Catsailor.com

OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent!

Posted By: David Ingram

OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 03:27 PM

Are you freaking kidding me!? The foiling F20 has a rating one point faster than the M20!? The DPN committee really is quite literally phoning it in! It's bad enough the numbers are completely fabricated but damn they aren't even trying anymore. JC I really hope you din't have anything to do with the number for the foiler. Next thing they will try to sell is that the F20 with curved boards is actually slower than the old school N20.

Oh sh!t I just poped a vein, what a bloody mess!

At least it was nice day and the company was good.

MKL Results

The DPN number is noted in the results. There doesn't appear to be a number for the F20 in the DPN tables.
Posted By: ThunderMuffin

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 04:03 PM

And yet he only finished a few seconds in front of Brett on the Carbon rocket and minutes behind the RC30.... you honestly think JC was sandbagging?
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by ThunderMuffin
And yet he only finished a few seconds in front of Brett on the Carbon rocket and minutes behind the RC30.... you honestly think JC was sandbagging?


Tad at least try to do a small amount of homework before you make a post like that. There was a fair amount of grass and weed in the the bay forcing JC to litterly stop the boat and back it up to clear grass from his blades. We cleared our boards over 5 times before entering Card Sound. So with JC having to clear his boards an extremely time consuming and slow way and to still finish a few seconds in front of the top M20 does not say the boat deserves a gift of one point faster than the M20 (IMO)!

If the DPN committee asked JC what he thinks the number should be for the foiler then you better believe I have an issue with that! Please note I did say if.

Do you have an idea of the numbers he was posting for the spin ride back?
Posted By: ThunderMuffin

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:08 PM

Dude I'm going off of nothing other than the results. I don't have time to do homework - it's why I have you to set me straight.

Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:10 PM

Since I didn't watch the trackers, what route was the winning ticket? Hugging the western shore?
Straight up the middle?
Midnight pass?
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:12 PM

Hey, what happened to Onsguard? Says DNF

Was it that light or was there a time limit?
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Since I didn't watch the trackers, what route was the winning ticket? Hugging the western shore?
Straight up the middle?
Midnight pass?


You can still see the race replay:
http://kws.kattack.com/GEPlayer/GMPosDisplay.aspx?FeedID=1404

Too bad we only had four boats tracking. If you click leaderboard you can see the top speeds on the way back. Keep in mind the top speeds reset when I added the way back to the course and also the RC30 did not fly a spin on the way back. Also of note, the "Good Ship Lollipop" did not sail back to the club.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:33 PM

And am I reading the results correctly that a ARC1 boat with a 125 PHRF won overall?

I see some (but not all) of the multihulls (with the 10/** rating) appear to be in a separate class with separate ranking(s)
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Since I didn't watch the trackers, what route was the winning ticket? Hugging the western shore?
Straight up the middle?
Midnight pass?


As far as I know everyone took the same route, right up the middle and both channels through the flats. Midnight pass was discussed but would only be considered if the boats in front did it and they didn't.

The weather was AWESOME! Maybe less than 10 at the start building to the mid teens or maybe a little more by the finish. We had long port tacks for the first 20 miles and the wind slowly went more square on the nose.



Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 06:38 PM

I was not there either so forgive the NOOB info request. I did homework and only have hearsay. Was the Nacra Foiler able to foil at all or was it foiling and lost a lot of time due to having to stop and reverse to clear seaweed?
Posted By: Jake

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 06:39 PM

Honestly, the performance differences here are in the same category of trying to handicap non-spinnaker boats against spinnaker boats or multihulls against monohulls. The performance range is going to vary so wildly over different wind speed and angles that it's just going to be absurd to try use any number to compare results between those different classifications.

You would be better off assigning a number between a foiling moth and a foiling cat.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Jake
Honestly, the performance differences here are in the same category of trying to handicap non-spinnaker boats against spinnaker boats or multihulls against monohulls. The performance range is going to vary so wildly over different wind speed and angles that it's just going to be absurd to try use any number to compare results between those different classifications.

You would be better off assigning a number between a foiling moth and a foiling cat.


100% Agree. Putting foilers with nonfoilers is ridiclous.

Once upon a time the question was posted here: Is a foiling multihull still a multihull? My answer was no then and it's hell no now! It's bad enough we have to sail against the two carbon fiber fly weights with a highly suspect number but at least they break 50% of the time when it's over 15. But a foiler with a silly number, come on! I've really tried to look past DPN racing and enjoy it for what it is but f@ck me! I really want to know what process was used to create that number.
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 07:56 PM

I don't think they got it from US Sailing. I can't even get them to reply to any emails after they gave me a mandated number to use for the Nacra 20 Carbon a few days before last years Florida 300. They still have not posted the provisional rating yet.

You still haven't answered my question:
Originally Posted by cyberspeed
I was not there either so forgive the NOOB info request. I did homework and only have hearsay. Was the Nacra Foiler able to foil at all or was it foiling and lost a lot of time due to having to stop and reverse to clear seaweed?

I was told that they were not foiling until the way back. I am going to pass on the info to US Sailing for all the good that will do. I am about done with them and thinking of using another rating system for next year.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by cyberspeed
I don't think they got it from US Sailing. I can't even get them to reply to any emails after they gave me a mandated number to use for the Nacra 20 Carbon a few days before last years Florida 300. They still have not posted the provisional rating yet.

You still haven't answered my question:
Originally Posted by cyberspeed
I was not there either so forgive the NOOB info request. I did homework and only have hearsay. Was the Nacra Foiler able to foil at all or was it foiling and lost a lot of time due to having to stop and reverse to clear seaweed?

I was told that they were not foiling until the way back. I am going to pass on the info to US Sailing for all the good that will do. I am about done with them and thinking of using another rating system for next year.


I didn't answer because I don't know and they were gone before we got back to the club. I knew about the grass clearing because our ground crew knew what they had to do and you can see the evidence of it on the track. All I can is they weren't foiling at the start and they were quickly to far away to see any kind of detail.
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 09:16 PM

See...that is an answer! Not so hard is it.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by cyberspeed
See...that is an answer! Not so hard is it.


Clearly i've pissed in your cereal I just wish I knew when I did it so I could at least enjoy it and I don't care enough to go back through the thread to try and figure it out.

Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 11:11 PM

Craig, I recall chatting about this quite a bit last year. Here are some quick thoughts:

There isn't enough data getting back to the PN committee for the system to work as intended. They pull numbers from the vendor, or sailors, or any race data or ratings from other systems that they can for a provisional number, then they're supposed to tweak that with actual race data, which isn't being reported to them, and they do not actively look for it.

The "mandated" number from last year was suggested to them by the sailors, as I recall?

Foiling vs. non-foiling is as pointless as spin vs. non-spin.

There's no good excuse for the PN committee not responding to your email. Now it's a pattern.

I saw your email but wanted the PN committee to reply first. I intended to follow through for you after a few days, as I did last year, but forgot. I apologize for that.

Where do we go from here? We have the authority to help improve handicap rating systems, but no one has stepped forward to take ownership of implementing a new system. This is where we get into deja-vu, as this topic comes up at least once a year...

All: Open to any and all suggestions, just be ready to help implement.

Mike

Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 04/30/15 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Originally Posted by ThunderMuffin
And yet he only finished a few seconds in front of Brett on the Carbon rocket and minutes behind the RC30.... you honestly think JC was sandbagging?


Tad at least try to do a small amount of homework before you make a post like that. There was a fair amount of grass and weed in the the bay forcing JC to litterly stop the boat and back it up to clear grass from his blades. We cleared our boards over 5 times before entering Card Sound. So with JC having to clear his boards an extremely time consuming and slow way and to still finish a few seconds in front of the top M20 does not say the boat deserves a gift of one point faster than the M20 (IMO)!

If the DPN committee asked JC what he thinks the number should be for the foiler then you better believe I have an issue with that! Please note I did say if.

Do you have an idea of the numbers he was posting for the spin ride back?


So how does the Marstrom never have to clear weed? Ya think maybe they had to too, therefore evening things out again. Sort of reminds me of a rating difference between the F-18 and the Inter/N-20. Kinda sucks don't it?
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever

So how does the Marstrom never have to clear weed? Ya think maybe they had to too, therefore evening things out again. Sort of reminds me of a rating difference between the F-18 and the Inter/N-20. Kinda sucks don't it?


Of course the M had to clear weed we all did and you know we never stop and back up to clear weeds we simplyt tell the skipper to unload the boat and in what can't be more that 2-3 seconds the board is cleared, same goes for the rudder. And quick crew can knock it out in 30 seconds from wire to wire. Stopping the boat and backing up is probably in the same window but stopping and backing up is crazy expensive. Most skippers have a hissy fit about the crew coming off the wire and unloading the boat can you imagine stopping and backing up!? I stand by my outrage about the F20 foiling number. Weed clearing is NOT a variable in creating a number. For the F20 do do as well as they did with the method they had to clear weeds is impressive. If they were let off the chain... bye bye bitches!

The comparison between the M20 and F20c foiler and N20 and F18 is not even remotely close. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the N20 fleet doesn't hold a candle to the F18 fleet talent. Put your best N20 team against the top F18 team and nobody will bet the N20 team. Pick the skipper/crew boat of your choice F18, N20, M20, F20, F16, H16... and let's settle it. Every time an N20 team gets on an F18 they get freaking schooled until they figure out how to sail it and you sold yours before you figured it out. Todd I don't know why you keep going here.
Posted By: Jeff.Dusek

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 01:04 AM

I believe there will be multiple Foiling 20s and Phantoms at Eurocat and Texel. Those results should provide a good comparison to create a more equitable number. Basing the rating off of the Texel number might be a good place to start.
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever

So how does the Marstrom never have to clear weed? Ya think maybe they had to too, therefore evening things out again. Sort of reminds me of a rating difference between the F-18 and the Inter/N-20. Kinda sucks don't it?


