New 2006 Texel numbers

Why do we have to suffer with SCHRS, come on ISAF get the finger out.

http://www.watersportverbond.nl/content.asp?me_id=468%20

The Taipan 5.7 ratings are sort of interesting:

--Taipan 5.7 w/spin 2-up rated slower than F16 1-up
--Taipan 5.7 w/spin 3-up rated same as F16 1-up

I sure as heck can't sail to those F16 1-up ratings!

Wirebound,

Texel and SCHRS are very similar !

Over the last 3 years the systems have started to diverge noticeably. Texel is continiously update and the committee has really tried to adress some of the earlier problem points (A-cat, singlehanders, spi boats vs oldies). I haven't seen SCHRS do that at all yet.

Wouter

You must read the ratings data better to understand this. The number you quote for the 2-up version is WITHOUT a jib. And there are 3 persons onboard in the other rating. Addition crew weight of a 3rd person will do that to your rating.

With respect to the F16 1-up ratings : I still think them to be better at directly equal to F18's but the rounding off boundery is right between the F18's and F16's So in 1-up mode we end up 1 point faster and in 2-up mode we end up 1 point slower. Under Texel 2005 and early we had perfect equality between the F16's (2-up) and F18's. Rounding off rating number will do this sometimes.

Please note that when going from Texel 2005 to Texel 2006 the F18 became rated faster. From 102 to 101.




Now you know how much more potential you can still get out of the boat, because it is definately there.

I'm not a top quality skipper myself, I know what I'm doing but I should be able to pump a few more % out of the boat still. However take a look at the result this club race of last year, look how close the elapsed and correct times are.

http://www.wvz.vuurwerk.nl/180905.html

Conditions were windforce 4 (about 15 knots, sometimes more) and a good chop over about 2-3 foot waves with a short wave period. You had to get into a tack really well or the waves would have you blow it. It was tiring, so alot of crews dropped out in the later races. Notice that I'm in the middle of the F18/I-20 fleets on elapsed times.

Now, also look at the open 15 sq. results of Hans Klok (1st places) this guy shows what more can be won by just improving sailing skills. That guy is 6 minutes faster then all of us per hour. He has a good boat but is definately a very fast singlehander. In his case every works just as it should be. For a time (about the first round) I was actually leading race 3 then I blew it by going the wrong way, I had to gamble. I decided to go really close to shore thus getting out of the tidal current but there was more wind out to sea. But HEY, I had been working the mainsheet and spi sheet hard for about 2 hours already (notice the conditions), I was really nearing the end of my endurance. I was shacking the cramp out of my right hand on the reaching leg to the offset mark.

I'm perfectly happy to race F18's on the same handicap, in either mode. Season 2005 really showed me that it fully possible. That and the fact that Gary Maskiel is winning a score of Australian races on his F16 which is also rated equal to the A-cats/F18's as well.

All that is needed now is more personal improvement.

Wouter

Scooby Simon, you are right that SCHRS and Texel are similar in that they calculate a rating by boat measurement, but Texel is alway changing, trying to keep up with cat development and keep the game fair. SCHRS in 2004 removed a carbon mast tax, that it! They have not taken their finger out since 2002? Correct me if I'm wrong here, just using the information off their web site. To top this off, on their web site the e-mail address to the committee do not even work? ANYBODY HOME?????

If I'm hijacking your thread, then tell me to butt-out and I'll be happy to do so! That said, the whole argument is butt-backward! You guys want a system that equalizes the performance of different boats! That is an insoluble paradox!

If you wanted to measure performance, it would be easier, or at least doable, to agree upon a standard course, whereupon a "perfect" boat, sailed by a "perfect" sailor would have and arbitrary score and everyone else scored less, regardless of the boat type.

Example: Agreed upon score is 1.000. An excellent sailor on an excellent boat would achieve up to 0.999. A lesser sailor and boat combination would score nearer to 0.000.

If you have positive scores, then by definition the course would need revision. It might be possible to apply such revision by formula, but actual performance over the long term would be the acid test.

Then, if there is still the need to "equalize", apply a handicap as in golf.

SCRHS is being revised as we speak. I believe new numbers will be out soonish, I have no idea when.

Wow, SCHRS has seen the problems and doing something about it, Hats off to them getting on the problem, now all the people that are having problems with SCHRS, this is your chance to get your say, send Olivier Bovyn an e-mail.

I wonder which one of the problems they will fix?

So what are all the "problems" with SCHRS

As far as I know there are 2:

1, The website e-mail addresses don't point to real emails and so they don't get answered.


2, One handicap is wrong. The reason was that the SCHRS rule stated that the handicap for the F18 was 1.01. This was based on measurements taken from the Dart Hawk (I believe). The F18's have now changed somewhat and so the F18 new needs to be re-measured. The problem is that the F18 rules do not measure everything that the SCHRS rules do and so not all F18's rate the same under SCHRS. Consider the A class, These should all be measured before they get an SCHRS number. Perhaps all F18's should be measured !

So what other problems are there ?

scooby_simon,

Weight
Beam: Righting moment
Efficiency of kites: very quick development here
Regular updates to keep the development classes in check with the one design classes

In the F18's class the Capricorn when measured to SCHRS comes out with a number well below the F18 101.

Tornado's, F18's, F16's etc have moved forward with speed but the likes of the Dart 18's etc have not (nature of one design) but the ratings have not kept up.

No system will every be perfect, but if you have a statement saying "The purpose of these regulations are to enable trampoline multihulls of various types to race together on a comparative basis, and to protect the interests of the owners in keeping development under control without hindering further research"

You need to keep your finger on the pulse

How did you hear that they are looking at changing SCHRS? has ISAF payed for more development?

According to Texel I should never have to buy another boat again. Just sail the one I am on well! Tornado has done very little to improve itself apparently since the 70's.The Taipan 5.7 is a dog.The Hobie Fox is faster than everyone thinks.My mystere6.0 should be able to tangle with anything out there and swallow F18 and F16 alive .Excellent can't wait to get started.

I would start by buying a pair of reading glasses first and actually READ for which boats the Texel ratings were developped because :





Its rating has only gone down from 100 to 94 and from 1970 to 1998 the classic tornado was the benchmark of the system with an ASSIGNED rating of 100.




