No more “secret formula” ratings!

Bruce3477

Member
374
0


With the industry model apparently based per below, herewith data and suggested improvements to make it work without favor or bias

Basic Regression code:

=(SQRT(LWP*(1.05+(overhang factor-1)+(BO/LWP*0.15)))*(RSA^(1/3))/(IRC displacement^(1/4)))*(LL/P^(1/3))*((100+HF)/100)*((100 +P/E factor)/100)*Rig factor*((100+age factor)/100)*mbs factor / 1.775

And where:

RSA =( MSA + (JA*0.6*LPG/150)+ (SPA x 0.4)

& RSA for asym’s boats

RSA =( MSA + (JA*0.6*LPG/150)+ (SPA x 0.4*0.8))

& RSA for Dayboat’s

RSA =( MSA + (JA*0.5*LPG/150)+ (SPA x 0.5))

Sportboat’s with asym’s

RSA =( MSA + (JA*0.5*LPG/150)+ (SPA x 0.5*0.8))

Or as apparently used by IRC for Dayboat’s:

RSA =( MSA + (JA*0.35*LPG/150)+ (SPA x 0.65))

With IRC actual HF #. Impact of this is that boats are rated to sail almost twice the downwind distance with spinnaker vs. the upwind distance (to get there) to work with HF#!

Overhang factor:

=(100+(( SO less 5% LWP)*150/IRC displacement))+(Flying bow adjustment))/100

(but limited to total actual SO of 5% of LWP, plus stern o/h factor %) + flying bow +

Flying bow (“x” & “h”), rates at larger of “h” or 50% of “x”

LL/P

As is, but rated at lower of actual, or 1.00 for non-overlapping rigs (<109% LP)

Limited to minimum of 0.90 and maximum of 1.10

Rig factor – per IRC

Age factor

=((((design year +build year)/2)-2007)/3*0.1)

P/E factor

=((P/E)-2.5)

mbs factor

Greater of:

LWP < 8.49m

Less than 0.61 mbs and all LL/P

1 + (0.65 - (mbs/loa)) for all boats less than 10m LWP , or 0.61

8.50m<LWP>9.99m

Less than 0.61 mbs and LL/P <1.0

1 + (0.65 - (mbs/loa)) for all boats less than 10m LWP , or 0.61

Less than 0.65 mbs and LL/P > 1.0

1 + (0.65 - (mbs/loa)) for all boats less than 10m LWP, or 0.65

LWP> 10.00m

0.69 or actual mbs/loa (whichever greater) for yachts over 10.00m LWP

IRC “Super Zero Class”

0.73 or actual mbs/loa (whichever greater) for yachts rated over 1.300(at mbs 0.65)= (super zero)

Hull Factor (SPA use 80% of asym)

= ((MA+SPA)/(Displacement”empty”))*(1/3)*1000

Plus: keel cruise +0.5, bulb keel race +1.0 , very deep fin+ 0.75, very deep high aspect bulb+ 1.5

Less: 1/3 of excess over 8.0



While the above works pretty well, it could be improved with some minor changes:

“Improved” Regression code:

=(SQRT(LWP*(1.05+(overhang factor-1)+(BO/LWP*0.15)))*(RSA^(1/3))/(IRC displacement^(1/4)))*(LL/P^(1/3)) OR ((JA/MA)^(1/4))^(1/3)*((100+HF)/100)*((100 +P/E factor)/100)*Rig factor*((100+age factor)/100)*mbs factor *TW factor *masthead or asym spin factor * Code Zero factor /1.775

  • To fix the Performance Cruiser profile, would replace the …..(LL/P)^(1/3)…. with the following equation, where the rig is fractional and LL/P > 1.000………..((JA/MA)^(1/4))^(1/3)…with minimum# at 1.00. This would sort out the rig anomaly where this style of yacht is in “ratings no-where land”
  • The MBS/LOA would limit to actual band 0.61 to .65, but would add to MBS (IMS – SMB) measure , in event yacht has a forestay set back from stem, the difference from SF to Forestay (IMS “ SFJ” at 65%) to allow for reduced “J” , but still limited (MBS+(SFJ*0.65) - after adjustment), to the 0.61 to 0.65 range.
  • And to solve the issue of bow down measures and huge SO, a “correction” calculation to equate speed advantage with a transom rating as follows:
(((TW+(2*SO))/Beam “max”)-1)*2, with the result being greater of actual calculation ( >1.000) or default to 1.000, and rate in line as ……………….

