• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Just Another Sailor

ORR in Long Island

Recommended Posts

Any news or information concerning LI Sound moving to ORR full time for all top end class racing in 2018? I've been away for a few years and trying to understand which rating rule will prevail in 2018. Any information regarding how older IMS designs with interiors will fair in a class w/ GP designs. IRC appears to favor GP boats over IMS designs. All comments and thoughts are welcome. Please help me get up to speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Another Sailor said:

They are using it here on the East Coast & LI on some events. I'm hearing rumors that all of LI maybe switching to the rule for the current IRC classes.

You probably mean ORC and not ORR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm hearing about ORR, w/ LI dropping out of ORC. Again, I'm asking for info... I'm may be totally wrong. What have you heard or know about ORR with regard to my original question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just Another Sailor said:

No, I'm hearing about ORR, w/ LI dropping out of ORC. Again, I'm asking for info... I'm may be totally wrong. What have you heard or know about ORR with regard to my original question?

Haven't heard anything about ORR in LIS.  The little group of peeps behind ORR still try to convince the world that ORR is the best thing since sliced bread even though the region using it the most are using a very dumbed down version of it and the  results are probably no better than PHRF.  There were ORC classes (along with IRC) at NYYC Annual and BIRW this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Christian said:

Haven't heard anything about ORR in LIS.  The little group of peeps behind ORR still try to convince the world that ORR is the best thing since sliced bread even though the region using it the most are using a very dumbed down version of it and the  results are probably no better than PHRF.  There were ORC classes (along with IRC) at NYYC Annual and BIRW this year

Last I heard, there was some momentum pushing ORC at NYYC.  Many of the people involved in that movement are LIS sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Just Another Sailor said:

They are using it here on the East Coast & LI on some events. I'm hearing rumors that all of LI maybe switching to the rule for the current IRC classes.

What is the corrupt PHRF Comm going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working very nicely here on the Ches for the cruising class(se)...CRCA.  Bjorn and Jim have gone out of their way to provide excellent customer service.

Owner's seem pleased with it. I think I like it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use ORR here on the great lakes for Mackinac (distance) races and some regattas.   I actually think it does a good job overall, and seems kinder to my Farr 40 than PHRF is, by a bunch.   Farr 40's here rate -12 but are generally -3 or at worst -6 in some areas.    I feel that ORR gives me a better chance against other, dis-similar boats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BYC Mackinac changed to ORR / ORR-EZ this year and not everyone is happy.  Some boats got the “kinder” treatment that your Farr 40 did and other boats – not so much.

One boat that got your “kinder” rating was a Beneteau First 42 TM.  They saw their former PHRF rating of 84 slowed to an ORR-EZ rating of 0.791.  Putting that into perspective, the C+C 35 Mk I was rated 0.799 – meaning they are somewhat faster than the Benny.  Before going to ORR, C+C 35s used to rate 129 in PHRF. 

Meanwhile, the Benny’s two sisterships sailed in a different class and were rated 0.852 and 0.845 respectively.

The question is, how does this specific Bene First 42 go from 84 to the equivalent of slower that 129 under?  This is a difference of 45 seconds per mile.  Seems the answer is they changed to a fixed prop instead of folding. 

Anyone else think PHRF would give an allowance of 45 seconds for a fixed prop?

Bottomline, IMHO ORR can be just as arbitrary, if not more so than PHRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morgan Crewed said:

BYC Mackinac changed to ORR / ORR-EZ this year and not everyone is happy.  Some boats got the “kinder” treatment that your Farr 40 did and other boats – not so much.

One boat that got your “kinder” rating was a Beneteau First 42 TM.  They saw their former PHRF rating of 84 slowed to an ORR-EZ rating of 0.791.  Putting that into perspective, the C+C 35 Mk I was rated 0.799 – meaning they are somewhat faster than the Benny.  Before going to ORR, C+C 35s used to rate 129 in PHRF. 

Meanwhile, the Benny’s two sisterships sailed in a different class and were rated 0.852 and 0.845 respectively.

The question is, how does this specific Bene First 42 go from 84 to the equivalent of slower that 129 under?  This is a difference of 45 seconds per mile.  Seems the answer is they changed to a fixed prop instead of folding. 

Anyone else think PHRF would give an allowance of 45 seconds for a fixed prop?

Bottomline, IMHO ORR can be just as arbitrary, if not more so than PHRF.

CN - the slower B42 is quite different to the faster pair.  Its a shoal draft boat, racing in the cruising spinnaker division (cruising chutes only, no kites, sail limitations, etc) and its got a fixed prop.  I can see that being a bunch slower than the race optimized version that rates in the 80's PHRF.  