Actually NO TAIPAN 5.7 in its standard form was ever measured by Texel officials. Only two WEIRD modified T5.7's were : One without a jib and one with a standard crew of 3 persons instead of only 2 person. It says so in its rating details. The owners tried to create a rating killer that way, didn't work well.




Typical US sailor based misunderstanding. The US sailors compare the FOX to the US version of the Inter-20 and then call the FOX slow and profess amazement that Texel rates the FOX of comparable performance to the European (and thus slower) version of the I-20.





Mystere is of of those companies that has build 10 different version of any model the ever launched with often the European models differing from the US model significantly. So is you M6.0 the same as the European M6.0 that was measured my Texel ? In mysteres cases it is mostly not.


Wouter

All I can say is that I have some things on an unofficial basis.

As for keeping current, yes, this is why SCHRS should be changing.

The actual problem was that the F18's were just given a blanket rating. IMO the F18 (and other formula classes that allow development like F16, F14, Tornado etc) should [color:"red"] not [/color] be given blanket rating and should (as the A class do) have to have the boat measured and a measurement certificate stamped with the SCHRS rating.



Finally, most of us agree that measurement systems are the best. Come up with something better !

I did.


Wouter

Scooby... What measurment parameter differs on the F18's that effect the SCHR rating but still allows heads up competition within the F18 class. If the capricorn is racing the tiger and infusion heads up... What measurement could you make that would discrimate between the boats?

This simply makes no sense.... Ditto for the A class....
Yes... they are changing their hull shape... but NO measurement system (that we can afford) will take into account these differences.

In fact.. if your measurement system DID discriminate between the F18's... you would have a real problem.

Ergo... a yardstick system with enough data COULD discriminate between fast and slow A cat designs... Then again As Wouter will point out... the differences are likely to fall into the noise... (that's why we round off the numbers and don't carry the floating point to nnn decimals)

Take Care
Mark

1, It is not my measurement system, I am not a member if the team that admin's it, I just believe in it (with some tweaking)

2, SCHRS measures a number of things to come up with a rating.
2.1 Mainsail area
2.2 Aspect ratio of Mainsail
2.3 Jib
2.4 Aspect ratio of Jib
2.5 Area of mast
2.6 Area and aspect ratio of the plates or centre boards
2.7 LOA
2.8 LWL
2.9 Area of kite if applicable
2.10 weight of boat

3 however The F18 rules do not measure all these and so it is possible (beneficial?) to build an F18 that measures lower that the original rating 0f 1.01.

You have totally missed my point about the SCHRS rule, it is the fact that the classes that don't fit the rule are developent classes and their class rules are more open than those of SCHRS (or wouters formula for that matter)

I'll take the A class first.

The A class rules allow a very free hand on what you can do. No maximum mast height for example, just a max sail area. So you could (if you like) have an A class with a mast at 15m high (or more) if you wanted, it would be VERY quick if you were a good enough sailor to keep it upright when the wind came up - However you would have to be VERY good - hence why most NEW A classes are now using 9.5M masts (I think they got up to about 10.5M before they decided this was too high)

Everyone knows the current (say Flyer) A class is VERY quick in the light stuff - it is a light boat with a tall mast (around 9.5m I believe) and it is still quick (in the right hands) in a blow.

Considering this some more, would An A class tipping the scales at 200kg (as an example) win many races - No(but it is still an A class); would an A class with a 15m mast win many races (yes if there was little wind), so if the A class worlds were at a "light wind" location, everyone would be quite legal to turn up with 20M masts (ok so they would not be practicle, but do you get my point?), they then go down the road to a handicap regatta and clean up as they are still on the "old" A class regatta.



So, what has happened in the years since SCHRS was launched? Well, A classes have got quicker by having taller masts (this effects the SCHRS rating), BUT most of the A class sailors have been saying, "I sail an A class, thus I must sail using SCHRS 100 which was defined some time ago" (this is wrong, as I have said above. Go and look up the A class rating here, notice it says "See measurement certificate". This is because the A class rules do not FIX the same paramaters that the SCHRS rule fixes in order to produce a rating. Thus if you were to measure all the A classes in the UK, not all come out with the same number.

If you (currently) look up the F18, you will see it says 101; I would think this will change.

I've been told not by an SCHRS Measurer, but by someone who measured a Flyer to see what it came out at that the Flyer A class measures at 0.97 and that a Capricorn measures at 0.98, I am not sure what the paramaters are that effect the Capricorn Rating, but it may well be that the dagger boards make a difference, SCHRS (as stated above) uses boards as part of the calcualtion, the F18 measurement rules here state that there is a max weight for boards, but no max size.

Lastly, to re-visit this (again)



Because they are racing to a box rule that allows development; it is no different than International 14's; The F18's are racing to their class rules at an F18 regatta. The fact that an old Dart Hawk will never now win always gets fogotten then we have this argument.

If you ask people what they think of the Dart Hawk (the boat I believe was measured for the initial SCHRS number for F18) people will say, nice boat at the time, but slow now.


F18's have quicker over the years.

If the Tigers / Capricorns and Nacra Infusions were not racing as F18's (hang on, let me finish) and it was found that the (say) the Capricorn was considerably faster would you expect them to have the same rating - I would not.

you say this above so, if (again) the Capricorn is faster, is it fair to people who do not have F18's that when racing on Portsmouth handicap (or SCHRS or Wouters system) they are at a disadvantage because the F18 Handicap does not indicate that the class as a whole (i.e. the Capricorn (and one assumes the Fusion) being quicker) has an advantagous handicap.

If we want handicap racing to be fair (and I agree it is difficult and we need to try and not end up with an IMS type rule) then we need to indicate where there are problems (the F18 being the current hot topic along with the A class) and address it.

If they want to go race as F18's on equal terms then so be it. I'm not going to stop them, but my money would be on a Capricorn/Fusion (as long as the quality of the crews was equal).

Classic example of this is the fact that (so far, I believe) that no Spitfires have come along to an F16 event as they are rated slower and so feel that there is no point. It's only 1% between F16 2up and Spitfire, however it is about 6% between F16 1up and Spitfire.