Of course the M had to clear weed we all did and you know we never stop and back up to clear weeds we simplyt tell the skipper to unload the boat and in what can't be more that 2-3 seconds the board is cleared, same goes for the rudder. And quick crew can knock it out in 30 seconds from wire to wire. Stopping the boat and backing up is probably in the same window but stopping and backing up is crazy expensive. Most skippers have a hissy fit about the crew coming off the wire and unloading the boat can you imagine stopping and backing up!? I stand by my outrage about the F20 foiling number. Weed clearing is NOT a variable in creating a number. For the F20 do do as well as they did with the method they had to clear weeds is impressive. If they were let off the chain... bye bye bitches!

The comparison between the M20 and F20c foiler and N20 and F18 is not even remotely close. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the N20 fleet doesn't hold a candle to the F18 fleet talent. Put your best N20 team against the top F18 team and nobody will bet the N20 team. Pick the skipper/crew boat of your choice F18, N20, M20, F20, F16, H16... and let's settle it. Every time an N20 team gets on an F18 they get freaking schooled until they figure out how to sail it and you sold yours before you figured it out. Todd I don't know why you keep going here.

It's called Schadenfreude, 'cause you know, I'm an A$$hole and all. It's kinda fun seein' you take it instead of dish it. Also I got better results on the F-18 than the 20, even with a screwed rudder system.It's frickin' faster on more points of sail,deep down is the only one it's not. I find it hilarious how you have to puff yourself up defending the number when it's obvious to those who have sailed both. Plus where do you think those hotshots in the class came from? N20. I also find it funny how many people are mad I sold my boat.

If you back the boat down to clear weeds in the tacks it's not that bad, I've done it on the A, so it's not conjecture.Downwind not so much. Also remember that the Marstrom never changed numbers when they got curved boards, they didn't have to. It's in the class rules, like a ARC/Supercat. They can go to foiling boards with no number change too, I believe. That should really twist you up.
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 03:17 AM

David, you did not piss me off. I had been stewing over the portsmouth issue since last years Florida 300 and when you did not answer my direct question, I blew a "fast acting fuse".

Brucat, I don't have a beef with you either. That ball is not in your court and you have tried to help me out. I only cc'ed you on the emails so you would be in the loop and might provide additional assistance if possible. I will continue to copy you on future emails but there will only be one more probably tomorrow and I WILL NOT acknowledge any more mandates because it is OUR race.

It just really pissed me off when I specifically requested a week before the event not to be sent an answer because it was too close to the event and we were just going to use the numbers they had been racing at for the prior two years.

Then they sent me provisional numbers right before the event and mandated I use them. I am sure that is the reason one of last years participants is not registered this year and really I don't blame them the way the whole thing went down. Put me in a really bad position and they still have not posted a rating for the boat after numerous requests. If they actually based that "mandated rating" based on a sailors suggestion, I really need to switch rating systems. Next question is did the MYC get the rating from US Sailing? If so was it sailor suggested?

We are looking for numbers for both the Nacra 20 FCS and the Flying Phantom so we can rate them against each other. Because they cannot beach start or beach finish, they are not eligible for the overall. We are just trying to give them as fair a race against each other as we can.

Sorry for the rant and hijack. Our event is only two weeks out.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 09:37 AM

Instead of using 'subjective' PN numbers, isn't there some mathematical formula, where the weight of the platform is factored with the amount of sail area to give a theoretical target speed?

I'll bet the guys who are designing the foiling AC boats have that formula somewhere, can't we just borrow it, plug in the numbers for the smaller foiling cats, and get some factual potential speed numbers, vs. using subjective, weed clearing, slow taking, good skipper/bad skipper induced numbers?
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 01:14 PM

you'd think the manufacturer(s) would want to share polars to sell more boats (which would also reduce the chance of sandbagging for a sweet number).

But yes, comparing foiling vs. non-foiling is even worse than mono- vs. multiuhull.

What did the moth class, and to some extent the A-class, do when their boats started foiling? Did they come up with some handicap or just split the fleets entirely?

Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 01:18 PM

which reminds me.... did someone say there was a phone app that helped you record polars for your boat by sailing around with it?

edit - Sailtracker app says it displays polars, but I can't tell if that's based on actual performance or a pre-established formula based on lenght, displacement and sail area.
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 03:53 PM

Haven't heard of that Jay, but it could solve a lot of problems!

Craig, I don't know why you keep using the word "mandated" when referring to the PN. For ANY rating system, the numbers have to be assigned by a central authority or there's no hope at all for the system to have credibility. Sounds like you disagree with the number that was issued, which is OK, but I have two questions: Wasn't that number assigned based on sailor input and/or EU data? When you finished the race, did you provide the race time data and subjective feedback to the PN committee?

Mike
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 04:08 PM

Craig... can Kattack upload information to US Sailing for their DPN/PHRF database?

If so that would be a really cool feature and provide almost real-time data which (if there is enough over time) could build somewhat realistic ratings for boats as well as classes..?
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
you'd think the manufacturer(s) would want to share polars to sell more boats (which would also reduce the chance of sandbagging for a sweet number).

But yes, comparing foiling vs. non-foiling is even worse than mono- vs. multiuhull.

What did the moth class, and to some extent the A-class, do when their boats started foiling? Did they come up with some handicap or just split the fleets entirely?


Moth and A class are one design/box rule , there is no handicap.The PN is the same, no matter what. Foils rate the same as non-foilers.
Saying foilers vs.non-foilers is worse than Mono vs multi is dead wrong, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that statement. Foiling boats aren't the
X-Calibur of cats, they optimize decent pressure downwind performance at a sacrifice (drag) to upwind and light air performance. These are early days still for foiling boats and this will be the first stateside distance race with them in it. There needs to be region (North America) specific results to come up with a number. Give them a chance, if it's still wrong then go burn down your CVS. It's really immaterial anyway, they aren't even being scored in the race, just match racing each other.It seemed last year that the F-20c number was fairly arbitray. I'm not sure how much re-calculation gets done since Darlene passed away. Maybe Craig could score ,unofficially, with other programs too. Such as
SCHRS (?) or Texel, I'm sure that's just what he needs is more work, but it could be done post facto or by someone else. Maybe Mark Schneider, he DOES know his scoring stuff. Timbo the measurement rule you asked about that would measure everything is PHRF and we DO NOT want to go down that road.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 05:20 PM

Ha! I'll get the torch ready for my local CVS... Because burning down my own house (or store) will certainly get something accomplished smile

The mutli vs. mono comparison figured mainly with original arguments about multis not being able to point, and therefore gave up light air upwind performance for off-wind speed.

But I think history (and evolution of design as well as changed sailing tactics - footing & downwind gybing) has pretty much debunked that. I suspect evolution of foil design (and upwind foiling as seen in moths and the AC) will do the same.?

But I can see why handicap systems will never come close to actual prediction of performance. Faster boats will always be able to find better conditions (either on different areas of the course, or different time-periods at the same area of the course).

Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 05:28 PM

hmmmm... pair that sailtracker app with THIS windex, and I think you might get some pretty accurate real-world polars?

I like that this instrument appears to have a compass in the direction arrow, so it SHOULD be able to adjust for a rotating mast (it says it works on them) to display TWA...

Kind of pricey, but isn't that true of most things?
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Craig... can Kattack upload information to US Sailing for their DPN/PHRF database?

If so that would be a really cool feature and provide almost real-time data which (if there is enough over time) could build somewhat realistic ratings for boats as well as classes..?


That wouldn't quite work (you'd need to know when the races started and finished, etc.), but this is close to being a great solution.

At the annual meeting in WI, I asked the PN committee about having race data automatically communicated to them from Regatta Network, or any of the other online scoring programs. He wasn't completely against it, although it would probably take some sort of technical tweak.

What we really need is someone from our end who cares about it enough to join the PN committee, chase down our data, and make sure the numbers get updated. Solve the problem from within...

Mike
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/01/15 09:15 PM

It seems to be the common trend for people to use the AC-72 as the all around foiling baseline. They are apples and oranges when compared to a beachcat foiling boat. They have huge amounts of sail area and manpower to get the boat foiling and control it. An 18 or 20' boat does not have the same power ratio nor board/sail handling capability. The foiling hype has succeeded in making those who haven't been involved with them ,think they are a magic bullet when that's NOT the case. This year in the US A class, more non-foiling boats have been on the podium than have. With time and development that will change, but are you trying to handicap the boat for 2018 or now? If the Fl.300 is all off the wind , expect them to dominate and handily, but that's their forte', not up wind work. Distance racing has never done well scoring on PN and this is just more of that. Like taking a hit for a spin on a boat that isn't rated with one, and never getting to use it. Been there done that, it sucks, but that's PN distance ratings. These guys maybe bringing a mini-gun to a gunfight or they may be bringing a six gun, all depends on the point of sail.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/02/15 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever
It seems to be the common trend for people to use the AC-72 as the all around foiling baseline. They are apples and oranges when compared to a beachcat foiling boat. They have huge amounts of sail area and manpower to get the boat foiling and control it. An 18 or 20' boat does not have the same power ratio nor board/sail handling capability. The foiling hype has succeeded in making those who haven't been involved with them ,think they are a magic bullet when that's NOT the case. This year in the US A class, more non-foiling boats have been on the podium than have. With time and development that will change, but are you trying to handicap the boat for 2018 or now? If the Fl.300 is all off the wind , expect them to dominate and handily, but that's their forte', not up wind work. Distance racing has never done well scoring on PN and this is just more of that. Like taking a hit for a spin on a boat that isn't rated with one, and never getting to use it. Been there done that, it sucks, but that's PN distance ratings. These guys maybe bringing a mini-gun to a gunfight or they may be bringing a six gun, all depends on the point of sail.


Don't care, not interested in sailing against foilers.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/02/15 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Don't care, not interested in sailing against foilers.


