Or do want us to believe suddenly that 1999 tornado's were anything but highly developped ?

Wouter

Scooby,

You are not entirely correct in your argument. While you make proper points in relation to the A-cats, you are wrong to carry these points over to the Formula classes. Indeed the A-cats can differ significantly in their setup but formula boats can not. That is with one exception and that is daggerboards, but this daggerboard rule in SCHRS has long been regarded as a problem point for SCHRS, not because of the new designs but as a direct result of the Hobie 17. I will explain.

SCHR rates a boat in the following inputs :

-1- Number of crew
-2- miniumum boat weight
-3- Overall length
-4- Water line length
-5- Max mainsail area
-6- Vertical luff of mainsail
-7- Max jib area
-8- vertical luff of jib sail
-9- Spi area
-10- Board area
-11- board depth

None of these input change from boat to boat when looking at formula boats,expect the last two. In the way of A-cats however it can be different.

Most of these points are ruled upon directly by formula class rules; the other points which are not are effectively limited by the other rules. Example F16 directly limits mainsail luff length while F18 does not but all F18 mainsail lufflengths end up between 8.5 mtr and 8.6 mtr. any because of the limit on mast height and the fact that a low boom is a serious disadvantage in racing. This difference of 0.1 mtr. does not change the rating in any significant way, that is unless the basic rating is right on the rounding off boundery and this change may just push it over. With respect to differences in waterline length and overall length. The measurements based rating systems often equate the two to the maximum value possible to either one, so their is no way any real life boat can get an advantage on that aspect no matter how weird the bows are.

So what I'm saying here is that no F18 modern or old will end up at a rating faster then listed, they can only arrive at slower ratings. Under Texel this is the case. Under SCHRS there is one exception. The daggerboards calculations (not present in such a form in Texel)

SCHRS has a rather crude formula behind their daggerboard calculations. In effect it only looks at the aspect ratio of the boards and not the real area, even while the last is indeed an input value ! In effect a Hobie 17 with miniscule boards gets a large hit because of it, one that is not realistic. I think SCHRS even tweaked the H17 rating to correct this somewhat. The F18's however are still rated with 0.23 sq.mtr x 1 mtr daggerboard.

This is nonsense on todays F18's and I think it was nonsense even when the rating was calculated for the first time. Example :

Go to the SCHRS site and download the rating calculation sheet. Now change the board dimensions form 0.23x1 to 0.0144x0.25 (both sets have the same aspect ratio) ; The last set of numbers is the size of a windsurfer fin. The rating for the F18 doesn't change AT ALL, not even in the 6th decimal.

Of course the 0.23x1 board has alot better windward performance then the 0.0144x0.25 fin ! This is where SCHRS can go wrong. But I must say that the danger is pretty small as not many designers will fit their F18 boats with fins over properly designed daggerboards, you won't sell much F18's that way.

So in all honesty there is no way that a Capricorn F18 can end up at schrs 0.98 ! It may just end up at 1.00 over 1.01 because the basic F18 rating is indeed very close to the rounding off threshold, as it is 1.006197. So any change has only the change the basic rating by 0.0012 (= 0.1 %) to have it round off downward instead of upwards.

Even if I maximize the SCHRS rating for the F18 (basic rating = 1.006197) by maximize all parameters that I can think of :

8.65 mtr. luff over 8.5 mtr.
5.5 mtr jib luff over 5.2 mtr.
Keeping board dimensions as changing those will only make the rating slower.

I then only arrive at 1.002647 = ONLY 0.0035 slower then the basic rating = 0.37 % slower. This is very negligiable.

The cases for the F16 and F20 are very much the same. So I direct the 0.98 capricorn to the world of unfounded rumours, because if it truly had that number then it would definately NOT measure in as an F18.

Like I said A-cats can be different because they have no limits on mastheight etc.

Wouter