Should Area Championships use SCHRS or TEXEL ratings?

Traditionally the USSA Area Championships have used the USPN Portsmouth Ratings tables.

My reading of the Area Championship rules would allow any regions to select an alternative handicap racing system.

The choice is between a Portsmouth scheme (USSA) or a Measurement scheme (SCHRS or Texel)

The philosophy for running the Area Championships using a handicap system is to allow ANY sailor to FAIRLY compete for a slot in the USSSA Multihull Championship for the Hobie Alter Cup.

So..

Would you support your Area Championship switching from a portsmouth system to a measurement system? WHY?

If you support a measurement system... Which one? and Why?

I support a change for the Area Championships... (assuming your area actually wants a championship... sigh!) because a measurement system is instantly fair and absolutely transparent.

A measurement rating system is 100 percent inclusive.... no class of boat can be excluded. The measurement rules are published and an independent measurer certifies the boat is what it claims to be. US owners with rare or unique class boats can pay for the measurement and go race against the fleet fairly.

Measurement systems are fair. Europe has the most active cat racing scene and they use either TEXEL or SCHRS and by and large believe these two schemes are fair. They have high participation in handicap races.

USPN has real issues generating fair ratings for new classes of boats and the process for generating fair ratings has obvious systemic problems. Specifically, there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data necessary for getting an fair portsmouth rating with classes of of one or two members and new classes.

I support Texel over SCHRS because I see a periodic review process for the Texel rating system. The Texel Committee has a huge stake in generating a fair system in order to keep the enormously popular Ronde Texel race going. If the ratings were not fair...the event would fail. I think this incentive to be right means a lot.

I am all for something more transparent and "objective"

I think I got the pattern. Mark has a ratings rant with every cycle of el nino.

but this is a La Niña year

Mark,

I don't see where the Area Rep has the latitude to use a different handicap system for the Area Qualifiers. I'm looking at the selection criteria and the Area Rep responsibilities pages:

Area Rep Responsibilities

Selection Criteria


Under the Area Responsibilities you find the quote:

"Assure use of US SAILING Portsmouth wind related handicap numbers."

The way I read it DPN is your handicap system for Area Qualifiers. We had this discussion last year and if I'm not mistaken DPN was confirmed as the required handicap system because I was also under the impression it was up the Area Rep which handicap system could be used, but it's not. Now it is our championship and if the issue is put before the MHC and the criteria is rewritten then you're good to go.

SCHRS is my poison. I'm not a fan of adjusting a single classes rating. Fix the formula don't punish a fleet because it's talent rich.

Mark was to chair an ad hoc committee formed in March 2009 to evaluate using different handicap systems with an emphasis on measurement systems. The Council still hasn't gotten that report. That information would be necessary to make a decision, IMO.

I'll just start by saying, a fair system is all that anyone wants. If a measurement system turns out to be what the sailors want, go for it.

Having said that, no system is perfect. No matter what you use, someone will insist it is unfair, and will provide a list of reasons why...

Mark, you made a couple of very interesting points.

"...there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data..." In what day (or age) was it ever easier to communicate finish times? With today's technology, it could be done from the water at the end of each race.

"...enormously popular Ronde Texel race going. If the ratings were not fair...the event would fail." I would be careful not to confuse cause from effect. There are lots of reasons that race is popular, if for no other reason than there are just so many boats entered, and there is really no other event like it. People will find a reason to attend, even if that means changing boats, or just entering to say they did it. The best sailors always rise to the top, regardless of the boat they are on, rating system, etc.

There are fundamental issues with using a measurement system, just as there are with a handicap system. Someone needs to administer it (just like a handicap system), someone needs to do the measuring (exactly who is being paid?), etc.

I can't stress this enough: I highly doubt that changing the system will increase attendance, as that is rarely given as the reason people don't attend.

Mike

Dave, Thanks for the correction.

The history of that line was Darline's request to get the Area's to use wind adjusted ratings versus the flat DPN rating we traditionally used. Back in the calculator day... hell would freeze over before you would change the rating for each race. Once Sailrace (DOS) and Sailwave (Windows) became available Darline wanted to be sure that the data were collected. The best PN data she has was collected from the championships. The assumptions for Portsmouth handicaping are most like met at the championships. Each race is entered into the database under the windspeed it was conducted at... eg 8 knots, along with the elapsed time of each class. The data are then pooled into the categories for windspeed ... eg B2-3 category.

Mark S and I considered a change but we had no inkling of problem boats.... hell!... we did not even have boats... sigh. I don't believe we are required to use PN... but it's not all that important. Me thinks this is a jurisdiction issue and an organizing authority issue ... I suspect that the MHC has nothing but and advisory role in this matter to the Championship committee. Whatever, the Roberts rules solution...

The question remains.... Should we change it?

Sounds like three votes for measurement!

Mark, you're correct that the Council has an advisory role. You'll note that the Council's excom is made up of primarily the Area Reps who conduct the Area Eliminations (i.e., your target audience). If you want the Alter Cup Committee to adopt a different handicap system, I think you'll want to finish your comparison/contrast and present it. I'm inclined to support a move to SCHRS, but not without the due diligence.

And Mike's point should not get lost in the discussion; the only reason we're even talking about this is because the Portsmouth Committee years ago lost the spark plug that was Darline Hobock. She took the committee back under duress, but her heart (understandably) wasn't in it. We'd need to consider who is keeping any handicap system current, and what the likelihood is for continued viability.

Once you go measurement, you never go back. Go measurement not only for Area Championships, but for all open regattas.

I also think all H16s should sport the kite, too. Just kidding.

Change to measurement. It won't solve all problems but it will negate the reporting requirement.

For the record the handicap system used for any open regatta is up to the Organizing Authority of the event with the exception of the Area Qualifiers. So, if you're putting together a regatta just put the rating system in the NOR and you're good to go.

"...there are fundamental problems in this day and age in collecting valid data..." In what day (or age) was it ever easier to communicate finish times? With today's technology, it could be done from the water at the end of each race.

True... but technology is not the problem. I got nothing to report!

Area C Portsmouth Regatta weekend buoys events.
Rock Hall YC open class (Hobie 16, 17, 18)... and the 16's made class. We don't expect the H16 rating to change... ever!

Corsica River 10 boats... Hobie 16, 17 and 18 and two A cats...

Fleet 32's Spring Regatta... The portsmouth start was very small(memory) (results never published)

Area C championships canceled for want of interest.

Everything else in Area C is one design... even if you have 3 or 4 boats... that is the mindset.

Working your way down the coast.... Next set of results are spring fever which have 13 or so boats in two divisons.... all members of the dead boat society.... Bad things happen to the ratings when you use these data to replace the data when these dead boats were actively raced one design.

Bottom line... the events to collect the data no longer exist in my area.

RE Texel.. The race is popular, They use a handicap rating system. They review it annually and periodically update the ratings. The sailors don't seem to complain about the ratings. My analysis of the ratings indicate that it's pretty fair. Those are the reasons for why I would choose it. Never made a cause and effect argument.

Changing handicap systems will not change the popularity of an event.. Using a measurement rating system will allow a new boat like the F20 to race tomorrow without a load of crap and do so fairly.

I agree with you... changing the handicap system will not effect the popularity of any event. I am not making this argument. However.... one wiff of a complaint like... you are winning because you have a cheater boat... is a real turnoff to everyone. Transparency goes a long way to dismissing the "cheater boat" complaint...

Much better to argue that plate calculation is off by 2% based on your interpretation of the effective Reynolds number at small angles of attack! Tends not to inflame the rank and file!

Administering a measurement system! Problem solved... Texel already does it.. ISAF already does it. Nothing special about the wind and water in the US. If a one off boat wants to get measured.... the US has ISAF certified measurers. They make a living doing this work... A catamaran knowledgeable person would be Carla Schiffer when you need to get your frankenboat rated.

John, The initial idea was to analyze some regattas and use the various rating systems to re-score the events and submit a report. Unfortunately the racing scene changed so quickly that I don't have the data to make a fair comparison. In my other post I noted the status quo of handicap racing on WL races in my region.

The only reason it's an issue in 2010 is that a new race boat has joined the US scene.

I can write up a status quo report of handicap racing. Publish it on this thread for comments. Amend the report as I see fit and submit the entire record to the MH committee... Will that be helpful?

With respect to choosing Texel or SCHRS. I am not a fluids engineer or boat designer and so I can't evaluate or make the case for one scheme or the other on technical grounds. If someone would like to step up and write that portion... Outstanding.

There is a political/philosophical issue as well between choosing Texel or ISAF SCHRS. My suggestion would be to request some advice from the world MHC council and include that advice in the record and this thread. Would you be able to get a brief statement from the World MHC using your contacts?

SCHRS is an ISAF ratings system; the Multihull Commission reports to the ISAF ExCom.

The International Multihull Council was formed prior to the Commission's formation, and has been suspended while most of the same people sit on the Commission.

