Thread: Anything Not Covered?

Post what you want

Rick

Bill Roberts gave me this info awhile back and I am curious about what you might think.



I want to try to tie in exact crew weight with Portsmouth. I will use my boat for demonstration.



Overturning moment divided by restoring moment does this I think. Overturning moment is related to sail area times 40% of mast height. Restoring moment is related to TOTAL sailing weight times 1/2 of the boat width. So here goes:



ARC22



O.T Moment = 360[sail area] x 40% x 38.5 [Mast Height]= 5544

Rest. Mom. = [467 boat wt + 400 crew wt] 867lbs x 6' = 5202

OT Mom/Rest Mom = 1.065



Next multiply ARC22 Portsmouth Rating [58.5] times the OTmom/RestMom 1.065 you get 62.34.



This factor/rating takes into many factors: exact crew weight, boat specs as a base factor for both sides of the equation, and demonstrated boat performance from MHC.



fair winds



thom

I don't believe that NAMSA should have anything to do with certifying/approving/promoting any new or existing classes or formulas. They should take care of themselves.

I don't believe NAMSA should have anything to do with any new form of handicap rating system. We already have Portsmouth, Texel, etc, to choose from.

NAMSA should be about promoting sailors, sailing and sailing events.

HI Sam,

We do want those organizations to join NAMSA as Association Members and offer the same to them as we do any other Association that belongs, i.e., CRAM, CRAW, NAHCA, et al.

And I certainly agree about the rating systems. However, where NAMSA can do some good is to make strong suggestions about ratings when they seem a bit insane. For example, at this point a few people make decisions on modifications that perhaps handle a situation they know about, but does not best serve the multihull world in general. For example, for a boat that is normally with one person, sailed by two once had a modification. Now, it is based on a percentage of the minimum crew weight. However, most classes do NOT have minimum crew weights, so what are they to do. And the same weight problem works in reverse.

Still another thing is having a spinnaker rating and then another for distance races -- just makes no sense.

That is why for our Key Largo Steeplechase we simply do not acknowledge those esoterically-designed mods.

In other words, we don't want NAMSA to handle ratings, but we do want to offer input to those working with them.

Thanks for you postings. Very good!

I agree with you.

I was trying say that NAMSA should not have have anything to do with the governing of any class.

Or certifying boats as class or formula compliant.

We should promote multihull sailing in gerneral without taking sides. EX: No pro or anti Hobie, no pro or anti Formula.

Yes, I think NAMSA should function as an advocate for issues that affect multis. NAMSA would be a "big voice" at the table. As you said, to speak out about discrepancies or failures in our sport. And to speak out FOR issues that need our support.

While NAHCA has stubbed its' toe many times, and certainly isn't perfect, I believe we should model much of NAMSA like it, except be for all multis.

The greatest success of NAHCA has been the "Hobie Rules" whereby a person attending a Hobie Points Regatta anywhere in the US would know what to expect.

I believe that a system of "NAMSA Certified" regattas would help the regatta organizers and sailors alike.

Perhaps evolving into a NAMSA Points Championships.

This should be structured such that NAMSA Certified and Hobie Points can co-exist within a regatta.

Rick,



The first line where we name the organization specifies: North American Multihull Class Association, Inc. But the Acronym is NAMSA. Should this be North American Multihull Sailing Association instead? I know it's a tiny point but it could be cause for some confusion in the future.

Sam-

I agree with you NAMSA should essentially divest itself of handicaps IF we want to cont. w/ PN. However, I DO think NAMSA could go far towards improving handicap racing by:

1) Resurrecting the old "Monterrey Multihull Classic" type regatta where the manufacturers/classes get to provide ONE boat each and then everybody races (Could break down into relatively comparable groups if desired). For new boats this could be very valuable for setting handicap numbers and for "evolving" classes it could help "adjust" the numbers as well as serve as a "check" for the current numbers.

2) Presuming NAMSA will be conducting/supervising handicap regattas it can repeatedly "measure" the performance of many boats and/or crews and provide this information in a standard format for handicapping assessment.