….((100+transom rating)/100)…..

TW- being transom width at max beam aft, adjusted for raked transoms if measure forward of transom immersion line.



And finally, the flying bow measure, would change to actual calculation as follow:

= “x” *(1-(h/x))*150/DLR*(0.85)

Limited to maximum of actual “x”



  • Any boats with rule beating bumps or wings to exploit the mbs factor, shall default to 0.61.
  • Big roach mains shall rate in RSA line as follows:
MA * (MHW/E)/0.65, and rate at greater of (MHW/E) or 0.65 default



  • In common with most regression models, as move away from the core model, the results will become less consistent . Some minimum factors to control this will be:
6.1 RSA shall default to greater of actual, or 1% of IRC displacement

6.2 RSA/LWP shall not be less than 6.2

6.3 Any yacht with crew mass exceeding 20% bare displacement shall be rated per Dayboat formula…and sail in a separate division..

6.4 Any yacht with raked bows, and with BO/LWP >5%, shall default to MBS (factor) of 0.61 unless can supply an IMS/ORCi or similar approved mbs# measure to prove alternative measurement status. Any yacht with BO/LWP > 7.5% shall default to 0.61 without exception.

6.5 Measurement data (not formula) from IRC, IMS, ORCi or ORR for rig and sail measures shall be acceptable, but LWP shall be IRC “type” measure.

5.5.1 Sistership data for LWP can be used for production models.



  • Any Code Zero’s would rate in formula with factor (((155-(LPG/J %))/9000))*(SLU/FL))*100


  • To avoid bias of masthead spinnakers on fractional rigs, would “penalty” rate all said spinnakers with following adjustment: …..* (SLU/FL)^(1/4)*…………, where default to greater of actual or 1.000
8.1 8.1 Asym’s would also “penalty” rate with ((SLU+SLE/2)/FL)^(1/4)…………, where default to greater of actual or 1.000.

8.2 Rating penalty shall be greater of asym or spinnaker measure.

  • Rig factor would be formalized at follows:
Basic single spreader alloy mast @ 1.010

PLUS:

Extra spreaders (each) @ 0.005

Alloy Tapered mast

with taper> 7.5% of “P” @ 0.005

Runners etc (all) @ 0.010

Spreaders with less 5* rake and if

Rate with runners-gross @ (-) 0.05

Carbon Masts per above, with

1.25 x (LOA/10.5) *

1.7/((mass”empty)^(1/3)/(LWP+SO)) = ??

Sail fabric (non- aramid/Kevlar)

Mainsail @ (-) 0.05



Largest Jib/genoa @ (-) 0.05





The above would almost defy optimization (and be” bandit” proof)……and should require no further “fudge” over-rides!!

……….and if too much to follow, send me a direct mail and will send an excel model, just fill in the blocks!

 

Bruce3477

Member
374
0
Hull Factor (SPA use 80% of asym)((MA+SPA)/(Displacement"empty"))*(1/3)*1000
I still don't understand why sail area is included in the Hull factor..

Is that due to the added resistance when the spinnaker is wrapped around the keel?
No, its for extra downwind speed not supplied by the basic "power equation", which averages (up and downwind) sail area into a "rated sail area" .....*(RSA^(1/3))/(IRC displacement^(1/4)) *.... and this only give hull speed x approx 1.115 into downwind speed at best

With many R/C's into hull speed x 1.20+ downwind VMG = approx 1.25 to 1.30 to allow for tacking downwind

i.e. a decent 40 ft'er which makes 7.7kts to windward, make around 10 kt VMG downwind(1.30 x upwin speed)

The hull factor in normal course of events would be about 5.0 if yacht only made standing wave hull speed up and downwind.