The issue remains; unless someone is interested enough to put together something for consideration, or step up and helm the effort to keep multihull Portsmouth alive, or attend an event where handicapping is needed, occasional virtual conversations like this one are kind of pointless. We've been exactly here many times before and nothing has changed. Move the ball forward, I dare you.

Carl Reigart is the current Chair of the Portsmouth Committee. There are three multihull sailors on his roster, none of which are currently active volunteers (AFAIK). He would be the one to start with if you want a provisional number for the new Nacra 20. Currently, the new boat isn't eligible to compete at an Area Eliminations, and still wouldn't be with only a provisional number assigned. Looks like this is already done. :-)

SCHRS and Texel have numbers for the new boat already.

Jeezus... just read the other thread. That's some muddy soup.

question:

how does a measurement system take into account changes in handling technique? For example, would the A-cat rating be the same before and after the adoption of "wild thing" downwind?

how about a non-spin boat adding a spin which will allow much different downwind angles/speed?

As everyone keeps saying a handicap system is an approximation at best. Before you suggest something like "lets rate technique" think about how you would quantify such a thing and who or how it will administered. And to drive the point home further, we aint doing a real good job with the current (simple) systems.

The only thing on the table is if the Area Qualifiers should use a different system other than DPN, and right now that cause is a bit leaderless.

The only drawback I know of to Texel is that cruising cats have no chance against beach cats. My guess is that is because the former generally spend all their time on two hulls or the formula doesn't take stuff like "bridgedeck saloon presented surface area" into account. Other than that most people seem to be happy about the latest incarnation (It did take them a while to account for the extra area a square top produces vs a pin top).
When it comes to organizing a race, Texel spends a lot of time and effort actually physically measuring freaky boats that show up. Don't know if that makes it less work compared to sending in the results for a yardstick.

Texel has been seen to work when it comes to larger cats. Note the 1994 Ronde om Texel result by Reg White on a Firebird.

Cheshirecatman

Texcel of the two - SCHRS has anomolies and a two tier system that biases boats MEASURED before a certain date with an advantageous rating against those built before that date but not rated ,2007 I think is said date (basically schrs assumes all boats MEASURED after "2007" have their waterline equal to overall length !!!- the shorter the waterline length the better the rating when its measured ) , it also heavily handicaps solo sailers against two up .

TEXCEL MEASURES ALL BOATS THE SAME WAY .

Both systems are inheritantly flawed in the assumption that all cat sailers weigh 75 kgs .

yes you guessed it I'm a 118kgs solo sailor , with a boat built built pre 2007 with a significantly shorter waterline , but not MEASURED pre 2007 , that gets humped on hcap regularily !!

Dont worry about schrs and ISAF - isaf dont really have anything to do with running of schrs other than providing an umbrella.

I'll dig my hole now and batten down for flak .

"The issue remains; unless someone is interested enough to put together something for consideration, or step up and helm the effort to keep multihull Portsmouth alive, or attend an event where handicapping is needed, occasional virtual conversations like this one are kind of pointless. We've been exactly here many times before and nothing has changed. Move the ball forward, I dare you."

How, exactly, do you move the ball forward? You refer to "something" and "somebody". I'm "somebody" what is the "something" you refer to?

Get on the committee. Write a proposal backed up with research. Open it for discussion, call it to motion and vote.

Personally I think if we see the change to a Texel type handicap, we're going to end up changing everything but with the same racing result. We're handicap racing and the actual numbers, though derived by different methods, are very similar.

"research"? There's the problem.

I've no objection to serving on a committee, any committee. But researching this issue is like trying to prove a negative. It is pointless.

There is great popular dissatisfaction with the portsmouth system. The question, imo, should be how great is the dissatisfaction?

My solution is a poplular vote (paid members of USS only) answering the question should the portsmouth system be replaced? And with what?

My vote would be yes and with Texel. Were I to become a member of the MHC that is the objective I would work toward.

Does anyone agree with me?

The system must be FAIR, TRANSPARENT and TIMELY.

Changing systems, I agree won't change FAIR... for the existing ratings... BUT the Nacra F20 could race tommorow in the handicap events of consequence if we used a measurement system.

Change to Measurement system would be more transparent and more timely and that is the major point.

Some important events have already switched to SCHRS. Switching the qualifiers over to measurement will continue the process.


Would anyone like to edit a draft of a white paper to the mulithull council supporting a proposal to recommend to the appropriate USSA commmittes a switch from USPN to SCHRS for the Area Qualifiers? PM me!

I think a number of regular readers will be aware with your gripe with regard to SCHRS. I suspect one reason for the change was to facilitate measurement, made possible by the contemporary vertical or swept back bow designs. I am sure Simon will have his own comments to make on this.
Your boat was not designed to be raced in the configuration as sailed so you cannot expect it to be optimised. Do you really think your gripe is going to help progress cat sailing?
If you need to address your handicap issues for your club sailing environment see your club sailing committee may be able to help. This situation is not unique and has been addressed elsewhere, but do not expect sympathy from fleets outside your local club.
My experience with SCHRS has shown minor issues with dated boats at the small end of the scale as well as some highly developed boats at the larger end. However on balance it has proven to be the fairest and most easily managed system as applied.
There may be some issues with crew weight, but in general racing sailors choose boats on which they can compete competitively.
There are some who would seem to want to go down the path of finding a system to cover all eventualities. Get real. Who in their right mind wants or would be prepared to implement and maintain such a system?
If you want to level the playing field go one-design, get them to implement a set crew weight then diet or bulk up to suit.

Cheshirecatman

Is the measurement formula for the different systems published?

If not, how does a home built boat get a rating?

They pay a certified measurer and are given a certificate with an approved rating.

Ugh! How much does that cost?!

Is the formula published?

Visit http://www.schrs.com/

Cheshirecatman

Thanks Cheshire - thats what I needed to know. Right there under the "System" link.

Creation of my cheater boat design has officially begun

$ is between you and the measurer

Both Texel and SCHRS have extensive descriptions and formulas on their web sites. (transparent)
Sailwave has a ratings calculator built in for SCHRS and Texel has a spreadsheet calculator.

let me throw out another benefit that Portsmouth has over a measurement based system.

Take the Hobie 16 and the F16. There is a philosophical class difference that affects the boat speed and the related rating (no, I'm not talking about the spinnaker). The Hobie 16 sail plan and sail material does not evolve (mostly) and is not open to different sail manufacturers. The F16 on the other hand does and is. F18 has seen quite an evolution in sails and speed potential. Portsmouth can handle this difference readily. A measurement system cannot without manual manipulation.

I see that as potential shenanigans not as a benefit. The technology evolution must be accounted for in the formula, not some fudge factor extracted from thin data.

Gawd! Thanks for the reminder as to why handicap racing is bull$hit racing. Long live OD/Formula! Race straight up and F@#$ all the rest!

Enjoy your quest... Ding out!

Ok...but how do you put a formula in place to figure out the impact of a better sailplan as it evolves?

Jake

The formula makers can simply add another term to the formula with a factor for developmental boats. It will be a KNOWN factor applied to all developmental boats ...

As Ding commented... far better then the scarce data we have available or (unlikely... the judgment of the PN committee).

Remember... if the F16's (and F18's) made a huge leap in sail development. tomorrow... suggesting that the boat was now rating 62.0 from 63.0.... The rating would change in the spring to 62.75... in 2012... it would move 25% of the difference (.75) down again.... One day some day... the rating would be accurate...

Meanwhile... the racing community would deal with the F16 and F18 classes and be pissed off.... never good for getting people to come out and go racing. If there is no racing... then there is no data... and the adjustment process stops.

Remember the Nacra 5.5uni started out rating slower then the Hobie 17 74.0.... eventually the rating landed at close to 70.0 after 5 years.....

Fortunately, development is not so dramatic. Portsmouth will work well when you have tons of data with many secondary yardstick boats in the race. This is not reality.

To me, the best system would be one that would use fewer volunteer hours to implement. Let's face it, we don't have the enthusiastic volunteer pool that we once had. No one wants to measure boats when they could be drinking rum in the club.

Luckily for us here in Area G, most boats race in their one-design configuration.

The "something" is somewhere beyond a periodic post about ratings dissatisfaction. As you can see from this thread, every handicap system has vocal detractors for one reason or another. None of the discussion ever seems to yield change. As Jake suggests, you'll have to bring an idea with some rationale forward for discussion by the entity that can implement it. In this case, if the objective is to see a different system used for scoring Area events, then you'll need to get the Multihull Championship Chairman on-board. That might mean providing some information as to why the change is needed, what you're proposing to change to, and a demonstration of an understanding about who will be affected and how.

Mark has articulated well, IMO, what we would want of any handicap system - fair and timely are more important to me than transparency, but I get where he's coming from.

Most of the above has been talked about at length.