How much slower?  Well its a very subjective answer if you ask a PHRF person.  Its a very scientific answer if you ask the ORR person.

Arguing with the science on the basis of PHRF subjectivism is as absurd as arguing with your doctor because your horoscope/psychic said something different.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Well its a very subjective answer if you ask a PHRF person.  Its a very scientific answer if you ask the ORR person.”

Umm…No it is not.

The question was: “Anyone else think PHRF would give an allowance of 45 seconds for a fixed prop?”

I like science and quantifiable numbers.  Since you mentioned science and must be an “ORR person”, what, exact SCIENTIFIC calculations/studies did ORR review to grant a fixed blade prop such a kindly rating? 

A rating to make it SLOWER than a C+C 35 Mk I.  You do realize that the Bene’s rating of 0.791 is slower than the C+C at 0.799 – right?

Problem is, you’re trying to defend the Bene’s rating when the OP wanted to know if there are issues with ORR.

I am trying to show an example of how there appears to be as much subjectivity or more in ORR as there is in PHRF. 

Until you, or anyone else, can produce some scientific evidence to justify why ORR gave the equivalence of a 45 second slowing in rating because of using a fixed prop to “sub-optimize” the boat, then I will stick with my opinion that ORR = PHRF in subjectivity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Morgan Crewed said:

Until you, or anyone else, can produce some scientific evidence to justify why ORR gave the equivalence of a 45 second slowing in rating because of using a fixed prop to “sub-optimize” the boat, then I will stick with my opinion that ORR = PHRF in subjectivity.

 

Nobody can because thats not what happened.  It is MANY different inputs, one of which is a prop type, that gives that output.  You have to factor in the sail dynamics of the Cruising Class, the hull dynamics of the shoal/heavy keel, and the prop.  The owner of CN was smart enough to get a rating that matched the way they intended to sail the boat in that race.  You are assuming these boats are identical save for the prop when in actuality there are many differences between the declared PHRF configuration that yields an 84 rating and the declared Mac race ORR configuration that yields 0.791

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why the guy with the C&C 35 Mk I doesn't show up any more. And then we wonder why the racing fleets are disappearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got fucked by ORR for MAC this year. I lost around 30-40 seconds/mile in comparison to my PHRF. When I quizzed USS to ask "How does rating this makes sense knowing what you know about the boats involved" I was met with silence. When I said fine I am not going to race and will not be needing the certificate can I have my money back they said no.  400 bucks down the toilet to a process that USS can/won't  justify. 

I heard all kinds of stories of folks doing stuff to modify their boat to get a slower rating including adding fixed props, carrying smaller sails... I wonder if the RC verified these changes??? AND..... How does a boat that sets the course record, Il Mostro, correct to 57th after the ORR "correction" ?

Total cluster fuck 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.  Don't misunderstand and take me for an ORR fanboy.  But a move to any of the more scientific rating rules would be step forward over the PHRF nonsense.  

Why the clubs that created ORR thought IRC or ORC weren't good enough I don't understand.  Too many type A personalities all wanting to be in control is my guess.

The sailing world needs to pick a system and work with it.  IRC and ORC are at least talking now and had a joint World Championships this year.  ORR isn't going to survive against those heavyweights.

Getting back on topic, for LIS to adopt ORR over IRC would be crazy.  If the NYYC and the NE movers and shakers want to do some proper leadership for the good of the sport then they'll stick with IRC until the time is right to move to ORC which looks somewhat inevitable eventually.  In the meantime they can encourage IRC adoption for serious racers in the sub-40ft size ranges and put the cruisers back in charge of PHRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, because IRC is dead? Just a wild guess.

ORR, IIRC, is Americap, which is IMS, which is MHS. MHS was the end all be all...... but proved to be too cumbersome and needed some tweaking......which went pear shaped. In theory ORR is getting back to the original mission..... in theory. And again, IIRC (hey it was decades ago....like the 1980's) MHS was based on a big ship program that predicted how fast that shaped ship could go given a certain amount of horsepower. It has merit but the conversion was proving difficult. It also allowed for varying windspeeds and angles, which proved unmanageable and somewhat subjective. BIRW 1980 (IIRC) it took days before the results were published! But it has merit in is base concept and thus keeps getting revisited.

 

The trick, IMHO, is that the wind and angle data sort of needs to be recorded for each boat and the theoretical time calculated Then the theoretical divided by the actual elapsed  to get a performance percentage..... the highest percentage of theoretical wins. Easy-peasy. The rub has always been implementation and the accommodations to make this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dacron said:

Agree.  Don't misunderstand and take me for an ORR fanboy.  But a move to any of the more scientific rating rules would be step forward over the PHRF nonsense.  