3) Again, assuming it is involved with regattas, it stands to reason that a particular handicap "system" (PN, Texel, ISAF, etc.) will be "endorsed" by NAMSA and NAMSA can standardize boat/crew "configurations" hopefully minimizing boat variability for the sake of comparison (like NAHCA rules for Hobies are more "strict" than for "open" regattas so one never knows if one is racing a H 16 that is Hobie class "legal" or PN "optimized").

What do you think?



Kirt

Sam-

I agree with you NAMSA should essentially divest itself of handicaps IF we want to cont. w/ PN. However, I DO think NAMSA could go far towards improving handicap racing by:

*NO, NO, NO. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. NAMSA should have nothing, zero, nada, nix, zip, to do with endorsing, recommending, administering or enforcing ANY handicap system. They all have existing organizations to administer them and it is the resposibility of regatta organizers to use them correctly.

1) Resurrecting the old "Monterrey Multihull Classic" type regatta where the manufacturers/classes get to provide ONE boat each and then everybody races (Could break down into relatively comparable groups if desired). For new boats this could be very valuable for setting handicap numbers and for "evolving" classes it could help "adjust" the numbers as well as serve as a "check" for the current numbers

*No it wouldn't. Factories would bring "hired guns" and classes would bring whoever. Hardly a fair comparison. The Portsmouth works because it is based upon numbers from many races with many different kinds of racers.

Sam



Usually we agree but, on this issue I guess we have a difference of opinion. Actually, Namsa should endorse a handicap system. Preferrably Texel, since portsmouth is flawed and we all agree on that. Texel is a good default. I agree that it has a few problems and I agree that USSA is doing a great job of updating the PS formula. But, answer me this. WHat happens when the USSA volunteer passes on? She has luckily (for us) picked up where her husband was before he past away. If we as sailors want a growing sport than NEW blood needs to get infused. Texel is a computer based mathematical system that the rest of the world uses. We can adopt it (either officially or unofficially) and help the rest of the US come over to this system. NAMSA could sponsor software to be written to convert PS to texel and vice versa for the monohull regattas that want to host multi's.



Remember that our best hope is to gather support inside multihull sailors and then convert monohullers in order to grow sailing itself. We need to combine infrastructures to do so. Additionally, we need to force USSA to get its act together and run like a business instead of an elitest boys club (my words -- not anyone else's -- so if I need to fall on my sword in the future I will).



Steve

Answer ME this, will USSA disband when Darline quits? I don't think so. Did you forget that ALL USSA dinghy sailing is done using Portsmouth? USSA will find someone else, maybe not as good.

If USSA decides to switch to Texel then we can follow THEIR lead.

Newbies don't know the diference between PN and Texel. How would that attract anyone?

Switching from PN to Texel could only have a negative effect on multi sailing. It would only isolate us more from the mono sailors we are hoping to attract.

"Help the US come over to this system" I can't think of a better way to alienate a group of sailors than to tell them they are doing it the wrong way but WE know the right way.

We have a hard enough time getting invited to regattas and you want us to tell the PRO to use a different HC system.

Your proposal is antithetical to the concept of working within USSA to grow sailing.

We will not force USSA to do anything. Multihull sailors are a pimple on the butt of USSA and they proved it when they downgraded the Alter Cup and us to a Council.

Using different HC systems or different starting sequences or anything else unusual will only reinforce their image of us as "weird" multihull sailors.

Sam



Let's look at this another way. Money talks. period. USSA's annual budget is about 4 million dollars. In the scheme of things (corporate) not a very big beast. Multihull sailing is the most dynamic of all the sailing sports (including windsurfing).



If you formulate a mathematical system that makes sense to numbers guys then it gets around to making sense to the average guy. What will happen when Darlene passes? God forbid its anytime soon (she's a great and gracious person) but, is their anyone to pick up the slack? Not really. THe point that your really not getting here Sam is the WE ARE USSA! Do you want to do PS when darlene can't anymore? No, I didn't think so. You all (general statement) treat USSA as "them". We'll its not -- its US. Part of the reason that the rest of USSA runs rough shot over MHC is because we are not active and vocal. PS is around because we do not bring something else forward and insist on its use.