Crew weight. For resons explained at length, we use the average height and weight, I think from the WHO via the ISAF technical Director. We have discussed adding "crew weight factors" but it is just too complex; can you DEFINE the shape of the average Sailor ? F16 sailor (Nope; from about 65kg to around 110!!); Ditto A class; F18; tornado etc... Non starter

The person with the gripe on the measuring break ws told to get his boat measured; not our problem if that does not happen. Move on.

SCHRS and TEXEL measure some items slightly differently; TEXEL reps and Members of the SCHRS managment group are discussing this and there MAY be some combining / sharing of measuring methods.

Jeremy.... those sailors who get creative with their boats... don't use up volunteer time! They pay to get their boat measured.

Volunteers are needed to get the race data... send the race data in... Track down regattas that haven't sent in race data. (Darline scoured the internet for data). Process and score the race data... evaluate the changes.... In each country with a PN system.

SCHRS has volunteers as well but their efforts serve the world wide community of cat racing. Great bang for the non existent buck!

Do you really think your gripe is going to help progress cat sailing?


Cheshirecatman
[/quote]

IN A WORD -----YES.
THhis thread is asking Texcel or SCHrs if airing my "gripe " again ! lets people know about the intricacies of the schrs formula/s - then yes it is helping those choosing a system and progressing cat sailing for them, in the USA there may be many cats built and not schrs measured pre 2007 with short waterlines that would be disadvantaged relatively if the US sailors adopted schrs .

As for your other comments , I help administer cat ratings at my club --- the only cat class racing club in Scotland , I have helped others with ratings in the past ,but would find it unjust to adjust mine , partly as i've sailed cats for 20 yrs or morre i can still sometimes sneak a lead on my less experienced rivals - I would prefer a rule that MEASURESALL BOATS IN THE SAME WAY .There are calls for Texcel in my club , but i'm still pushing for schrs in the hope one day it will sort it self out , I want lots of cats racing , I don't care about winning , just peeps to race againstge .
I spent 10 years sailing "one design" hurricane 5.9s in their developing guises , but lost regular crew .
Hence my return to solo sailing . If you can point me at a class where 118kgs is competitive I would be most obliged , oh and if you have a miracle way of me losing weight that would be good too , when I became insulin dependant I was only about 75kgs !! and 6'2" , ironic isn't it !

I agree that timeliness could be an advantage to a measurement based system - but how long would it take to derive the formula to account for sail improvements? It wouldn't happen the day the change happened.

You have hit on the crux of the issue here. For me, it boils down to your claim that Portsmouth is inaccurate. If someone can quantify that there is a significant inaccuracy (other than the already explained delay in correcting the F16 rating) you will change my mind. I'm not steadfast that Portsmouth is the answer - I just don't see the effort in switching to return much advantage.

+1

We are only talking about championship or qualifying events. It is not the responsibility of the race organizers to supply measurers. Somebody like Krantz would have no problem I am sure getting his boat taken care of if that was the question to race in an event like this.
All systems of handicap have some flaw. The DPN relies on a lot of assumed equal competition of sailors – something we do not see across the range of boats any more. SCHRS and Texel are calculations based on physical measurements of the boats. This provides the least biased formula, but they have some very serious flaws as well. See some of the other many posts on this.

Shy of developing foils like the Moth (and then the calculation would change anyway) no slow evolution really has created too big a gap in how this system seems to work. A change such as square top sails and reverse angle bows that are all common now happened across all the newer classes at about the same rate as changes in the calculations would have occurred. We seem to bring ourselves all along. Interestingly enough then the 1 design boats like the H16 should be left out in this, but you will see almost no change in the ratings difference even given the “developmental” differences in the other classes. Even in the 1 design there are changes and a new 1970 H16 is in no way competitive with a new 2010 boat. Sails, pylons, hardware, beam and rigging changes, plus the simple evolution of 40 years of sailors learning how to make them go.

Not that I agree with handicap racing but I do feel the DPN is more bogus than some of the others given the state of our sport now.

Completely WRONG.

I tell you the PROCESS IS FLAWED and BROKEN....
The F16 rating was FIXED BY FIAT... not by data. Tha Nacra 5.5uni rating was fixed by time over 5 years. the SC 20 TR was reset to it's historic rating by fiat following rating creep as the Portsmouth process failed.

I am not picking out current ratings that are inaccurate!. I am not blaming anyone... the quality and amount of data don't exist and the process is flawed.

I point to failed procedures and data that took a long time or extraordinary action to fix.

The NacraF20 is a reason to fix the system for the important events like Area Qualifier moving forward.... It's provisional rating is not a problem today. I do not see the PN process improving.

With respect to the need for a development factor in a measurement formula and how to implement or why you need it are best addressed by someone like Simon or the Dutch with Texel. I personally don't see a big problem here.

John:

Thanks for taking the time to respond. But, this where you and I disagree fundamentally: the procedure you recommend, this is just my opinion, is unwieldy in that it is primarily a bureaucratic procedure requiring a significant amount of volunteer time and effort.

As I see it, USS is a volunteer group funded by the membership and imo, those paying should determine the rules. If there is a simple majority of paid members who want a change then change should follow. My remedy is to call for a vote on the matter; if there is a proven desire for change proceed accordingly. If a vote for change falls short of a majority...end of story.

Cheers!

Time and effort to make your case to another paying member that you're asking to vote your way is not misspent. I'm one of those who is not convinced that a change is the answer, particularly when the shortcomings in one system are counterbalanced by an alternate shortcoming in another. The case has to be made; simply calling for a vote won't get it, certainly not for this member. It seems you find the task of making a case too daunting. The end is either worth the effort or not.

Mark, the F16 change was supported by data. The process was slow to recognize the F16 issue due to extraneous reasons that I've already explained multiple times.

Mark,

You have bully - ragged this for two years I know of.

Show up in Phoenix with a proposal and support or deep - six this chatter.

Bert Rice, MHC Secretary

I don't have a case! I'm for a measurement system, particularly Texel, because it doesn't have a reporting requirement and all the heavy lifting is being done in Europe.

I wrote off handicap sailing a long time ago. And, like Mr. Ding, I'm signing off.

If you want to resolve the matter, call for a vote...or not.

I've said it before; when I was Chair and again when I was Technical Director of SCHRS; I now operate as a member of the TC on a consultative basis. We ALL have day jobs.

If you believe there are issues or imporvemnts to be made. Write it up with suggestions. The process has not changed since I stepped down; please submit papers suggesting amendents to Willaim via the SCHRS.com website. We meet fairly regularly either in person or via Skype.

All papers will be considered; those that propose solutions to perceived issues moreso :-)

I think Texel has an up-to-date spreadsheet and calculator which you can use to generate a rating for unknown cats.
Handicap sailing is always a bit tricky in terms of keeping everyone happy but IMHO Texel is a very fair system.

That's what I had begun to think reading the posts... So I would think that basing a measurement system solely on design calculations may not take into account "real world" sailing performance (like faster in chop/swell), which could appear as "a sweet rated boat", right?

So Tad's "cheater" boat which can sail in "fourth mode" would obviously have a "sweet" rating if only the design were used to come up with a number...?

Do you have the $$$$$'s for the airfare???

I don't .... thats the biggest reason I'm not volunteering.

And I suspect neither does Mark .....

But he has a very valid point .... as I try to compete on a P19MX that has a "DPN" rating set by Mr Randy Smythe's finishes. Do you think I could ever sail a P19MX anywhere near close to Randy's ability???? I would like to see a handicap system based on physical measurements of the boat .... not on a few races w/ one of the best sailors in the world setting the pace ...

Harry

Ditto here, David Webb, of Wichita, ruined the P15 number (76.2). You try sailing one two tenths off a Hobie 16! (76.0) Texel numbers look much better.

What about a system that uses both reported statistics and measurements? Is that something that is even feasible?

average the texel and porthmouth numbers?

Portsmouth was begun as a calculation based on parameters (like waterline and sail area) that was refined by data over time. I think maybe the calcs became outpaced by development? The initial numbers for the last few boats I remember getting provisional ratings seemed too slow against real-world performance.

Yes if everyone used SailWave to score their races, I believe it already has a "reporting " feature which could gather race statistics from all over the world rather than country specific.

I believe this could be the way ahead.
Saiwave and programms like Hal can report data direct to RYA uks PY compterised system , which will in turn can send back suggested ratings for racing , honed to your conditions at your club, regionally national ,class specific or even the "dreaded" personal level, the more data rec'd the better it gets .

Takes the best of a measurement system and the fine tunes to your requirements.

At the begining of the season I spoke to Bas Edmunds of RYA who runs the system and he has/is set up system to deal with schrs formatt ratings , texcel wouldnt be a prob either .

This system can butts data to YOUR requirements and report back , it is automated once set up and not a bunch of dudes sitting behind closed doors dreaming up numbers.

