Rating confusion

I think I may have asked this before but I can't find it; apologies if so.

The ISAF SCHRS ratings for F16 and F16 cat rigged are 1.02 and 0.98; I thought the idea was that they were the same(*) and presumably this is what you find in 'real life' (same-ish)...? If so, which is the more realistic when racing single-handed against other boats; 1.02 or 0.98... The reason I ask is we're updating our ratings file and have a single handed F16. He will be racing against F18, Tornado and A and we are all of similar ability. I have a feeling that 0.98 (in fact 0.99 - it's an R with a F16 main) is not going to go down too well :-) anybody got any feelings about it...?

www.schrs.com


(*) I realise they can't be the same under all rating systems - but this seems a big difference...

I get the impression that single handers in general get hit pretty hard by the SCHRS. That's probably particularly true of boats with spinnakers where any boatspeed advantage over a an equivalent double hander will offset by hoists/drops being slower.

The Stealth R was easy - at least from a handicap point of view. The rating was 1.03 either way. That obviously isn't the case now that the main is bigger and the jib smaller in the F16 evolution. If you're adjusting the handicap to give this guy a "fair" handicap (which is what it's all about after all) then I'd go for 1.01 and see how he does, adjusting it if it looks wrong once you see some results.

Having now sailed a direct comparison on a single handed to twin handed, they are identical in performance over quite a wide range of winds, to throw a little confusion in, the Hobie FX1 also is identical as was proved at the Datchet meet where the FX1's were just part of the fleet winning and losing like everyone else.

The idea is indeed to have both modes having very comparable performance, however not all rating system are very accurate in rating this. SCHRS is one of the bigger examples in this.

It is my personal experience that both the 1-up and 2-up versions are very equal in perfromance and also very comparable to the doublehanded F18's. I've raced both setups keep often against F18's. I think ISAF/schrs is just off the scale. Of course when we had to choose between equality under some rating system or equality in real life then we decided that real life equality was the more important one. And so we went with that.






Actually, we have also slightly increased our sailarea this spring time and that has put of just over the threshold of rounding off to 1.01. I've tried to contact the SCHRS officials but none of the e-mails are working and it is impossible to contact them. So to be really fair, the correct rating for both F16's based on real life experience and more accurate physical models is equal to F18. Often the rating between F18 and Tornado's is pretty fair as well so....

So to answer your question, 1.02 will be fine.

I also believe that SCHRS rates the A-cat unfairly. Pretty much that boat should race of a handicap very close to F18 as well.


wouter

SCHRS uses a measurement rule to provide a handicap.

All boats that are not one design in terms of hull shape and sail area/shape should all carry their SCHRS on their rating / class measurement cert.

Some examples where this is particularly important are development/box rule classes like the A class, F18 and F16 where the old boats that were measured ages ago (old A classes, maybe the Dart Hawk for the F18 and I've no idea what was measured for the F16).

The main problem with all measurement rules when trying to handicap "Box rule" boats is when the Box rule does not control (and measure) all the things that the handicap rule measures and uses to calculate the handicap. As this happens the F18 (for example) these boats have got faster and there are some in the UK that think that if (say) a Capricorn was measured under SCHRS the handicap it would produce would be lower than the current 101. Some think as low as 98 !

The A class has developed in a similar way.


Now to answer sailwave. SCHRS currently rates the F18 at 1.01, the F16 at 0.98 single handed and 1.02 2 up - as wouter says, this might (should / will?) change with the sail area change.

I also agree with wouter that SCHRS does hit single handed cats with kites a little hard. As for contacts, you could try getting hold of Richard Allen via the Tornado UK site http://www.tornadouk.com/

F16 was never measured. We were given our handicap rating based on the maximum dimensions as given in the class rules.


Wouter

So the F16 does not actually have a Pukka SCHRS then.

Best get a Blade measured pronto then.....

No, it is all official. SCHRS committee agreed to it just as they did with regard to the F18 handicap and others.

Nothing hanky-panky about it

Wouter

Thanks everybody for the the replies.

When you say 1-up and 2-up what do you mean?

2up = main, jib, spin
1up = main

or

2up = main, jib, spin
1up = main, spin
?

Matt

Definiton of 1-up is main and spin. The ability to switch bewtten 1-up and 2-up by simply removing the jib was my biggest draw to the class. It'll be nice to still be F16 legal with either sail plan. This flexibility will allow me to include my children, when covenient/practical/safe.