[color:"red"] There is a fundemental problem with SCHRS which I believe is being addressed, that a development class (or box rule if you prefer to call it that) was "given" a rating when it should have a "refer to measurement certificate" as the F18 rule (and others) do not measure the same things as the SCHRS rule [/color]

Like I said, Texel is more fair. Your Tornado example actually underlines this (as well as the others like the supercat 20). I mean how much different is a 2005 tornado to a 1999 tornado REALLY. Or do want us to believe suddenly that 1999 tornado's were anything but highly developped ?

Wouter

Scooby,

You are not entirely correct in your argument. While you make proper points in relation to the A-cats, you are wrong to carry these points over to the Formula classes. Indeed the A-cats can differ significantly in their setup but formula boats can not. That is with one exception and that is daggerboards, but this daggerboard rule in SCHRS has long been regarded as a problem point for SCHRS, not because of the new designs but as a direct result of the Hobie 17. I will explain.

SCHR rates a boat in the following inputs :

-1- Number of crew
-2- miniumum boat weight
-3- Overall length
-4- Water line length
-5- Max mainsail area
-6- Vertical luff of mainsail
-7- Max jib area
-8- vertical luff of jib sail
-9- Spi area
-10- Board area
-11- board depth

None of these input change from boat to boat when looking at formula boats,expect the last two. In the way of A-cats however it can be different.

Most of these points are ruled upon directly by formula class rules; the other points which are not are effectively limited by the other rules. Example F16 directly limits mainsail luff length while F18 does not but all F18 mainsail lufflengths end up between 8.5 mtr and 8.6 mtr. any because of the limit on mast height and the fact that a low boom is a serious disadvantage in racing. This difference of 0.1 mtr. does not change the rating in any significant way, that is unless the basic rating is right on the rounding off boundery and this change may just push it over. With respect to differences in waterline length and overall length. The measurements based rating systems often equate the two to the maximum value possible to either one, so their is no way any real life boat can get an advantage on that aspect no matter how weird the bows are.

So what I'm saying here is that no F18 modern or old will end up at a rating faster then listed, they can only arrive at slower ratings. Under Texel this is the case. Under SCHRS there is one exception. The daggerboards calculations (not present in such a form in Texel)

SCHRS has a rather crude formula behind their daggerboard calculations. In effect it only looks at the aspect ratio of the boards and not the real area, even while the last is indeed an input value ! In effect a Hobie 17 with miniscule boards gets a large hit because of it, one that is not realistic. I think SCHRS even tweaked the H17 rating to correct this somewhat. The F18's however are still rated with 0.23 sq.mtr x 1 mtr daggerboard.

This is nonsense on todays F18's and I think it was nonsense even when the rating was calculated for the first time. Example :

Go to the SCHRS site and download the rating calculation sheet. Now change the board dimensions form 0.23x1 to 0.0144x0.25 (both sets have the same aspect ratio) ; The last set of numbers is the size of a windsurfer fin. The rating for the F18 doesn't change AT ALL, not even in the 6th decimal.

Of course the 0.23x1 board has alot better windward performance then the 0.0144x0.25 fin ! This is where SCHRS can go wrong. But I must say that the danger is pretty small as not many designers will fit their F18 boats with fins over properly designed daggerboards, you won't sell much F18's that way.

So in all honesty there is no way that a Capricorn F18 can end up at schrs 0.98 ! It may just end up at 1.00 over 1.01 because the basic F18 rating is indeed very close to the rounding off threshold, as it is 1.006197. So any change has only the change the basic rating by 0.0012 (= 0.1 %) to have it round off downward instead of upwards.

Even if I maximize the SCHRS rating for the F18 (basic rating = 1.006197) by maximize all parameters that I can think of :

8.65 mtr. luff over 8.5 mtr.
5.5 mtr jib luff over 5.2 mtr.
Keeping board dimensions as changing those will only make the rating slower.

I then only arrive at 1.002647 = ONLY 0.0035 slower then the basic rating = 0.37 % slower. This is very negligiable.

The cases for the F16 and F20 are very much the same. So I direct the 0.98 capricorn to the world of unfounded rumours, because if it truly had that number then it would definately NOT measure in as an F18.

Like I said A-cats can be different because they have no limits on mastheight etc.

Wouter

I think the dart hawk is one of the most misused examples of the catamaran scene. That design will go very well in todays F18 fleet if only somebody took the effort to put a decent rig on it. The hull design etc are just very good. This boat was killed because of other factors, like a british pound that was overvalued making the boats very expensive to mainland europeans and the fact that it good a bad rep because no professional crews were sailing it. This statrted the rumour that the Hawk was a slow boat because the crews that did sail it where your average recreational sailors who understandibly didn't finish very high in the professional sailor dominated F18 class.

Personally I think the Hawk to be a better platform then the Nacra Inter-18 and Nacra F18. It just needs to have a modern rig.

Wouter

BUT it can be developed and so should be getting faster. But now as the Texel system is (still??) based on the old T without kite and twin wires; anyone sailing an old (Standard T I'll call it) is stuffed.

There is a basic problem with any rating rule that pegs it's starting point to a development class (or box rule). The development class (or box rule) boats should get faster over time as the sailors make material changes to the boat which makes it faster. All sailors should be getting faster in their boats, but with a development class, there is scope to sail better and also make the boat faster. You cannot make a One design class like the Dart 18 any faster as the rules preclude it.

Again I make the statment that the Tornado is not a one design as the rig setup can be different. Thus it was a mistake to peg texel to this boat.

Better sailors should always (IMO) win, but any sailor of a development class (or box rule) also has the ability to improve the boat.

Consider another example, Simon and Wouter sit down and produce "rating rule 1 - RR1" and decide to peg the rule to the new boat I am developing (The Stealth Hungry monster design - SHMD) which will rate at 1.00 (it looks like the boat will rate about the same as a Tornado 2001 under SCHRS and Texel for info).

My boat has a Alu mast as I'm not feeling rich (but the same section as the F16's so it's a wing)....

The rating rule takes into account all the same things as Texel and SCHRS (roughly) and so the handicaps are SCHRS 0.95, Texel 0.95 and RR1 1.00. Under all 3 systems I have handicap that I understand and so off I go sailing and have loads of fun. I'm not winning any races as I'm still learning how to set the boat up. I'll live with that.