At my club we are setting up to do this , unfortunately the wheels of progress are slow , but once the IT dudes get their act together (unfortunately another story ) it should be in place for next season with a years historical data to be assessed and provide ratings for next year.

so you are saying that you want a handicap system based on your potential and not the potential of the boat? That doesn't make sense.

No.... What they are saying is that for their small class (P15 or P19MX) Classes which rarely get one design starts or hold NA's, the data are skewed by one rock star

One Rock star individual represents the majority of data points (first place boat in class) and that they are racing against yardstick boats (first place boat in class) that were not sailed by some one equally skilled.

They argue that the P15's performance is unrealistic. So, they believe that they are saddled with a rating that is an error.

This perception exists because the USPN system simply can't identify enough races of MANY higly skilled P15's against yardstick boats that are equally well sailed.

In rock star dominated ratings... Ratings (where the rock star competes against mortal sailors on yardstick boats) are set and then are VERY slow to change because of the two policies of USPN. (Results from races that are deemed outliers never make the database for the class AND a change in the PN rating will only change by 25% OF THE DIFFERENCE)

Portsmouth yardstick ratings work well when you have a strong one design fleet (No rock star domination of the fleet) which then race in Portsmouth races against other strong one design classes. Thus the results accumulated indeed reflect the assumption of Portsmouth Yardstick... ( a perfect race ready boat sailed perfectly with flawless strategy against yardstick boats sailed the same way) You can subtract the skippers out of the rating when this happens.

The P15 and P19mx sailors don't believe the skipper performance was extracted from the ratings.

The US Marstrom 20's... (Two boats) The CFR 20 (one boat) and the Nacra F20 (1 boat) will never be able to get ratings where the skippers performance can be extracted leaving just the boat.

+1

Regardless of which system is used (Portsmouth or measurement), the rating SHOULD be about the potential of the boat.

Just like in OD racing, if you're not sailing your boat to its full potential, you won't win, unless the guys on the other boats are less up to the task than you.

Someone learns a new (RRS-legal) technique to make the boat faster? OK, so they just got closer to sailing it to its potential. You can't master that trick? OK, you lose.

Simple is good...

Mike

Tten you HAVE to use TEXEL or SCHRS as PY will always factor in crew skill.

You can look forward to complaining that the formula isn't "fair" under Texel or another measurement based system...which is my point - it's all an approximation.

I will say I have learned an awful lot of stuff from reading this thread.

Being a neophyte to this, as an observation wouldn't it be smart to use what ever system the championship organizers are using. I seem to remember there were two different governing bodies for the Triathlons a while back and one organization got little snippy about the athletes that were from the other organization and made the qualify under their system.

Jake - I agree, and have already mentioned that, every system has its pluses and minuses.

Erik - Just to clarify, the championship finals are run as one-design, on provided boats. The qualifiers (only) are the topic of discussion here.

Mike

I thank all boats that race One-Design.

2010 Jazz Cup the Hobie Miracle 20's were assumed to be be racing with spins (like Delta Ditch). Nemesis showed up on course without a spin, wrong rating, ... oh well, some at least report the config, ... S-->

Agree.

Reference: One-Design TCF-to-First

Fortunately, the One-Design gentlemen in Europe report Elapsed Times under Texel and SCHRS. More F18 data will be added if some U.S.-based races are found. Large fleets ~may increase teh difference between First, 1st, and mid-fleet. Small fleets do not always reduce the finish time delta.

ref:
2010 Rated Weight (RW): catamarans <= 20ft = rw^0.300, multihulls >; 20ft = rw^0.325
2010 Rated Length (RL): catamarans <= 20ft = 1.15*RL, multihulls > 20ft = 1.0*RL
2010 Rated Sail Area (RSA): larger multihull RSA changes (see RSA.items )

There is compensation on Rated WEgiht (RW), Rated Length (RL) and Rated Sail Area (RSA) using Texel.2010. The compensation is useful for Corsair Trimarans some of the time. "Crusing Cats" ahve a challenge: Rated Weight (RW). Few Big Cats get on a a load cell, other than in Australia under texel.AUS/THAI.2010.

No worries about getting in a hole, just volunteer to rate boats.

SCHRS uses a Rated Length adjustment (rating credit) for boats before 2007, when plumb bows became normal. Measuring for RL under Texel, similar issue, boats without plumb bows get a rating credit in the Rated Length. I take digital pics with a metric tape for Microsoft Visio scaling (no wetsuit in-water measurements)

Crew Weight:
The SCHRS calculator uses a whole crew person, rounding up/down when I put in 1.2 crew (I think).

The Texel.XLS uses a similar assumption on standard crew weight. However, the Texel.XLS allows WCD (?) Weight Crew Declared in Kilograms.

The WCD variable will change the TCF and corrected finish order results.

What's Normal?
One boat in the last two (2) years asked to use WCD. I said sure, suggesting show up the day of the race and you and your wife have to be in bathing suits to be measured on my scale. They declined as the "declared weight" difference was ~10 kg over the assumed/calculated WCD.

Same with weighing a boat: show up and get on the load cell.

EXACTLY!

Consider a professional one design race of Farr 40’s. In a 10 boat race… the perfectly sailed boat coming into the port tack lay line at the first mark and the equally well sailed boat in first place on the starboard lay line have the same rating.…. Port is tied for first in performance … However, this perfectly sailed boat will be 10th around the mark as the 9 starboard takers line up head to tail forcing him to sail to the end of the line. The variance in the portsmouth measurement rating is a function of a "sailboat race conducted according to the RRS. The nature of fleet sailboat racing is such that differences of 6 secs per mile or about 15 sec’s per hour can be expected simply do to sailboat racing variables. Slackwater provides some real world examples of time delta's in one design races where the time differences between first and the fleet or first and second are attributed to both the sail boat racing noise, plus sailing factor noise. Since these are one design data... they do not include differences caused by the boat design
So the variance is greater then 30 seconds per hour

In order to reliably detect a performance difference between two classes of boats or a design advantage within a class, you must have a real difference of double this noise value.

What this all means is that statements saying Portsmouth handicapping will be more accurate (when and if we get it right) then measurement ratings are simply wrong.

If both systems are working properly ... they are equally accurate and the precision is about the same.

The issue is that Portsmouth handicapping is simply broken.

SCHRS or Texel ratings are not broken plus they are transparent and timely.

All you're proposing is trading one system that has a weakness for the group of sailors that are sailing the boats for one that has a weakness accounting for the design nuances between boats.

Which doesn't matter unless someone actually ponies up with a proposal to the multihull council to be voted on.

First ... Proposal submitted... Draft report submitted... waiting for feedback from two readers.



WHAT..

Ugh.... the sailors using Texel or SCHRS have not come forward with .... "weakness accounting for the design nuances between boats:

You are the only one asserting an equivalence between SCHRS (broken) and Portsmouth (broken) as a fact..

You assert that PN is potentially more accurate... (can't be) You haven't jumped up and said... SCHRS or TEXEL is too hard on XXX. They get the formula wrong. Finally, We don't see any of the sailors who are actually using texel or SCHRS jumping up and saying... Yeah... the system really is wrong for XXX class of boats.

Saying SCHRS ss flawed doesn't cut it. Stating a false equivalence is a good debate tactic... but that does not make it true.

The only critique so far is... ... yeah... texel can't rate big cats and beach cats fairly. But I don't care... The area qualifiers are open to cats 22 feet and under. The other critique was... well fat boys don't get fairly rated on Texel or SCHRS. Again.... irrelevant to this debate.

I have detailed all the systemic problems with portsmouth.
Stop equating the two systems as if they are equal. One is broken... the other one is not. Provide some testimonials that SCHRS or Texel is broken and then we can weigh the two systems... (I looked... I can't find any good critiques).

A better way to describe the current state of US beach cat handicapping is .. that it is now a PHRF like committee which takes the SCHRS rating for new boats and scales it for the USPN ranking.... and summarily corrects the ratings of other classes when they get out of whack after using bad data.
The data is just not there...... therefore the system is broken.

Fundamentally, this is a question of integrity... using a broken system is a joke.

Look you could take the point of view that we should just invent a Beach Cat PHRF to correct for US water density and light US breezes.

PHRF for beach cats could work... PHRF is very successful and it's cheap to administer ...It's integrity is based on the credentials of the PHRF rating committee which sits in each area. I race under it every Wed night.. I just don't pretend that my race results are averaged into a rating.

Depends on your point of view. I know the skipper of the boat I sailed on thought that politiking his local PHRF board to get either his rating buffed or his competition's rating nerfed was as much a part of the wednesday night series as the actual races.

"its part of the game".

Not something I'd like to see in the beachcat world.

As I said... PHRF integrity depends on the people on the committee. sounds like a weak group.

Would I want Beachcat PHRF... no way!... SCHRS or Texel are transparant, timely and THEY WORK without emergency ad hoc fixes.

The last two of the three new US classes... CFR 20 and F16's had ratings SNAFU's... THE USPN committee acted like a PHRF group and fixed things.... I was part of the loop...

