Where's Jake!?

Man, I can't believe I have to give you time: A class 64.5/F16 63.0. That sucks!

WOW! welcome to maybe 10 months ago.

Some of us are slower than others.

Well seeing how it was your class that was affected I assumed you would be all over it. I guess you do not pay attention to those things?

I only looked at F16/F18, which I think is about right. But, that seems like a lot between the A class & F16. Anyway, Jake understands this stuff a lot better than I and since it's kind of a slow day I thought I'd bust his hump a little.

He must be working.

LOL actually it was March 2008 the table even has teh F16 rating highlighted to denote the change.
http://www.ussailing.org/Portsmouth/tables08/tables08mh.asp

I'm pretty sure, the F-16 number was modified in September 08

That isn't the question.

Had we used the right numbers at the time for our qualifier I would be qualified for the Alter Cup! We didn't realize they had changed...so don't start with me on those ratings.

But seriously...I've raced Nigel and Tammy Pitt and Ollie and Joanna on F16's and a couple of other A-cats at the same time on a couple of occasions. The advantages / disadvantages change dramatically with differences in wind strength. In most conditions, I can go to weather better - as would be expected. However, and especially in the light stuff, the spinnaker on the F16 makes up any upwind advantage the a-cat had. As the wind increases (8 to 10) we start finishing in closer proximity but that spinnaker is still hard to beat with a main only (but I also didn't know how to wild thing properly back then either). I haven't raced F16s under the new numbers yet.

Perhaps many of you don't remember Wouter lobbying to get the F16 number lower. Guess he thought that would attract more sailors as it led one to believe the boat was super fast. It was not.
It started out around 66 to 67 which wasn't too bad. Even so,you struggled to get in the top 3. Now the number is ridiculously low and no one is going to sail to that number.
Seems the F16s wanted to sail with the F18s at Tradewinds to show how fast they were.., and were not even close.
Sailed at its best, I believe the F16 should be no lower than a 65. I am talking the uni version, of course. Never raced it as a sloop, but still can't see it being much faster.
Rick

Rubbish. Put Robbie Daniel on a F16 (excluding the Taipan) and nobody will touch him! Your statement only holds water if you consider Matt and Robbie sailing equals.

Great idea, Ding.

When do we schedule this cage match?

Rick, I remember that quite well and agree with it. What I didn't notice was the A class number.

So here we have it: The F16 has it's vaunted 1-up/2-up capabilty; weighs a lot less than the F18, making it easier to move around the beach and it's almost as fast. It's faster than an A Cat and costs much less.

Did I miss something?

To make the comparison then, put Robbie on both boats. Or put Randy on the F18 and Robbie on the F16. Then you would develop the perfect DPN relative number to each other. Not to other boats, however.
Rick

Rick, don't confuse me! I'm trying to tout the F16 and rag on Jake at the same time.

I'm trying to come up with a "manly man" line about about one-arming a spinnaker.

Sorry, Pete, didn't mean to ruin your game plan. Let me help rag on Jake, as well.

Come on Rick

The PN Ratings assume that you have a viable One design Class where the boat is optimized by the top sailors in the class. That has not happened in the US F16 class... They have a class schedule with one or two events... sort of. The underlying assumption which is a bit of a quality control for the PN Ratings simply does not exist for the F16 Class Rating.

Secondly, Portsmouth assumes that the top sailors in the three to 5 racing classes are comparable and that racing between classes generates data which is more or less sailor independent. (You also need an actual race with this level of sailor competing.... a whole other problem/limitation)

A quick check of the sailors tells you that ain't so for the F16
A class, Lars Guck and Pete Melvin... (among the tops in the world)

F18 class, the only nationwide spinnaker racing class in the USA and Canada and the older N20 Class have sailors who have won past national or Alter cup Titles.

Nacra F17 class... Bob Curry leads a strong group of Michigan sailors who have raced at the national level on this and other boats for years. Curry has several NA championships on his resume.

F16 class.... ah no!

Fact of the matter... the accurate F16 rating is darn close to the F18 rating in the EU and Australia.... Wouter was correct years and years ago and the evidence is in the current ratings in the EU and Australia.

Your conclusions based on the tradewinds results are off for these reasons.

The changes in the US Sailing scene are a major reason for moving to a measurement rating system (ISAF or Texel). It's on the agenda for the USSA Multihull Council Meeting.

Neither Mike Krantz / David Lennard or Nigel Pitt and, usually, Tammy could come close to beating a well sailed F16 on the old numbers....and on a very regular basis. I definitely do NOT want to take away from the F16 sailors in our area - they are definitely great sailors but we watch them regularly win against guys who continue to do well (and/or win) national championships in some hotly contested classes and events.

Galactic Challenge?

Rick I have to c all BS on this.