After a season or so I decide I should have had a carbon mast as I need more control / lighness up top so I buy one (and add some lead to the boat to keep all up weigth the same) and now I have a nice carbon Wing mast and it makes a massive difference - I have a faster boat because of this; I'm now winning everything (I know it's not probable, but bear with me). So I changed the Alu mast for a carbon one and I'm now winning, but my handicap is the same.

I've spoken to some of the Tornado boys and they say that the Carbon Mast is "always better"; more power in the light stuff, More control in the heavy stuff, We are going faster in all conditions.

[color:"red"] But the Tornado Handicap has not changed!!!!!!!!! [/color]

Is this right ?

Now the supporters of Portsmouth, might, at this point, jump in and say that Portsmouth deals with this becasue as the Tornado's are winning, then the handicap will come down as the results data is collated after each season. BUT it is too late by then. The winning is done.

The whole point of SCHRS and Texel was that you can turn up with anything, get it measured and then be allocated a rating that is fair.

SCHRS had a penality of one point for a Carbon mast that was removed some time ago, perhaps it should be put back......

Question for Wouter, Did Texel ever have a Carbon mast factor?

No it isn't. Texel does include teh difference between single traping and double trapping and apparently it doesn't make that big a difference in the speed of the Tornado. Which is not beyond logic, the difference between the skipper hiking at 3 mtr is not much different then having him trapeze of 3 mtr. If they boat were to be 2.30 mtr wide like a dart 18 then the difference will be more significant.

People, we are argueing "gut-feelings" against founded mathematical relationships here. Now I'm not saying that math is always right, but I am saying that "gut-feelings" are far more often wrong.

I also say that when a crew takes a competitive 1999 Tornado and slaps a 2006 kite on it that this crew will indeed be very close to the fully optimized 2005 Tornado. 1 % difference in rating may be a bit small but I don't expect the difference to be beyond 2-3 % anyway. The changes to the Tornado were not THAT significant. It is still the same platform, with the same boards and fittings. I must say in this respect however that TEXEL needs to remeasure the new carbon masted Tornado's as the current Tornado rating is still for the ones with an aluminium mast. Of course the boats because nearly 7 kg;s lighter overall due to the carbon masts. Thhis will lead to the Tornado with carbon mast to be rated as 93 , which is 7 % faster than the classic tornado (no spi) and 1 % faster then the fully pimped 2005 tornado with an aluminium mast.

Lets not forget guys that the carbon mast on the Tornado is a rather new development. I expect the rating to be corrected for it before the round of Texel 2006.





Material chances in themselfs are very ineffective in making designs faster. Most materials changes are made to keep a mainsail longer competitive. A new dacron mainsail will be just as fast as a new pentex one. After a year of hard use they may not be, but when new they will be.

The same for hull material etc.

It is true that the development boats get faster over time, but this is more due to design changes like squaretop mainsails. However this is not a practical way of looking at it. It is better tho regard the modern designs as stationary and regard the non-developping OD classes are becoming slower in comparison. In my own rating system I proposed giving OD classes without development an extra correction in their ratings for this. This is far more practical to do and more fair. Why because who really races dead OD in open class regatta's classes anyway ? The biggest requirement of an rating system is to rated the popular racing designs properly not the extinct Prindle 16. In addition the owners of 10 year old Prindle 16's and Hobie 16's expect to be competitive with their run down boats, that is not an issue that a rating system can solve; it can only rated new boats properly or risk giving owners of new boats unfair advantages.

Having said all this I'm also convinced that design chances like the squaretop sails and selftackers are only causing offsets of about 1%-3% at maximum. Compared to the 30% -40% chances in performance due to different level of sailor skills, I think these material related differences to be rather negligiable. The new development are not making the formula boats that much faster in absolute sense. 1 % difference is already 40 second per hour difference. A significant gap in a F18 world championship racing when fighting for place 1 to 3 but not far any other placings.

People are often making far too much out of material differences. Its simply not that important in overall performance.

Also the best approach to make a Texel system really fair is to group modern design into 1 fleet and to group the OD and dying classes into one seperate fleet. Now you have solved this issue al together. This trick is often applied. Pretty much this is possible because Texel does rated modern design very accurately to other modern designs. The same for older designs.





Well, if Dart wants to optimize their profit margins and source out their sailmaking to some vietnamese sewing company then that is just not a problem of the Rating systems. Bad quality should be an input into a rating system. Especially since the same situation will even lead to unequalness and unfairness within the OD class itself. And there no corrective action is taken as neither. We all know of examples where a sail from a certain batch was a winner while others were not. No system is going to accurately deal with bad quality control. Nor such any system try to do so.

This leave the development into new shapes etc. I refer to my earlier answer above. These developments are not a big as many believe it to be. See Tiger versus Capricorn. A difference may well exist but it will not be very big. I personally think making a rating system alot more complex in order to accurately rate this small chances is beyond what is desireable and practical. So yes in this respect it is a choice to make the rating system more like a good estimate rather then a really accurate one.





The tornado was rather fixed in its rig before 2000. It was certainly not as open as the formula classes. I seem to remember that the width of the sails at different heights were ruled upon. Please everybody, research the matter before making wild claims.





Sure but is it significant beyond say a certain margin ?

If so is it practical and desireable to expand the rating system to correct for this ?





That is what people believe but if you started out with a proper alu mast then the difference maybe small indeed.

This leads us to a difference problem however. The difference between an heavy alu Hobie 16 telegraph pole and the lightweight alu F16 superwing mast is FAAAAR greater then the difference between an alu F16 mast and a carbon one. If we are to take these effects into account then we should do so with respect to masts that have no diamond wires and outdated crossections. Not between alu and carbon masts that are in all other respects the same.

Actually I had a crude correction factor in my NMBR system for this issue.


Maybe we should all realize that Texel is not perfect, we can all name situations were things may go weary. HOWEVER the discussion was initiation whether a yardstick system would be better. The answer to that is that while Texle may not be perfect it is more accurate then a yardstick system. We can make Texel more accurate still but then Race committees and sailors will bitch about teh fact that it is too complex and to cumbersome to use. Notice the Texel 2005 to texel 2006 change and the causes for that.

I don't see much point in proving the fact that Texel isn't perfect. That is a given.

We should focus on other things.