Now it's time to change over.

Good, trust it will get good reviews.


The concepts for rating formulas are similar ( link Rated Length, Rated Sail Area, Rated Weight). SCHRS is somewhat published, but not in Excel (?).


Big cats might be a non-issue if defined by 22 ft LOA; weigh the crews & boats. Early Nacra F20.Carbon results were mush under SCHRS. Later, the F20's started correcting towards the front. The debate item might be big cats as defined by F18s vs. Prosail.40's and D-Class cats.


The sailors have to think it is fair: Weigh the Crews, it makes a difference. Normative arguments are about light air, can't have a light enough crew, heavy air gives an advantage to those with high Declared Crew Weights.



Uhh, suggest use standard TCF's from Texel or SCHRS. PHRF TOD numbers get converted by local Race Organizers with Many Variants of conversion factors, from Monohull Assumptions, to a TCF that is non-aligned with SCHRS or Texel.

There will be conditions that favor one boat over another, suggest:
Heavy air, long boats with little Sail Area will generally do well, all things being equal.
Light air, never enough sail area on short boats will do well.
There are balanced courses for the races under discussion, non-balanced courses (long-distance) may cause an issue.

Curved boards will be a debate item to rate, suggest: a possible benefit in a breeze, a possible liability in lightish winds. The early Nacra F20.Carbon races in Europe were not pretty; corrected times improved with time in the boat (sound like a one-design?) from my limited view of the data.

look at the history of IMS. I would hate for beachcats to go down that road. Creating expensive rule-beaters is a big problem that I don't see a solution for in Texel or SCHRS.

Here is a brief history of IMS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Measurement_System

You lost your credibility when you stated that PHRF works. PHRF is the most inconsistent system out there.

The same boat rates differently region to region - even one-design boats like M24's or J22's.

There is no formula used to derive the rating - it's a guestimation by committee on how that boat will compete within a given fleet.

A boat that is perceived to win too often will have their rating lowered.

A boat that doesn't win will typically have their rating raised.

Rule Beater???

Mike... that is a red herring.... Beach cats in the US used handicap racing with a measurement rule...aka.. NAMSA for years prior to USPN... it used Herb Malm's proprietary measurement rule to generate the table and then he stoked it using data.

No rule beaters were designed!

Texel has been widely used for many a year... Which boat was designed to be a rule beater?

Nobody has ever pressed the charge that XXX is a measurement rule beater under Texel or SCHRS and blah blah designed it to be so!

But... the point is that Portsmouth is broken... we don't have the racing scene to generate high quality data....So, it now must function like a PHRF system.... Note the Nacra F20 rating was set by Texel/SCHRS for US portsmouth by the PHRF like committe.

Do you think the racing community is well served with a broken PN system that must act like a PHRF committee to maintain a reasonable ratings table?

Make a case for the status quo.... and the most recent PN table (grin)

Can you give an example of one of those "rule-beaters"?

Inadvertently, the F16 was a rule beater when it first arrived.

Also, the reason why none have been designed under PN is because the mechanism for the rating to change over time is there. Why build a $30k one-off catamaran that will have one season of a gift rating before its number changes.

Keep tilting at windmills Mark. Its fun to watch.

Mike,

What weakness are you talking about? The rule and calculations are public; you can download the calculator here: http://www.schrs.com/exe/SCHRSCalc2009.exe

SCHRS has been around a while; I see no rule beaters being designed!!!!

SCHRS rates the parts of the boat that make it go faster or slower. Have a play with the calculator and see what you can come up with!

New developments are rated as they become effective.

Right.... How does this differ from How the USPN must operate today.

the F16 rating ...had to be adjusted...
The Supercat 20 rating... had to be adjusted.
The CFR 20 rating ... had to be adjusted.

Like it or not... without a lot of high quality data... the USPN system is simply a national PHRF like system.

In defense of PHRF... an awful lot of sailors spent a ton of money racing in Key West for essentially PHRF nationals under PHRF handicaps for many years. Serious people work hard at generating fair ratings and the owners clearly don't think it's a waste of time. Local PHRF ratings are a function of the American spirit of ... if it's local... it must be better because its under our local control. Sounds like your PHRF board has issues.

The solution is to adopt SCHRS or TEXEL... Several of the US distance races already have!

You avoid any perception that the rating is bogus or set by politics with a measurement system.

I don't race under SCHRS or Texel and don't understand it's weakness's/strengths.

An example of a weekness would be that the F18 has consistently become faster since it's introduction. However the measurements have not changed. Better sail cut/ foil design/ balance / ....

I know the weakness's in Portsmouth. I race under it. And yes there are weakness's.

However I think that we could be trading one system with weakness that can be adjusted to another system.

I'm not totally against it. I just think it needs to be looked at very seriously and figure out if it improves results or might be actually worst.

And yes, Given a set of rules, A boat can be designed to "beat" the system. I'm not saying it's been done. But someone perhaps hasn't put the time into it to make that happen. Leave it to a bunch of yanks to screw up a good system.

Thanks for taking the time to submit a solution for a better alternative than the PN system. The statistician in me hates to see the PN be dissolved however it is only as good as the data collected. The statistical concept is that a solid number can be derived with enough "observations" such that the "outliers" would not be significant in the final number. It would be a real and best measurement but it requires MANY observations. In reality, those days do not exist. We cannot collect enough observations to flush out the crew skill factor let alone obscure match ups. Consequently, it is time to call it for what it is and accept a mathmatical/engineering model such as Texel or SCHRS to calculate handicaps. Ultimately, if you are really committed to a fair system; go One Design or SMOD. Even then there are boat & sail factors beyond skill that can impact your results but at least they are minimized.

Thats is not true actually.
The Texel Rating has been adapted over the years to reflect changes in boat and rig design trends.

This brought the F18 number down from 102 a few years ago to 100 now, and the A's and F16 rating has gone up 1 and 2.

So you would expect Portsmouth to take this into account! The ratings should get faster!

So from 2005 to 2010
A period where you saw the builders evolve from:
Tiger to Tiger upgrades to Wildcat
Nacra F18 to Nacra Infusion
Cap 1 to Cap 2

the USPN rating
2010
62.4 65.4 63.9 61.3 59.5

2008
62.4 65.4 63.9 61.3 59.5

2006
62.4 65.4 63.9 61.3 59.5


2005
62.6 66.1 64.4 61.5 59.5


Hmm... that would be a change in DPN rating of .2!

Bottom Line.... Either you assume that PN is working and the data don't support... "F18's are faster"... or you say... well we just don't have ANY data of any kind! (the basic underlying problem with Portsmouth and the major reason that it is broken).

A larger point about accuracy of ratings.... the intrinsic noise of a sailboat race means that you just can't resolve this perceived increase in speed in the ratings tables.

You are asking for a level of resolution that the game of handicap sailboat racing can't deliver.

the guy on the helm is the biggest factor. Struble races a vintage Flyer 1 in the US worlds and is in the top 10 until a breakdown.... wins 2010 NA's on current ride... Is it Struble or the boat.... (It's Struble)

This years Europeans... an Aussie young sailor on a Flyer I with high aspect boards is at the top of the fleet.

In both cases... the variance due to boat development is much much smaller then the other factors in a sailboat race ... (See my Farr 40 example)

When the top sailors upgrade their equipment.... you underestimate their skill and over rate the boat....

For this debate. Portsmouth can't resolve this "F18's are faster notion" Measurement ratings recognize the resolution limits of handicap racing and do not try to refine their formula to get another decimal place... it's a waste of time.

One Design Racing will have more "real" resolution then handicap racing but this is not the issue.

The issue is... Which handicap system has complete integrity and fairly rates the boats in a timely and transparent manner.

"Inadvertently, the F16 was a rule beater when it first arrived."

You wanna 'splain that?

Pete, this has been a hotly debated issue for years. You know how this would end up... someone will give their opinion on the initial F16 rating, you'll say bullsh!t and then it's on. Isn't the sh!t fight over which rating system we should use enough?

Mike

F18 rating under schrs was 1.01 (2 decimal places)

when we changed the system to 3 dp we also changed the "fulcrum" boat - that is the boat all other boats are calcualted against to be the F18; the rating also becamse 1.005.

In the future (well my plan was when I was chair) was that the F18 rating will NEVER change; all boats will move around this boat as the formula is changed as developments happen.

The reason we chose the F18 was because it was sailed most widely world wide and so logic dictates using it as the boat we measure all other boats against.

The F18 is currently sailed by the best sailors and so it will show, to the best practical way, how a well sailed boat will perform and thus define the rating base. There are lots of boats of different designs that all measure the same under SCHRS (we assume maximum efficiency plates). These boats have their goot points (for example Shockwave down wind; Wildcat is good upwind; but under SCHRS it averages out as differing boats win the big regattas).