I thought you weren't interested in sailing against anything other than an F-18?
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/02/15 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram


Don't care, not interested in sailing against foilers.


You're not. Just in the same body of water with them, at least for the Fl.300. Is that OK? If not you better start organizing your campaign to stop foilers. Map out your local CVSs.
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/02/15 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever
It seems to be the common trend for people to use the AC-72 as the all around foiling baseline. They are apples and oranges when compared to a beachcat foiling boat. They have huge amounts of sail area and manpower to get the boat foiling and control it. An 18 or 20' boat does not have the same power ratio nor board/sail handling capability. The foiling hype has succeeded in making those who haven't been involved with them ,think they are a magic bullet when that's NOT the case. This year in the US A class, more non-foiling boats have been on the podium than have. With time and development that will change, but are you trying to handicap the boat for 2018 or now? If the Fl.300 is all off the wind , expect them to dominate and handily, but that's their forte', not up wind work. Distance racing has never done well scoring on PN and this is just more of that. Like taking a hit for a spin on a boat that isn't rated with one, and never getting to use it. Been there done that, it sucks, but that's PN distance ratings. These guys maybe bringing a mini-gun to a gunfight or they may be bringing a six gun, all depends on the point of sail.


What Todd said. emphasis... its a DISTANCE RACE! Why you think a one number system can handicap such a thing is nuts....

IF/WHEN you take times for your one design race BUOYS race.....and calculate the actual rating for your 3 5 and 7th place finisher... you would be stunned at your actual sailed rating...

SCHRS has been working on how to do this flying boat rating thing over the past two years.... they use the euro data to validate their formula... NOT curve fit to the non existent race data. Its the best we got..

Fact of life... Portsmouth should GO AWAY for use in cat only racing.. It is great for trying to race a sunfish, laser, Hobie 16, foiling A class and an F18 at your sailing club on the lake. ... BECAUSE IT IS JUST FOR FUN and to fire up the BS at the bar..

Given our turnouts these days... an accepted handicap system is essential to even race. IMO... SCHRS is your best option.

Notice i used the word ACCEPTED... obviously .. the lack of transparency in the Portsmouth scheme is a big problem... This is the first time a competitor has failed to enter because of this issue that I recall. ... Understandable tho!
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 04:30 AM

Seems to me it's not that hard for real engineers to come up with a formula that will predict the top speed of a given platform, it's not rocket science, it's basic; weight and drag, vs. lift and thrust, and apply it to any foiling cat. I'm pretty sure the guys at Boeing and Airbus have been doing it for many years. I'll bet the foiling C cats have already figured it out too.

The question is, how are the class rules going to be written? Are they going to allow development to find the most efficient foils?

Here's a thought, have two 'rules' for PN's. "Straight boards" and "Curved boards".

We already have the numbers for straight (non-foiling) boards. The guys who want to foil need to come up with better boards, so they can foil on every point of sail. The Moths did it. The Phantom did it. The AC boats did it. Just do it. But to try to come up with a PN for foiling vs. non foiling, is just like Kite Cats vs. mono-slugs.
Posted By: Jeff.Dusek

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 11:44 AM

Modeling a foiling cat would be extremely difficult actually. It is a much more dynamic system than a passenger plane, and more importantly much less studied. One of the biggest factors is that the crew weight is a large portion of the overall weight, and that is another dynamic component. Sure I could write the equations for level, steady flight based on a bunch of assumptions and approximations, but that wouldn't come close to acting as a vpp.

It may be possible with some of the high end modeling softwares, but it certainly isn't cost viable to use a software package like that for a rating.
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 01:03 PM

In addition,

The game here is to model the entire FLEET of Catamarans built since 1960.... So.... start with the SHARK and end with a flying Carbon 20...

and the data set... is sparse and suspect. Enjoy!
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 06:39 PM

Exactly Mark, it's going to be nearly impossible to come up with any meaningful PN numbers when it comes to the foiling boats so... what's the point?
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever
Originally Posted by David Ingram


Don't care, not interested in sailing against foilers.


You're not. Just in the same body of water with them, at least for the Fl.300. Is that OK? If not you better start organizing your campaign to stop foilers. Map out your local CVSs.


Here's the thing Todd, foilers need us more than we need them. The price of admission is 45k and the boat is significantly harder to sail than a non foiler and sailing is on the decline across the board. Do you really think foiling platforms are good for the sport? Are you foiling your A cat? If not, why not?

Why is the H16 still the most popular multihull class on the planet!?

Do you really think the one percenters are going to line up for the G4?

As for the FL300 the foilers will have their race and we will have ours, they will have their big boat start and finish and we will start and finish through the surf like a proper beachcat.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/03/15 11:53 PM

Based on Jeff, Mark, Tim and others putting foiling boats with non foiling boats is pointless. Also DPN with it's lack of effort by the care takers has shown it is time for retirement. As much as it pains me to agree with Mark S about anything handicap related, DPN is done.
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by brucat
Craig, I don't know why you keep using the word "mandated" when referring to the PN. For ANY rating system, the numbers have to be assigned by a central authority or there's no hope at all for the system to have credibility. Sounds like you disagree with the number that was issued, which is OK, but I have two questions: Wasn't that number assigned based on sailor input and/or EU data? When you finished the race, did you provide the race time data and subjective feedback to the PN committee?Mike

We are US Sailing Members, when I get sent an email a few days before an event marked as "High Priority" stating that "The only way to change these numbers is to provide accurate race results for analysis." seems to me a mandate.

The problem is not whether or not I agree. The problem was timing and it came days after I specifically requested no further updates until after our event.

As far as where they came up with the numbers. If you read the email you were copied on (5/14/14), you will find the following requested from and answered by a boat owner:
Quote
C - 2
D - 165kg
LOA - 20 ft (6.096m)
LWL - 20 ft (6.096m)
SA - Main 21 sq/m,
* Crew weight 165 kg use Jib 5.2 sq/m, Spin 28sq/m (we will be using this sail area combination)
* Crew weight 125kg -155kg use Jib 4.34sq/m, Spin 25sq/m
Beam - 10.5 ft (3.2m)
SCHRS Data - I couldn't cut and past it correctly - Here's the link - http://www.schrs.com/ratings.php


This whole deal has really pissed me off. Even after I have requested numerous times to have the "Provisional Rating" posted to the Portsmouth table, it has never been done. All the results from the beginning of the sail series (2004-Dave Ingram Champion to present) are posted on the SailSeries.com. Not all of the times have been posted for each race because they were taken from various organizations. It was not till last year we have actually managed events.

Here is the deal. If US Sailing posts the provisional ratings they wanted me to enforce and were never posted, I will send them all of the results from last year and future results as long as they post ratings they want me to uphold. If they continually ignore my emails, there is no reason to send them any additional information. To go a step further, we will adopt a different rating system.

By sending us Portsmouth ratings and not posting them, other clubs will use what they have used in the past because there is nothing official. By telling us to use different ratings and not making them official (posting them), you make us lose credibility and justly so.

I would rather spend more time working on my boat than this whole political BS.
Posted By: Jeff.Dusek

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 10:03 AM

I wouldn't say it is pointless, but there are realities to having disparate boat types in the same race. Take something like the Bloody Mary in the UK. It is a one day pursuit race on a reservoir in the middle of winter. The weather sucks, but they get several HUNDRED boats out there racing portsmouth. The boats range from Toppers and Wayfarers to International Canoes and yes, foiling Moths.

When it is breezy (2013) the Moths clean up. When it is light (2015) the Moths get smoked by "slow" boats. As long as everyone excepts the realities, then I don't think it is a big deal.

On a long windy reach, a foiling cat is going to kill all the beer at the finish before the rest of the fleet is done launching.... but on a light upwind or deep run the last thing I want to do is drag around an L shaped board.

I love to foil- it is a completely unique feeling and is highly addictive. I also love big fleet F18 racing. It's all good.
Posted By: Jake

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Based on Jeff, Mark, Tim and others putting foiling boats with non foiling boats is pointless. Also DPN with it's lack of effort by the care takers has shown it is time for retirement. As much as it pains me to agree with Mark S about anything handicap related, DPN is done.


With regret, I am starting to agree. I think that a system like Portsmouth stands a considerable chance to be more accurate but it relies more on the collective effort of event organizers coupled with activity from the handicap system leadership. I don't know that there has been a true statistical refreshing of the numbers, or if they even have enough event results from which to do so, in a very long time. The people running the committee now aren't necessarily plugged into our regattas, so we should never expect that they are going to actively search out our various websites for results.

I have seen the math behind them and it is very complex and a bit over my head without a good bit of additional book-learning...there probably aren't many involved volunteers that have the statistics skills to rebuild/recalculate the numbers in the same way that they have been done in the past and while I don't know much about the people that are currently involved, I'm guessing that this could be part of the problem too.



Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 01:06 PM

I don't mind portsmouth, but I race in a fleet that is basically two boats. F16, and F18. I think it's pretty close, and pretty fair there. BUT, the difference between the two boats is pretty small performance wise.

Somebody has to spearhead something about though. I'm lazy, you're lazy, and we both want someone else to do it. My thought has always been that it needs to be a combination of a reported and adjusted number like portsmouth, but acting as a modifier to another measurement system. Mostly because neither system is perfect. Take hard data and punch it into Texel or SCHRS to get an initial number, then use reports to tweak it and adjust it. Maybe that'd be another less than ideal situation as well? No system will be perfect.
Posted By: mikekrantz

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 01:18 PM

This starting to sound a lot like PHRF...


Originally Posted by Karl_Brogger
I don't mind portsmouth, but I race in a fleet that is basically two boats. F16, and F18. I think it's pretty close, and pretty fair there. BUT, the difference between the two boats is pretty small performance wise.