No wonder, they saved 10 kg on the overall boatweight as well and all carbon rigs have spanking new mainsails. A new boats is "always better" if not "feels better". Then of course the professional crews chance over first leaving the less skilled crews as the new (biased) reference pool. Now I expect some improvement, indeed, but the magnitude may well be smaller then what is suggested by feelings.

Note that the tornado class rules DON't state an overall minimum boat weight ! The minium weights are specified per component and on the platform. In the way of masts only a tip weight is specified and the one for the carbon mast is less than that of the Alu mast. In effect this means that the Tornado has lowered their overall boat weight without many people noticing it. I hope the rating committees are aware of this,




That is mostly because its carbon mast introduction is very young. No rating system has had the time to react yet. Texel has to measure the new overall boat weight first.




No, but soon Texel will have reacted while yardsticks will take years to converge to a new number.




No if anything this penalty should be had to differentiate between masts with diamond wires or not. Or even between teardrop shaped masts and wingmasts. Material is of only a minor concern.




No

Wouter

You can view it like this, but the devopment c lasses are getting faster. So you propose to change all the OD classes numbers instead of a few development classes. Sounds like you are creating work here.



Agreed.



I've been sailing in races where 40 seconds has been the top 20. I think I'd have the 1% extra speed thanks.



I never said that Dart should do this. Don't put words in my mouth.



I was talking about the 2001+ Tornado. Mainsail shapes are different. It's not a wild claim, why else are poeple spending money on flat tops, Round tops and various cuts between this. I agreed it is not as open as a formula class, but it's still a development class.

Take a look at this picture, are all these mainsails the same. I think not :

Well, you know what.

I've done my work in developping a better rating system and caused some well known rating system to change after being stationary for many years. By domino effect it looks like SCHRS will follow suit. I think I've done my share in this field and I'm willing to keep silent now and let you have the last word.

Good luck,

Wouter

I'll be interested to see what the rating for the F18 Capricorn comes in at then when it gets measured.

Does anybody know/rumour/gossip if the SCHRS committee is going to introduce a width component into the formula?

Scooby Simon,

I know the SCHRS uses weight, what I was getting at is it's ability to use the weight correctly as the wind speed goes up.

I do believe SCHRS knows the short comings of the rule, but like all things it comes down to money and who do you pay to update the rule.

This has turned out to be a good debate, wonder if the SCHRS lads are reading this?

Why does the EU need two measurement rating systems? ... Is this ISAF’s heavy and stupid hand at play?
Is this just BS national politics and some ego driven personalities at play… There are only a limited number of things to measure and a handful of ways to measure them. The proof is in the pudding where people instantly figure out if the rating differences are fair or not. If the system is fair… it gets adopted. Why doesn’t SCHRS just throw in the towel and go away since texel appears to be more popular.… (True???)

Why pay money for a service that Texel accomplishes with volunteers and now they seem to be responding to the users critiques by issuing two updates to the system within the last two years wheras ISAF is contemplating their collective navel. (All of the Portsmouth yardstick committees are volunteers as well). Who is complaining about the current Texel ratings as being off base and unfair to some.

Mark

Is it Fair?:




Is it fair
for sailors with OLD out of production designs to have a rating continually adjust upwards because their boats are old and soft and the sails were shot years ago.
Currently in Portsmouth … This can and does happen! Sailors with old boats believe that their rating SHOULD be adjusted upwards relative to the hot new boats. Not sure but in measurement areas, Can this sailor ask for a new rating because his boat is much heavier then the original rated boat?

IMO… Portsmouth should announce a rule that Ratings will NOT update to slower ratings for a boat class ONCE it has stopped holding national or regional championships. The reason is that the assumptions of the Portsmouth system are violated and the outcome would be unfair. Measurement rules should not re rate a class boat unless the owner makes significant changes and pays for a new individual boat rating.


Is it Fair:
To list the original Dart Hawk or Inter 18 as slower then the current F18's (US Portsmouth). However, If you grabbed the latest and greatest rig for the boat and updated the bits ... What should it then rate? Are you rating the rule… OR the designer’s best guess at optimization? If you rate the designers boat.. then you need to rate each individual boat class within F18’s (Scooby’s suggestion). …If you change a piece of equipment in the rated parameters, do you then have to get individually measured?

IMO… you rate the rule…. The F18 rule has not changed… so the Hawk owner is just like the owner of a 15 year old P16 with 15 year old sails asking the Portsmouth committee for a slower rating… NO you can’t do this… that is a slippery slope to destruction. In any system… you assume the boats are maintained in racing shape, good sails and actively raced by a population of sailors around a balanced course… you can’t adjust for old age and dated equipment. The Hawk owner can upgrade his equipment or not and then pay for an individual measurement. In Portsmouth regions, You would need to have the Hawks racing in sufficient numbers in their original configuration at a regional championship to collect valid data. If not… they should use the measurement rating and interpolate the data into the US Portsmouth system. If some parameter is NOT spec’d by the F18 rule, then you should sample the representative F18’s every two years and re measure and recalculate the rating. This should keep the rating current and fair without stepping on the class or formula rules.

Is it Fair to have a Tornado with an Alu mast rated the same as a Tornado with a carbon mast which performs better in all wind conditions (you can't break it by dumping the sheet in a big blow down wind... so now you play it eg faster.) AND it's lighter with less inertia at the top.. The Tornado Class has tightened and tightened its rules to become virtually one design so as to maintain their Olympic status. Development occurs in jumps… (carbon mast) and in increments.. (better sails and sailing techniques).

IMO, This situation differs from the F18 example. In this case, the class changed the rule and allowed a tightly regulated carbon mast while grandfathering all of the Alu masts. So, I think that this change warrants TWO entries into the measurement handicap table giving you the Tornado Classic, Tornado Alu, Tornado Carbon
Since the Classic is not raced in nationals any longer… I would FIX the Portsmouth ratings and just monitor the race data. Once the Alu mast stops showing up at the nationals or after the rule change. … It’s rating should be fixed and not allowed to drift slowly upwards either. The measurement rule will calculate the effect of the lighter mast on the rating and publish 3 ratings.