Why the clubs that created ORR thought IRC or ORC weren't good enough I don't understand.  Too many type A personalities all wanting to be in control is my guess.

The sailing world needs to pick a system and work with it.  IRC and ORC are at least talking now and had a joint World Championships this year.  ORR isn't going to survive against those heavyweights.

Getting back on topic, for LIS to adopt ORR over IRC would be crazy.  If the NYYC and the NE movers and shakers want to do some proper leadership for the good of the sport then they'll stick with IRC until the time is right to move to ORC which looks somewhat inevitable eventually.  In the meantime they can encourage IRC adoption for serious racers in the sub-40ft size ranges and put the cruisers back in charge of PHRF.

We need to get rid of the Political Handicapping Racing Fleet all together

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Ummmm, because IRC is dead? Just a wild guess.

 

While you can potentially make that argument today, you certainly couldn't make that argument at the time they started the venture.  They just wanted to be in control and didn't like not being on the inside of IRC secret circle.  

I'd strongly dispute that IRC is dead today too.  The RORC have a pretty good argument going with ORC over who has the most certificates issued... And they both have thousands more certificates issued than ORR.  There is simply no way ORR is going to become an internationally successful rule against those two.  And to persist with it here in North America marginalizes North American sailing.  Maybe just for once we could do something the same way as the rest of the world does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jesposito said:

We need to get rid of the Political Handicapping Racing Fleet all together

I disagree with that.  It has a place for Catalinas and cruisers.  But the minute you are "optimizing" for a PHRF rule I think that should be a sign that you're in the wrong division.  PHRF racers should be forced to race with an anchor hanging from the bow and a Bimini installed as a condition of entry.  That would get the racers out of PHRF and into a proper rating rule.

But since nearly every boat under 40ft, irrespective of how racy a design or how serious the sailors, has little option than to race PHRF forces these issues into the spotlight.  Lots of people are taking PHRF way too seriously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dacron said:

I disagree with that.  It has a place for Catalinas and cruisers.  But the minute you are "optimizing" for a PHRF rule I think that should be a sign that you're in the wrong division.  PHRF racers should be forced to race with an anchor hanging from the bow and a Bimini installed as a condition of entry.  That would get the racers out of PHRF and into a proper rating rule.

But since nearly every boat under 40ft, irrespective of how racy a design or how serious the sailors, has little option than to race PHRF forces these issues into the spotlight.  Lots of people are taking PHRF way too seriously.  

Sorry, need to clarify:

Get rid of the Political Handicap Racing Fleet committee's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dacron said:

While you can potentially make that argument today, you certainly couldn't make that argument at the time they started the venture.  They just wanted to be in control and didn't like not being on the inside of IRC secret circle.  

I'd strongly dispute that IRC is dead today too.  The RORC have a pretty good argument going with ORC over who has the most certificates issued... And they both have thousands more certificates issued than ORR.  There is simply no way ORR is going to become an internationally successful rule against those two.  And to persist with it here in North America marginalizes North American sailing.  Maybe just for once we could do something the same way as the rest of the world does it?

IRC is dead. Yes it is still strong in parts of Europe. It is based on Channel Handicap System which has been around going on 4 decades, which is a good run. However in LIS, which this thread is about IRC is dead and I doubt no matter how hard anyone wishes it can be resuscitated. I hear the IOR was once popular too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dacron said:

I disagree with that.  It has a place for Catalinas and cruisers.  But the minute you are "optimizing" for a PHRF rule I think that should be a sign that you're in the wrong division.  PHRF racers should be forced to race with an anchor hanging from the bow and a Bimini installed as a condition of entry.  That would get the racers out of PHRF and into a proper rating rule.

But since nearly every boat under 40ft, irrespective of how racy a design or how serious the sailors, has little option than to race PHRF forces these issues into the spotlight.  Lots of people are taking PHRF way too seriously.  

Well that is a bit..... simplistic. 

I think anyone who has played the game for any length of time well understands that the trick to any measurement rule is to exploit/optimize particular aspects of said rule. To gain a competitive advantage. It is little more than tweaking skillsets, playing to strengths. In that regard, at least as things are currently administered, PHRF is no different.

This notion that PHRF is somehow Mickey Mouse is a bit off base. Measurement rules all suffer the same fate. Boats get optimized to the Nth degree and inevitably folks just say "enough is enough". Whether it is wooden keels and all their lead in the bilge or bumps or ugly sailing characteristics being magnified as an advantage, all measurements die the exact same way pretty much. 