We requested to sail with the 18's at Tradewinds to have more boats to sail with. If it was not late and the order already established it would have prefered to race all the spin boats together. (there were many of those F18 guys we asked after the event that commented the same, they wished it was all spin boats together.)

There is a wide range of skill levels in all the classes. I definitely do not want to make this post into yet another rating debate as that is pretty tired now. Robbie walked away from us the last 2 times I raced him 16 to 18. That has nothing to do with a perf rating. We want to race to gether becuase the boats are close enough that one is not going to mess up the other due to the boat (The drivers on the other hand :)- but that does not mean the better driver is on the bigger boat)

Also to jog your memory, we ended up 3rd across the line in all the races we finished. Ben and Lindsey were very close to us as well, so commenting that the f16's were not even close is a bit of an unfair statement.

Matt

The NOR is here. http://www.gulfportyachtclub.com/

He must have really long arms to sail 2 boats at the same time!

You ready to go measurement yet? You had some good points and measurement isn't perfect. At least with measurement we can get all spun up over different flaws in the system.

Sure - you lead this time, I'll follow!

How about a round robin with the 2 boats? Shake em' down....

Make it happen, and make sure you go through all the permutations, or least the boats that are still showing up for regattas.

Our friends across the pond have already done all the work. All we need to do is decide which system to use.

Actually, I truly believe the F16's and Taipan to be alot faster then the USPN numbers suggested till the recent change. It is about right now.

We had the funny situation that in Australia, were the Taipans were/are raced actively, the sloop Taipan without a spi was rated faster in relation to the F18's and A's then the F16's (WITH a spi) were in the USA. Obviously something was wrong here and it wasn't the Australia handicap system.

Wouter

A class 64.5/F16 63.0 That can't be right. . .can it?

What about it is wrong? The F16 is (should be) faster than an a-cat...while it is a little heavier, it's got at least twice the sail area for heaven's sake! Have you ever tried to sail downwind with only a mainsail?

OK, I am a fool for saying this, but I will "volunteer" to get involved. I swore that I wouldn't get involved in "organizing" stuff again....but there seems a need for someone to step up.

My background:

Charter founder for PHRF in South Florida (1978)

Tornado Class measurer...(1974-76)

Organizer Key West to Cuba race (1978-79)

Key West Race Week founder with KWSC as fleet captain (1977).

yada, yada, yada....

Can we have a meeting at Spring Fever with you (DI) , Jake, and a few interested folks?

Tell me what has been done so we don't gave to start completely over. What sytem ? Texel...SCHRS?

I would think that we should get the measurement system in place and try it parallel to PH until we see how it does.

This should just be regionalized within Florida and the Mid-South as a trial. Regatta organizers can choose to use it if they want. We need to get a few key boats rated first.

Right now I have no clue what the parameters are for either system, but I am a fast learner.

Let's talk..guys. I am willing if you actually are ready to give it a go.

Well, that is not an easy question to answer. Look at the situation from this perspective.

Making predictions of the F16 performance compared to the F18's, I-20's and even the Nacra 17's/FX-ones/iCat is easy as all of these boats are very similar in their setup. They use sails with very compareble aspect ratio's, their weight-to-power ratio's and heeling-to-power are very similar. The same with length to width etc. They all use spinnakers and require very similar sailing skills for optimal performance. As a result, wind and sea-state conditions as well as sailed courses impact the same on all of these designs with only a rather small set of (small) exceptions. This means that performance differences are largely determined by a few equalities or inequalities in key ratio's/parameters.

The A-cat however is not very similar to the group of boats named above. Its ratio's lie far away from those of the others and different conditions or courses impact differently on the A-cat design then they do to the other designs. It is hard if not impossible to summerize the relative performances in one simple statement or even one simple number. The situation is just too multifacetted to be condensed to such a simple (1-dimensional) benchmark.

It is my experience and opinion that the F16's are at least as fast as the A's on a windward-leeward course in medium conditions. In the light stuff it all dependents on whether the wind is just strong enough to fill the spi. If it doesn't then the A's are faster. In the rough stuff it all comes down whether the conditions allow the spi to be set and douced without capsizing. It is also my opinion that the A's can be fast downwind but only with sufficiently developped windthing skills and these are harder to learn then riding the spinnaker. So for most recreational sailors and racers the F16 will be faster over a significant range of conditions. Partly because the skills to effectively fly the spi are relatively easy to learn.

Personally, I don't think F16 to A = 63.0 to 64.5 is a large difference. It is about a minute per 45 minute bouy race. Even if that ratio is wrong, I still don't believe it is far of the mark. I think, by crude averaging, that the A's are properly placed just a tad slower then the F18's (and F16's) while recognizing that they have convincing sweet spots like sub-spinnaker light winds where they are simply outperformaning nearly all others.

Whether the difference of 3.4% that currently exists between the F18's and A's under USPN is right is something that future results must prood or disproof.

Wouter

What Woot said. And yes, the H17 downwind put me off racing for years!