If the top competitors in the N20 / I20, F18 and F16 (and pick as many as you like) all sailed the same courses at the same event; I would expect the F18 to win as the World champ will be of higher quality.

If you could clone Gashby and Bundy to sail all the boats over a spread of conditions and courses you would get draws.

The point was taken out of context. The F16 was NOT a Texel or SCHRS rule beater.

PN missed with its opening number and once there were some races (data) the PN was promptly lowered. It is now a function of the F18 rating less .6 across the board which I do not necessarily agree with at the higher wind scales. You would think that it should be a proportion relative to the base rating and not an absolute & constant reduction relative to higher wind ratings. I'm splitting hairs now.

Yeh. Why don't you tell Tad that.

The F16s are always wrong, everyone else is always right. What a load of crap!

If we were rating the boats, instead of the boats performance a lot of this nonsense would never come up.

If a car is light weight and has a lot of horsepower, it is assumed it will be fast. The F16 should have been rated higher from the beginning. Instead the boat and the class are criticized for faults belonging to the rating system.

It was the F16 class that stepped up and asked that the boat be rated appropriately. We NEVER tried to game the system!

I never said you did.

When the F16 first came out, there was something about its design that clearly made it faster than what it was rated as initially measured by PN.

Thats why I said "Inadvertently". Nobody did it on purpose I believe, it just happened like that. When Wooter actually lobbied to get the rating "fixed" and closer to the F18 rating where it belonged, I actually agreed with him on something.

But Ding is right, rehashing history about the F16 rating really doesn't help this argument out at all. Whether SCHRS or Texel would have kept the problem from happening, I don't know. I tell you what though, I get a good belly laugh out of every post Mark makes about it though.

Save it for SA. At least Mark is trying to get the system fixed, has stepped up, and prepared a submission recognizing that there are better alternatives to PN. You have to know Mark to understand his passion for debate.

100% agree there. Mark and I have had our very heated disagreements on this issue but there is no denying his passion and I give him huge kudo's for taking this on. Damnit! Am I in the Mark camp again! F@#$ ME!

Thank you to Mark for volunteering,

S-->

As long as the person can use a tape measure, a set of scales and punch some numbers into a PC you can measure and calc a rating using SCHRS or Texel.

Of course it would not have happend under SCHRS or Texel.

Point taken, noted in results. Suggest it is up to Class Associations or Race Organizers to work out who sails the boats, ie. ISAF Cat 1 v Cat 3, Industry Professionals, ...

Mr. Jobson said something about encouraging boats to get on the water and making it easier to get a rating. Fair winds, S-->

You're right. He is devoting his time and attention to something that seems, at best, marginally supported by his peers and making the rest apathetic. (if you haven't guessed, I'm in the latter)

But whatever helps him sleep at night. I'm still laughing at the "PHRF is great" comment.



Until someone finds the "hole" in the formula that is. Its happened before.

Apathey set in a long time before Mark started working on this.

Apathey is our biggest problem. The dozen or so willing to lead are tired of carrying the rest.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't SCHRS require an ISAF certified measurer, if so this is a deal breaker for SCHRS, if not then it is clearly a front runner.

ref.1 SCHRS Objectives

Your ISAF Measurer question is good; I don't know the answer.

"Certified Ratings" will have enough production to matter. Normal procedures, real class rules, real measured weights, ... Class Rules need to specify all the factors required in the formula, same for Texel and SCHRS.

The F18 rules are ISAF protocol: platform weight, sailing weight, sail.specs, crew weight metrics, mast circumference, ...

Provisional Ratings (Texel or SCHRS) may be issued by local rating volunteers, or assigned by the Race Organizer if required (ie: spin size change).

Some people weigh their boats. Some One-Design boats are heavier than the manufacturer's weight and others in the class. I suggest those overweight boats deserve and get a rating credit (Texel/SCHRS), but defer to what the sailors think is fair.

To get a full rating where not manufacturer certified; yes.

Are you saying that the US does not have any?

I only know of one and she is four hours away, the US is a very big place. I've also looked into becoming an ISAF certified measurer but the process appears to be quite involved. For SCHRS to work an ISAF certified measurer would have to be easily accessible and the price would have to right, very right. If Texel has the same requirement it has the same issue. If any measurement rating system requires an ISAF certified measurer I just don't see it working in the US.

ref.1 ISAF International Measurers
Suggest there are no ISAF SCHRS Measurers listed above, without regards to the United States.

ref.2 NA F18 Measurers
The North American F18 Class uses ISAF protocols & processes within the context of Class Rules (not a subject matter expert, just reading). I suggest other North American Multihull Classes may or may not have "measurers", depending on the class, let alone ISAF Certified.

Portsmouth, Texel, SCHRS rely on somebody (volunteers) to measure the boats as regionally administered. The Measurer under Texel and/or SCHRS uses ISAF Equipment Rules of Sailing (ERS) to supplement Class Rules, as Dick Rose pointed out a couple of years ago to the US Sailing One-Design Council ( link ).

The ISAF ERS sail areas come out correctly, not hiccuped by Class Rules.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are trying to tell us here. From the links it only appears that class measures are recommended to use the ISAF ERS, which is easily done. The issue remains does SCHRS and Texel require ISAF certified measurers. From what I can tell Portsmouth has no such requirement for it's measurer, although I seriously doubt any DPN has been assigned based on the measurement formula contained in the DPN protocal in the last two decades.

Dave
The OA must determine the level of rigor for the measurement rule. SCHRS provides for 4 levels.

There are alternative routes to achieving certification:

1. Class Rules: If these are drawn sufficiently tightly, in that they specify all the factors required in the formula, then these are acceptable. Where tolerances are permitted, SCHRS will take the least favourable, rather than the average, on the basis that those keenest on winning may be expected to exploit them.
2. Type-Approved Class Certificate: A sample of standard boats may be officially measured at random. This is likely to be the means for rating mass market classes. If the builder can only provide new boats, then the certification is subject to subsequent review.
3. Individual Certification: Classes of boats where the class rules do not control the appropriate items to allow SCHRS to grant type approval, One-off, experimental and new designs require individual certificates. If these designs contain features with which the formula is not intended to cope then the boat cannot be certified, unless it is raced in a version that excludes these features. Where possible, the formula may subsequently be modified to incorporate such features. If a standard boat is raced with a non-standard modification, e.g. extra trapeze, spinnaker, class-illegal sails, then the entire boat requires an individual certificate. Individual certificates should only qualify a boat for the Open class of an event.
4. Provisional Rating: Where it may not be economically viable to obtain certification for some out-of-production designs, a provisional rating may be calculated based on un-certified data. Where such ratings are all that is available, they will be indicated as such in the SCHRS ratings table. Organisers should specify whether their event include or exclude "Provisionally Rated" boats.

There are many ISAF certified measurers in the states but only one has been used with respect to Catamarans. Carla stepped up for the Tornado Class when the long time measurer passed away.

I would anticipate the unrated US boats would be issued provisional ratings. If an owner knows the boat is heavy (for example) and wants a softer rating... they can go get their boat measured in their area. It's their problem.

A complete table of ratings equivalent to the USPN would be constructed with Official and Provisional ratings.

One off boat owners (CFR 20)would have their specific boat measured and eliminate all of the chatter associated with their rating.

Okay Mark, nothing in your post addresses the question "Does SCHRS require an ISAF certified measurer?"

Are you saying the Organizing Authority of a particular regatta determines if a measurer needs to be ISAF certified? Or the OA of a particular region has the authority to enforce the measurement criteria? This sounds a LOT like PHRF and no matter what you say PHRF if the WORST of all of them and it's NOT a regional phenomenon. The sh!t fights that happen with PHRF make us and DPN look like we are making hot monkey love.

So, for me I need a clear set a rules that are enforced consistently across the board globally or at the very minimum nationally. Everyone plays by the same set of rules regardless what OA we fall under.

What is the definition of un-certified data?

Wait...

we aren't?

For SCHRS... Simon and or his successor is the final answer.

But... the measurement of a boat is a measurement. If an ISAF certified person holds the tape measure.... they can give you an ISAF certified measurement form... good world wide for THAT BOAT.... AND the numbers are entered into the SCHRS system as certified.

If the numbers are submitted by some one else (third party)... you get the same rating but not the good house keeping seal of approval. SCHRS keeps your rating for your boat but doesn't certify it.

So, the majority of regatta OA's will use the SCHRS rating table as their standard. If some one shows up with a measurement form for their boat that is stamped ISAF certified... they use that rating for their personal modifications to their formerly class legal boat ... Otherwise they use the table ratings. If the measurement form is not certified... No good.... As always,... if they are cheating on equipment... they will be found out in a protest.

You could relax the standard as well.
Your OA could accept any third party rating certificate at their discretion.

At the extreme end... some events may say... We will measure crew weight and use that in the formula for a regatta specific rating for that boat and crew.... (PIA... but somebody might want to do it.)

