Are people saying here that there are a lot of fat middle aged people with the necessary money sailing on F18's because they are too heavy to be competitive on smaller cats?? If that is the case then you had all better "look out" for any F14's gradually creeping up to pass you (HEE HEE, -more stiring of the pot- you just gotta love democratic free speech)

Hey Darryl, why don't you come up to the Brass Monkey and give the Skiffs some greaf with us.........

We are going to Forster and if we make two trips all that way there and back again I would have to dip into my superanuation just to pay for the petrol!

Cool.... See you there

Okay, let me rephrase that.

If the SCHRS committee had been approachable in anyway for the last one and halve years then the F16 boat would have been rated equal to the F18's, under SCHRS, ever since it conception. SCHRS kicked the carbon mast rule out which gave the F16 1 % rating number loss, but this would have been corrected by recognizing our larger mainsail area (voted in spring 2005) then SCHRS used thus far.

I'm fully EXPECTING the new SCHRS to rate the F16's and F18's equal again because this time they will recognise that our mainsail is larger then SCHRS has accepted up till now.

Indeed I can not proof any claims beyond although the claim that SCHRS would have given us a F18 rating for the past 5 years IF THEY HAD used the RIGHT specs IS very much true and verifiable.

Apart from that I think 1 % rating difference is pretty negligiable so indeed his whole discussion is pretty much blown out of proportions. This is not directed at you Scooby but at the other contributors

Wouter

Holy mackaroly , whit a bunch o twazzle , if folk are racing in handicap races with boards - they know will adjust their handicap , surely and moraly they should reproduce the SCHRS calc (downloadeable from site ) print out and give to race committee.similarily if they use sails that were not rated in origional calc .

WHY this desperate urge to handicap the f16 as heavily as possible ??????, surely to promote a class thats predominantly going to race on hcap untill numbers grow a fair hcap for all would be more encouraging to those entering the class , after all to get a 16 foot boat to race an 18 equally you are going to have to work your butt off .

From what I read above its near impossible to tell relative skill levels being compared , I've seen f16's in the right hands thrash just about anything , but !!!!!!, these same sailors could prob beat an average f18 in a blow sailing a dart 18 !!!!with their eyes shut !!!. I have seen average F16 sailors getting near lapped by 5.9's and f 18's too .

I do not see f16's winning everything in sight in the Uk , or europe and folk up in arms against "the generous HCAP" of f16,s

As has been said , " a well sailed cat is hard to beat " and speed differences between small differences in ability the same boat can be enormous .

Why not drop this self defeating debate in F18/f16 supremacy and get on with sailing and encouraging others in.

There is still a problem with this. The F16 rule does not control the size / aspect ratio of the plates in any way (I'll agree there are "Sensible limits"), however, the fact that the class rules do not set a Maximum for the length / area etc then each boat may rate differently; playing with the current SCHRS calc sheet, you can get a DE (Board aspect ratio of 5) which brings the rating down to 1.01 (rounded from 1.007867073), by removing the plates totally you can get a rating of 1.05(rounded from 1.050398989) so you see, by playing around, the rated handicap can be between 1.01 (in fact almost 1) and just over 1.05 so 5% !

I would suggest that the F16 Class assoc. might consider changing the class rules to indicate max plate size / area / ratio; this would then mean that the SCHRS group could then plug all the MAX/MIN values into the formula (what ever it turns ouu to be and give a revised handicap) and give you the fastest the boat will rate (and the slowest).

Please also remember that we (The SCHRS group) are working to tight deadlines for the ISAF and so (as stated before) we are working on a couple of already identified areas that need resolving. More detailed work may have to wait for another meeting.

What is also needed to back up the F18 vs F16 equality discussion is some real world comparisons and results. It is OK to provide results from Club racing, but this can "bend" the results as we do not know the skills of the racers involved. Afterall, I am beating 2 Tornado's over the water at my club most of the time on my Inter 17, Are they the worlds best T sailors, no.....

We (SCHRS) are taking a whole collection of results from various events around the country to put in to the mix to assist us in prototyping the rule.

F16 v F18 Cyber race?

"After the Europa’s Cup event it really seems that team racing is something we may do at Tacticat.

The event was something rather spontaneous and without preparation. Well, we had to check it was going to work, and we do know now it works and gives people the kind of amusement and things to think we should expect.

Actual defender is Spain. We could schedule another team event any time ESP vs. World and world team limited to best scorers while boats are available. But it doesn’t seem the best approach.

I think it would much better to allow syndicates, based in whatever, country, clan, sailed class, friendship, sex, … you name it. A syndicate with 6-10 boats/sailors and with a ‘captain’, someone to act as main contact.

