Congratulations?? Simon,

I think you may well have your work cut out to make up the ground lost to Texel in recent years.

It might be quite a nice addition to publish an additional rating figure per boat or officially sanctioned conversion factor to convert SCHRS to PY. There is often a debate as to the correct PY for a Cat when we come to race all-in against monos. An 'official' figure would at leat have RC and competitor singing off the same hymn sheet.

Good luck with the task ahead.

Can only second/ third the congratulations.

It will be really good to see the rule move and grow in line with the recent changes to CAT sailing. Todays boats are so different to the boats that were around at the time the rule was first proposed.

Beam and spinny pole length have always been my two little grumbling points.  

Thanks everyone.

There is not one, the reason being that PY's do not reflect the performance of the boat only (it reflects finishing position in races which by definition is impacted by crew skill) so PY factors in the performance of the sailors. 

Good example is the Shadow / Inter 17 - Both on SCHRS 107, but the Shadow is 732 and the Inter 735 on PY !  (A very small difference I know).  (This might well be the result of a couple of bad regatta's I had - 2 swims in 5 races !)

But as an unofficial guide use something lime SCHRS x 6.841 to get PY 

(I ued the Hurricane 5.9 (1.01 SCHRS vs 691 PY)

My schrs email adddress is now set up:

SimonL (at) schrs.org Please use this for any SCHRS Communications

Thanks

(just change the (at) for the @

Well, just to prove my point , if you take the Dart 18 (which has a Primary PY of 798 and a SCHRS of 1.18) you get a factor of 676.3.

If you use the other Multi with a Primary PY (Dart 15) you get 693.9 !!!

You see the problem?

If SCHRS would agree an 'official' conversion factor then there wouldn't be any arguments..... well, there'd be less

I am aware of the differences between the two systems and the inherent problem of what we are trying to do, but then we don't race in an ideal, theoretical world.....

Indeed. 

What we have done at Grafham was take schrs and get the ballpark figure, and then adjust the PY (remember this is racing Cats against 1/2 boats) and so the numbers WILL be different, however the 15/18 example does pose a problem !

Consider that 15's and 18's Both are considered under canvassed and so have (perhaps) a more radical PY than other cats as they take even more wind to "get going". 

We have (most) of the top of the Sprint 15 fleet at Grafham and the only time they have won anywhing on PY was when it was howling (and this was the same event I went for a swim twice) at the last Duke of Edenburgh club Champs. SCHRS is trying to hcap cats against cats, PY tries (and fails IMO) to handicap everything against everything.

To convert SCHRS to PY (again IMO) you need to use some sort of calculation as above adn then apply some real world conversion.  The difference may also be identified by the fact that D18's do more PY racing (and perform badly) and so have had more returns that have pushed up their PY rating....

Dart 18 SCHRS = 118, X 6.641584 (1.01 / 691) = 807.3 which is different but not by that much.

Dart 15 is even more underpowerer !

Wll said Jim.  You have encapsulated far better what I was trying to day.

Hi Simon,

It is a really tough problem. The PY numbers of the Sprint 15 and Dart 18 are in my view correct with respect to one another. By this I mean fair. With respect to monohulls catamarans such as the Sprint 15 & Dart 18 never do well in anything less than a force 4 but do well at higher wind strengths. A handicap system will never address this difference so we have to accept it. The SCHRS system is necessary to accommodate newer classes with a variety of sail plans which will never collect enough empirical data. It is a problem that the formula based SCHRS system does not give similar results for established classes with good PY numbers such as the Dart 18 and Sprint 15. It is even more of a problem when the SCHRS system comes up with different ratings within a class (such as the Sprint 15 & the Sprint 15 Sport mode and probably the Dart 18 unarig single handed mode and the Dart 18 2-up mode). For these reasons the large established classes tend to steer clear of SCHRS rated events in favour of class racing.