At any rate... its the same formula and the same metric rule of the same boat parameters....

That's my read.

regarding measurement.

Mark has it right; BUT, you could agree that for your US events, until you catch up on ISAF measurers, you can appoint measurers; You might decide to use the qulaified F18 measurers in your locale; they know how to do it as you measure an F18 in the same way!

As Mark states you can also decide to allow people to race on a provisional rating.

SCHRS is there to be used; you can download the calc engine from the website and then those that feel there are holes in the formula can go and try and find them; those that prefer to go sailing can go sailing!

You could get people together at the next Alter cup and do some training on how to measure boats - it is not difficult; you just need to plan it out and be rigorous.

You still have to remember that all ratings are subject to protest; it is the owner/representatives responsibility to ensure that the boat conforms to the claimed rating.

http://www.schrs.com/thesystem.php


H.3 Responsibility of the owner or his representative
It is the owner's or his representative's inescapable responsibility to ensure that his hulls, spars, sails, foils and equipment comply with the rules of the class in which he enters and these rules at all times, and that alterations, replacements or repairs to the hulls, spars, sails, foils and equipment do not contravene the class rules and these rules and are reported to the measurement form.
If someone doubts it; get it measured at the regatta and then if required refer it to a authorised measurer.

We have enough trouble getting people to just submit results from a regatta that happened and are already on paper - by adopting a different system now we need to support measurers?

Or not. The measuring requirement is arbitrary. You could drop it all together or have a challenge provision.

I wonder what would happen if you dropped the measurement requirement, someone tried to cheat, and the rest of the fleet refused to sail?

Some years back there was a Hawiian paddling canoe competition. Those boats have rounded bottoms. A Tahitian, V-bottomed boat paddled out onto the course and the Hawiians promplty went back to the beach.

I'm just sayin'...

Nice, you beat me to it. What Jake said!!!

And Pete I don't have a clue what you're saying.

The Texel rating has an extensive list of precalculated ratings which covers 99% of cats sailing today.
Unless a boat has been heavily modified I dont see why every boat needs a certificate.

How many frankenboats are there, really? Most of the boats that I've ever seen showing up have been class-legal one-designs, just not enough for their own class.

I would imagine that these measurement systems already have enough data to deal with the normal classes, so you're really just needing to measure a handful of freakshows?

EDIT: Great minds think alike, apparently. We posted at the same time with the same basic idea...

Mike

The sport is either corinthian or it isn't. If you must rigorously check to make sure no one is cheating you've lost some part of that.

Checking measurements is not a law of nature. It is done because it is customary and a rule. If any class chose they could do away with the rule all together.

You would then be left with a purely democratic enforcement rule. If you don't trust your competitor, go to the beach.

I don't think many cheaters could tolerate that type of censure for very long.

sorry - I didn't mean to make that sound so condescending...but the main crux of the problem from which Portsmouth AND the Multihull Committee suffers from isn't necessarily fixed by going to one of these other systems. They still require volunteer effort.

So I drive 700 miles to a regatta and I have to pack up and go home because someone tried to cheat the handicap system? I think I would rather race against the cheater. But then again....I'm not going to drive 700 miles to race under handicap. Damn, you guys have made me a one design Natzi.

No. You go back to the beach and see what happens. When people ask you about it, you TALK to them.

How many cheaters were revealed at Racine? How much equipment was disallowed from inadvertent error? Is the effort worth the result?

I'm just sayin'.

btw, didn't the A Class employ "justice in the sand" awhile back?

As said before, Texel has a huge database already. Measurement would only be applied at major regattas (Nationals or North Americans where it is done already) and Alter Cup qualifiers if needed. We already do not measure at my area Alter Cup qualifier and presume everyone is sailing according to their "class".

Where can I find it?

http://www.knwv.nl/zeilen/Content.aspx?sid=2&cid=129&mid=&mnu=241

In my experience with cats, people generally follow the rules. If someone shows up with a modification at an open class event, they tend to be fully up-front about it.

The only equipment issues (including some protests) that I recall seeing have been regarding boat/crew corrector weights (and needing to keep the corrector weights on the boat for the entire event), and the infamous centerboard line length for the H17. There was also the issue with the mast cap at a H16 event in South America (new style cap on non-comptip mast).

Then there was the guy who removed his Hot Stick and started swinging it at a fellow competitor on the water in a drifter, but that was a different issue (and 69 hearing) altogether...

Mike

Well, the Isotope apparently is in the 1% of racing catamarans that do not have a rating (in either SCHRS or Texel). It is an active class, however, and has current ratings under the Portsmouth Yardstick. Lacking access to a measurer, and the time/inclination to wade through the measurement process myself, that leaves only Portsmouth.

All handicapping systems are inherently inaccurate, as it is impossible to reflect a boat's sailing characteristics in all conditions with a single number (regardless of how that number is generated). Nevertheless, I still enjoy handicap racing as well as one-design.

Regards,
Eric

Kris has it.

When you enter a regatta... PN or SCHRS... you declare your rating. If you have a class legal boat.... your rating is in the table and shared by everyone else.

If you have a modified one design boat.... In portsmouth.... you declare your adjustments and calculate the 5 ratings you need using the portsmouth modifications table and present those ratings.

If you have a home built or one off design, The PN committe will guestimate your rating prior to the event and you provide that rating.

In SCHRS... you report your measurement certificate rating for your modified or one off boat which measures the rated changes you have made on your modified cat.

Some regattas... allow no adjustments to boats which effects their ratings....eg Area Qualifiers. Other events use the full PN modification table including weight adjustments.... eg SHBC Statue of Liberty race.

Substituting SCHRS will be simpler (1 rating). No difference here.

For the purpose of this debate... Which is to just change from PN to SCHRS for AREA QUALIFIERS.

There are two current restrictions on entries.

Provisionally rated boats... (eg the Nacra F20).
Modified one design classes. (eg P19 with square top main).

The restrictions on entry exist BECAUSE of the known failings and limitations of the Portsmouth PN System.

The provisional ratings are not trusted because the data is sparse. So the boat is not allowed.

Modifications are not allowed because the modifications are simply educated guesses to the magnitude of the performance gain or loss. These modifications are even more difficult to statistically measure then stock boat performance and may not translate between a hobie 16 and a Nacra 20. The consensus is that a bogus modification on a bogus Portsmouth rating was simply a bridge to far. No one believes the rating was fair. So... these boats are excluded from the Area championships.

The Alter cup committee will have a simpler job under SCHRS racing.

There will be no provisionally rated boat status. The nacra F20 has a valid unchanging world wide rating today.

Modified boats can be excluded by fiat as we currently do.

OR the Alter committee could allow modified or One Off boats to race with a valid ISAF certified rating.

Or they could allow a modified one design boat to race with a USSA Multihull measurer approved rating.... (Scooby's suggestion)

No matter what the outcome... it will be the boat owners responsibility to get the paperwork needed to race his odd ball boat in Area Championships.

As PGP noted... its a Corinthian sport.... for your local handicap regatta if you increase your main sail size... you should measure it according to the diagrams.... calculate your rating... Declare and use it when you race.

So you're proposing ratings should be based on the owner measuring their own boat? You really don't think people will have an issue with that?

In the US, handicap dingy racers also use Portsmouth (although the statistics have been kept completely separate between cats and dingies). What system(s) do the dingies elsewhere use? (laser, laser radial, flying scott, JY15, 29er, etc.).

No... I don't think they will have an issue with that..

When you BUY the new square top main for your P19... you ask the sailmaker.... Ugh... What is the SCHRS rating...

There is nothing special about measuring the sail...... they punch it into the free calculator and you have a rating that you give to the customer. If you Ding have an issue with MY mainsail... I say... No problem... there is a flat spot... pull the battens and knock yourself out double checking the sailmaker... or my measurement.... Hey.. I will even let you use YOUR RULER!

If you are organizing a very competitive handicap regatta... ask for the paperwork to be available at check in.

We trust the SMOD builders to build product that measures in... We trust them for handicap racing now.... This is no different.

(Is there some unreported problem with cheaters down south??? Or is this just a late reaction to the infamous Frankenboat or WindyHill's modified Hobie 18 with his Tiger Rig?) Both of those guys would be racing today under SHCRS and you would have one less stomach ulcer.

Let's say for a moment that my Area Qualifier is using SCHRS.

Mr. Hobie 20 wants to race and brings a cert with a provisional number and the OA says okay. Then someone says the number is bogus, protests and says they want a measurement. Protester doesn't have any of the stuff, string, 50' tape... No worries he can borrow mine... uh oh protester is not familiar with the measurement process. I have the skills but I'd rather be at the bar instead of spending 2 hours measuring someone's boat which will still end up as a provisional number. How is this better for me again?

Because mark won't be posting about Portsmouth numbers

Well, when you put it like that...

No cheating that I'm aware of. Though I was accused of having an oversized spinnaker. As soon as I was aware of the accusation, I got the sail measured and have a cert. to prove it and never leave home without out. Of course I don't talk to that individual any more.