If we:

A. form NAMSA and ratify the use of Texel

B. Provide software to score texel to the PRO's (as shareware) -- most all scoring is done on computer now anyway.

C. Clearly define what "we" namsa sailors want and then support the YC's for doing it (IE joining and paying dues and fees like other sailors)

D. Then we are all sailors and have equal standing.



There are a few of us trying to make big things happen. Solidarity helps. Debate helps. US and them mentality is fractional -- and that is the problem across the board.



Steve

Steve,



While I see your point, I side with Sam. I admit that I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Texel rating system to determine which system is better - but I do believe that it would be tougher for us as "multihullers" to gain greater acceptance in the sailing ranks in the USSA if we branch off into a different handicap system. It's tough enough getting the monohull world to open some events to multihulls. Expecting them to open up to us AND revamp their software AND learn a new rating system isn't going to help us achieve greater strength within their organization.

Ummm...



while the argument about ratings systems may have merit... it's kinda putting the cart before the horse.



I'm thinking that our immediate problem is getting NAMSA off the ground. We need to get membership, officers, communication lines, stuff like that set up.



I mean, we need a base of action before we can take action, right?



sea ya next year (off to OS)

happy new year

tami

Ok, I do hear your thoughts, views, and insights. Additionally I respect them and feel this debate is healthy. Now that the pleasantries are out of the way (joking!).



I guess the point I am trying to make is this. There is nothing in the charter of USSA or the by laws of USSA. That prohibits a class association or affiliation from marketing itself. Basically, there is nothing that USSA can do if we (NAMSA) operate more like a corporate structure ( as in CART, IRL, NASCAR -- all of these I believe fall under the structure of scca(I think thats the correct one). All of this comes back to one point ---- MONEY. If Namsa has a strong structure then sponsors can be pulled to fund work that NAMSA sees that needs to be done. Once the dollars begin to flow then USSA and YC's have to take notice due to thier need for money (ours, yours, everyones)



Basically, NAMSA sets up the rules, governs the quality of the product, and then acts as a voice for the product (us) to USSA. Sailing has never marketed itself. Its been used by marketers but without any focus or direction the image of sailing is diluted and vague. Basically, if you tell anyone your a sailor they think you sail a 1920's vintage J boat, drink martini's at the YC and are an aristocratic butt. Thats the image that sailing has. Now reality is that most of us are poor miserable hacks who just want to leave the work week behind, get the wind in our hair(if we have any left), and maybe have a beer or two(or more if its been a bad week). Thats the image here in the states.



In Australia sailings image is much different and it is viewed as a powerful, athletic sport. WHY????? Marketing and direction. Direction needs structure. Structure needs support both financial and personal. NAMSA does not need to come to the table with its hat in its hand. (I have seen deals fall apart because weakness kills). If you come to the table with a good product, thumping your chest then people want to be with you.



Namsa needs to direct sailing. Not only be an advocate for sailors rights --- god that sounds clintonian. If Namsa comes to the table with directions then YC's can follow them instead of just guessing what we want which is what I hear from most YC PRO's. YC's are hungry for new blood (money), membership in most areas is falling and active membership is falling faster. Most YC's are just marinas in most of the country anymore with the old timers saying the same things we hear at our regattas. We need to adopt a rating system, bring forth the software (free to the pro's) and say this is what we want and this is what we are prepared to give in order to get it.



Steve

****. Even In europe there is the ISAF rating system, Texel. The Australians use the Victoria Rating scheme. This is a performance based rating system similar to portsmouth. Matt Mayfield indicated that the groupe he races with in Italy uses a different system entirely. The arguement that "the whole world uses Texel is bunk"

regardless of what rating system you use comparing aquacats and hobie waves to RC-30s and inter 20's isn't going to work. IF you can race similar types of boats ie 20 ft spinnaker boats it will be reasonably fair under both systems. I think however that windspeed corrections are worthwile.



Have a happy day. I am going Iceboating tomorrow Yipee!

eric

I agree Tami.

I am not arguing for Portsmouth. I don't really care which system we use as long as it is the system used by everyone else !

I am arguing for stepping on as few toes as possible until we have NAMSA on its feet.

We need to focus on things we CAN accomplish.

I also agree with Sam I really don't care what system we use. Just endorse one and then politic to have it run the way we want. If NAMSA supports X rating system then it needs to be prepared to support it at the YC level.