Careful, Jack... someone might take you seriously. That's a huge job. It is on the agenda for the Multihull Council meeting later this month in Denver.

http://www.ussailing.org/events/meet09sp/documents.asp

As of this posting, the Multihulls are the only ones to have posted an agenda in accordance with Bylaws. HA!

The truth is and has been for some time, that Darline could use some help.

I assume you'll be at SF. Perhaps you can bring me up to speed on this. I'm not really interested in getting involved with PH. My interest would be in a measurement based alternative.

.....and I've never been shy of "huge jobs".

There are two schools of thought:

1) give portsmouth the help it needs to continue.
2) go strictly to a measurement based system (personally, I'm not a fan of this and will be glad to discuss in more detail)
3) design a combined system that utilizes the strengths of both the portsmouth and measurement based systems to overcome the weaknesses of both.

There's no need to reinvent a new wheel here - there are successful measurement based systems and successful performance based systems. Consequently they both have polar opposing strengths weaknesses that could benefit from the other.




Damnit Ding....you're getting a new shirt this year.

I am only proposing a face to face meeting at this point for some discussion that might involve RUM DRINKS.

I too am sceptical of a measurement system, but it seems they are popular elsewhere.

I never liked PH because of the flaws and apathy in the reporting process.

PHRF works better assuming you have handicappers who are totally unbiased.

A measurement system eliminates personalities and incomplete/flawed reporting data.

Of course the formula has to be sound, but it seems the homework has been done in the EU arena.

I would not want to dismantle or impede PH in any way.

someone say Rum? I'll talk about it! uhh, what was the topic?

If you'll allow me to remove the "might" in that statement by bringing some supplies, you got it.

I will bring Appleton Reserve.

You guys are starting to figure out this "Sailing" thing.

A measurement system eliminates personalities and incomplete/flawed reporting data.
I think that is the single best reason to use a measurement system. Jake, could you please elaborate on why you don't like a measurement system?

I'm trying to think of the flaws. Anyone already using Texel please feel free to point out it's flaws as well, since you have much more experience with it.

Because a measurement system can't possibly account for the vast number of variables that ultimately contribute to the potential speed of a boat. For instance, how you calculate the speed improvement provided by a full lifting foil? What about a foil that provides partial lift and doesn't clear the hull from the water? How about a foil canted at 45 degrees vs. one canted at 20 degrees? How about a manufacture that got the incidence of a canted or curved foil correct vs. one that got it wrong? What about a rounded bow vs. a plumb bow or a full bow with high volume vs. a narrow bow with it's volume down low? An undercut stern? A high mounted trampoline vs. one with not enough height to clear waves?

What about the differences in performance between a strict SMOD class that hasn't seen a sail shape evolve in 15 years versus a box rule MMOD class that sees new and more efficient sail (and hull) shapes every year? Though the sail areas stay identical, we've seen this in the dichotomy of the N20 and the F18s as the F18s continue to make slight speed gains around the course due in part to advancement of their hull and sail shapes. The technical measurements of the boats remain practically the same.....I could go on but the existing measurement systems are very strict and unforgiving and lack the ability to refine their figures beyond a sheet of numbers and very complex formulas that do pretty well but are, at best, no more accurate than the performance based systems we have (they typically even carry one less decimal point).

That said, it does have advantages...but you ask for the weak points.

Tim,

Having experience with CCA, MORC and IOR rules, once the rule is in place, sharp designers find and expoit the "unmeasured" parameters of the rule.

I suspect but don't know for a fact that Texel and SCHRS might have filters that prevent this.

Jake has stated that he and Wouter were onto something and it collapsed when Wouter had a "Wouter Moment" and Jake bailed.

I would propose to go back in time to that "moment" and see if there is a way to work beyond personalities.

I have similar situtions in my real job and am willing to step in here, if asked to.

I am leary of "can-o-worms" senarios and this might be a big C.O.W.

However, it is reason to drink RUM... and someone has to do it.

"...as the F18s continue to make slight speed gains around the course due in part to advancement of their hull and sail shapes."

And when was the last time their P number was changed to reflect that, or the A cat P number for that matter?

Jack, I agree with the loop-hole thought. I hope some of the European sailor will give us their take on it. And I agree on the rum.

Now that the Falcon is out, looks like the F16 number needs another adjustment.

Nooooooooooooo, I can't even sail to the 63!!!


Mike

It was a joke, I just said it to tweek Tim.

I know.

I've had my rating lowered 3 times already, it's YOUR turn!

No worries, instead of putting yours down they could always adjust his up.

The point is they keep adjusting the F16 number down yet they are using F18 and A cat numbers that have not been "adjusted" since...When? And if you want to talk about "new developments in hulls and rigs", look no further than the new F18's (new masts) and A cats (new...everything).