Any ideas to review the formulea to get the ratio of established classe (Dart 18, Sprint 15, Shearwater & Hobie 16 without spinakker) ratings more similar to the PY numbers would be beneficial in my view. What ever you do you are bound to get complaints.

Best of Luck

Bob

Bob,

What we are trying to do is bring the SCHRS rule up-to-date as much as is possible in a fairly short timescale and have it in a state to re-present to the ISAF in the Autumn.  We can only make so many changes this year.  These will be (we hope) to correct some of the bigger holes in the rule.

We are already looking at "righting moment" and including this in the rule. 

This will help both the 15 (7 foot 4 wide ?) and 18  (7 feet 6 wide), it will also help both as the hiking helmsman will be factored in too.  This should improve both numbers for the 15 and 18. 

Other factors could also be considered for the rule in the future as well.

Perhaps you could have a think about what you think the SCHRS for the 15 / 15 Sport might be and let me know (e-mail address above).

Will you be at Marconi for the ECPR, Maybe we could have a chat then.

what about the unjust treatment of single handers , John pierce with his stealths has proved that the single handed version competes with the two man version on equal terms  , see recent stealth championship and last years event , neither dominated racing when racing on equal handicap and racing was fair , yet under SCHRS the single handers would have recieved a 4% penalty and wouldn't have had a look in , this clearly demonstrates the formulas inability to rate single handers against double handers.

The dart 18 is another example , it allows both to race on equal terms and no advantage to solo version , yet schrs penalises 1% , plus has a dart 18 solo ever won a nationals , which you would expect if its SCHRS therotically faster.

you get the 4% difference above in stealths because of the kite , but how many octopus,s do you know sailing solo !

There is a problem though with boats like A class which are in such an extreme performance envelope ie extreme overpowered and rockets in light winds and not so when it rises, but other solo boats , even with kites are more all rounders.

and what about weight of helm , I see it raise its head elsewhere and get little response , it gets even worse in a solo boat where a portly helm can be nearly 50% over his rated weight , I know one !

Catmandoo, I assume your comments relate to the event a few weeks ago at Mumbles, was this not a light wind (<15kts) affair ?  -  I’d wager if the wind had been 20+ all weekend the results would have been different.  Also what was the “Skill spread” over one and 2 up boats ?

For this revision of the rule (it will be an iterative process over time), we have limited time as the proposal has the be infront of the ISAF in the Autumn (and we all have day jobs too!) and we are trying to address some of the larger problems.  We are adding a “righting moment” to the rule which WILL make things fairer as a first step.  It also takes considerable time to “test the rule”.

We’ve also had diverse comments regarding the ratings of various boats.  Most cry foul that the A class has been running on an unfair handicap for ages (every A class should turn up to events wioth an SCHRS stamped Measurement certificate).  People (a certain Dutchman for one) also claim that the F16 single handed is an A class eater (take at look at that Cat sailing forum…. ), but I also believe that single handers get a bit of a raw deal (I for one “run out of hands” when it’s windy); this should be improved by the “righting moment” component of the rule as the lower weight of a single handed boat (only one crew) will offset by the lower righting moment of only one crew trapping / hiking.

The A class also claims to be sailable / controllable / race-able in loads of wind)anyone send the pictures / film from the worlds a year or so ago in NZ?).  So who does one believe?

As I’ve said, we are working on Macro changes to the rule (Righting moment) for now and then we can look at other changes in the future.  I do not believe we can “fix” the SCHRS rule in one go.  I for one am in for the long run as I believe in SCHRS, I also believe it needs to change and that is why I stepped up and took on the Job.

Please keep the feedback flowing, but if you can also propose solutions to the problems, it will make out jobs easier.

Now back to the day job……

Simon

Yes, I'll be at the East Coast Piers Race.

Cheers

Bob

OK, Perhaps we can have a quick chat over a pint on Friday night.  I'll be there late AM / early PM.