Notice all "future tense", so I have no real-world experience as to whether 1-up is competetive with 2-up - but I hope it is. Both platforms/rigs have their pro's and con's.

I did see in one of Wouter's past posts on F16 crew weights where a 1-up T4.9 F16 won the Austrailian F16 Champs a year or so ago(not sure how many years ago, but it cannot be many as there has not been that many championships).

Actually ; 1-up means sailing solo as in only 1 person on board. 2-up means sailing doublehanded (2 persons on boards or even more)

Pretty much this means, when looking at the F16 class rules that 1-up = main + spi and 2-up = main, jib, spi.

However ! I must be said that the F16 rules allow any crew to sail "with less" then allowed under the rules. So if you want then you can sail F16 1-up with only a mainsail. You won't be very competitive in most conditions, but that is only your disadvantage, not one of the other crews who are using all that is allowed.

But when I talk about 1-up or 2-up in these F16 forum post I'm actually refering to the setups that are fully maxed out under the F16 rules and that means

1-up = solo with main and spi.
2-up = doublehanded with main, jib and spi.

Wouter

I figured 1-up had to be with a spin to be anywhere close to as fast as 2-up in most conditions.



Are you saying in 1up could you use a jib?

Thank you for the replies,

Matt

Not when you are sailing according to F16 rules, these forbid the use of a jib when sailing 1-up.

In general however (other classes etc) 1-up only refers to singlehanding a boat; it doesn't say anything about the rig used. But the F16 rules do something about the rig that can be used.

When I'm using the identifier 1-up on the F16 forums then I'm actually refering to the F16 definition of 1-up and that is without a jib

Hope this clarifies things

Matt,
one up = Solo = main(optional) + kite (optional) However no jib allowed.
two up = skipper + crew = main (optional) + jib (optional) + Kite (optional)

Yep.



No - 1up = main + spi only

That said, having the option of putting the jib on when singlehandling can help liven up otherwise dull conditions. Of course, you can't race as F16 like that.

Paul

As you can see, every class chooses a set of definitions.
This makes life hell for the scorekeeper because he usually won't know what the difference is between 1 up on a Dart 18 (Main only) and one up on a F16 (Main and Spin) using the language "1 up"

So, please spell it out for the handicapper and point out when your configuration differs from the published configuration.

US Sailing trys to help out by listing seperately the popular configurations of a boat and that has it's plusses and minuses but that's another argument.

Mark

At my sailing club, we have a unique ID for each boat that sails (in mutiple config).

So Inter 17 without a kite is "I17"
Inter 17 with the kite is "I17SPI"
Spitfire is spitfire
Someone sometimes sails the Spitfire single handed (with and without kite) and I think he is id's as SpitfireS and SptifireSSpi

We have one F16 that so far is only sailing 2 up (with all 3 sails) so that is as a F16; I assume he will sometimes sail single handed with the Spi and so it will be F16SSpi !

You then have a one-to-one relationship between boat identifier and rating.

Hi Scooby

Yes, I set up the Sailwave ratings databse the exact same way. Each configuration gets a database entry. The trick is ... How do you get all scorekeepers on the same page?

In CRAC and at Sandy Hook, we use the USPN weight adjustments for teams sailing more then 10% under or over a predetermined weight. I have a seperate rating for those as well. EG Hobie16H1 (See Phillip Khan's op ed on Olympic boats which span the weight range)

Mark

The Dart 18 is a good example of class rule abuse in Portsmouth. If you sail solo sloop-rigged on a Dart 18 you can claim uni-rig and then add the jib modifier. This gives you a DPN exactly the same as the sloop 2-up! Everyone else must take a basic sloop 2-up and takes the light weight hit for solo (L4 = 0.97). The difference? The sloop Dart loses nothing when sailed solo when all other solo sloops give up 2.5 min/hr. And the Dart guys say it's fair because that's the Dart rules.

Sucks... I can hear the OD guys laughing right now.

Mark,

Every crew that races as an F16 must race of the F18 handicap. No corrector calculations or use of modifiers. 1-up sailors can't use the jib. That is the F16 class as per class rules.

We can't make it much simpler then that.

The fact that US sailing maintains two rating numbers and allows the use of modifiers, or even allows solo sailors to use a jib, is not my/our problem.

The rest of the world is racing of the F18 handicap bur for some reason not the US sailors.