PHRF comes at the problem in a unique way in that through observation of empirical data one can arrive at a handicap to even the playing field. The rule has been distorted greatly with the advent of credits because you now are making a judgement call as to the value of certain aspects of sail inventory, equipment and accommodations. These then become exploitable. Remove that aspect, weight limits, cruising credits, sail limitations, all the nonsense and get back to a rating based on performance and it eliminates those macerations.

As funny as this is going to sound PHRF may be the perfect rule but as an old friend used to say, "A stallion by committee becomes a camel". Most apt with PHRF. If you want to fix PHRF, have only a data collector/non-sailor issue ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any measurement based rule is susceptible to optimization, the Universal (R, J class) and International (5.5, 6, 8, 12mR) have been running nearly a century, to where there is need for classic and modern divisions  

 The more sophisticated the rule, the more subtle the optimization arms race, hopefully avoiding the extremes types that evolved in CCA and IOR, and technology disruptions of new materials obsoleting older craft  

All results based rules include subjectively the skills of entrants, the conditions of the races and judgments of the committees. 

You pays your money and takes your choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

IRC is dead. Yes it is still strong in parts of Europe. It is based on Channel Handicap System which has been around going on 4 decades, which is a good run. However in LIS, which this thread is about IRC is dead and I doubt no matter how hard anyone wishes it can be resuscitated. I hear the IOR was once popular too!

So of those boats who used to race under IRC but are no more (hopefully a reasonable description of "dead"), what rule are the boats/owners racing under this year?  Give us some examples.

And if there was a way to get them back to a common rule, and attract interest from the next group down - the 32-40footers - which rule do you think would best achieve that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipulate the desire for a local to regional rule (that’s not aimed at top tier,) to attract local participation and minor travel to regional events. 

Beer cans, weekend point to points, coastal overnights and some regional “championship” series. 

Any rule that is stable, moderate in cost, transparent and consistent with a means to rectify omissions will work. 

Attempting to make it “Fair” is the hard part.

With the multiple number rules, the questions are which numbers to use, as much as whether the numbers are accurate. 

Broad performance differences beget different races; and woe betide the committee that places an entrant in the “wrong” class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've raced in all of them and I have certificates for my boat from IOR, IMS, IRC, CSA, PHRF and several Performance handicapping systems, and I've got an ORR rating for my boat on the way as we speak. I'm doing it not because it's better, but because the regatta I want to go in says they will be using it. We'll see.

ORR is definitely an outgrowth of IMS, which is also true of ORC. Probably, but for the "not invented here" syndrome, they could be normalized into one measurement rule but there are always people who think they can invent a better handicap system than the other guy, and in this case they would rather produce their own rule than find a way to cooperate.

As for ORR, we have some of it here in Mexico. It has the same issues as IMS: It type forms boats and there are too many ratings for each boat.  You never know what your rating is going to be on a given day due to various courses and predicted winds. Same Issues which turned people off of IMS. And when a 44' racing Hanse with 42 water line, more sail area, and lighter, gets time from a Catalina 37 with a 32ft waterline, which happens in ORR, you know there is a problem.

As for scientific? ORR/Ez has subjective inputs about like the credits you see in PHRF.

And as for doing away with PHRF and going to ORR or ORC? In a small area with a limited number of serious racers and a few more very casual guys, PHRF, if you have a non-corruptible handicapping committee, it works very well. We can get some guys out for PHRF, when the rating is basically free, but a $400-$1000 ORR measurement? We'd never have a fleet.

For  LIS or other east coast areas, IRC and ORC give you more chance to compete in a large, existing fleet, and it is compatible with the rest of the world. In small racing areas, stick with PHRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dacron said:

So of those boats who used to race under IRC but are no more (hopefully a reasonable description of "dead"), what rule are the boats/owners racing under this year?  Give us some examples.

And if there was a way to get them back to a common rule, and attract interest from the next group down - the 32-40footers - which rule do you think would best achieve that?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What exactly is the question? You are conflating that if IRC is dead with why those boats do not race any more..... do I have that correct? I am not sure there is a linear comparison or conclusion.

 

Folks don't really set out to race under a given rule so much as they race under the rule that is given. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received an email inviting me to a meeting for Mass Bay Sailing regarding the possibility of adopting ORR-EZ for 2018.  for those of you who have sailed under it I would like to ask a few questions.