The F16's really haven't changed shape much and haven't changed rigs or sails, at all. In fact, the newest F16, the Viper, weighs more than the old Blades and Taipans, but uses the same mast/sails.

Now, a measurement type rule might be open to some designers exploiting the loopholes, and we have seen some of that in the A cats already with the banana bords, wing sails, etc. but the A cats are more of a developemental class anyway. Yet, if any of those developments have made them faster, why hasn't their number been adjusted down too?

You can legislate out some of that development by outlawing curved boards, wing sails, etc. and I think most other classes rules already do that, F18, F16.

So why not just rate them by the box rule they fit into, as Texel does?

Hey us too, weird.

Can someone just answer my question? When, as in what year, was the last time the F18 and A cat P numbers were changed?

One weanie per thread, bub. Get in line.

For your consideration, I scored a Formula 16, a Formula 18, an A Class and a Nacra 20 for a one-hour elapsed race using the Portsmouth, Texel and SCHRS ratings systems. Here are the results:

SCHRS Corrected Results:

Formula 18 (1.005) – 59:42

Formula 16 (0.994) – 1:00:22
Formula 16 owes Formula 18 0:40 per hour

A Class (0.979) – 1:01:17
A Class owes Formula 18 1:35 and Formula 16 0:55 per hour

Nacra 20 (0.939) – 1:03:54
Nacra 20 owes Formula 18 4:12, Formula 16 3:32 and A Class 2:37 per hour


Dixie Portsmouth Corrected Results:

A Class (64.5) – 1:33:01

Formula 16 (63.0) – 1:35:14
Formula 16 owes A Class 2:13 per hour

Formula 18 (62.4) – 1:36:09
Formula 18 owes A Class 3:08 and Formula 16 0:55 per hour

Nacra 20 (59.3) – 1:41:11
Nacra 20 owes A Class 8:10, Formula 16 5:57 and Formula 18 5:02 per hour


Texel Corrected Results:

Formula 16 (102) – 0:58:49

A Class (101) – 0:59:24
A Class owes Formula 16 0:35 per hour

Formula 18 (101) – 0:59:24
Formula 18 owes Formula 16 0:35 per hour

Nacra 20 (95) – 1:03:09
Nacra 20 owes Formula 16 4:20, and A Class and Formula 18 3:45 per hour

But I'm really drunk right now, so all this could be really wrong.

Since 2002 the A Class has changed twice. From 65.2 to 64.6 and then to 64.5

It's been a while since I sailed an F18 or N20 against each other directly (since they both seem to have strong classes that show up in enough force to be scored separately)...however, I do firmly believe that the F18 has been getting faster in relation to the N20 based on the on-course interactions having actively campaigned both platforms. Hard to say though, since I haven't seen much direct data...that's mostly gut feel.

Too late ,lotsa weanies in this thread. The thread's even named after one of the weanie gnome leaders.

A certain bunch of F-16 guys on this forum whine like a bunch of bitchy little girls. Your class is relatively new and hasn't settled into it's number. You've got more sail area and a kite, can run in 3 different rigs and y'all are still cryin'. Get a grip. There's all the talk about how fast the F-16s are and how they are gonna spank the N-20s and F-18s elapsed, then the same bunch starts crying abot their number, pick one will ya. It's wearin' thin.
Tawd

The F18 number changed in the following years:

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

The F16 number changed in:

2005
2006
2008

And the A-cat... it's the winner in this little race... it's number has changed every year from 2001 - 2008, excluding 2007 I can't find tables for 2007.

So Timbo... what was your point?

2001 - 65.5, it's changed every year since ending up at 64.5.

And Tim, before you get all "1 point in 7 years"! The A cat class is as old as dirt!

You had a nice run Timbo... move on already.

I wish I could. Maybe those who really care could do it. I'll switch PN numbers with either one of them.......

Humm, the F16 dropped from 67 to 63 in the same time frame.

I guess the F16 class just sees a whole lot more developement then the A's !

Wouter

The F 16 class is rather new in the US so I think they started with a higher number and now that they are getting results the number can be adjusted to better fit the boat. The F18 number started out higher and was adjusted a lot in the first few years.

I thought I said it already, the F18 number has not changed at all since the Infusion and Capricorn and Wingmast came out. I agree with Jake here, the F18's have gotten faster since their last adjustment.

The "problem" with Portsmouth numbers, if there is one, is the F18's now have enough of a fleet so they get their own starts usually so nobody is keeping times, so no adjustments. When a F16 beats an F18, instead of saying the skipper sailed a great race, it's "Wow, that F16 has such an unfair rating, let's lower it."

I am in favor of a measurement type rating, and Texel gives the F16 the least favor of all those rating systems, so I am not trying to win a race based on a slower rating, just pointing out that the F18's have gotten faster in the last couple years, yet not adjusted their numbers. How many guys are still racing Tigers? Didn't Hobie just come out with a new F18? Why?