 

Juniper

Member
238
0
No, its for extra downwind speed not supplied by the basic "power equation", which averages (up and downwind) sail area into a "rated sail area" .....*(RSA^(1/3))/(IRC displacement^(1/4)) *.... and this only give hull speed x approx 1.115 into downwind speed at best
With many R/C's into hull speed x 1.20+ downwind VMG = approx 1.25 to 1.30 to allow for tacking downwind

i.e. a decent 40 ft'er which makes 7.7kts to windward, make around 10 kt VMG downwind(1.30 x upwin speed)

The hull factor in normal course of events would be about 5.0 if yacht only made standing wave hull speed up and downwind.
If you're tacking downwind then no amount of rating advantage is going to help you.

 

Presuming Ed

Super Anarchist
11,058
229
London, UK
Bruce, I suggest you get yourself a copy of this:

Yacht_Rating.jpg


and ask yourself why evey public algorithm yacht rating rule has ended up producing horrible boats.

 

Bruce3477

Member
374
0
Bruce, I suggest you get yourself a copy of this:
Yacht_Rating.jpg


and ask yourself why evey public algorithm yacht rating rule has ended up producing horrible boats.
But, what is the difference between my model, the "secret formula" model and net (rating #)results?

The model does not favour wooden keels, pinched sterns, or hull's that trip over themselves downwind?

Rating difference is often only about 0.001 to 0.005, where are the dog's here?

 

JBSA

Super Anarchist
1,436
0
Bruce, I suggest you get yourself a copy of this:
Yacht_Rating.jpg


and ask yourself why evey public algorithm yacht rating rule has ended up producing horrible boats.
But, what is the difference between my model, the "secret formula" model and net (rating #)results?

The model does not favour wooden keels, pinched sterns, or hull's that trip over themselves downwind?

Rating difference is often only about 0.001 to 0.005, where are the dog's here?

Come on bruce, it may take a while, but a sufficiently talented designer will definitely be able to come up with a majorly fucked up design to beat your rating. It would take a little while, but it would happen.

You may not agree with the concept, but the logic behind a 'secret' black box formula, is pretty solid, they want designers to be able to make limited predictions based on trial certificates and current designs, they don't want the designers to know exactly where the cut-off points are, where the models change modes, and what the potential weaknesses are.

When IMS and IOR where set up the originators did not know what the result would be or how the designers would respond, and it took several iterations of design to reach the 'dogs'. The same will be true with BruceCap. It may take a few design iterations, but eventually what will emerge will not be what is expected, because someone will find a corner of the rule where a VPP and BruceCap diverge.... and that place will not be where the beautiful boats live.

 

Bruce3477

Member
374
0
Bruce, I suggest you get yourself a copy of this:
Yacht_Rating.jpg


and ask yourself why evey public algorithm yacht rating rule has ended up producing horrible boats.
But, what is the difference between my model, the "secret formula" model and net (rating #)results?

The model does not favour wooden keels, pinched sterns, or hull's that trip over themselves downwind?

Rating difference is often only about 0.001 to 0.005, where are the dog's here?

Come on bruce, it may take a while, but a sufficiently talented designer will definitely be able to come up with a majorly fucked up design to beat your rating. It would take a little while, but it would happen.

You may not agree with the concept, but the logic behind a 'secret' black box formula, is pretty solid, they want designers to be able to make limited predictions based on trial certificates and current designs, they don't want the designers to know exactly where the cut-off points are, where the models change modes, and what the potential weaknesses are.