Somebody has to spearhead something about though. I'm lazy, you're lazy, and we both want someone else to do it. My thought has always been that it needs to be a combination of a reported and adjusted number like portsmouth, but acting as a modifier to another measurement system. Mostly because neither system is perfect. Take hard data and punch it into Texel or SCHRS to get an initial number, then use reports to tweak it and adjust it. Maybe that'd be another less than ideal situation as well? No system will be perfect.
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram

Here's the thing Todd, foilers need us more than we need them. The price of admission is 45k and the boat is significantly harder to sail than a non foiler and sailing is on the decline across the board. Do you really think foiling platforms are good for the sport? Are you foiling your A cat? If not, why not?


That's a tricky question. Some would say that the decline of cat sailing is because the modern boats have become more involved, harder to sail, way more physical, and much more expensive as is. We're been in decline for a long time, even before the boats started really changing. It's hard to say what the cause is. That topic has been beaten to death, with no real answers as to what or why. Realistically, probably everyone is correct, and you can throw some cultural things in there as well. People just don't spend as much time doing physical, outdoor activities as they once did, and attending regatta's is an expensive time suck. Personally, for me? I don't think I could go back to racing simpler boat like a H16. It's quirky, it's weird, and you need a dick shaking medicine man to understand the voodoo tuning of the boat. I damn near pulled the trigger on that Flying Phantom that was in Wisconsin that Tomko bought. Why? I think it is extremely cool. Why didn't I buy it? Because I need that money to fund a new home for my business, and blowing $50k on a new toy would've set that back substantially. (I'm considering not replacing my boat if I sell it just so I've got another $20k in capital for that as well) I think that foiling will do a couple of things. It will drive away some, it will attract others. Those that aren't interested in the latest bleeding edge boat still have options though. A-Cat, F16, F18, H16, and the basket full of dead boats out there. So the biggest problem there, is that it is diluting the classes, and that is a problem. You fall below critical mass, and your class is done. A-Class, and F18 aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but I think the F16 is still an emerging class. On the flip side, the Moth was dead and gone before the switch to foiling. A bold move that could've finished off the class, but is now flourishing because of that change. Those aren't cheap boats either.


Originally Posted by Dave Ingram
Why is the H16 still the most popular multihull class on the planet!?


Because they are like roadkill. There's one along the side of the road everywhere. Plus, they are cheap(ish) to buy new. I think a new Hobie 16 is around $10k currently. That's way less than half of a new F16/18, even if you get a smokin' deal on one.




Originally Posted by Dave Ingram
Do you really think the one percenters are going to line up for the G4?


What's a G4?
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 01:49 PM

Am I to understand that the issue concerns getting the data TO the committee?

I thought programs like Sailwave allowed the user to upload data in the correct format to the Portsmouth committee (or whomever)?

If it were as simple as clicking a button to upload data, would we still have as big a hurdle in revising DPN numbers?? If true, how hard is it to convince the race organizers (and software platforms) to make this happen? That would certainly make things easier than trying to have the committee hunt down various websites for results?

And I think it is certainly agreeable that distance races probably ought not to contribute significantly to handicap numbers.

But we originally were talking about boats with no prior DPN / rating and how to develop one, correct? That prompted my suggestion about polars..

+1 on foilers and non-foilers being too different to handicap correctly. Kind of like Tim's suggestion of starting Kite boards and cats together. Would be fun, but exceedingly difficult to handicap.

And I don't care what my DPN is, the Mug race and other pursuit type events are still fun in their own way... I'm sure a sailing canoe probably won that event once or twice in the history of that event.
Posted By: Kaos

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 02:35 PM

Rating systems...yes they suck. Can they be fixed no, but they can be improved? How you ask? Well it is easy, you got to fix it yourself. The problem is us, you, me and them. As mentioned on this thread earlier. Everyone wants someone else to do the work so "we" can sail. If everyone who posted on this thread, flew to the US Sailing meetings and showed up every time to get the ratings "corrected" then they would be changed. What is the likely hood of that? It can be done and we could get it to work better.
Just for a second lets imagine that we did just that. Now fast forward 2 years from now. Would the rates be correct? The answer to that would depend on who answered the question. Lets say 10 of us went to all the meetings and hashed out a solution (read compromise). We would likely still have 10 different opinions on what would be "correct". Now throw into the mix, that this group is now the DPN "fixers", when are you going to fix the sunfish rating? Thistle, highlander, Flying Scot, Laser, foiling laser, San Juan 21, the Rainbow 24, that damn Melges 24. etc., etc.
Face it Catamarans are small fish in a big pond. Add to the equation, none of us want to go to the meetings and go through all the Bul..hit.
I am just as guilty as everyone else. In my earlier days I did go to a lot of the meetings. I did learn how it all worked. It is neither good or bad, as all it is, are volunteers trying to push for their interest. We do not push for ours enough, so we do not get much attention.
Are the rating systems wrong? No question. They all are, most do not know just how wrong they are.
Can they be fixed? They can be improved, but never "fixed". Mainly because we do not have anywhere near the capability to include all the variables to accurately compare 2 different vessels and never will.
So the system is mostly a political one, as they all are. If you think one is using just math data to calculate ratings and that it would be correct, then you can easily be fooled. There are just too many variables. It can be improved, but who is going to do it?
Now, back to that volunteer who will not return our emails...
By the way how do we rate a foiling kite board that is going to race us?
The easy answer to the original question, is no that rating is wrong. So are all the other boats, too.
By the way, if someone takes the lead, I would be willing to join the "10" going to "fix" the rating systems. Otherwise I will see you out on the water.
Cheers
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 04:27 PM

Craig, I do recall that email, which is why I asked if the PN was based on sailor data. My understanding was that they took your provided info to create the PN. I think you took their statement about changing the number out of context (probably because you were getting the runaround at a stressful time), he was simply reinforcing that numbers can't arbitrarily be changed, you have to provide race data.

Several of you have echoed what I've been saying above without directly replying to my posts. I'm guessing that means we're in agreement about a few things:

PN isn't perfect, but it's established, and is the least amount of work for us.

The only way to improve the accuracy of the PN system is to provide data. The committee will not seek data, it must be sent to them. One would think that this would be easier than ever with online scoring (or even plain old email), but this is the one area that constantly gets overlooked on our end.

The PN committee has not been doing a great job of being timely with responses. The best way to fix that would be to have a volunteer step up to serve on the committee.

PN numbers don't get issued overnight, even after the committee has made contact with you. I've seen several last-minute attempts to get numbers end the same way: in great disappointment.

Yes, we can (and maybe should) throw PN aside and adopt something else. That takes even more time and effort, and still leaves the problem of what to do with new designs (or an old design that never got a number and shows up to race).

Mike
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 04:51 PM

That provisional portsmouth number was issued 7/9/2010 10:26 PM but never added to the tables. It is almost a year ago that they sent me the info that they dug up. Still not added to the tables.

If they are not adding numbers that they already have and don't answer emails, why would I expect them to use additional info I send.

There are SailWave plugins to send to Yachts and Yatching, RYA, ISAF and SailRacer.co.uk. I am sure if you enquired, Sailwave would probably add a Portsmouth plugin.
Posted By: Jake

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Am I to understand that the issue concerns getting the data TO the committee?

I thought programs like Sailwave allowed the user to upload data in the correct format to the Portsmouth committee (or whomever)?


Not that I am aware of for US Sailing. They do that for other organizations, though. Darline and I worked on that briefly during one of the US sailing website revamps to establish an ftp area where that data could be submitted directly from Sailwave and though the Sailwave folks were happy and willing to oblige, we didn't get much of a reaction from the US sailing web folks. Truthfully, we didn't go crazy pushing it because we really didn't have a way to handle the data once we got it. Darline was still doing most, if not all, of the heavy lifting at the time and she no longer had a computer capable of running the old-school Fortran based statistics software anymore. I was familiar with Fortran (college) but I couldn't put it all together either.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 05:20 PM

C'mon Dave, we're friends. I've emailed or called you numerous times about all sorts of topics when I wasn't sure about them, so the answer could be real easy for you!

I told them I didn't care what the number was. We're only out there to learn how to sail the boat. There is no DPN rating. I suggested MYC put us somewhere between the RC30 and M20, but closer to the 30 number. I'm not in the business of setting the rating for boats. In my opinion, the RC got it wrong, we should be rated higher than the M20 in heavy seagrass conditions ha!

We did foil at the start for a bit, but there were too many weeds to keep it going. We did seven back downs during the race. We finally figured out how to make it really go after the bridge. Bret was in front of us until we passed him ?less than a mile from the finish. At that point we were fully foiling upwind! (no seagrass)

As far as FCS vs. Phantom, we were on the same course at Eurocat, but had separate starts. The RC posted our lap times but not the Phantom lap times so the jury is technically still out on which platform is faster. I couldn't find the Phantom in the Texel rating sheet just now either.

I agree that putting foilers and non-foilers in the same class is extremely difficult to score because the platforms are faster in different conditions. The rating for foiling boats should be quite extreme, when non foiling they are very draggy, then really fast in foiling conditions. We need way more data for sure. That is the rating game though. Factor in foiling skill as well and that is a whole different matter. At least we're not rated "All Sails!" I'd rather be racing OD, but let's not get into that one:-)

Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 05:42 PM

having to travel so much just to address a PHRF rating seems daft when it could be done mostly by technology..

The FTP that you were working on (Jake) seems easy enough but not if the US Sailing webhosts aren't motivated... What a wonderful reason to pay my renewal subscription, though...

How math-heavy is the PHRF calculation once the data hits the US Sailing servers?

And how does one justify that the PHRF number is significantly out of whack? Just cause I suck at sailing doesn't mean the DPN should change...
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 05:50 PM

wait, isn't Ding one of those database gurus? and he started this thread!
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 05:53 PM

Jay, you seem to be using PHRF and DPN interchangably here?