OK, Wouter, time to drag out that old NMBR rating system you devised years ago. I always liked it and heard favorable comments from others who took the time to carefully consider your scheme. Didn't you say you abandoned it when Texal took a favorable turn? If you release an update we could call it NMBR-2

The short version of the story is that I did finish the NMBR system back then (2004 and jan 2005) and it still works as intended and texel did modify its system to include some components.

It isn't a big job to revive it.

However, I'm done with "pulling the car projects" so we are going to revive this system with a group of people or not at all.

With respect to some of the drawbacks named by Jake and others. It is not hard to compensate for these. I think I proposed a 5 point compensation scheme to give out dated designs some additional leeway. In the same way that Texel adjusts the ratings for boats with daggerboards and without. Simply by adding a fixed amount of handicap points to the base rating when a boat is fitted without.

I always said that it is not the task of a handicap system to be 100% accurate but just accurate enough to be considered fair. Relatively simple measurement based systems can indeed do that. But I won't go into details of why that is.

To give a point in case.

One can very closely approximate Texel (version 2004) by the following linear formula :

Texel rating = 148.922 - 2.750 * rated sail area - 6.141 * rated length + 0.132 * rated weight - 4 (if spinnaker.)

The variables "rated sail area", "rated length" and "rated weight" are not complicated to calculate. For example the "rated weight" = ready to sail boat weight + 150 (crewweight).

I'm convinced a similar lineari approximation can be had with respect to the current Texel rating version. With slighly adjusted coefficients and maybe an added measurement.


So Jake's statement that the underlying formula are complicated is not really the case. The real Texel formula is a little more complicated than the one given above but only slightly. Its behavior is not however as is depicted below, it is almost perfectly linear. I have to look it up but I believe the linear approximation is typically accurate to about 0.75%

The main point is that a measurement based system being so simple as above can still be about as good as the USPN is now or better in its predictions. Think how accurate a slightly more complicated measurement based system can be. There is still lots of leeway in the way of complexity and the results are already surprisingly accurate.

Wouter

The main obstacle is however not the techniques involved in designing the NMBR system, but in getting it accepted and getting RC's to use it.

I feel that is one of the snags we hit back in 2004 and 2005.

Texel used two ratings for a while, one for big wind and one for light winds, but the RC's overhere simply refused to use this version. The only solution to the mutany of the rc's was to drop the double ratings again even though that was an important feature in getting the singlehander ratings like the A-cat right.

The fist made by the sailors was insuffient (well it was probably non-existant) to force RC's to use the improved ratings. This is one reason why some to the drawbacks of Texel still exist, not because it isn't technically possible or even practical but simply because some important group of people simply refused to cooperate.

File this under lessons learned.

Wouter

The other issue is trying to rate a spinnaker boat along side any non-spnnaker boat. Sure you can do it, but what if then in the race in question, the weather turns out to be 100% spinnaker work, or no spinnaker at all type weather.

I'm talking about distance racing, not triangles. But even with triangles, (or windward-leeward) the winds can shift during the race and that can change things quite a bit as far as how much spinnaker time you sail.

This is really non of my business but here goes. The RYA PY numbers are calculated the same way as the USPN. However, the RYA understand that these numbers don't reflect the true handicaps so Clubs are therefore encouraged to amend the numbers according to their individual requirements. When a Club is happy that the numbers are as fair as reasonably possible they return the new PY numbers to the RYA for information purposes.
At my Club where I have been Sailing Captain for the past three years it wouldn't matter if we used PY, SCHRS or TEXEL the F16 single or double handed, A'Class and F18 would be given the same handicaps. This probably wouldn't work at every Club but all the affected racers here much prefer the fact that first over the water wins. This is what we have become use to and enjoy, boat on boat racing.

Unfortunately, we still have to rely on a handicap rating to score the Dart 18's, F20 and Tornado.

(Pete, if you are racing windward, leeward courses I think giving a little time to the A's is fair. To be on equal terms the finish line should be half way up a beat ;))

Why is it so important for the F16 sailors to be beat teams NOT in their class? If you want a chance at beating teams in another class then join the freaking class.

And Tim we've had the discussion about the F18 number and the new boats already. Is the F16 as fast as the F18 or isn't it? Answer that question Tim!

This thread is now going in circles as they all end up doing.

The consensus seems to support the numbers so I'm fine with them. Some how I'd gotten it in my head that the A Class was a "super boat".

And, I just wanted to bust Jake's hump a little. That's always fun. . . I mean the cape and all!

To answer that question I would first have to ask, what are the wind/wave conditions?

In some conditions, very light air or very heavy air, I would say a well sailed F16 is very close in speed to an equally well sailed F18. Not faster, but nearly as fast, depending on sea state. Punching through waves is going to slow down a shorter, lighter, hull more than a longer hull, heavier hull. I think that is pretty much a scientifically proven fact. I'll let Wouter show you the math on that. And going downwind in big wind and waves, the shorter hull is going to stuff under those waves (slowing the boat) more often than a longer hull, again, this is simply science.