When IMS and IOR where set up the originators did not know what the result would be or how the designers would respond, and it took several iterations of design to reach the 'dogs'. The same will be true with BruceCap. It may take a few design iterations, but eventually what will emerge will not be what is expected, because someone will find a corner of the rule where a VPP and BruceCap diverge.... and that place will not be where the beautiful boats live.
But, the base model agrees pretty much rating # wise for a middle of road IRC C/R. The improvements, sort out the mbs, big stern overhang, "faulty" flying bow immersion factor, and scale the carbon mast factor, as well as levelling the playing field for fleet who have found the trick in masthead spinnakers on fractional rigs.

It also take the size bias out of scaling, so corrected results will not mirror the LWP # in many cases in a mixed fleet from say 32 to 40 ft.

I would expect that if took several quality race events (good winds, tactics, tides etc) and ran the IRC# for race and then re-ran with my improved model, the corrected time spread of results would be a lot tighter and more competitive......and uses the IRC measurement data on IRC cert to create my TCC# with only extra measure being the TW (transom width) measure.

And as you say, could run VPP models against formula to optimise rating #, but so could the average club C/R (without expensive test certificates) play the same game on his home computer, and optimise said yacht for local conditions.........a win/win for everybody?

Imagine that you built a custom one-off non-overlapping 112% LPG/J fractional rig with a "bad" LL/P#, and rated it, and came out very expensive because IRC only zero the LL/P + items if LPG/J is less than approx 109%.

Then find out that even if re-rate with a 105% jib, are still hit with the penalty, because the first hit on a one-off for said LL/P stays with the boat for ever. At least with my model you know why!

 

JBSA

Super Anarchist
1,436
0
And as you say, could run VPP models against formula to optimise rating #, but so could the average club C/R (without expensive test certificates) play the same game on his home computer, and optimise said yacht for local conditions.........a win/win for everybody?
You still don't understand????

The point is that with a secret formula when a designer does this using their approximation, the best they can manage is optimization,

With an open formula they can find the corners, the major divergence regions, the places where the dogs live.

The fundamental principle behind the secret formula is that it makes it a lot harder to find where the dogs live.

Since your clone works over a reasonable range, the club racer can always use that for optimization under IRC, or at least for deciding what trial certificates to run. Or they could create their own clone.

But fortunately any such clone doesn't actually duplicate the 'secret' formula, its just gives a good approximation over a range of already reasonable boats... so the clone can never be used to find out where the dogs live.

The problem with open formulas is that ultimately they will result in unreasonable boats. (and no, theres no easy way of telling from the start what they will be, maybe Corby or Ker could figure it out quickly, for the rest of us we would look at the emerging designs and just as with IOR and IMS we would understand why the dogs beat the ratings once it was pointed out)

There may be clubs where using BruceCap is a perfect solution, but only while IRC exists as the major international rating system. Not as a replacement for IRC, but as a model for creating local handicaps which correspond well to the more generally used national or international handicaps.

One of the best things about CHS and now IRC is that it has generally resulted in pretty good looking, stable boats, this was not true of previous open systems. IRC is showing some strains and signs of age, new types of boat, and different ways racers are wanting to use boats are pushing it. Replacing it with an open source clone is not the answer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pelle

Anarchist
Well, the most obvious flaw (in my mind anyway) in Bruce's model is that it does not rate stability and to a lesser extent fit-out. One of the most efficient opimisations of a C/R under bruce-cap must be a chainsaw massacre of the interior and then putting the weight taken out in the keel.

 
It seems to me that the 2 big arguments against the "measurement rule" type system are that:

1) the rule/model does not work right...

2) rule beaters come along and build something that is crap, but beats the rule....

Would not both these issues be solved by making the rule public, AND having a panel of experts tweak the rule every year? It seems to me the correct answer to the problem of the rule not working right is.... FIX THE #$%@ RULE!!

When the rule beaters spend all of their effort trying to get around the rule, and the next year, find out all of their effort is for none, because their "abortion" of a boat no longer gets the gift rating, won't this discourage them?? (Or hopefully discourage them prior to expending their efforts.)

