I have a general question about handicapping for formula classes, how it should be done and what people's personal opinions are. This is directly related to the US Portsmouth system, but all opinions are welcome. This should not degrade to a Texel vs Portsmouth debate. Let's keep the discussion geared toward a handicap system that gets it handicaps from race results and not engineering specifics.

FACTS: US Portsmouth has entries for Formula 16, Blade F16, T4.9 F16, GCat F16 (maybe other F16s, I just did a quick survey and could have missed one). Currently, all handicap numbers are the same for all boats throughout all wind ranges (this is a good thing) - with the exception of the F16 Uni designation (IMO, F16 uni should do VERY well on Portsmouth in the right conditions in an Open fleet) - more on the Uni vs. Double later).

My questions are:

1. In your opinion, should the individual boat handicaps be done away with and simply have a F16 and F16 Uni handicap? I am concerned at large open regattas, F16s will be scored on their individual boat handicap and NOT their F16 handicap. It is a moot point today because the numbers are all the same - but that could change as individual race results are accumulated.

2. Same argument as above, but it is possible for it to happen today. Uni has a slower handicap than Double per Portsmouth. I'd hate to see a Uni correct out over a Double when class rules dictate they are scored together (even though it is an Open fleet).

Options/Questions are:

1. Seems like petitioning US Sailing to drop the individual boat type handicaps would prevent the divergence of F16 handicaps from happening.

2. Make sure all RCs using the F16 designation only .

3. Does US Saiilng have a way to make sure all F16 ratings evolve together (i.e. when one changes, they all change)?

4. Does all of this not matter, since we are talking about Open fleet and not class racing? I hope no one agrees with this.

This is relevant to all forumla classes under Portsmouth - just change F16 to F18 and Blade to Tiger, etc. They do not have to worry about Uni vs Double.

Is this clear enough? I can try again.

A lot to digest!

As a Class, particularly at Championship events, I think all F16s should carry the same number; regardless of builder or whether the boat is sailed double or uni.

Not all Formula 16s will choose to participate in the class association, so I don't think we'll have much luck with a petition.

Additional info: It looks as though all individual boats meeting formula rules are rated the same as the "general" formula handicap - so we there must be some mechanism in place to evolve each formula handicap as a group.

The only remaining dilemma is the Uni vs. Double for F16, which is not applicable to the other formula classes. Should the Uni and Double be rated the same for open class racing? Texel rates them differently, as well - correct?

Portsmouth has Uni rated slower - would you be upset if you were doublehanding your F16 at a large Open class event, beat a Uni F16 on elapsed time but the Uni F16 corrected over you? This is a mixture of class and open rules.....

I plan to sail uni almost exclusively, and don't think there should be any difference in handicap.

I'm going to be Portsmouth racing exclusively. It will probably be a mix of and 2-up. I had already decided that I was going to tell my club's scorer to assign me a single handicap number. That way he won't be concerned with whether or not the OD's correctly recorded the presence of a crew.

I race both setups in my class races and am perfectly happy to have the same handicap (= equal to F18) for both.

This is actually 1 point faster then the sloop is currently rated and 1 point slower then the uni is currently rated. it is my believe that a level rating is actually pretty fair. I can really tell whether I'm doing better 1-up then 2-up or the other way around when looking at the race results.

Also I feel that there should be only 1 rating for the F16's of different make. So no individual rating for Blade F16 with respect to Stealth F16 etc. I can see the merit in having a different PN rating for 1-up to 2-up but no more then that.

Wouter

I agree with these thoughts and think the US F16 Class Assoc (once fully formed) should petition US Sailing to drop the Formula 16 Uni rating. Disagree? Why?

I agree--one of the main attractions of the class is the versatility on 1-up/2-up.

I believe that a similar thing should happen in Europe if not Worldwide.

I already sail on the same handicap at both the clubs where I sail whether Uni or Sloop. I simply had a word with the sailing secretary at each club and they are sailing me off the UK PY of 698 - same as F18.

If US sailing, RYA, SCHRS and Texel are made aware that this is the intention of the class and in addition that ALL F16s race off the same handicap irrespective of manufacturer then I think we'll have it sorted. All the other yardstick and calc systems will fall into line as well.

Once the main F16 Associations US, UK, NED, AUS, SIN are formed, and the F16 Council is in place, we would be in a strong position to write an open letter to each of the yardstick authorities asking for this to be implemented.

Folks,
I also agree.
Afterall that was one of the prime objectives of the F16 class as far as I have been concerned right from the beginning.
It opens the way to bring high speed spinnaker saiing to everyone. Even the young and inexperienced crews.
While the wind is light they can sail and gain experience and when it starts to blow they can watch. The skipper is still racing boat for boat the same boats as before.

I seriously believe the F16 class is a class for everyone.

This is a great formula.

Regards,
Phill

Should read :

I CAN'T really tell whether ....

Wouter

Tom:

Would you contact the folks at GYC and ask them to weigh in on this? If we have a concensus, we should go ahead and send U.S. Sailing a letter stating our concerns.