But in light air and flat water, the F16 being lighter, might have a slight edge. And in very heavy air but flat water, the F16 might be able to keep up with the F18 if the F18 crew is overpowerd more so than the F16 crew. I'm not convinced the F16 is faster or even as fast as the new rating.

Jake's point is well taken, the designers have improved the desighns, but the F18's have not adjusted their numbers down since making many changes to their hulls, masts, tramps, etc. The poor Inter 20 guys who are stuck with SMOD rules are going to have their work cut out trying to stay ahead of F18's in any open race, like an Alter Cup qualifier.

Is the Infusion/Capricorn faster than the older F18's? Answer that question.

Jeez Tawd! All I did was instigate a little rum drinking. No rum for you!

Depends on who you ask. I've moved from the Nacra F18 to the Infusion and the evidence indicates (my race results) that it has made NO difference.

How's that for black and freaking white! And I did it in 27 words Wouter, I mean Tim.

And you still haven't answered the question is the F16 as fast as the F18, you Wouter'd it to death but you didn't answer the question.

We'll I'm out of this thread, the posts are getting to long winded for my ADD.

[/quote]

Is the Infusion/Capricorn faster than the older F18's? Answer that question.

[/quote]



The reason the F16 number is changing is they are getting results on a new class. The first number given was a guess based on what the boat would sail.

The new Infusion may be faster than the old Nacra F18 but only in some conditions. The Infusion is easier to sail down wind in big air in my opinion but the old Nacra F18 is faster in light air. The Tiger has not changed hulls or mast and still wins world championships against the Infusion and Cap. I guess it really comes down to who is driving the boat. You better not let Robbie sail the Viper any more the number may go lower.

"I would say a well sailed F16 is very close in speed to an equally well sailed F18. Not faster, but nearly as fast, depending on sea state."

Was I unclear?

The problem with any rating system is it doesn't take into account wind and sea state, type of course, length of course, etc. Just time on time. That is why the last time we had this discussion I said we should do a "measured mile" type of speed test on each boat to get some real world data. To use the data from any regatta doesn't account for all the missed shifts, blown tacks, muffed snuffs, and oh yeah, running aground...

Dave that is a pretty BS comment. The discussion about no 1 boat fitting every sailor has been beat to death way more than the crappy rating systems.

You have bandwagon jumped enough fleets, why don't you sail an F16. - Because you have it in your mind you are too big. Well, I have been on an F18 with Gina and no way would she ever agree to race on one for basically the same mental block. I personally have an issue with the weight, and there is no way you will ever convince me that strapping on a bunch of lead is a fair equalizer to make the fat guys happy. Therefore i am very happy with the F16.

As far as racing I am trying to better myself each time I go out. I am trying to beat whoever I failed to beat last time (on the water) I could give an F*** what boat they happen to be on. We finish right around a lot of the 20's and 18 around here so it is fun to race.

Getting back to the thread - ALL rating systems will always provide a source of argument. The US system is particulary bad now only becuase of the lower participation today. If there are a lot of equivalent sailors providing lots of feedback, then it should be one of the better systems.

I am not a great sailor, but if I had chosen to sail only my A and Olli did not piss of the guys in the Atlanta area, how much do you think the Portsmouth number whould have come down? No offence to anyone - but not very much if at all. I know that the times I have raced Robbie 16-18 he has been quite a bit out front, and I do not remember any of those times where it was scored on time, so these events would not be included in the number crunch. Given those results, the old number would be just about right.

I do think the boats are pretty close in performance, but each has its advantages in certain conditions. I think both are faster than the A's on the whole, but the top OZ crew and a few others will prove that wrong every time in a race. Tradewinds is one of the larger attended race; what did we have 7 18's and 5 16s. Traveling 6 hrs, or across the country for some to sail with just a few boats at an event with no organized party for me is not worth it. My view will continue to be that if the boats (not the crew) are in the ball park of performance then run them together. Throw away the handicap if it provides nothing more than a basis to create an argument. If you are using it to score unlike boats, who really is going to follow the history of when Waves beat Tornados?

So Tim, How many times in the last five years has the F18 rating changed according to Texel? I'll answer that. NONE. So the boats getting faster and the rating isn't changing. Oh the horror.

Fact is all of the systems have problems. Measurement systems in my opinion are a bigger problem because of many factors. The builder can build a boat that is a rule beater. It's not that hard. Take a look at Monohull classes as a case in point of boats that built to a rating system. Ask them how well that worked for them? It didn't. It became an arms race for designers and a big money drain for boat owners.

The other bigger problem with measurement systems is that they don't take windspeed into account. A Cat vs F18 in 5 knots vs 15 knots. I know there is a huge difference in the speed of these boats in different wind conditions.