If a crew wishes to sail without a spi then that is just a disadvantage to that crew as he will STILL race of the F18 handicap. That is the way I'm required the race at my own club as well. I can sail without a spi but the club race committee will NOT give me any compensation. I'm sailing an F16 and an F16 races of the F18 handicap is first-in-wins. I'm actually quite content with that.

If any US sailor is giving you a hard time Mark then send him over to me. I'll show him some Australia, European and even Asia race results and show him how the rest of the world is sailing these F16 boats and doing very well.

Wouter

Then the Portsmouth you are using is flawed...

Why, well in a number of ways:

1, When sailing using your Portsmouth it is based on a "returns" system, where by the numbers are derived from the actual results on the water irrespective of how fast the boat actually is, or how good (or bad) the sailor(s) are.
2, You are then applying a constant adjustment to a "returns based" system to factor in extra sail(s) being carried.

So form experience of sailing the Dart 18 single handed and 2 up, the single handed boat (mainsail only) is similar performance to a 2 up boat (2 sails) up to about F4, after that the 2 up boats just sail away never to be seen again. The reason? the grunt really does matter as the rig is so simple (too simple) as you cannot easily depower and as per most single handing, at some point you just run out of hands...

Also, and this is the VERY important bit got you. A Dart 18 sailed by one person with the jib is not a Dart 18. Unless the class rules have been changed (and I doubt it) they said "a Dart 18 may be sailed by one person with mainsail only, or by 2 persons with the mainsail and Jib, (and I think there was provision for a 2 up boat to sail with only the mainsail if they required)).

So someone who claims that a Dart 18 sailed single handed with 2 sails is a Dart 18 (with a factor applied), is wrong. It is an 18 foot boat that looks exactly like a Dart 18, but is not being sailed as per the class rules and so is not a Dart 18 and so they cannot just claim the rating change to the "Dart 18 rating".

I would also think that the Dart 18 over there may have a nice rating, I could never win anything in my Dart 18 when it was windy, but then I was light at about 66kg then. For info, the Dart 18 main and jib 2 up has a SCHRS of 118 and the single handed version (main only) has an SCHRS of 119.

Simple as.

You guys are being had....

I never said it was the class problem... In the US... people like to "do their own thing" and the system allows this.. You just have to tell the handicapper.

The US Rating is soft because they don't have a critical mass of sailors to figure the boat out.

The top sailors are on Hobie 16's and F18's and a few I20's and they don't go out and take on all challengers in open fleets. So, the rating must be based with the F16 against many dead boat society members (old sails... non existent class). It will take a long time for the rating to be accurate. It's a known limitation of the system when you have small numbers of boats coupled with a small turnout with which you can rate the boat against.

For example, in the USA, the Nacra 5.5uni started life out at a rating of 74.5... SLOWER then a Hobie 17. After a few years, it then slowly dropped so that after 6 or so years the rating landed at 70.0 or so.

Not a problem in one design but it wasn't fair to open fleets.

It will sort itself out in time when more sailors race the boat.

Mark

And there I was thinking it was all very simple... The F16 in uni and duo forms should be equal to the F18...

No dead boats no issues .. just a straight rating...

*sigh*

New ratings for F16 under ISAF/SCHR and Texel !



Well, it seems that I have gotten a contact into to the ISAF/SCHRS committee. It was via the UK Tornado fleet chairman but he assured me that he will forward my request to the right person. I have faith that in time, it is a burocracy afterall, the F16 2-up version will be corrected to 1.01 (=F18) under ISAF/SCHR. The two-up version will remain at 0.98


Texel :

Well, there is a reason why I strongly prefer the Texel system and no it is not because it is Dutch in origin. It is because they are very easy to contact, they are very open to suggestions and discussions and they are top of things when it comes down to making their ratings as fair as possible.

Just recently I was officially notified that the Texel committee has decided to introduce 2 modifications to the rule ; leading to the Texel 2006 version.

Pretty much they are correcting the inbalance that was caused by (lazy) Race committees who refused to used the 2 wind dependent rating numbers. For doublehanders this is not a problem as the two numbers are often the same or nearly the same. However the singlehanders were heavily disadvantaged by it ; Example; the A-cat was rated as 99 in light winds and 104 in strong winds. However the RC just ignored the high winds number and forced the A-cats to race of 99 in strong winds as well, which is entirely UNREALISTIC for even the best A-cats when the F18's were a at 102. We F16's suffered from the same problem as was discussed in this thread and other threads often.