All, the ONLY way to get a chance of getting anything to change at US Sailing is to come with a full plan and proposal. The website stuff is very difficult, as they have to spend money, and have very few internal reaources, and tons of competing priorities. We want all sorts of modernization, across the organization, including remote testing for ROs and judges, through ratings systems and scoring integration. It's all important, but not well funded or prioritized. Quitting is not going to change that...

Mike
Posted By: Jake

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
having to travel so much just to address a PHRF rating seems daft when it could be done mostly by technology..

The FTP that you were working on (Jake) seems easy enough but not if the US Sailing webhosts aren't motivated... What a wonderful reason to pay my renewal subscription, though...

How math-heavy is the PHRF calculation once the data hits the US Sailing servers?

And how does one justify that the PHRF number is significantly out of whack? Just cause I suck at sailing doesn't mean the DPN should change...


PHRF is a parameter (ideally) and politically (by and large) set system. It is also setup, and can wildly vary, by geographical region as well. You can lobby for a higher or lower number and it tends to get very political. I would say there are probably fewer people happy with it than DPN (except those that accept handicap racing for what it is).

In my opinion, PHRF would not be an improvement. SCHRS (http://www.schrs.com/) is the strongest alternative to be considered next to DPN because it was developed for small catamarans.

edit; oh, and Texel should be considered as well.
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 08:30 PM

BTW, this is the first sure sign of spring. These threads come up each year, nothing happens, then everyone gets busy with actual racing. Will this be the year we break the mold?

Mike
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 08:46 PM

No
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/04/15 11:23 PM

I've already got too much on my plate with Endurance Series, Florida 300 and now Hiram's Haul. My boat has been dry docked over a year now. Plus I HATE numbers.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 04:53 AM

****.
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 05:11 AM

Wow... Jake and Dave agreeing with me.... about the need to make Portsmouth...extinct... The less I say the better...(grin)

Can someone point me to a single windward leeward race with a Nacra 17 racing against an F18 or a Hobie 16 in the North America region. The more numbers of boats in a class helps alot.

(I really would like to see the link to the results page)...

Mind you... The Portsmouth assumption is that the single Hobie 16 or the single F18 is sailing the boat to its rating... eg... This is the ONLY data that will lead to a rating for a N17.

The issue is not about reporting data.... the fundamental problem is generating data.

The only practical, transparent, non political solution is SCHRS... (Texel is in dutch... while SCHRS is in english.... QED)

Boats that need to be measured are
Supercat 22
Hobie 20 (USA version with comp tip)
Nacra 6.o NA
Isotope
Shark

Bastard configurations where you single hand your Nacra 20 are an issue as well.

Until you actually measure a few of each of these classes.... guestimate the rating and use the published table.
Sandy Hook Catamaran Club, and West River Catamaran Racing do this now for their weekly racing.
Posted By: Jeff.Dusek

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 09:16 AM

They use Texel here in Singapore. I can ask if they have a copy of the rule in English.
Posted By: Jake

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Jeff.Dusek
They use Texel here in Singapore. I can ask if they have a copy of the rule in English.


I think Mark was saying that SCHRS is basically Texel in English.
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Wow... Jake and Dave agreeing with me.... about the need to make Portsmouth...extinct... The less I say the better...(grin)

Can someone point me to a single windward leeward race with a Nacra 17 racing against an F18 or a Hobie 16 in the North America region. The more numbers of boats in a class helps alot.

(I really would like to see the link to the results page)...

Mind you... The Portsmouth assumption is that the single Hobie 16 or the single F18 is sailing the boat to its rating... eg... This is the ONLY data that will lead to a rating for a N17.

The issue is not about reporting data.... the fundamental problem is generating data.

The only practical, transparent, non political solution is SCHRS... (Texel is in dutch... while SCHRS is in english.... QED)

Boats that need to be measured are
Supercat 22
Hobie 20 (USA version with comp tip)
Nacra 6.o NA
Isotope
Shark

Bastard configurations where you single hand your Nacra 20 are an issue as well.

Until you actually measure a few of each of these classes.... guestimate the rating and use the published table.
Sandy Hook Catamaran Club, and West River Catamaran Racing do this now for their weekly racing.


I think we can agree to disagree whether the real problem is data reporting or generation. While most events are OD (and always have been, BTW), what data we do have is not being reported.

In practice, smart RCs don't mix spin with non-spin. No one racing wants to sit around that long waiting for the non-spins to finish (or cause the faster boats to wait), and no matter who wins, the numbers are blamed (even more so so than when like boats race together).

As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?

Before you say that changing systems will improve dealing with new boats, it will only replace one problem with another. PN works for the most part, but the committee needs some new blood to get it back on track. The other systems will need measurers and administrators, and a lot of setup, communication and promotion, in addition to just new blood.

The grass isn't always greener. Has anyone asked sailors, OAs and RCs using the other systems for their thoughts on the pros and cons of each?

Mark, you've been the biggest proponent of making this change, but have not stepped forward to implement, why should we expect someone else to? We can't get folks to send in data, do we really expect to be able to support a new system?

Again, I'm not saying we MUST use PN, but I for one am not yet convinced that there's a better solution. Show me the data, the proposal, and the team who will implement, and I'll go to bat for you at US Sailing.

Mike
Posted By: Kaos

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by brucat
Originally Posted by Mark Schneider
Wow... Jake and Dave agreeing with me.... about the need to make Portsmouth...extinct... The less I say the better...(grin)

Can someone point me to a single windward leeward race with a Nacra 17 racing against an F18 or a Hobie 16 in the North America region. The more numbers of boats in a class helps alot.

(I really would like to see the link to the results page)...

Mind you... The Portsmouth assumption is that the single Hobie 16 or the single F18 is sailing the boat to its rating... eg... This is the ONLY data that will lead to a rating for a N17.

The issue is not about reporting data.... the fundamental problem is generating data.

The only practical, transparent, non political solution is SCHRS... (Texel is in dutch... while SCHRS is in english.... QED)

Boats that need to be measured are
Supercat 22
Hobie 20 (USA version with comp tip)
Nacra 6.o NA
Isotope
Shark

Bastard configurations where you single hand your Nacra 20 are an issue as well.

Until you actually measure a few of each of these classes.... guestimate the rating and use the published table.
Sandy Hook Catamaran Club, and West River Catamaran Racing do this now for their weekly racing.


I think we can agree to disagree whether the real problem is data reporting or generation. While most events are OD (and always have been, BTW), what data we do have is not being reported.

In practice, smart RCs don't mix spin with non-spin. No one racing wants to sit around that long waiting for the non-spins to finish (or cause the faster boats to wait), and no matter who wins, the numbers are blamed (even more so so than when like boats race together).

As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?

Before you say that changing systems will improve dealing with new boats, it will only replace one problem with another. PN works for the most part, but the committee needs some new blood to get it back on track. The other systems will need measurers and administrators, and a lot of setup, communication and promotion, in addition to just new blood.

The grass isn't always greener. Has anyone asked sailors, OAs and RCs using the other systems for their thoughts on the pros and cons of each?

Mark, you've been the biggest proponent of making this change, but have not stepped forward to implement, why should we expect someone else to? We can't get folks to send in data, do we really expect to be able to support a new system?

Again, I'm not saying we MUST use PN, but I for one am not yet convinced that there's a better solution. Show me the data, the proposal, and the team who will implement, and I'll go to bat for you at US Sailing.

Mike


This is spot on. PN is a very good rating system. You have percentage of time handicapping with different wind conditions to take into consideration. As a system it is very good. The only issue is what will be the same with any system. Who is going to update the rating to increase reliability and fairness. Let's figure out a way to get it more updated.

Cheers.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by brucat
Jay, you seem to be using PHRF and DPN interchangably here?


You're right Mike, and I apologize. I should be using the generic "handicap" term rather than any particular system...
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 03:04 PM

Firstly, I accept handicap racing for what it is:

an excuse to take my "dead boat society card" around buoys while making a lot of noise (and occasionally humping a barge buoy) in order to drink and tell lies later

That being said, if I were REALLY grumpy about how bad I sail where would I start the process of changing my rating?

Would I have to start with knowing all my measurements (let's assume it's a stock boat)?

And then I would need a lot of results from area regattas with similar design boats (most are now heavily modified)?

Did I miss that page on the US Sail website on how to change a rating?

Posted By: David Parker

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Timbo
It's just math, just do the math.
Weight + drag, over thrust (sail area) and lift (foils lifting component).


OMG! I remember someone made that argument back in the 60s!
An early foiler.
[Linked Image]
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by brucat

The only way to improve the accuracy of the PN system is to provide data. The committee will not seek data, it must be sent to them. One would think that this would be easier than ever with online scoring (or even plain old email), but this is the one area that constantly gets overlooked on our end.

Yes, we can (and maybe should) throw PN aside and adopt something else. That takes even more time and effort, and still leaves the problem of what to do with new designs (or an old design that never got a number and shows up to race).

Mike


The idea of gathering meaningful statistical data is a fantasy and we really need to stop hiding behind the idea that if we could get race results the system would fix itself.

How many regattas have a single start same course format? Now that area qualifiers are gone I'd venture a guess that the number is extremely small. You also need to keep in mind distance racing data is NOT considered in the statistical analysis.

DPN has simply evolved into a PHRF model which is easily the worst handicap system on the planet! In all fairness even Texel and SCHRS are PHRFish in there arbitrary adjustments.

I would be perfectly happy if the DPN numbers were bounced off Texel and SCHRS numbers and any place there was a large deviation an adjustment would be applied. Not perfect but still better than not doing anything at all.

FYI, I did make this same proposal years ago and it went nowhere so I'm not remotely intrested in working with the current committee.
Posted By: bacho

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by brucat


As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?

Before you say that changing systems will improve dealing with new boats, it will only replace one problem with another. PN works for the most part, but the committee needs some new blood to get it back on track. The other systems will need measurers and administrators, and a lot of setup, communication and promotion, in addition to just new blood.