The changes in sail design and techniques are part of the game… Perhaps these types of classes (F18, Tornado, Prindle 19’s) should be hit with a small fixed development correction factor in a measurement rule that strictly controlled SMOD one design class don’t have to use (Nacra 20, Hobie 16)

The A Class differs from the tightly controlled Tornado, and the more loosely controlled F18 box rule. In that their class rule does not specify many of the parameters rated in the measurement rules. The solution would be to require periodic measurement of 3 representative class boats every couple of years and add in the fixed development correction factor. This should keep the actual boats on the water rated fairly with respect to the rest of the world. The older A designs are just like the old F18’ and Prindle 16’s and can’t ask for a ratings break IF they still compete in the one design regattas. If development kicks them out of the game… they can be listed separately like the Tornado (alu) or as in the USA. A class (200 or greater)

Finally, what should you do with new ONE off boats or radical upgrades of older designs or classes with fewer then 20 boats racing. The CFR 20 is a good example of a ONE OFF while one Supercat 20 was radically upgraded in the states and the M20 has 2 boats while the F16’s are just approaching critical mass in the USA 8 boats at an upcoming regatta..

In Portsmouth Regions, we should not pretend that we will get a fair rating relative to the other classes for these boat through statistics! (Every assumption of the Portsmouth system is violated)! We should change the rule and state. These boats will be rated using a measurement rule, interpolated into the US Portsmouth rating function of similar boats until the minimal criteria are met (number of boats at national championship, etc) any changes that you make to your boat that effect a rated area result in the need to re-measure your boat. Once you hit the Portsmouth criteria., we will use all of the recent data to calculate a fair rating. In measurement areas…the owner must pay to have the boat individually measured to secure a rating and take the development class hit.

AS always… comparing apples to oranges is tough. So comparing spin to non spin is always tough. Comparing modern to classic designs is easier but still tough.

In the end... you have to decide what is the fairest solution and get people to agree.

You are not rating the rule, as the F18 rule (as I have said a number of times) does not measure the same things as SCHRS.



back to my other example again; I build a boat that does not have a limit on dagger board size (as per F18), it does not have a mast height limit (as per F18) and it does, but does have a "beam to mast top limit". For my first boat I build it with very small daggers and a very short mast. THis boat then (say) rates to 100.

We will call it the scooby1 design

I then decide that I messed up my boat design and so add very large boards (that are not controlled in my class rules as this will make it point much better) and I also go for a much taller mast). Under your proposal these 2 boats whould rate the same. however the 2nd version WILL be quicker; maybe only 3-5% quicker, but it will be quicker. Fair, I think not.



Which is exactly what SCHRS is going to be doing I believe.

Old F18's will rate at 1.01 and new(er) boats will rate at something else for racing using SCHRS - I've never suggested the F18's should handicap race at their F18 championships.



This is why SCHRS and Texel exist; once you get the measurement criteria correct, you can fairly rate these boats by just measuring them. Wouter said above that people turned up with what they thought were "ratings" beaters at Texel and it was not the case. Ergo the rule works.



So you want to use a rating rule and a "portsmouth rule" !!!!!!!!



I don't; SCHRS and the ISAF do;

I would be happy to use either SCHRS or Texel assuming they are coming up with similar answers.

Simon, I ignored this comment until I had the usual Saturday bottle of wine
The Spitfires have a "One design" circuit, with 25 boats at their Nationals. Apart from JP, as far as I know, no other F16s have ever challenged the top Spitfire sailors at open events.
I hope that some day the Spitfires will enhance the F16 fleet, but at the moment there is no contest in the UK or France.

Yes... the data set is too slow to be generated and the pool of sailors too small to generate an acceptably fair number. Since the principles that a portsmouth system depends on are not valid... you need another solution. You could just make up a rating like PHRF and then go from there... or you could use the measurment rule until the conditions change and you have met the criteria.

This is my solution to balance the reality on the ground with the ability to implement it.

I must say... it sounds like a nightmare trying to re measure every F18 and certify that the equipment that an X brand of F18 now has... is what all of the other F18's of t brand X also has.

Or will everyone have to have their boat's measured to go racing?

There have been more instances like that. One just last september in Netherlands, but I don't see the point in highlighting this every time. The spitfires keep mostly to themselfs in the UK and in France/Ireland we don't have an F16 class yet. Outside these three nations the Spitfire class is non-existant. Spitfires were sold to a number of other places but never in the numbers to be able to form a class of their own. Holland is one such nation. I count 2 spitfires here. One crew we have approached to invite them to join us in F16 racing but he said that he was only interested in recreational sailing. The other boat is rarely used and for sale. This example is not to put down the Spitfire class, I think them to be excellent boats, but to show that the two classes are pretty much seperated from eachother. For this reason we don't see much direct comparisons; it is simply not possible. That is with the exception of the UK but here the Spitfires have a rather strong class and want to maintain that.

Personally I don't care whether they participate in F16 events or not. The invitation stands. If they don't want to then they don't want to.

With respect to the spitfire design. I think the design to be faster than the SCHRS rating is suggesting. It is a fast boat that will indeed run with the F18's;

Its rating is 1.02 under schrs (F18 = 1.01) when punching in :

Crew = 2
weight = 135 kg
length = 5.00 mtr
mainsail = 15.5 sq. mtr.
mainssail luff = 8 mtr.
jib = 4.5 sq. mtr.
jib luff = 5.5 mtr.
spi = 18 sq. mtr.
daggerboard = 0.19 x 0.76


However under schrs is has 1.04 as rating because it is measured at :

Crew = 2
weight = 139 = (135+4)
length = 4.98.00 mtr = (5 mtr - 0.02)
mainsail = 15.45 sq. mtr. (= 15.50 - 0.05)
mainssail luff = 7.9 mtr. (= 8.0 - 0.1)
jib = 4.45 sq. mtr. (= 4.50 - 0.05)
jib luff = 5.43 mtr. = (5.5 - 0.07)
spi = 18 sq. mtr.
daggerboard = 0.19 x 0.76


Now less than an inch difference in length, about 1 sq.ft. less sailarea and 4 kg more boat weight are not going to make the boat 2 points slower in reality. But it was enough to put the boat over the 1.0351 rounding off boundery so it gained two extra handicap points as a direct result of these offsets. Sadly that is possible with measurement rating systems.

But anyway, I personally regard the Spitfires as only a fraction slower then the F18's and pretty much on a par with the best of the F16 designs. So I don't think that fear of underperforming is at all a likely cause fro Spitfires not attending F16 events.