The Texel committee saw this issue and they were often contacted by solo sailors who felt that such a practise was unfair to them. Texel committee looked at the problem and decided to go for a simple but very effective solution. Texel still calculates to rating numbers (light winds and high winds) for each boat BUT she average these into a single rating number. This means that :


F18 : light = 102 , high = 102 => average rating = (102+102)/2 = 102
A-cat : light 99 , high = 104 => average rating = (99+104)/2 = 101 (rounded of down)


Now the RC won't be able to screw the singlehanders over. Sure some 2-up crews will complain but that is just their problem. The singlehanders have been screwed for many more years in the past, now it is their turn to pay for the lazyness of the RC's.

However there is another chance as well. The spinnaker boats are now hit proportionally to the size of their spinnaker, instead of just a 4 point deduction. This is done by adding 15 % of the spi area to the rated sailarea of the jib and mainsail. This factor of 15 % also results in a higher hit for all spinnaker boats. Some boat get a hit of 6 points now(instead of the old 4). Other boats with relatively smaller spi's like the F16's remain at a 4 point hit or get only a 5 point hit. This means that the difference between a spi boat and the non-spi boat have been increased which is totally fair in my opinion.

So how does Texel 2006 look like :

It assigns one (averaged) rating to all designs.

Singlehanders

A-cat (no spi) = 101 ---(was 99/104)
F16 1-up (spi) = 100 ---(was 99/104)
FX-one 1-up (spi) = 105 ---(was 105/108)
Inter-17R 1-up (spi) = 102 ---(was 102/106)


Doublehanders :

F16 (spi) = 102 --- (was 102/102)
F18 (spi) = 101 --- (was 102/102)
F20 (spi) = 96 --- (was 96/97)
Tornado (spi) = 94 ---(was 94/94)

US I-20 = 95 --- (didn't have a rating under Texel 2005)
Hobie 16 = 117 --- (was 117/117)


The difference of one point under Texel 2006 between F16 and F18 is because the F16 is just rounded up and the F18 is just rounded down. In the unrounded numbers the two makes are very close together indeed, but if the rounding-off threshold runs right between these two unrounded numbers then you will see a difference in the ratings. Got a bit unlucky there. Under Texel 2005 there was only 101.97 (F18) - 102.10 (F16) = 0.13 point difference = 6 secs/hour between the two makes. Anyway, we are not going to do anything about this. I'm sure the F18 crews will be pissed, now we can just ride their tales to the finish line and win on handicap. Will put some extra pressure on the F18 crews ! Actually the same things probably happened in reserves to the 1-up F16 that has now rating = 100

But most important to us F16's is that the 1-up version and the 2-up version have gotten seriously closer to the F18 ratings and that is exactly what we are finding on the water. The difference between the 1-up F16 and the 2-up F16 has been reduced as well, and that is also good.

For us F16's the new Texel 2006 system is noticeably better overall.

Wouter

Odd maths here.

Both the above round to 102 !

if the F18 rated 101.49999 it would round to 101, if the F16 rated 102.499 it would still round to 102, if the F16 reated 102.5000001 it would riund to 103!

Scooby,

By now I know that often the first parts of the sentences don't register with you. So here is the full sentence of my post to explain the issue and solve it.

[color:"red"] Under Texel 2005 [/color] there was only 101.97 (F18) - 102.10 (F16) = 0.13 point difference


So yes, in [color:"red"] Texel 2005 [/color] both F18 and F16 ratings were rounded off to 102 !

It is under [color:"blue"] Texel 2006 [/color] that the F18 rating is just under 101.49 and the F16 rating just over 102.50 that causes the seperation between the two ratings (F18_2006 : 101 and F16_2006 : 102)


Wouter

Now you've made it clear Wouter.

A 5 point difference between a single handed F16 and the FX1 seems rather onerous when we know on the water they are pretty similar boats

The FX one has the same sail area, but is half the weight again of the F16

Which suggests the rating rule is way off (which I for one don't believe) or that the FX1 is not a good design and/or generally being sailed well.

Hi Scooby and Wouter

Any idea what the ISAF and Texel rating for the Nacra F17 (was I17R)and how does it compare to the F16's uni.\

Hopefully, the US portsmouth committe will have the data to get the boats in line with the international ratings... Always tuff with a small fleet or just individual boats spread out over a huge area.

How would texel rate the Nacra F17 boat with two size chutes for crew weights? Will it consider this an internal class adjustment much like the F18's.