The grass isn't always greener. Has anyone asked sailors, OAs and RCs using the other systems for their thoughts on the pros and cons of each?



Mike



Originally Posted by Jake
no handicap system is ever going to be perfect. Ever. With that in mind, here are how the two systems compare:

In SCHRS, F18 is the scratch boat. It's correction factor is 1 and everything else is based off it. Acat and F16 (2up) are rated the same). It's a little tough to compare them because the resulting correcting factors are a bit different.

To really compare the ratings, I've flipped around the formulas so that we are comparing them based off an elapsed time of 30 minutes for the F18...basically making it the scratch boat in both systems. I then took that corrected finished time and backed out the other boats elapsed times as if they all perfectly tied on the handicap corrected times.

Anybody step in here if I screwed this up - I didn't double check these numbers. (the code window maintains spacing in the table that would otherwise be ignored by the forum software)

Code
           Elapsed      SCHRS   Corrected
Acat       00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0
F16 (2)    00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0
F18        00:30:00.0   1       00:30:00.0
H16        00:34:21.0   1.145   00:30:00.0



Under portsmouth, again, normalized so the F18 has an actual 30 minute elapsed time and backing out the other boat's elapsed times assuming a handicapped tie, we have the following for Portsmouth/DPN. You can really ignore the value of the "corrected" times. All that matters is that the end result is a tie between the boats where the F18 ran the same length race in both scoring systems.

Code
           Elapsed      DPN     Corrected
Acat       00:31:00.8   64.5    00:48:05
F16 (2)    00:30:17.6   63      00:48:05
F18        00:30:00.2   62.4    00:48:05
H16        00:36:32.6   76      00:48:05


So, in this case, Portsmouth is considerably different on the ratings and makes it harder on the F18 (I'm biased anyway). Also notable is that the Acat and F16 (2up) are rated differently under Portsmouth but considered equal under SCHRS.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to beat the F16 by 18 seconds to correct over them. SCHRS says it only needs to be 4 seconds.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to beat the A-cat by right at 1 minute in a 30 minute race to correct ahead of them. Under SCHRS, it's only 4 seconds.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to be 6:33 seconds ahead of the Hobie 16 to take the win. Under SCHRS, the F18 would need to be ahead by 4:21 to take the win.


In summary, SCHRS seems to rate the boats significantly closer together than Portsmouth does. Frankly, I think the existing Portsmouth numbers are closer to reality than SCHRS.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Jake

In SCHRS, F18 is the scratch boat. It's correction factor is 1 and everything else is based off it. Acat and F16 (2up) are rated the same). It's a little tough to compare them because the resulting correcting factors are a bit different.

To really compare the ratings, I've flipped around the formulas so that we are comparing them based off an elapsed time of 30 minutes for the F18...basically making it the scratch boat in both systems. I then took that corrected finished time and backed out the other boats elapsed times as if they all perfectly tied on the handicap corrected times.

Anybody step in here if I screwed this up - I didn't double check these numbers. (the code window maintains spacing in the table that would otherwise be ignored by the forum software)

Code
           Elapsed      SCHRS   Corrected
Acat       00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0
F16 (2)    00:30:03.6   1.002   00:30:00.0
F18        00:30:00.0   1       00:30:00.0
H16        00:34:21.0   1.145   00:30:00.0



Under portsmouth, again, normalized so the F18 has an actual 30 minute elapsed time and backing out the other boat's elapsed times assuming a handicapped tie, we have the following for Portsmouth/DPN. You can really ignore the value of the "corrected" times. All that matters is that the end result is a tie between the boats where the F18 ran the same length race in both scoring systems.

Code
           Elapsed      DPN     Corrected
Acat       00:31:00.8   64.5    00:48:05
F16 (2)    00:30:17.6   63      00:48:05
F18        00:30:00.2   62.4    00:48:05
H16        00:36:32.6   76      00:48:05


So, in this case, Portsmouth is considerably different on the ratings and makes it harder on the F18 (I'm biased anyway). Also notable is that the Acat and F16 (2up) are rated differently under Portsmouth but considered equal under SCHRS.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to beat the F16 by 18 seconds to correct over them. SCHRS says it only needs to be 4 seconds.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to beat the A-cat by right at 1 minute in a 30 minute race to correct ahead of them. Under SCHRS, it's only 4 seconds.

Under Portsmouth, the F18 would need to be 6:33 seconds ahead of the Hobie 16 to take the win. Under SCHRS, the F18 would need to be ahead by 4:21 to take the win.


In summary, SCHRS seems to rate the boats significantly closer together than Portsmouth does. Frankly, I think the existing Portsmouth numbers are closer to reality than SCHRS.


Wait what now!? You mean to tell me in europe the beachcat center of the universe the F18 is rated significantly slower compared to the A cat and F16 than in the US (DPN)!? Interesting, Todd H. any comments?
Posted By: waynemarlow

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 08:17 PM

The lower the number the faster the boat.

The SCHRS has developed into quite a meaningful handicap method for Cats, it has got a lot better over recent years and already has a foil input for the lies of the A's. It does not quite yet handle weight correctly in my opinion but it has got better.

Where it does fail and fail badly is the conversion to PY numbers, we regularly sail in mixed fleets and I can't think of a Cat handicap winner in the entire time I have been racing at our club.

The RYA and Sailwave have combined to try and get the PY handicaps more reliable with automatic downloading of results and suggested club PY numbers. With very few clubs running mixed cat and dingy races, there simply is not enough data to really establish meaningful results and as the PY smoothing software will only make small ammendments each year, it will correct itself but may take more than a few years. Most clubs in the UK seem to use the SCHRS PY conversion.

In summary the SCHRS and Texel are good to getting very good, the PY is getting better with its automated downloads of data ( bigger pool of boats in bigger number of races ) somewhere in about 10 years time they should finally converge.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/05/15 11:02 PM

You know... now that we have some great GPS tracking units and analysis software, isn't it time the Race Committee's started setting courses where the A and C marks are exactly 1 nautical mile apart, and then they could keep the lap times or total time for each One Design race, and then we could compare the real speeds of each fleet.

Still, even the best guys who consistently finish in the top places will tell you they have never sailed a 'perfect race'. So even they are not always sailing the boat to it's maximum speed potential, but at least if we are all using the same distance/course, we will have a better comparison of relative speeds between different classes, than we have today.

Now... what to do about the Foilers? I say we should have a "Speed Week" type event, where all the top foiling teams show up and again, race around the same 1 mile course for best lap times. Then put them on a long reach type course, over a measured mile (or two or three miles) and again, look at the times/speeds.

One day of A to C type racing, second day is 'drag racing' for best times. I think that is the only way were are going to be able to nail down realistic handicaps for foilers.
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 12:57 AM

Looks like the same ratio to me. I think you're stretching again trying to justify your gimme number while bitchin' about JC's. Shame on you.
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 12:49 PM

Wait, now we're looking at data and saying that the PN numbers are actually pretty good? What are we ever going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks?

Timbo, we track our marks by GPS already, so that math is easy regardless of the distance chosen (simply divide the time by the calculated distance). One mile legs are very short for our boats, so you'd need to do a bunch of laps to have a good race, and the spin crews will hate you for that.

Mike
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 12:52 PM

Quote
As for moving to a different system, again, who is going to make it happen and continue to administer it? More importantly, and I've been calling you out on this here for eons, why hasn't anyone taken a set of race data and crunched it through each of the systems to see if it actually changes anything? And if it does, should it?


Administration is International ISAF committee with Representation by national members. I represent the USA.... Happy to hand this over to an engineer who could contribute a bit more then I can!!!
(but you know that)

Your premise that there is an accurate rating table is a unicorn…. Find one system, used in the world that sailors agree is “accurate”
I have done Jakes calculation comparing time deltas for each and every update of the ratings….. It’s a matter of opinion what is accurate… as Todd replies to Dave…. Looks like the ratios are the same…. So…. You can argue this … till you die.

So, you won’t find an accurate ratings table under a rock or patch of weed…
What you will find is a group of owners who forge a consensus… that XXX sucks but it sucks less then all other attempts in the past…. AND we are willing to pay XXX for its administration.
The group of owners then go out and get Official Sanction for their rating system… Big boats now favor HPR…. And pay 500 to 1000 to get their boats measured while the last great hope… IRC (pay about 100) has collapsed in the US.

So... the last time we made a change... from NAMSA to US SAILING... There were no compelling issues driving a switch…(as their is currently) Rather… US Sailing, with Darline at the helm decided to work extra hard at getting beach cat ratings updated in the US Sailing run successor to the Dixie Portsmouth system. There was no “The Man” telling clubs and sailors what to do…
So… monohull sailors saw the regionally run system now administered by US Sailing (and the Dixie label was dropped…. )had value as a national system run by the National sailing body and supported it. US Sailing Sanction mattered for widespread acceptance…. Likewise, Catsailors, decided that national sanction was important and cat clubs around the country voted to run their events under US Sailing Portsmouth.
The current UPSET is that US Portsmouth won’t do its job of nationally sanctioning a rating (bogus or not)… So… national sanction matters to race organizers…. Because it does.
So… in the US…. What could you do…
Step One, get the active one design classes to vote on their preferred handicap system.
A dated Portsmouth system that creates ratings for all recent designs using PHRF principles to stay current Or a measurement system administered by ISAF via the SCHRS committee.
Step Two, get Organizing authorities who run handicap races to make their preference clear in their NOR… (Sailors ask for and get what they want)
Step Three, Ask US Sailing to make the recommendation that beach cats use SCHRS for racing and Portsmouth/PHRF for mixed fleet (lasers et al) racing.
Its about getting a consensus and authority sanction for a system with transparancy and pretty good accuracy
.
At the national level, It starts with the OD classes who represent their sailors and do their part to LEAD. At the local level, some clubs have already jumped from Portsmouth/PHRF to SCHRS

SCHRS is transparent... the rating formula is published and applied to all cat classes to get a rating. NO PHRF principals/ vodoo opinion applied. No need for large amounts of QUALIFIED race data to get ratings.