The whole basis of this measurement system is that you make a mathematical model of vessel and predict its performance. If the model is not working right, don't throw away the system... fix the model!!! And make the fixes public!!! So everyone can see/ play/ tweak/ tune/ suggest/ bitch about it! And hopefully any valid complaints can be addressed in the next years slightly tweaked model?!?!

This seems obvious to me, but I am also kinda new to this stuff.....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Presuming Ed

Super Anarchist
11,058
229
London, UK
Would not both these issues be solved by making the rule public, AND having a panel of experts tweak the rule every year? It seems to me the correct answer to the problem of the rule not working right is.... FIX THE #$%@ RULE!!
I.e. the system used to manage IOR, IMS.....
Doesn't work because:

1) Who are these experts? NAs? aka the same people trying to beat the rule?

2) Who pays them? Generally, the rule managers have less money than the people trying to find the loopholes. Means that the rule managers are always playing catchup.

3) There are people out there who don't mind the concept of a one year wonder, if it's going to win the big pots. Look at the competitive life in the TP52 fleet.

4) The is a dichotomy between owners who want the rule to change to penalize the latest rule beater (aka not their boat - they built last year) and owners who want the rule to stay the same (aka to give their design another year at the top).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bruce3477

Member
374
0
And as you say, could run VPP models against formula to optimise rating #, but so could the average club C/R (without expensive test certificates) play the same game on his home computer, and optimise said yacht for local conditions.........a win/win for everybody?
You still don't understand????

The point is that with a secret formula when a designer does this using their approximation, the best they can manage is optimization,

With an open formula they can find the corners, the major divergence regions, the places where the dogs live.

The fundamental principle behind the secret formula is that it makes it a lot harder to find where the dogs live.

Since your clone works over a reasonable range, the club racer can always use that for optimization under IRC, or at least for deciding what trial certificates to run. Or they could create their own clone.

But fortunately any such clone doesn't actually duplicate the 'secret' formula, its just gives a good approximation over a range of already reasonable boats... so the clone can never be used to find out where the dogs live.

The problem with open formulas is that ultimately they will result in unreasonable boats. (and no, theres no easy way of telling from the start what they will be, maybe Corby or Ker could figure it out quickly, for the rest of us we would look at the emerging designs and just as with IOR and IMS we would understand why the dogs beat the ratings once it was pointed out)

There may be clubs where using BruceCap is a perfect solution, but only while IRC exists as the major international rating system. Not as a replacement for IRC, but as a model for creating local handicaps which correspond well to the more generally used national or international handicaps.

One of the best things about CHS and now IRC is that it has generally resulted in pretty good looking, stable boats, this was not true of previous open systems. IRC is showing some strains and signs of age, new types of boat, and different ways racers are wanting to use boats are pushing it. Replacing it with an open source clone is not the answer.
IF,

Not as a replacement for IRC, but as a model for creating local handicaps which correspond well to the more generally used national or international handicaps.

this is what I have achieved, I would be very happy. It would sure beat the PHRF thumbsucks anytime.

While BruceCAP may give me 5 seconds of fame, would be great if S/A could look at formalizing into something on lines of SARC (Sailing Anarchy Rating Certificate) with the model updated on an annual basis, and could use world wide for local events if wish to do so.

Thanks

 

Bruce3477

Member
374
0
Well, the most obvious flaw (in my mind anyway) in Bruce's model is that it does not rate stability and to a lesser extent fit-out. One of the most efficient opimisations of a C/R under bruce-cap must be a chainsaw massacre of the interior and then putting the weight taken out in the keel.
Stability is covered by the the keel factor input in HF, about 1% for bulb etc, also high crew mass relative to empty displacement favours the railbait (as does IRC)

The standard C/R is default fit out, but at about DLR # < 120, hit the HF with extra 0.5 factor, as most yachts at this level are already stripped. The cut being at the point where yacht turns into a R/C which planes downwind.

I have additional formulas for hull form stability, but base model is KISS, or would run out of bandwidth! Also have a quick formula for RM (righting movement) with very close data to IMS#.........

It all depends how far wish to push the basic formula towards an IMS type model!

 
Top