In the US... the F17's have a critical mass in Michigan and a few at Sandy Hook, NJ... The rest of the racers are spread out in the country.

A great initative would be F16 one ups and the Nacra F17's to get together and go racing level up in one or two high profile events. I don't know if the Hobie FX1 will be able to hang with these two boats in a level band.

Any US F16'ers and F17's willing to take the lead on this one?

Numbers I have are asumming 147.5kg all up

17 and 19 sqm kite - 1.00
21sqm kite = 0.99

This is using the 2005 rating spreadsheet. The only way to get a 100% pukka number is for it to be issued after the boat has been measured.

The Inter-17R is present in the 2005 Texel list, guys. You will have to make the effort to look at :

www.texelrating.org

Texel_2005 (boats are with spi)

Inter 17R = 102 (light winds) ; 106 strong winds
FX-one = 105 (light winds) ; 108 strong winds
F16 = 99 (light winds) ; 104 strong winds


From the Texel_2006 listing (that is not on the Texel website yet, but soon will be)

Inter 17R = 102 (with 17 sq. mtr. spi)
Inter 17R = 101 (with 19 sq. mtr. spi)
FX-one = 105
F16 = 100

As you can see the true F16's and I-17R's (F17's) are quite close together in Texel ratings. I wouldn't mind to race any I-17R or FX-one on first across the line wins. The better crew will be first across the line. 1 point rating difference only accounts for 36 seconds per hour racing. I will feel that I would have an edge when sailing on a F16 against FX-ones. 1 or 2 points rating difference in not much at all. 10 points difference and you can just as good not race at all. 5 point difference is about halveway.

However I'm quite sure the Nacra sailors are not really interested in having a share event with us. Even though it is doubtful that the F16 crews will come out on top in such a get together. I feel the US I-17R sailors are better trained in solo sailing the US F16 sailors. I also don't think that there are enough FX-one's in the whole USA to be seriously thinking about having a FX-one/F16 get together just like the UK sailors did.

By the way, I'm speaking as a private F16 sailor here not as the Class chairman. Actually I more and more become a private person in this F16 class as I will be replaced as chairman somewhere this spring. And of course I can't commit my successor to things I haven't leveled with him.

Wouter

....or her.

No it is definately a "he". We didn't get much "her's" who volunteered for the job when we requested inquiries.

Mind you we're currently looking to fill 2 remaining slots of the international board. Seriously interested volunteers should e-mail [color:"red"] formula16class(AT)hotmail.com [/color] with their application.

Wouter

Did you request inquiries on this forum? Just asking out of curiosity, because I don't remember seeing it. If I missed that, I'm sorry, because I could have put a little notice about it in my magazine, that you are looking for class volunteers.

So what post(s) are you looking to fill?
Who's already nominated?
Is geographic location a consideration in respect of these two additional members required?
Shouldn't this be another thread?

yes,

Last september 2005 if I remember correctly (the date). Didn't make much of a publicity campaign out of it as we watned to find a really serious volunteer for the Chairman post. Afterall it is a 5 year commitment with a major impact. We can't allow the chairmanship to be left vacant often or to see it change every year or so. Line of thinking was that a volunteer needing only halve a word to apply for the jib would be noticeably more dependable and committed to completing the stretch and be active.

Wouter

I don't want to get to specific on the public forum, mostly because I feel it to be wise to have the new chairman form his own setup. But the intention is to have a fully official international board of three volunteer and have that mirrored by local boards in each area. We are currently looking to fill the remaining two international slots. I'm not counting advisory roles etc. I think we are looking, at this time, at Chairman (not vacant), secretary (vacant) and treasurer (vacant).

I will see that alot of good stuff is in the pipeline; so this new board will have alot of things to distinguise themselfs upon. My 5 year stretch was the initiation of the class and showing its viability (initial growth). The upcoming stretch (may be shorter for the non-chairman roles) is the one that will introduce measuring processes, formal class associations and the first international races.

Personally I think the upcoming bout will be great fun as it could well the run of succes without the hard slug that was the beginning. But I also believe it to be very healthy for the class that I do not fill in any of the major post. I will probably support the new setup from a technical advisory role and that will be it.





Not at liberty to say at this time. However I plan to step down this spring so we'll all know soon enough.





Not really and if so then only in the way that it is prefered that the different members come from different geographical area's. To bring balance in the international board.




Yes, but I don't want this to be a "jump-on-in-everybody" thread. We must develop this in a gentle and well thought out way.


Wouter