Yes… its spring time again.!
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 01:04 PM

Thanks Mark,

I disagree that the PN committee "won't do its job." They are not very responsive (a big problem, but solvable). They take time to issue a provisional number (in theory, this is better that knee-jerk). They need race data to validate/update the ratings (we need to step up).

You seem to have a vested interest in a different system (you're an ISAF rep?).

Jake's calculations show some pretty dramatic differences (still, no one has recalculated some regattas to see if the results would have changed).

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but until that is explained and addressed, I have to conclude that changing systems is a horrible idea at this time.

Edit: BTW, good luck convincing anyone, especially H16s who never see spin boats again after the weather mark (unless it's blowing 25-30 knots), that they should change to a system which gives them LESS time!

Mike
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever
Looks like the same ratio to me. I think you're stretching again trying to justify your gimme number while bitchin' about JC's. Shame on you.


Interesting that the "gimme" number didn't work out all that well for you and that's with probably one of the most tallented multihull crews in the US. Is it really that hard to do as you're told?

Interesting that you call it JC's number and not the the F20c foiler number Todd.
Posted By: David Ingram

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by brucat
Wait, now we're looking at data and saying that the PN numbers are actually pretty good? What are we ever going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks?


Mike


Mike how did you even remotely put together that I'm ok with DPN? I'm saying exacly the opposite and Jakes data shows there is significant differences between SCHRS and DPN so I'm even more motivated to either dump DPN outright or adjust it based on the numbers used in europe. But thanks for taking the issue seriously.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 03:39 PM

Well, at least now i know what you folks at the pointy end of the fleet(s) talk about.

Back in the middle-DFL group, we ponder such questions as:

"how did that spinnaker get launched upside down (BK)"
"Why is the C-gate over there?"
"the bunny goes out the hole, around the tree, and back down?"

But, should a handicap system base their numbers on the theoretical perfect race for each design? In which case polars (both wind and sea-state) would be the only real data. Actual race data factors in human performance which varies widely.
Posted By: ThunderMuffin

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by waterbug_wpb
Well, at least now i know what you folks at the pointy end of the fleet(s) talk about.

Back in the middle-DFL group, we ponder such questions as:

"how did that spinnaker get launched upside down (BK)"
"Why is the C-gate over there?"
"the bunny goes out the hole, around the tree, and back down?"

But, should a handicap system base their numbers on the theoretical perfect race for each design? In which case polars (both wind and sea-state) would be the only real data. Actual race data factors in human performance which varies widely.


BWHWHAHAHA

Thanks Jay.. that brought be back.
Posted By: Kaos

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 03:44 PM

Here is a thought. Use the Multihull Committee of US Sailing as the vehicle to "validate" the multihull numbers and tell the Portsmouth committee to use them. In the meantime, the races and race committees can use the numbers develop for our races. As a race committee person I can tell you if the sailors agree to the rating used for their boats, then I would have no problem running that race.
I can tell you I have big problems with "data" selected from "races".
Here is my problem from race results. A) I have rarely raced in a sailboat race where the wind was consistent. Either direction or speed always changed. All of the rating systems make that a central assumption. This makes rating boat accurately almost impossible. In a fleet of 10 one design boats there can be a 30 minute difference between the first boat and the last boat. Is the first boat get used for the "correct" rating? Now we have one Hobie 16 racing some other boats and he gets his data uses as if he was first. Was the sailor of that H16 of the same level as the sailor of the 1st one design sailor or the last? This is how results get loaded and it leads to a lot of variance and then we are into the land of false belief.
Thoughts?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 04:00 PM

I already posted my thoughts, I like math, because math don't care about who's a better skipper, who flipped, who had weeds, who got the best start, who overstood, or any of the 100 other things that happen out on the race course, as you pointed out above.

We are trying to figure out a way to accurately compare one type of boat to another type of boat. The only 'fair' way you can do that is to take the subjective human performance factor out of the equation. Measure the boats, weigh the boats, measure the sail area, and do the math.

As I said earlier, I'm sure there are many real, educated, licensed marine engineers like Morelli/Melvin that have the secret formulas already loaded in their computers, and they can tell you exactly how fast each boat should be, once you input the numbers for weight, sail area, hull length, board depth, etc.

They probably already have formulas developed for foiling too... but they may want to tweak that one after their G4 Splash down!
Posted By: Team_Cat_Fever

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Originally Posted by Team_Cat_Fever
Looks like the same ratio to me. I think you're stretching again trying to justify your gimme number while bitchin' about JC's. Shame on you.


Interesting that the "gimme" number didn't work out all that well for you and that's with probably one of the most tallented multihull crews in the US. Is it really that hard to do as you're told?

Interesting that you call it JC's number and not the the F20c foiler number Todd.

Worked out fine for me.Podium finishes the ONLY two times I SAILED (not even raced) the boat.You might need to quit fabricating BS to propagate your gimme number. 3rd in the Steeplechase ,first time on the boat and 3rd in the Fl.300 in class, 2nd time on the boat.All with a rudder system that was like sailing a H-16 with the cams flipped(ask my world class crew about that) and almost whipped your butt with it like that. Either you suck or the number is suspect.
As far as JC's vs. F-20c number, who were you crying about in the Miami/KL race? Who rebutted with he didn't care what the number was?
I was just trying to make it simple for you because you seem to be MORE easily confused these days. I guess that's to be expected, with the age and all. Don't worry I'll bring you some prune juice ( and maybe some Rum) when you're in the home.I just hope you can remember me.
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 07:39 PM

Kaos
Quote
Here is my problem from race results. A) I have rarely raced in a sailboat race where the wind was consistent. Either direction or speed always changed. All of the rating systems make that a central assumption. This makes rating boat accurately almost impossible.


Sorry, Your conclusion is wrong.
Most classes are more or less linear as the wind speed picks up. a Single number is fine... The subset of catamarans are more non linear then displacement monos. Foilers are extremely non linear.
Handicaping is possible although the Precision of handicap racing is NOT close to One design Racing in determining the best sailed boat...

The solution to handicapping increasing non linear performance is to use ratings based on the wind.... However... this adds complexity to running a race and both sailors and race committees have proven over the years to just not like using multiple handicap numbers. Point is... a solution is EASILY available in either measurement or Portsmouth type handicaping systems..

The ACCURACY of a ratings table is arguable... See my point to Mike... It is a freakin UNICORN.... See Jake's example... and the debate in the bar will close it down... AND it will be debatable forever...

So... now you need a consensus and a governing authority to end the debate.

Quote
In a fleet of 10 one design boats there can be a 30 minute difference between the first boat and the last boat. Is the first boat get used for the "correct" rating?


In portsmouth... YES this is the ONLY data point used in updating the tables (IF other conditions are met as well).

The Ginormous point is.... the 9 other boats ARE sailing to a rating.... Most of the time, even the second place boat is NOT even close to sailing to their published rating.... So you are really hairsplitting when you compare Portsmouth to SCHRS.... Why is this so... Because its the nature of sailboat racing... clear air is KING! Starboard trumps PORT... so you can add 10 seconds for the tack. and so on..

Bottom line... handicap will not have the precision of one design racing. Accuracy is a unicorn.... So, We agree on a mechanism to handicap and have the system sanctioned. They win... you are second, I am third. Enjoy life!

Quote
Is the first boat get used for the "correct" rating? Now we have one Hobie 16 racing some other boats and he gets his data uses as if he was first. Was the sailor of that H16 of the same level as the sailor of the 1st one design sailor or the last? This is how results get loaded and it leads to a lot of variance and then we are into the land of false belief.


You have identified the achilles heel of PORTSMOUTH handicaping. The foundational assumption is that the Hobie 16 first boat is as well sailed as the F18 first place boat. Large numbers of races between these two classes take care of this sailor difference... I defy you to list 100 races conducted anywhere in the country for a W/L race between a Hobie 16 and a F18.... much less finding 100 races between two evenly matched helms or as the system was designed TWO FLEETS Hobie 16s and F18s racing each other for 100 races (You don't want a Randy Smythe personal handicap rating...) This is why Portsmouth has become Portsmouth/PHRF.

There is NO TRANSPARENCY in the PN tables constructed from this years data given the facts on the water in North American Sail boat racing..

MEASUREMENT systems.. (SCHRS or TExel or HPR or IRC for big boats) Don't have this issue.... they create the formula, PUBLISH the formula, apply it to a class's measurements and then see how the rating matches actual performance results.... looking at the entire FLEET of designs..... (eg... we look at pin head mains... on Hobie 16s and Prindle 16s and compare the PIN head factor to boats that use square tops... and so on..) You adjust the factors to fit valid data sets.... and work the problem year after year.

When you get tired of racing in two boat one design fleets... Handicap racing is an alternative. (you probably can count and figure out your one design result) I make the case that SCHRS is a Fair and transparent system....

Form a consensus around one table or the other and ask for official sanction.... OA's will happily do what an organized body of sailors asks for... (they don't care... they want the max fun factor for their event) They can't listen to whinny bitches moaning abut the XXX rating....

Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/06/15 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by David Ingram
Originally Posted by brucat
Wait, now we're looking at data and saying that the PN numbers are actually pretty good? What are we ever going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks?

Mike


Mike how did you even remotely put together that I'm ok with DPN? I'm saying exacly the opposite and Jakes data shows there is significant differences between SCHRS and DPN so I'm even more motivated to either dump DPN outright or adjust it based on the numbers used in europe. But thanks for taking the issue seriously.


Obviously, you're not happy. I was actually referring to Jake's post.

