US Portsmouth Committe update??

John

The racing season is about to kick off in the mid atlantic.

A few weeks ago you suggested that you would have word back on the status of US Sailing's Portsmouth Committee.

Has there been any resolution to the leadership issue?
Will there be an update to the ratings for multihulls this year?

Mark

I think someone just volunteered.

I can't think of anyone better than Mark to whom we level all complaints over ratings.

Mark.....we almost switched to Texel for the Tuesday evening races. As it is, we plan to stay with Portsmouth but also run the Texel numbers. At least that is what I think happend before the Benadryl kicked in.

I do not know the ARC-22's rating but the N20 & F16 would fare about the same relative to each other for the most part. A-Cats are a different story and the two rating systems seem to diverge relative to them.

As in Benadryl Shots? Nice. I knew I was missing a good skippers meeting . . .

Actually I have been very vocal that Portsmouth is not sustainable in the 21st century. So its tough to run it when you want to retire the system for catamaran racing.

My reasons are that most of the underlying assumptions simply don't apply in the current low participation environment.

Personally I argue that we should switch to ISAF SCHRS for handicap racing.

Measure the boats that exist only in the USA and complete the rating table.

Publish the ratings and have the Alter Cup area championships use the SCHRS ratings.

Boats that don't have 5 boats equivalent to a OD class in the USA will be required to get an individual valid measurement certificate if they want to compete for the Area Championships.

A provisional rating would be determined for less rigorous events.

Complaints???

It's very hard to argue with a ruler.

SCHRS is the ISAF handicap system... the measurement formula is administered over in the EU. Currently Scooby Simon is chair of the committee. Less familiar with Texel.

I suggest we follow the ISAF and World Multihull council recommendation and use SCHRS.

Philosophically, my personal ax is that nonlinear performance of Hobie 14's to Nacra F20's is best handled by two ratings... one for the non trapeezing range... and the trapeezing range. The counter argument is that it's too complex and does not do a better job of handicaping boats then a linear approximation with a single number.

Your milage may vary.

Anyway... its not in SCHRS.... but IMO SCHRS is a better solution then what we currently use.

That's about it for easy controversies..... after that... you best have some engineering background to debate particular aspects of the rule. The EU guys seem to be happy with either Texel or SCHRS.

Sounds reasonable.

Sure but its very easy to argue with a formula into which you plugin numbers you got from a ruler. Whose to say that one rating systems' calculations are better than another's?

That can be said about EVERY handicap system and is the soft spot of every rating system. Pick your poison and move on.

DPN has some significant administration issues that need to be dealt with and what SCHRS offers us is the potential for global acceptance which could lead to a larger resource pool to admin the system, and the bulk of the work is done and managed outside the US.

You might say getting measurements is a hassle and impossible to obtain. I believe this is a weak argument against the system, certifying boats is relatively easy, now becoming an ISAF certified measurer is another matter.

At the end of the day all handicap systems suck a$$, but SCHRS seems to suck the least.

Thats true - and why handicap racing sucks!

AH... but you have to know something to argue with the formula!

Whining that you don't like the outcome because you "KNOW" you should be doing better against that blah blah misrated boat won't persuade a lot of people to take your seriously.

The answer to that guy... is... STFU....learn to sail your boat better... Fact of life... Some boats are hard to sail.... some boast are easy.... That's life... do your research before you get the boat.

Measurement rating systems use real results to test how well their rule fits the real world. Texel just rolled their quality control in with a reversion to a previous definition and rescaled their ratings.... No significant changes resulted

My point... these measurement rules are not simply handed down by fiat like moses and the tablets... ... they are continually worked on using selected data sets by the respective committees.

Mind you... this is a 180 degree turn for me... Completely driven by the changes in the US sailing scene over the last 10 years.

What's Fiat got to do with it?
I thought they were out of business.
Now a handicap rule by Moses would be good.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I couldn't care less about handicap racing (I consider it a side show to the real events). But, I'm 100% opposed to whatever you are in favor of Mark, if only because its so easy to tweak your nipples and get you all upset and produce diatribes consisting of 1 to 2 line sentences all separated with a character return. :P

It literally makes me howl.