We would open a team-race regatta field where Syndicates could schedule races and where challenger-defender events could be raced.

One idea is, for instance, that all USA-mainly-based syndicates could fight for the USA-1 name. And challenge Spain.

One of the reasons to do it that way is to pass some of the organization work to other heads outside Tacticat. We do have enough work just to make things run and to slowly improving the system .

Any ideas, suggestions, complaints????

aestela. "

There is no chance of the F16 rules being amended for at least 24 months. It was agreed at the last review, about a year ago, that the rules would remain fixed for a period of 3 years. It may be that this is an item that should be reviewed and if it needs changing it will be down to a majority vote of the membership.

This will have to join a list of items that we are putting together for possible amendment. Being such a new set of rules we are finding areas that need tightening or clarifying all the time. This is particularly true as the F16 GC start to put the measurement forms and documentation together.

On a personal note (not as a member of the GC) I'll speak slightly out of turn and say that if this list becomes overly long, or there is a major failing of the rule that penalizes the class in some way, it should be possible to convene an EGM to deal with the problem(s) before the fixed rules period is up.

John,

Thanks for this. I was not aware of the rule freeze. The problem the F16 has is that the SCHRS rule does (and will continue to) measure the plate's to determine the rating. So as the F16 rules are open on this, each boat should be measured, firstly to ensure that they comply with the F16 rules, and then secondly to give an SCHRS number.

Scooby,
Is this the same with differing F18 designs?
Do they have different ratings?
What would the f16 need in the way of C/bs to rate the same as the F18 under SCHRS.

1%.
You guys are bickering over 1%.
This argument, were it a race, would be very exciting. Sadly it isn`t really.
I agree with some here - beating some F18`s with an F16 only proves the boats have very SIMILAR performance, in SOME conditions, assuming a SIMILAR level of pilot skill.
I have beaten Tigers on occassion and passed some of them downwind, on a boat that rates 12% slower, but chances are I got the gust, the right windshift or I just was more tuned into the boat on the day than the other guy - it doesn`t make my boat faster than an F18. Of course I LOVE to gloat a bit after the fact, who doesn`t ?
A 1% theoretical difference in performance is impossible to analyse and hardly worthy of 5 pages of debate. So what if a F18 is rated as being 1% faster than an F16. If you`re a 1% better sailor than him, or have 1% more control, you`re in with a chance. The probability that different classes WITHIN F18 and F16 are 1% apart is highly likely, given the variety of designs and hull shapes within each class, yet they will be happy to race one-on-one. The problem is that most F18 sailors would NOT be happy to race against F16`s if they are going to get beaten by them on line, most top F18 sailors would have no problem with it since they KNOW that their skill will still have them out front, and if they are beaten by an F16 they know it is a skipper of equal skill, it`s the mid-fleet F18 guys who would prefer to have their own division so that the smaller boats do`nt show them up.
But the truth is that the F18 class would prefer their own division almost all the time, since ANY competition to their class is unwelcome in much the same way that Hobie have distanced themselves from other classes - It`s purely a commercial decision, so don`t hold your breath for F18 to welcome F16`s to race one-on-one. It won`t happen.
Ultimately both boats cater to a different market completely - lighter smaller boats work well with lighter smaller crews, and the big heavier boats cater well for the needs of bigger, heavier (and stronger) crews.
In a perfect world, we`d all be happy to race with eachother, given that the boats have similar performance, but that is not likely to happen without bruising some egos, it seems.

Yes, in theory, they should all be measured to get a SCHRS rating, and yes, they may rate differently !
So in Handicap racing, they owners of slower boats might claim the slower rating.



Board Area CB 0.188 m2
Board Depth VLB 0.750 m

Drops the 2 up rating to 1.01 which is the current F18 rating.

Scooby,
So how does the F18 get a rating when they have different C/Bs?
You say in theory they have to be measured and could be rated differently but you refer to the F18 rating.
If they are different how can they have a single rating?
How does that work and more importantly how is it different to the F16 situation.

It is unlikely all F16s will ever have the same C/Bs.

Does this mean Formula Classes just should not sail under the SCHRS system?

Regards,
Phill

Scooby,

No formula class is actually ruling on the daggerboards in the way SCHRS requires. Actually, the only rules I know off are min. weight rules on the daggerboards. Go to the F18 rules or F20 rules, A-cat rules etc and you will find none of them helping you out.

It was a concious decision in the beginning of the F16 class to NOT rule on the boards in these specifics. We did however include the rule :



So this address part of your point. The 1.05 rating is not possible.