I was trying to add some levity. It's pretty obvious that I've been taking this seriously throughout the thread.

Kaos: We (MHC) don't get to "tell" the PN committee what to do, we can only advise/recommend.

We CAN push for a different system, just as soon as someone presents a real proposal (no Mark, none of your countless posts here equal a solid proposal worthy of presenting to the board).

Mike
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/07/15 12:07 AM

Mike

You won't be getting a proposal from me either... This one is not a top down initiative...

The only people who write NORs are the Yacht Clubs and Catamaran Clubs) AND the national class associations for their sailors... (Obviously the class association is about one design.. however... they could play a role in advising their sailors.)

Once the sailors have proactively chosen... US Sailing could sanction the choice. How is a good question tho... Once upon a time... all of the Alter cup qualifiers used the officially sanctioned Portsmouth system... Most clubs followed suit..
There is no bell cow today... More the point... SCHRS is sanctioned by ISAF... Not a pissant insignificant organization so... SCHRS has all of the clout you need.

Bottom line, Sailors need to take a look and choose. Cyber would love for things to be simple... but he really should just poll his racers and see if they have paid enough attention to make an informed choice.
The PN system simply cannot work in this day and age. its done... Again... Just publish a link to race results where a N17 is racing buoys against F18's and Hobie 16s...in the last 3 years.... that is how you get a portsmouth N17 rating... You can make up numbers aka PHRF for the boat... but it will NEVER have enough data. How about links to a Marstrom 20 racing buoys... that boat has been racing in the states for 10 years... Bet you don't find 100 qualified data points. Mind you... a fleet of 2 boats is silly to speak of it as a class.

Portsmouth is done... not because of the committee... rather there is NO qualified data being generated.

Sailors just have to choose.
Posted By: Kaos

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/07/15 02:05 PM

Bottom line looks like most agree PN is not working very well. So we either fix it or change to a different system.
The MHC can have more impact that you may think. Our biggest problem is getting this group to agree on anything. The second biggest problem is getting this group to actually get behind something and push it. As individuals we have all banged our head against US Sailing and have decided we have better things to do with our time. As a group though there are ways to get stuff accomplished.
There is a reality with US Sailing and organizations running races, it is that US Sailing can only recommend too. We as race organizers can do anything we want. Just need to have the Notice of Race properly competed to notify all of the racers of the organizers intentions. What rating system will be used, even what rates for each boat will be used. Then the racers can decide whether to race in that race or not. We can then tell the PN committee this is the way it is going to be and either they join in or go play by themselves. It they chose to be irrelevant then so be it.
So if Cyber wants to set the ratings for the Race and the sailors agree to race to those ratings, who cares what the Portsmouth committee does or does not do?
At one of our Clubs we actually did that for a regatta. We had a breakfast where all of the racers as a group decided what every boat's rating would be for the race. Those that were known to be new sailors got their ratings "helped". Experienced sailors with the better boats got their ratings lowered. The result of the race was actually the same. However, all of the sailors felt that the race was at least more fair than before. Even with playing with the ratings the results were not even close (it did not matter is the reality)
Sailing is on a very big decline. Trying to get a new sailor into a catamaran and have them "compete" is almost laughable at this point. A) they will need years of experience to catch up with ability for starters. Second if they buy the wrong boat with a poor rating they can't compete even if they became "good".
Then we ask ourselves why no one wants to get into sailing?
Posted By: Karl_Brogger

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/07/15 02:24 PM

How about no handicap? Run what you brung?
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/07/15 02:48 PM

No, I don't think most agree that PN doesn't work. It has limitations on how well/fast it can issue numbers for new designs; otherwise, it's as good (or bad) as any other system.

Most people complain when they lose a race and blame the number (doesn't matter what system is used, BTW). No one remembers their horrible start, blowing tacks, sailing on the unfavored side of the course, etc.

Sitting around coming up with personal handicaps sounds worse than regional PHRF ratings in terms of big-picture fairness and sustainability; but if it gets people on the water, and everyone is happy, I'd call that a win.

WE are US Sailing. It's been said in this thread (and others): join, show up and make a difference. Have a better idea? Propose it, but don't expect someone else to own it.

Mike
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/07/15 06:21 PM

Quote

No, I don't think most agree that PN doesn't work. It has limitations on how well/fast it can issue numbers for new designs; otherwise, it's as good (or bad) as any other system.


Mike its BROKEN.... facts on the ground make it so.

The system is BROKEN when it simply can't turn the crank as it did 20 years ago and generate a current table.

It is broken when the underyling assumptions are no longer valid.

Assumption...
Boats contributing to the rating are in "racing shape" with "racing sails"
All of the boats in the dead boat society probably have dead sails and are not in racing shape. Reporting the results for you 25 year old prindle 16 with sunrise sails vintage 1984 won't help! BUT... the system includes these data and the the prindle 16 gets Slower over time... Really? IT IS BROKEN!

Assumption, Boats are actively racing in ONE Design Fleets AND they race in a handicap race to contribute to the data...

Fact of life... ONLY Hobie 14s, 16s, 17s, 18s, 20s, F18s F16s, Nacra 17s, A cats and Isotopes can make this claim.... (They hold a Nationals each year)

The rest of the ratings table should be FIXED in concrete but then you would have to declare the PN system BROKEN...... because now you are using PHRF discretion to set the ratings by freezing the dead boat society.

The active one design sailors rarely if ever compete in handicap... (Dave would rather poke out his eye then race handicap) so... the assumption that the top of the class racers SAILING THE BOAT to its max contributes to the rating is not valid... The SYSTEM is broken.

You also need a fleet of boats racing handicap... So... are two boats a fleet (M20).... is one boat a fleet (CFR20)... How many Nacra carbon 20s are racing? I think of a fleet as 10 boats... So did the PN committe years and years ago.

The reason is.... you don't want to have a class rating determined by one single individual. (it is his personal rating...)

Finally, you need valid data ie WL races with enough bench mark boats racing as a fleet eg more then one ..... to compare the hot new boat performance.. which also should be sailing as a fleet.

We simply don't have that much of this kind of racing anymore.

Portsmouth is dead! the 21st century killed it. It is most certainly broken.

Now... can you make up ratings and add them to the PN table using PHRF... Absolutely... but that is not Portsmouth.... that is a PHRF table for beach cats.

The PN committe can't make up data... and they understandably don't want to go down the PHRF rabbit hole... So... they drag their feet and wait till the multihull world generates a fleet of Flying Tigers who go handicap racing against Hobie 16s.. That is known as waiting for hell to freeze over.

Kaos restates my point... Sailors tell the OA what they want to race under... If you pick SCHRS... you get a sanctioned handicap system. If you pick Portsmouth/PHRF... you get a sanctioned rating system... If you just know that the N17 rating should be XXX then you get the Portsmouth/Phrf/ Race to nowehere rating system..

The difference is transparency!

There is NOTHING for US Sailing to do here..

If US Sailing wanted to help... they could kick in some money to have USA based ISAF certified measurers get the numbers for unique USA only designs and expand the table to boats unique to the North American market... EG Hobie 20s... Supercat 22s and so on.

With a budget of zero... the MHC probably is not a player here.

I won't write that proposal to US Sailing until I have more widespread adoption of SCHRS for handicap racing in the states.
Posted By: brucat

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/08/15 12:37 PM

I basically disagree with all of your points except the last one.

That, and the fact that most of us would rather stay home than race under handicap, except for specific events (distance, charity, etc.).

There's an idea...

Mike
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 01:36 PM

someone remind my senile brain... Handicap for most of us is a time-on-distance thing, right?

So if I have a PHRF of 87 and the boat next to me has a PHRF of 80, he has to sail more 7 seconds per mile faster than me to place ahead of me on corrected time?

And if he is sailing 6.0 knots my target speed (assuming we sail exactly the same distance) would be 5.5 knots (my PHRF is 8.75% slower so 6.0 kts x 91.25% = 5.47 kts)? And this would give us an identical corrected time?

So then, if I can achieve my target speed successfully around the course, my mad sailing skilz would focus on sailing a shorter distance and having smoother transitions (up/down) than my faster PHRF competitor?
Posted By: mikekrantz

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 02:01 PM

That's pretty much it.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by mikekrantz
That's pretty much it.


It sounds so easy, then. Just find a way to slow him down smile
Posted By: cyberspeed

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 02:36 PM

This is not NASCAR.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by cyberspeed
This is not NASCAR.


speak for yourself... You've seen me sail, right?

It's not that I'm doing it on purpose, but the cluster-f$k around the marks has everyone scattering around me. Apparently shrimping a spin is slow? Jeeze you think I'd get THAT memo....
Posted By: Mark Schneider

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 03:22 PM

PHRF time on distance is the most popular version of PHRF Some areas use PHRF time on time.... which is analogous to SCHRS, TEXEL or Portsmouth. In handicap racing... you race the clock... not your opponents... slowing down one boat will lose the fleet in a heartbeat. Clearing you air is paramount versus covering an opponent.

The point about applying PHRF principals to Portsmouth ratings is the idea that a committee, makes their best guess as to a fair rating for your boat. Of course, this is always tough for a one off boat in a particular PHRF region and/or when the types of racing vary (reachy point to point versus windward leeward courses or regions with strong currents). The PHRF/Portsmouth Committee is well intentioned but by definition... not transparent. Key West Race week runs Handicap racing... and owners with million dollar boat go down and race... So, you can get a reasonable amount of buy in for a PHRF rating. At Key west... authority trumps transparency.

Pick your poison....Transparency is really important for racer buy in and support.... especially for sailors who are predisposed to "screw the man.... we are different" points of view.
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Re: OH COME ON! That's right gramps is bent! - 05/11/15 04:50 PM

good to know.

But arguing ratings will never make me a better sailor. Going around in circles will, however. I guess I should focus on that..
© 2024 Catsailor.com Forums