LOL

Kris

You are right... there are small differences on the water between the rating systems currently. I don't expect any regattas to change in their outcome if we switch. I have run all of the handicap regattas in our area over the last couple of years and nothing surprising shakes out. This of course is the way it should be! Switching to a different rating system won't "Fix" any perceived problem that I or anyone else has..

The reason to change is that the underlying rationale for changes to existing ratings is solid and sustainable. The ratings updates don't depend on good turnouts of boats and top helms at portsmouth regattas. Moreover, the measurement rule can be applied to any new or one off designs AND we would be in alignment with the international scene.

Why change now?
Portsmouth could not cope with the introduction of three popular boats. N20, F18 and F16 in the first year and a half of racing... (much much longer for the F16...) (The Tiger was initially just a bit faster then a stock hobie 20). Now we have the introduction of the Nacra F20 that will be equally problematic to rate with Portmouth methods. Portsmouth can't deal with the M20's, CFR 20 and similar highly modified or one-off boats. Basically we make up a "fair" rating now...

The best solution going forward is SCHRS.

Who does the measuring,you?

Locally, I hope to get Tony Arrends and George Saunders (A Class measurer), both boat builders to help us get a Nacra 6.0 Na and a Supercat 22 measured some time this season.... it won't be official... it will be accurate.

But your point is spot on... It would be best if the Multihull council got someone like Carla Schiffer to take on the project. Carla is an ISAF measurer and the certifications would be official.

Keep in mind that the Portsmouth Committee is a committee of US SAILING - not the Multihull Council. The Council does not control or put people on the Portsmouth Committee.

John, I understand that. .... My question is about the PN status... I called USSA today and left some voice mails for Lee...

I understood you to be waiting for some report or info about the committee, a 2010 ratings table and perhaps it's future.

To the best of my knowledge, the Nacra 6.0NA is gone. John B. picked up Jim Gannon's N20 and joined WRSC. Hooray for John!!!

I was thinking of Keith's other boat actually.

the more time passes... the less likely one of these old boats will show up to race.... Nobody is campaigning one either so an estimated rating is probably good enough. These ratings are not urgently needed.

Again... the idea is to get the sailors with these old boats out to a race or two ... catch the bug... and upgrade to a one design boat.... Just like John Baker!

FYI, the Chesapeake's first Portsmouth Regatta is Hobie fleet 32's Sail the Bay regatta at the end of may. They will have an open class. Followed up by Rock Hall in June... running a spin and non spin open class.

Carl Reigart from Birmingham, AL was just volunteered a couple weeks ago to take over the dubious task of crunching the numbers that Darlene used to handle. Welcome him aboard -

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Home/Committees_and_Councils/North_American_Portsmouth_Committee.htm

Best of luck to him. Those are some big shoes to fill.

I know Carl, he's got big feet...

You know what they say about big feet..... big socks.

Thank You Carl!

That's good to hear. I'm glad he's doing this.
Thanks Carl.

Todd Hart

All this talk about SCHRS not working for the A-Class made me nervous so, just for grins I did a quick comparison. I checked to see if there was a direct relationship between SCHRS and Ports. That means can you multiply SCHRS by a constant a constant and get a Ports number. The answer was not really. If I ignore the F16 I can get a fair conversion with Ports = SCHRS * M + constant. So the 2 systems are biased differently.

Next I said, I have a bunch of boats that all have a corrected time of 60 mins. To me this means if I had identical perfect skippers all sailing the boats to their rating, how many minutes behind the fastest boat would their raw time be:



There are some small changes for the fast boats. The F16 and F18 will enjoy a small advantage over the A-Class, but the changes get bigger when you get to the slower boats.

This is not a Scientific Comparison, I am not going to argue about it but if looks to me like if you go to SCHRS slow heavy boats are gonna rule. I'm bringing a WAVE.

Very interesting. You can interpret this as revealing either differences in the relative skills of people sailing different classes or limitations in the way SCHRS accounts for the factors that determine the performance of these classes.