With respect to F18 - F16 comparisons at large regatta's. I differ in opinion that this data is more dependable. Everybody who is anybody will be sailing on F18's, not on F16's. So this will most certainly skew the data in favour of the F16's by resulting in a handicap number that is much slower then the F16's, as a boat design, are.

Besides, in my club races we see sailors/teams that really do sail well in larger regatta's. F18 crew was 3rd two weeks ago in a 25 boat fleet, and the A-cat sailor became 5th in the Belgium A-cat nationals last weekend (22 boats). Both get regulary beaten by a 3rd F18 crew who are our club champions and another F18 team who are upper mid fleet sailors in the best Dutch F18 regatta's (30 - 50 boats). The skill level associated with the F16 crews at my club is noticeably lower and that includes myself. Still, we're the next boats over the line behind them and we're getting closer and closer.

I think we must not forget that a truly fair comparison will only be possible when the F16's get equally well trained crews on the boats. Guys like Daniel van Kerckhof and other talented Taipan sailors. These were in the top 10 of the F18 worlds and they will be able to sail the F16's to their full potential. Or otherwise guys like John Pierce (Stealth marine). Guys like John and Daniel, sailing their stealth and Taipan clean our F16's clocks as well. So we know how much more speed is in these boats above what normal recreational crews are displaying. Our current problem is not the F16 concept or the boats, but not having REALLY talented crews on the F16's. Compare us with the F18 class that does have plenty of these and you'll only fool yourselfs.

Truly in all honesty I can say that I'm level racing with F18 crews of my standing and slightly above. This proofs to me that the F16 rating under Texel is pretty accurate.

Wouter

Currently the F18's are racing under a blanket rating of 1.01.

There are some who think that this rating is incorrect (and some other boats too).

Thus, to provide a blanket F18 rating, the "fastest" F18 needs to be measured. The SCHRS group are trying to arrange the measurement of a current collection of "fast" F18's, to provide this. This will then give the theoritical "fastest" F18, and thus the blanket, fastest, rating.

HOWEVER, anyone may have their boat measured (by an appropiate measurer) and an SCHRS handicap number issued (say a Capricorn with a larger kite) and this would give a different SCHRS rating.
OR someone with a boat with small plates may work out that their boat actually can rate slower if they have it measured (but it is still an F18 under the F18 rules), so F18 Handicap is X, but their boat actually measures to SCHRS Y; this would mean that they still race boat-for-boat in F18 events, but race on handicap at a different SCHRS number.


Consider my post above again, 2 F16's can rate at 1.01 and 1.05 and both are still F16's ! These 2 boats would be sailing boat-on-boat at F16 events, but on Handicap (if the skipper of the slower boat wanted to) on different ratings.

Scooby,




You guys are measuring each F18, F20 and A-cat out there as well, in addition to their individual class measurement ? Because if you don't then your statement is just retoric. As said earlier none of these classes rule on the daggerboards in the way you want to have them.

Personally I think it to be a bad reason to include daggerboard rules in the F16 class, under any circumstances. Especially when only 1 rating system out of many feels that that is a good thing to do, which is debateable.

Maybe I'm a bit confrontational here, but is this really a F16 problem or rather a SCHRS handicap formula internal problem ?

Afterall, Texel isn't doing it. I know the SCHRS daggerboard rule very well and it is a very minor influence in the total handicap rating. The situation is easily solved by measuring the most efficient board found among F16 boats and force that number on all F16's. The most severe result is that we go from 1.02 to 1.01 as a rating. Big deal. It is not that SCHRS is weighing all F16's to find out if they are truly 107 kg or not. Several F16's are bound to be a little heavier then that.

Wouter

Honestly Scooby this can not be.

Rule 1.6.3. prevents it.

1.6.3 All performance calculations, such as handicap ratings, shall be performed as if a platform has daggerboards or centerboards, even though a particular design may have neither of them.

In my analysis I've never seen F16's differ by more then 1.2 SCHRS points (1.2 %). The same swing can be found we measuring a 1998 Tiger and a 2006 capricorn.


Wouter

Nope, Just classes that we have been told/or people believe have an issue currently. So we are trying to measure F18, and A classes. It is the sailors responsibility to tell us if they think things are unfair.

It is actually the owners responsibility to have their boat measured and ensure it confirms to the class rules(reference all the protests at the latest F18 event) and that they do not change things that effect the SCHRS rating (Without getting the boat re-measured).

Afterall, this thread is talking about some peoples belief that the F16 is the same speed as the F18.




What may happen is that the most efficient board possible that improves the rating will be used(as it is not limited in the class rules), so in the this case something around 4.50.

Where does this come from ?