Wouter

You are making error regarding F18 rules

-1- mast height is limited in the F18 class rules (to 9.15 mtr to be precise)
-2- SCHRS does not rate daggerboard area, only it aspect ratio (as I wrote earlier in a different post)

For these two reasons alone your example is wrong. As a matter of fact by having small boards you can NOT get a slower handicap at all. Actually you get a handicap that is rather too fast for our boat, the one that is accurate for a design with normal sized boards.

Scooby, please forgive me but research the matter more thoroughly before making baseless statements. You are only creating wild rumours and correcting these obvious errors in your reasoning is simply a waste of time of the others.

So please, study the class rules of F18/tornadp class and others and investigate how SCHRS (and other systems) really work internally.

Wouter

Oh FFS I give up;

I made one small error on aspect vs area. People know the Capricorn is faster and all SCHRS is trying to do is equalise this in the rules. I believe SCHRS is going to address this. I don't know how, but I am assuming each F18, so Hawk, Capricorn, Tiger, Nacra (old), Nacra F18 and Illusion etc will have a SCHRS number for handicap racing.

I re-state again. The F18 rules do not measure and control the same things that SCHRS does; thus there is a cproblem with the handicap of the F18 within SCHRS. SCHRS are addressing this.

Wouter I had not seen the 9.15mtr rule in the F18 rules for the mast; However, there SCHRS parm is the Vertical luff on the mailsail (and Jib) and this is stated at 8.5 (5.2) in the current SCHRS calc. Are you stating that all mainsails on f18's are 8.5mtr luff and so this does not need taking into account (I don't see that you are).

I am not a member of the SCHRS ctte or do I have any control over the rule. It's not my rule I just want to discuss it and it's short comings with regard to the F18 situation and how (I hope) it will be fixed.

I believe that we are getting bogged down in scantics; I'll apologise for my minor mistake on area of plates and the max mast size.

[color:"red"]
BUT, please consider this:

"Are the current crop of F18's (Capricorn, Illusion and the newer Tigers) faster boats than the old boats with old rigs ?"

I say yes, the reasons I say yes are :

Development of the class as a whole, construction and mast shapes and the like, mainsail shapes, VLM and plates.

so, should the handicap's of either the F18, or all other boats, be adjusted in the light of the fact that the F18's have got faster?

I again believe yes.

SCHRS and Texel were created to allow new designs to be given a rating "out of the box" and perhaps the rating parms need changing

[/color]

Discuss.

I wonder if all the Spitfire's are now shaking in their boots after Wouter's update on their SCHRS rating review. So if people know that this boats is slow in SCHRS and fast on the water do they buy the boat for the easy win? Or do they race as a one design fleet?

Wouter how does Texel look at the Spitfire?

Looks like a lot of classes under SCHRS need adjustment's

They prefer OD racing as far as I can tell.

We must allow ourselfs to overstate a 2 points difference under SCHRS (or Texel); is not a major difference. About 1 min 12 sec per hour. Now this may sound like alot but people often forget how quick time passes on the water.


Spitfire under Texel is about the same : 104 (spitfire) to 101 (F18)

Both system use very similar input values; I haven't investigates this in detail (as Texel is hiding their unrounded handicap numbers now) but it can be that Spitfire is again just on the right side of the rounding off boundery.

Wouter

Scooby,

I would like to state first that I feel we are on the same track in most aspects relating handicap systems. My current discussion with you is mostly to get the details right as well. No disrespect intended.




I'm sorry to say but you were making more mistakes then that. And you are missing the way in which the F18 rules are indeed fixing the schrs/texel handicap numbers. In addition the Texel handicap number for F18 has come down over the years and you don't give that credit.





There are two arguments to be had here. First f18 class has become faster over time relative to old OD classes. While this is more limited then people often think; it is definately truthful. SCHRS didn't not change over time. Texel however had F18 transition from 104 in 2000 to 101 in 2006 while keeping the old OD classes at the same ratings. Same applies to other modern boats like F20. By the way 3 points rating difference is 1 min 48 second increase of performance per hour. Nearly two minutes. I think this to be rather accurate.

Now people will also understand why I prefer Texel over SCHRS. Texel is just alot more responsive to changing conditions in the catamaran racing scene and stays on top of things.

The other way, is that newer F18 are supposedly faster then the older F18 designs. This is a difficult argument as it is not as straight forward as it might seem. Grab and old dart hawk and slap an updated rig on it and you'll have a competitive F18 again. So yes while it is true that the hart hawk design of 1995 (with rig current for that day) WILL not be competitive in the more serious F18 racing this doesn't mean that an updated version with new sails etc won't be competitive again. Naturally it is very difficult for a rating system (either Yardstick or measurement based) to discriminate in this latter example. It will simply be undoable. Therefor both systems require the crews to keep their boats in excellent condition if the rating is to be fair. No rating will be fair to any beat up blown out boat.





I don't think this to be advantagious and really don't expect this to happen. Why because the measured specs of say the Inter-18 are really not much different at all from those of the Capricorn F18. The used rating formula can not discriminate between the two and I really don't believe that an inter-18 with a new and modern set of sails is that much slower in reality anyway. Alot of the F18 development is to be found in components can be put on any older design. If so desired the complete Capricorn rig can be put on a inter-18, same with the rudders and selftacking rig. Who is going to check that a boat that started life as an Inter-18 is still an inter-18 after several years of F18 racing (modifications) ? If its an F18 then it is an F18. The nacra inter-18 class OD simply does not exist. At least not in the way that I actively controls the modifications to the design.





You can state this another 100 times Scooby but that still doesn't make it true.

Now lets turn this thing around. You tell me what you preceive as the measurements of a rating beating F18 and I will first check whether it is F18 class rules compliant, then whether it is at all practical and then most likely show you that the SCHRS is within 1% of 1.01. 1% is the official uncertainty margin because of the numbers being rounded off.

Give it a shot Scooby and show us.





Okay lets look at this in detail :

For the full F18 class rules go here : http://www.f18.nl/index.html?Frame_Technical.html&Frame_ClassRulesF18.html

B.2.1.2. The maximum distance between the top of the forward crossbeam and the bottom of the upper measurement band of the mainsail shall be 9100 mm. See diagram B.2.1.2.