Simon,

You'll have problems finding a rule that works across all wind strengths, light boats will do well in less wind but wider heavier boats will be powered up later but will stay powered up longer. Here's a starting point for a righting moment factor:-

Boat Weight * 1/2 beam

+ (number of crew * beam + number of trapezes *0.9) * crew weight.

The first part is the righting moment of the boat itself, we should really use the distance between the two waterlines instead of the total beam. To which we add that of the crew, if they sit in then their righting moment is beam times weight, if they have a trapeze then we say their c of g is 0.9 meters further out.

You'll then need a fiddle factor to bring the numbers back into line, F18 are the most common boats under SCHRS and they come out at 735 in the above so we could use that as a fiddle factor to give:-

735 /(WS * B/2 + (NC *B + NT*0.9) *WC)  

This will of course penalise the wide boats doubly in light winds as not only will the rating go up but they tend to under perform their handicap then as they can't unstick the windward hull.

It's only a start

Steve

Good starting point Steve , but by measuring between waterlines rather than total beam would that not encourage large rack systems as seen on skiffs etc.

You will never win

I know people poo poo the py system but a purely empirical system will always have flaws. Is it possible to put in a returns factor?

I think they would have still walked it at Grafham on 0.98! 

As for the Righting moment calc; It's something like that ! (secret for now)

I take the point about encouraging racks, my worry about using overall beam is if we assume the pivot point is the downwind board (plate, skeg) then boats with wider hulls, for example a shearwater, have a narrower effective beam. You then need to get more complex by using the waterline beam for the boats righting moment and the total beam (or distance from the downwind board to the trapeze 'artists' feet i.e. (total beam + waterline beam)/2 ) for the crews righting moment.

It's all a bit fanciful anyway as most boats are designed to be powered up in a similar wind range, with the sail area dictated by righting moment and the SCHRS already goes to great lengths to calculate sail area.

One good thing though, if boats start to get narrower because beam costs on handicap then perhaps I can forget the diet   as a couple of extra stone on the wire will come in handy.

Steve

You and me both Steve.

More sail, less righting moment might give me a chance without having to eat lettuce for the rest of my life 

Racks will be included in the calc of "beam" to get a "righting moment"

Originally posted by tornado435 Will the carbon mast penalty ever be brought back?? Taken out to keep the Nacra 20 boys happy!!

I very much doubt it. 

Originally posted by Scooby_simon Originally posted by tornado435 Will the carbon mast penalty ever be brought back?? Taken out to keep the Nacra 20 boys happy!!   I very much doubt it.

The point about the CMP was that it had no real sound basis for being imposed. Just a gut feeling on someone's part that a lighter mast should be a performance gain.....

In practice it seems that any gain is too small to be measured and rated consistently.

Originally posted by Jalani Originally posted by Scooby_simon Originally posted by tornado435 Will the carbon mast penalty ever be brought back?? Taken out to keep the Nacra 20 boys happy!!   I very much doubt it.  The point about the CMP was that it had no real sound basis for being imposed. Just a gut feeling on someone's part that a lighter mast should be a performance gain..... In practice it seems that any gain is too small to be measured and rated consistently.

There must be some gain with "less Kg up top", but as you say it was difficult to "prove" and so it was just a "gut feeling mod". 

With all these things there are a number of options we could do, however (my opinion for now) is that we need macro fix(s) to the rule quickly and then (if there is a need) we can look at minor tweaks later.

For example we could consider adding the weight of the mast as a parameter, not just the overall weight of the boat.  I repeat COULD.

If there is sound science (and measurable within the rule) then we may consider it.

(how amy "may's" and "could" can I get in one post

Luckily I've still got my standard Hurricane. Maybe I'll use that for Handicap rather than the Tornado

People will always moan about Handicaps and you can't please everybody all of the time.

As long as the mods are transparant and there can be no accusation of favouritism then there can't be a problem imho.

 I think you missed  the