Fact is I like the PN system even with all it's flaws it is much better than a measurement system. We can use the Measurement systems for guidence when setting up initial numbers for like boats and then use the PN system to adjust as time goes on.

A Cats have a gift number because nobody ever sails against them in open fleets. If they do the scores probably aren't turned in. However if they never sail against other boats in open fleets is the number really a problem?

When I started this thread the idea was to have some fun; a little friendly banter between Jake and myself. But, the question was straight forward; do the handicap numbers reflect the difference between A class and F16, accurately. I think the answer, within reason, is yes.

Ah... a level rated class... (See mystere 6.0 and Nacra 6.0 and Tornado classic... and the Hobie 20 , P19MX and Nacra 5.8 NA)

These boats were popular before the Formula class model. Dont repeat their mistakes. The level racing was sort of going but the owners believed that IF they continued to race in one design classes of 4 to 5 boats... the world would just come around and get their flavor of boat and soon there would be 10 boats on the line.. We never bought into the notion of a level rated class.....All but the Hobie 20 are in the dead boat society.

Tradewinds... 7 18's and 5 16s..... Nobody gets to the magic number of 10 boats where the fast guys are racing each other... the mid fleet guys have 3 or 4 competitors and the back of the pack is on the steep part of the learning curve.

We have seen this play before.... TWICE...
If a one design fleet actually forms... it will take care of itself. They should remember to not leave out the other racers in your area... they might not come back.

Level racing and scoring with a measurment handicap rating system are the solutions to the long term problem of a small number of racers.

Oh... and the C.R,A,P fleet has the right order of priorities.. the Racing comes before the Partying.... get both right and you have a world class event.

Best US example is probably the Syracuse Madcatter... not surprisngly... they have been offering C.R,A,P for years and years.

Think about it... The entire North East from Maryland north, shifts their schedule so that the sailors can make the trip to SYRACUSE.... in MAY...where it's been known to SNOW on the regatta... BUT...Good Racing.... a large amount of RUM, .. and a commitment to party makes the event.
If your regatta can overcome SNOW.... you must have a good plan working! kudo's to the C.R.A,P founders!

Ehhh Mike,




The correct answer is actually 2 times !

With respect to wind dependent ratings. Texel actually tried them 4 years ago but the RC's refused to use them and the racers refused to put pressure on the RC's to use them. So is this really a drawback inherent of a measurement based system ?


Researching facts and claims before mouthing off is a good advice for both you and Tim it seems.


To the other readers, a measurement based system is not necessarily static. Its describing function can be modified according to need. Texel and SCHRS for example have seen several revisions over their lifespans.

Lets have this discussion on facts rather then misconceptions, believes and ignorance.

Wouter

I do see Jake's point though, and Mike's, using a straight measurement only system doesn't chang the numbers for such things as a new type of mast (Carbon and/or wing type vs. older types) and newer hull shapes, etc.

But in order for Portsmouth to be accurate, I think we should be taking times at every major regatta, even if the fleets are not sailing together. And with GPS's it should be fairly easy for the RC to measure the distance from say, A to C mark(Ban the B!) hack the clock as the first Inter 20 rounds, then again when the first F 18, the the first A cat, etc. and get times for the fastest boat in each class going upwind, then down. Then you take that time and compare it to the existing P numbers to see how far and it what direction the numbers might be off.

You could do this at every Nationals, and at Tradewinds, and Spring Fever, etc, or any big regatta where the top tallent in each class is racing.

Just time the first boat in each class over the same distance, upwind and down, once during each race and then use several races to get a useful average time over that same course, then compare them to each other fleet.

Yes, yes... "you" could do this.

Portsmouth does not care about distance...it's a relative time on time rating.

And John's completely right...like anything, it takes people doing something to accomplish something. I think there are some ways to leverage technology to make reporting easier...but that's another topic.

Maybe the Feds would kick in several million of stimulus money to get this project underway...give a few unemployed sailors a job. Seems timely and good for the economy!

And Dave, don't forget to use that ever-popular buzz word, GREEN! Yes, it burns no carbon, no foriegn oil, uses only wind and hydro power! Sounds like a gubmint project waiting to happen. I think it might take a few million $$$ though, to buy the needed new equipment, I'm thinking at least 10 of each of all the cat classes, and we'll need sailors, and GPS units for each...

And thankfully it's not the pig sh!t project!

Neither do the Yardstick system for that matter.

I mean, yardstick system ONLY look at the name of the boat, in this case F18, and not whether that particular boat is fitted with a wingmast or not. In that sense measurement based system are clearly better as these CAN distinguish between a carbon mast and an alu mast (if indeed you want to make that distinction).

If 50% of the F18 fleet is made up of Tiger then these will dominate the yardstick ratings, not they handful of Capricorns that are running around.