I wrote 9150 mm earlier but the correct number is 9100 mm. So the mast is limited in length unlike the A-cats.

This also severely limits the mainsail luff length as a low boom is a serious impediment to the crew, especially under spinnaker sailing. This means that on average the mainsail luff length of an F18 is 8.5 mtr. Designs with less will never be rated faster when using their correct amount so we'll ignore those boats for now. The maximum practical luff length on an F18 is 8.7 mtr. And that is absolute maximum as only 40 mm clearance under the boom is really too little. You can't get across on your hands and knees then you'll have to tiger crawl underneath it. Do that with a spi sheet in your hand.

So lets now see what kind of difference going from the average 8.5 mtr to 8.7 mtr makes.

8.5 mtr. SCHRS rating (unrounded) = 1.006191
8.7 mtr. SCHRS rating (unrounded) = 1.002552

a difference of 0.003639 = 13 second/hour racing. = 1/3% = way less then 1 %

This difference is negligible. it is also well in the order of the noise that is enclosed in the rating formula, meaning that we can't say whether this difference is the result of the longer luff or the error made when the rating formula was derived.

So you see while the F18 rules indeed don't actively rule upon the mainsail luff length (as the F16 class rules do), the other rules and what is practical in real life do very much limit all F18's to as good as the same luff length.

From an engineering point of view I can tell you that those 200 mm extra luff length so low on teh mast are really not efficient in any way. Their is far to much turbulance due to the hulls and trampoline that low and the windspeed itself is much lower there then compared to 2 mtr to 9 mtr up.




Agreed. This is why I prefer Texel. Getting things done with SCHRS is a serious pain in the neck. Texel is much easier to talk to and much more accomodating.





Yes and Texel corrected for this by having the ratings go from 104 to 101 over the last 6 years. SCHRS did nothing.




Most of these changes can be put on older F18 designs as well, making them alot more competitive again. Only exceptions are hulls and daggerboards. Rudders, sails, mast etc are all exchangable.




Class rating as a whole, YES. Individual F18 ratings, NO


Wouter

Good, that is what I hope SCHRS will do. Excellent.

That is what I am trying to get to. The F18 has got faster, so the handicap needs to change. Simple as that.

If the SCHRS rule needs to change what it measures, so be it. If the rule needs to be re-worked so be it.

Which countries use PY, SCHRS and Texel? Is Europe more measurement based over the Australians and Americans using PY systems?

Has SCHRS updated the numbers or the French went ahead and did their own changes? SCHRS web site is still showing 2004 numbers.

http://www.ffvoile.net/ffv/public/voile_legere1/cata/ratings.pdf

Some info here:-

http://p105.ezboard.com/faclasscatamaranforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=78.topic

Hee hee hee....

Bet theyare in for a shock when they find out that a Flyer rates at somewhere around .98 ! They are talking about their rating being too hard !

I think that the whole reason that A Class people have brought this subject up again recently on this, and other forums, is because they cannot race competitively on SCHRS. They feel that if they were seen to win open events, then more people would buy As and the Class would grow. They have been asking for a better rating for a long time now.

Use the Texel rating system. More fair and far more easy to contact the Texel committee. I have to deal with ISAF and SCHRS but I'm not enjoying it any way. I much rather deal with Texel system. SCHRS is just a pain in the neck. I've been trying to get the F16 rating adjusted for a year now as we have a slightly larger mainsail since spring 2005. But without any succes.

F16 rating under SCHRS should be 1 point faster then it is now.

With respect to the A-cats sailors. They of all people should be pushing for using Texel. They are most benefitted by that; ESPECIALLY with the new 2006 Texel version which rates the A-cat equal to the F18's. This rating is the most fair rating I have ever seen for the A-cats, even if it may not be perfect yet.

I really don't understand much why people are still clinging to the SCHRS rating.





Personally I have my doubts. In teh past the A-cat had such a technology advantage that you could jump on one and have a very good shot at getting a win. The old OD classes were notorious for sub optimal design features. Then the Formula classes came along and quickly closed the technology gab that allowed the A-cats to rule in the past. By now the Formula boats at nearly as advanced as the A-cats in design, in some aspects even more advanced. In addition the A-cat is not an easy boat to sail well. And you need to sail it to its full potential to stand a chance of winning in todays high competitive formula fleets. We must be careful not to underestimate the level of skill in current day F18 class. Alot of A-cat sailors aren't as committed to racing their boats as the F18 crews. It is true.

The A-cat has losts its edge and no rating adjustment can bring back the old (happy) times. This is no accusation just an observation, the A-cast has yet to find an answer to the spinnaker on the formula boats as better upwind VMG is simply not sufficient anymore.




And Texel has been given them these since early 2005.

Wouter

Well done! Once again Dermot you manage to put your Dealer foot in it.
Rob

Has anybody heard any word back from SCHRS on this subject?

Ha, ha, Good joke !

Like that one !

Wouter

Do they really have their heads that deep in the sand?

Yes, that is my experience. I've been trying to get them to adjust the F16 rating for over a year now, because we had a small rule change making us FASTER. So the change is to our disadvantage and still no response. Tried several different ways.

Texel = one e-mail and the rating was adjusted within the month with a "thank you for the update" reply.

Wouter

Just seeing if anybody got any news on the SCHRS new mods? if any! plus is the French SCHRS numbers real?

Nothing happened, I'm giving up.

Texel all the way for me.

Wouter

Things are happening with SCHRS and there should be some news soon.

I cannot say any more at the moment, but things are happening in the bakcground.

I'd say it will be the end of the year by the time the new formula get passed and on to the web site. SCHRS has a history of being a bit slow in getting updates to the people. Like Wouter I've given up on them.

But saying that there are boats out there that dont want SCHRS updated because their rating will go down and they will have to race a bit harder to get that win. Wouter talked about one of these boats and the reason why it has such a great rating.

Hi Mark,
Just for the heck of it, I took some results and used Texel and USSA Portsmouth Yardstick. As I expected, there were no position changes. Maybe in tighter racing there would be. (??) What I do like about Texel is more configurations (like my Fx-1, two-up with jib, no spinnaker...)

Steve
Hobie FX-1
Sail #211