Sam, there are alot of things that WE can accomplish if we try. The best way to make a stew is for everyone to bring what they can to the kitchen. Then lets decide what we want to make versus setting closed focus agendas based on what someone else has done in the past. (ie hobie, pc, or other sailing classes). Namsa needs to be different, it needs to be a governing body, an advocate, proactive, market focused, basically run like a business. We need to agree on what we can do, are willing to do, or want to do individually. Then figure out what the "assoc" can or must do.



I propose a conference call with all persons interested in helping out. Hell, I'll even pay for it.



Steve

i am sorry Steve, but despite the fact that you say you agree with me, you don't.

I don't understand why, with all of the important issues we have, you insist on monkeying with the HC systems. The formulas used by PN are standard mathematical norming equations that must work across all makes of boats.

Let me repeat! NAMSA should be HANDS-OFF the HC systems.



Who said we were making stew?

Who wants stew?

Stew is what you get when no one is willing to make a decision.



If something has worked in the past, we should use it.



NAMSA CAN'T be that different. We are the same people, on the same boats, going to the same races. We are just trying to improve what we have been doing.



I will not be a party to any private conspiracy to control NAMSA. I expect every discussion to be held in public, so that there won't be any surprises like the infamous "Hobie-centric memo".



As I suggested, Rick has started several different threads so that we may discuss the different portions of NAMSA and arrive at decisions.

If you have specific proposals about specific issues, then make them in an appropriate thread.

If you have a new issue which you wish to propose, then start a thread.

Get specific IE: committees? task forces? etc.



All NAMSA issues should be openly discussed, first individually till a consensus is reached, then as a whole to be sure they work together. None of this "throw it on the wall and see what sticks" garbage. The time for broad statements and "hand-waving" is over.

You want "Professional"? I have helped write contract documents six inches thick and that is how we do it.

Like Tami said, the time for this is not here yet. We have more important matters at hand - like getting a working constitution and officials in place. Propose that you guys agree to disagree for now. We don't even have an organization yet with which to decide if we want to play with HC numbers or not. I'm sure everyone has a strong opinion on this subject (I do too) but trust that the right thing will be done when the time comes. The important thing now is that everyone reviews the recent drafts presented by Tami and MajSteve - we could really use some input.

I've been the scorer for my club for a few years now and I have a unique understanding of PN numbers. They are a better system than Texel because of the Wind correction factors. I have been amazed at how well PN works. When PN numbers don't work no system would work other. PN doesn't work in extremely light races and races that change into reaching races. PN does not work very well for distance races normally.



However I've looked at Texel and it doesn't work when the wind is light or the wind is heavy. I think it might work when the wind is 10-12 and that's about it.



The entire US uses the PN system. That is a great statement for it's worth. Many clubs would not use it if it was seen as a flawed system. We need to support the US sailing PN system or try to get US sailing to change the system if needed.



The fact that we are united in the US under the PN system is really nice when we travel to regattas and can trust that the system will be the PN system and we will be scored fairly.



Mike Hill

H20 #791

You are exactly right about the standardization issue. If people can expect the same systems and procedures at all multi regattas, then they are more likely to travel to ones they have never been to before. That is what made the "Hobie Way of Life" so successful.

NAMSA can serve the same purpose for ALL multis.



P.S.

I still don't understand why so many mono regattas use homemade course designations when the official USSail system is numbers, like ours. It is a royal pain in the butt to attend one of these and have to memorize some bizarre system.

Sam



I agree with you about the USSA sail system or really the lack of use of it. Maybe we can by affiliation (Namsa, USSA, ISAF, other classes (both mono and multi)). Help these clubs adopt the standardized system.



However, there are alot of places where the water depth is questionable and they run around channel markers instead of courses due to that limitation. Its a deep keel thing.



Steve

I wasn't talking about using channel markers, that I understand.

I am talking about triangular courses

I have been to old Yacht clubs which use things like "O" for Olympic course, "MO" for Modified Olympic course, and even one which uses multiple verticle letters, "W""L""W""L" for windward-leeward-windward-leeward, "W""R""L" for windward-reaching-leeward.

Sam,



That is also in part what I was talking about. Sorry for not being clear in my last post. After getting throught the days work. Email and posts are not always the best way to convey ones thoughts.



Steve