Again, this discussion about rating systems is turning toward gut feelings and entrenched believes, not scientific discourse. That way we not get anywhere. Others may recognize such a situation as a "Wouter moment"

Wouter

Hey racers, maybe you should jump the fence and try to RC for a few months. I have been doing it for roughly six months now. My primary job at GYC was number cruncher and what a PITA job that was. You all want this or want that, but do not offer to do it yourselves.

I have to sit in the RC boat for three to four hours, launch the races, take your times, make sure no one is over early, argue with the racers after they get back that there position is wrong or there name is mispelled and you want me to score using other ratings like Texel or SCHRS?

You gotta be MAD! Sailing is fun isnt it? RC is fun as well, but once you all start b!tching and moaning it takes the fun out of both.

Run what ya brung and stfu! Dont like it? buy a line honors boat. Seriously! this crap gets old after so many times, cant you all be content with what you sail.

hahahah....I completely agree (about the scientific comparison part). All of the discussions about accuracy of one system over the other has definitely not been looked at from a numbers perspective and is wrapped up in the ball of "gut feel".

Me happy!

In case that argument was directed at me.

I've done my fair share of RC work as well. Was even club-race official at my own club for a while.

Wouter

My argument was towards the general audience, I was not singling anyone out as of yet.

Are we debating "which boat is better" again?

I agree with Ding, if you want to know "who's the best sailor", it would be easier to all be on the same boat or class.

I don't think there is any reasonable method of figuring out "what is the best race car, a Baha 1000 winner, a 24 hour Sebring winner, a NASCAR winner, a Rally Car winner, or an F1 winner?" They all do the same thing (drive over terrain), but there's no way to really compare.

Pick a boat you can have fun with your friends in your area. Stop trying to "win" by DPN numbers.

Nobody is trying to win based on their number, just trying to get accurate numbers so mixed fleet racing is more fair. I do not favor mixed fleet racing, but until we get more of every type of boat showing up, it will have to do.

Did you guys know Ashby has a new A-cat design coming out soon?
http://www.ashbysails.com/blog/

The, uhhh, geltek flyer that came out last year? (that post was June 2008).

You have to do it with Chimps not people that way you take skill out of it.

I see the date but the boat only just came out a couple of weeks ago. Mk 3 Flyer.

Gashby would have won the vic states on a mk4 boyer, so its not really a good test yet.

Just to clarify the Geltek Flyer. The prototypes of the Geltek Flyer II were launched at the Australian Titles held at Sorrento Vic in January 2006. Production started later that year. I have hulls numbered 24 built in February 2007. The updated boat mentioned was launched as a prototype 0n 28 Feb 2009 at the Victorian State Titles. There are photos and some details on the Ashby blog site listed above. It's also mentioned in a thread I put on the A Class forum here. End of thread hijack - sorry.

Cheers
John Dowling
AUS9

keep hijacking...this thread has gone to pot anyway...

Is there any information about what's different on the new prototype?

its ok if your hijacking your own thread?

There is a little write up in the a-cat forum way way way down the bottom of the forum list...

To my mind what is annoying is they have evolved the boat, little bit less in the bow, moved the beams back, and no doubt next year they will do the same...

well why not just go the hole hog now and be done with it!

Look at the wookie!

I just happened to be mentioned in the title...it's not mine...so yeah...hijack away!

Here ya go Jakester,
http://www.catsailor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=169118&gonew=1#UNREAD

Dazz - relax - the A Class is a development class where evolution is the name of the game. The developments in this class have strongly contributed to much of the modern gear you enjoy today. I doubt that you or anyone could have gone the "whole hog" from the Rhapsody, Australis or Unicorn designs of the late 60's to the 2009 designs. It's a "try it and see if it works" culture used strongly by the home builders in the 70's and 80's and still to some extent by manufacturers now. There is SMOD for those who like to be stuck in a time warp, Formula for those who like limited development and development classes for those who like to explore innovation. Something for everyone!
Gotta go and work on my boats now.

Cheers
John Dowling
AUS9

heh? Perhaps the fumes of battling an indoor infestation/flight of termites is getting to me today...but I'm not following...

I'll never bitch about living in a concrete house again...thankfully, they're only in the molding over an add-on made to the slab foundation over a seam in the concrete....all the wood here is in the roof or in the moldings. PIA for remodeling but I just found a positive aspect to all the concrete walls besides noise reduction.

Not a bad idea. Can you rename a thread?. . .avatar test?

Jake, go with poured in place concrete next time. and metal studs on the interior. Best of all worlds (studs are lighter, and termite proof) because you can move all the interior walls (which are fire resistant), and you've got a bulletproof building envelope.

You can even get metal roof trusses. So you'd only have plywood roof deck for a hip/gable roof. Maybe they have options for that too...

Or just use more DDT

There is some really funny sh!t over here:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showforum=2