Isn't Gordon part of U.S. Sailing, an officer maybe?

Personally I'm not too upset about having an individual rating for 2-up sailing and another one for 1-up sailing. I do believe they two should be very close together if they are to be at all dependable.

Australian VYC has already 1 F16 rating for both setups.

Texel will not combine the two into a single rating, it contradicts their policy. However here the 1-up and 2-up are already very close together and as good as equal to F18.

SCHRS gives an accurate rating for the 2-up but is totally bogus for the 1-up version. But also their policy is to have a seperate rating for singlehanded boats as for double handed boats.

US sailing, I think we stand a good chance of getting a single rating here. There just isn't enough data on the 1-ups to give accurate 1-up ratings. There is ample evidence around in race data but I don't think much of it gets to the persons at US sailing.



Anyway I think that at my club we'll agree again to race the F16's (both versions) of the F18 rating. That is what was done last year. I expect to continue this this year even though Texel2006 ratings are slightly different from 2005 when we F16's were perfectly equal to the F18's.





I feel all systems should drop the brand specific ratings as well. In the way of a single rating for both 2-ups and 1-ups. Well VYC already has it, US PN will not object as the 2-up rating is faster then the 1-up rating and the 2-up rating is the better rating of the two any way (even when it is still off).

The problem lies with Texel and SCHRS who both rate the 1-up faster then the 2-up. The 2-up is the better rating of the two as shown on the water, but they can't just assign a slower rating to the 1-up version without opening a can of worms. All other singlehanders would then also like this special treatment. We just have to think up something in these cases to combat that.

Wouter

[/quote]. . .I think we stand a good chance of getting a single rating . . .

If US sailing, RYA, SCHRS and Texel are made aware that this is the intention of the class and in addition that ALL F16s race off the same handicap irrespective of manufacturer then I think we'll have it sorted. . .

I feel all systems should drop the brand specific ratings as well.



Wouter

[/quote]

I agree. With Tom Shannon, Eric Poulson and I in agreement, that constitutes a quorum of the F16 steering committee. Shouldn't that be enough authority to contact U.S. Sailing in this regard?

It would be nice to get greater participation, but I think this is a case where you need to speak up.

My tenureship as F16 class chairman ends in exactly 3 days (on 1st of may), so my name to this listing doesn't count for much. I'm now only commenting as an adviser. But I do feel that any request written to the US sailing handicap committee should be the perogative of the local US class association (which is being founded as we speak, right ?) and not so much an international class issue. So you US sailors say is final in this I say.

From my own Netherlands perspective and Texel handicap system I feel that Dutch sailors will stay at their current F16 ratings which are very close to the F18 anyway. I feel that I should first investigate the new Texel 2006 system more thoroughly before building my case for any adjustment.

Good luck and please keep us all updated.

Wouter

I wrote to Darline Hobock, the "Queen of Portsmouth", about boats being listed as individual classes as well as F16 (or F18 as with the Tiger). I also asked about why the F16 Uni is listed separately. She is very gracious and always writes back. Here is what she said:

[color:"red"] Thank you and I appreciate your comments. The main reason I keep the extra listings for F16s and F18s is to be sure race/scoring committees can find the correct ratings. People who are familiar with multihulls understand the ratings; however, these boats race periodically at clubs who are unfamiliar with the tables and need all the help they can get in applying the correct rating. If they look up a Hobie Tiger, for example, they will see that there are two ratings and the entrant must help them decide which one to apply.

I will survey the PN committee about dropping the T4.9U. It is reported almost half again as often as the sloop.
[/color]

I would suggest you first politely ask why they are doing it the way they are. The Portsmouth folks are pretty reasonable and theoretically they generate numbers based on race history, not politics. Then offer your group opinion as a well-founded suggestion based on Formula policy. Don't get heated and pushy.

Hey this is going wrong !

The Taipan 4.9 sloop (no spi) T4.9 and uni (no spi) T4.9U should remain as they are. Those ratings do not belong to our F16 class. The Taipan 4.9 (no spi) is a seperate class altogether.

I think Darlene is misintepreting our intentions as we only want to drop the F16U rating (F16 uni + spi) and related brand specific copies of this F16U rating.

Can someone get on top of this before things are made worse.

Wouter

Lord no!!

Tom, if you have time for this please contact her. If not, let me know and I'll pursue the matter.

I'll contact Darlene and give the history, what we are forming and our thoughts on how it should be set up. I am sure we can come to a reasonable conclusion. We will also educate the US F16 class assocaition to use the Formula 16 rating, independent of being 1 or 2 up.

The ONLY handicaps affected should be:

1. Drop F16 Uni in US Portsmouth (which should not be a problem since Uni is rated slower than double handed).
2. Make sure T4.9 F16, Gcat F16, Blade F16 and any other F16 designations match the Forumla 16 rating. Do NOT alter any non-F16 set up for any boat.

This should be included as #3 above:

3. Drop the Taipan 4.9 Uni spi 1-up (F16U)/TF16U

Not the T4.9 Uni that is NOT F16.