These types of challenges are a part of any measurement system/game. Just because you have a valid measurement cert doesn't mean it can't be challenged. However, I don't think any action would be taken over a rumored challenge.

hmm... the protester has nada to do with measuring anything... nor does the protest committee.

The protester has to make his case to the protest committee. He has to provide reasonable "facts"... which would persuade the protest committee to order a remeasure of the offending sail and put the regatta standings into provisional status pending the outcome or toss they guy completely and let him appeal.

At that point... should the owner of the challenged sail find you in the bar... (not in your usual state... mind you) They can ask... Sir, would you take on measuring my sail? ... You say... Opportunity.... the going rate is 400 bucks for after bar service.... Or you say... No bueno... take it to another sailmaker on Monday and have it remeasured... It's your problem.

The OA has no problem... the Protest committee has no problem. You the knowledgeable measure guru has no problem.... the only guy with a problem is the owner of a sail that the PN committe had reason to believe was cheating.

A handicap regatta is just like your F18 regional championship or a Hobie Regatta. If a boat was protested for not having the proper F18 measurement sticker... The protest committee tosses the guy... They don't have to provide a class mesasurer on site.

Not feeling better. Still not seeing how this makes my life easier from an Area Qualifier point of view. The idea of adding something else that can put the results of the qualifier into a pending status just isn't giving me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Besides Mark it would be a total dick move to tell someone to piss off if they requested your help, so you know damn well that's not an option. Even I have limits to how big an a$$hole I'll be.

This is perhaps an oversimplification. The PC has to gather facts to determine if a class rule (in this case, a measurement rule) is broken. That may include taking testimony from those familiar with the measurement system, and possibly even conducting a measurement.


The protestor doesn't have to provide the measurement facts, he simply has to identify any rule(s) he believes were broken. The Protest Committee has to take testimony and find facts.

If, however, the PC is in doubt about the meaning of a measurement rule (including being unfamiliar with a measurement process), it shall refer its questions, together with the relevant facts, to an authority responsible for interpreting the rule. In the case of a handicap rating system, that is the organization that issued the handicap or rating certificate. See RRS 64.3(b). I believe that most Protest Committees would either defer to a measurement certificate, or order a re-measurement by the handicapping organization.


Take a look at RRS 64.3(d). It says: "Measurement costs arising from a protest involving a measurement rule shall be paid by the unsuccessful party unless the protest committee decides otherwise". So, if you protest someone for an oversize sail, and it measures in, you'll have to pay any measurement fees.


Again, an oversimplification. At an event that requires measurement, the Organizing Authority would be wise to have an official Event Measurer on hand.

I hope that helps,
Eric

First of all... as the OA... you have already decided to do more because you are allowing a sailor with a modified one design to race with a measurer's certificate. If the fellow shows up with the proper certificate... he races... no problems.

What would you do if the protest committee heard an equipment protest between two F18's on a measurement. No more no less.

If you want to do the exact same amount of work Change the NOR to SCHRS... delete the text about bracket boats. Keep the restriction on modified one design boats (no entry). Nobody shows up with a certificate... all the boats are in the table.

The SCHRS ratings table will even use the same names as the USPN table. No difference in work or practice.

What am I missing that you see a problem with?

Guys,

Are the F18's measured in the US?

Maybe there should be a separate discussion for cheating, I dont see how it is related to which rating system you use.
Personally I have never seen any cheating going on with measurements, IMHO you would have to do some pretty big and obvious boat changes for it to have any real effect.

Guys and gals, if you are to change to a mathematical model as your method of handicapping, then you are going to have to take into account what sort of boats are going to mainly use that model.

Certainly if you are going to be using it for modern designs such as the F16, A's, some home builds, rather than older more established ( read heavily built boats ) then pick your model wisely as both Texel ( of which I have limited knowledge as the UK tends to use SCHRS ) and SCHRS have real peculiarites with certain boats.

SCHRS for example mercilessly penalises light boats ( such as the A's and single handed F16's ) where I feel most of the future classes are being established from. Any boat that is both light, single handed and has a jib has absolutely no chance to be able to perform to its handicap. The F16 class is a point in case under SCHRS with the single hander having a faster handicap than both F18 or Hurricane 5.9 which in reality is never going to be the case on the water.

On the other hand if your boats are heavy ( such as the F18 and Hurricane 5.9 ) by class rules, but have well developed modern high aspect sails with bouyant hulls to match then you are onto a winner and SCHRS is your baby.

I do realise that no mathematical model is going to be able to " handicap " everything correctly and this is why I advocated earlier that it has to be both reported and mathematical evidence which dictates a boats handicap. With modern sailing scoring programs such as Sailwave being used by lots of clubs to reduce the manpower to be able to run races, then its only a natural extension to use that data to report to a central computer for statistical analysis.

Only this way will the boats which fall outside of there mathematical model ever be able to do something about an incorrect handicap and computer generated models be adjusted to handicap correctly the next generation of boats. I personally think that with the amount of data available worldwide then it would be a relatively short time before the handicap system settled down to give a pretty fair opportunity for all boats.

This is being looked at. I have written a paper and this has been submitted to the TC for consideration.

Wait! I have an idea - to keep things simple and on the level and reduce the possibility that someone might cheat their rating, let's not allow non-standard modifications at qualifiers!

ok, I meant to be sarcastic with that one.

Listen, I don't have intimate familiarity with fleets or people that race handicap using SCHRS - but I guarantee you there are people that complain about the flaws within as much as the detractors to Portsmouth do. It's all an approximation.

Yes, but I don't see where you're going with this Simon.

Correct. All handicapping is an approximation. No argument there.

The current problem is that the Portsmouth system is broken. The statistical data to make the approximation which is the foundation of the Portsmouth system does not have enough observations such that the system is no longer valid method for adding and updating boat ratings. Theoretically, I would argue that it is the ideal system but it requires a lot of CURRENT observations between all of the raced boats to be relevant for today's races.

Whereas, Texel & SCHRS are boat measurement based models of handicapping that have been developed and MAINTAINED by an active committee of racers. The mathematical models are TWEEKED as changes in designs, rig, and sails are developed. Again, it is an approximation but at least they attempt to recognize the innovations that have come forward and provide a solid foundation to justify a boat's number.

Not all area reps sail F18's and not all F18 sailors are measures and none are ISAF certified. So, for someone that doesn't sail an F18 or hasn't measured a boat and doesn't care to your point is lost. The area reps are looking at DPN and <your favorite measurement system here> and saying no work vs. potential work. And Mark you know as well as anyone people aren't exactly standing in a queue to be an area rep. and now we are going to ask them to have a SCHRS accepted measurer onsite for the regatta.

I have no love for DPN but the potential headaches of adopting a system that doesn't have numbers for popular boats (IMO) is unacceptable and pushing that obligation to the individual owners is going to be tough sell. Based on Eric's post my concerns about measurement protests are the same, and NO it's not the same as an F18 regatta where certs are checked. Also based on Eric's post any proposal will need to come with names attached that are responsible for ruling on the items Eric pointed out.

Dave

This is just a red herring. The Championship Committee can chose to only allow boats on the published list in the exact configuration to race. That will be exactly what we have now and no more hassle then running a PN race.

Every regatta should have a Chief Judge, Protest Committee, Race Committee and Measure'r. Obviously we don't fill all of these spots...

Moreover, In all my life... only once was there a portsmouth measurement issue.... (A Hardcore 16 and the builder wanted to race it at Ft Smallwood... A measurement committee was called and we made one up for the day.)

BTW, Who did you have as measurer for your qualifier last year? Any equipment issue must be addressed in the same way.... (see erics post).. In portsmouth... a P19mx could enter and be protested for the extra extra large main. You have the same issue.... There is no certificate for that main... You would have to find the class rule (ha ha) and get it measured to resolve the protest.

I agree. I am working with SCHRS to sort this out for the stock US boats that are in the current PN table.

The gentleman from "Surf-City-Racing" generously helped me identify standard config boats from the Texel list. I could not identify a standard boat configuration under SCHRS. I had to set a TCF rating for a race in California.

European major brands are the same. However, the boat model names change from europe to the United States and I am not a subject matter expert.


261 Boats, Texel as of July 10, 2010
244 boats, SCHRS as of this afternoon

Texel Ratings (English web page )
- texel.ratings.July 10, 2010. Zipped
- texel.ratings.July 10, 2010. Excel.XLS (97->2003)

Spinnaker Areas are the most common change to date. Spin.Area can be input into Texel per ISAF ERS measurements, or just inserted in metric equivalence in column CW, SAS (sail.area.spinnaker). The other normal variables, Vertical Luff Main, Jib, ...

S-->

ZIP is on the English-language page of Watersportverbond, the Dutch National Authorityweb server in the Netherlands.
XLS is on the BAMA web server.