1) the ORR-EZ application on the US Sailing site appears to have roughly the same inputs as a typical PHRF certificate.  since this is supposed to be a VPP based rule, that doesn't seem like enough information. what have actual users found 

2) are additional measurements needed, does ORR-EZ have both "verified" and "unverified" certificates

3) if additional measurements are required, what are they and roughly how much would they cost?

for reference, this is not a "grand prix" program.  I'm a PHRF-D weekend warrior who does my own bottom work, the only electronics on board is depth and sits on a mooring so I am my own diver for bottom cleaning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 4:38 PM, USA 5184 said:

This is why the guy with the C&C 35 Mk I doesn't show up any more. And then we wonder why the racing fleets are disappearing. 

We have as many of those on the PHRF side, too - boats that don't come out because the PHRF ratings are skewed and they can't get a hearing to get them changed. Fleets are disappearing for a lot of reasons. I hear what you're saying though - if a rule isn't seen as being transparent enough to understand the how's and why's, then it's likely to fail.

1 hour ago, Firefly-DC said:

I just received an email inviting me to a meeting for Mass Bay Sailing regarding the possibility of adopting ORR-EZ for 2018.  for those of you who have sailed under it I would like to ask a few questions.

1) the ORR-EZ application on the US Sailing site appears to have roughly the same inputs as a typical PHRF certificate.  since this is supposed to be a VPP based rule, that doesn't seem like enough information. what have actual users found 

2) are additional measurements needed, does ORR-EZ have both "verified" and "unverified" certificates

3) if additional measurements are required, what are they and roughly how much would they cost?

for reference, this is not a "grand prix" program.  I'm a PHRF-D weekend warrior who does my own bottom work, the only electronics on board is depth and sits on a mooring so I am my own diver for bottom cleaning.

 

Hey, I sent that email! Let me answer a couple questions here, and you can ask Bjorn and Jim some of the others Wednesday night if you make it. If you can't make it, submit anything else you want to know via PM and I'll be sure that it is addressed.

1) We're not using ORR, we're using ORR-EZ, so no US Sailing involvement or cut of the cert fee. That's part of why we're looking at it so hard. regattaman's going to be the interface for getting the data in and the certs back. easy-peasy.

2) Most boats will get their cert based on their phrf measurements and a few additional sail measurements. If you don't have a loft to do the measurements, there'll be a few measurement parties going on throughout the winter to help you get that info.

3) most likely boat measurement, depending on boat, may be the weight. We're working on some options for that too.

We're going to have some really interesting personalities on both sides of the issue at the meeting Wednesday and I expect the debate to be lively. We understand that no rating system is perfect, but we're doing everything we can to make sure that what we end up with is ultimately fair to racers, whether they have a well defined program or they only come out for one weekend a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you did, and I do plan to be there tonight.  My questions may be more for MBSA than ORR.

1) Has the decision to move to ORR been made or is this meeting just to provide information?  I don't recall seeing any earlier emails or minutes on the website indicating this change was coming.

2) What is driving this change?

3) will all of the clubs be required to change to ORR or will they have the option to retain PHRF for non-MBSA sanctioned events? for instance if I participate in the JYC thursday night series will I still need  PHRF certificate in addition to the ORR certificate?

4) I don't have a loft.  all of my sails are either bought used or I sew them myself from sail kits because a $400 sail kit is much easier to afford than a $2500 sail from a loft.  and its just PHRF D not the americas cup.  I don't believe I am unique at that end of the rating band.

5) If we are just looking at the numbers on the PHRF certificate, whats the point?  If we are using the numbers off the PHRF certificate to generate a VPP, that concerns me.  I have an orphan boat, only 99 were built in the US and I may be the only person still racing one.  My rating is 177, If I sail well I can beat a J-24 or an S2-7.9. If I don't, they beat me.  but by the numbers I look more like a J-70. 

image.png.6393634923ca044346c31710026759ca.png

I saw nothing in the ORR guidelines that indicated an age allowance (the Fun23 was designed ~1980)  I have molded in IOR-like measurement bumps at max beam and a bustle where the cassette rudder installs, but I did see that there was an additional $200 fee to appeal a rating. 

This aint no sport boat.  I went through PHRF-NE to add a fixed sprit and asymmetric spinnaker without changing my rating, not because I thought it would be faster but because I am always the smallest boat out there and sometimes the waves are big so I don't want to unnecessarily put my bowman, who is also my son, at risk.  I've owned this boat for 10 years and put in a lot of sweat equity to make it safe and optimize it within the restrictions of PHRF.  If based on my numbers ORR pushes me closer to a J-70 than a J-24 there is no point in going out because I will be DFL every time.  If I appeal the rating what would be the justification for changing, if it is a pure VPP the numbers must be right.

I'm not trying to be a PITA, although I am quite qualified, But I want to know why the status quo is changing.  I also want to know if the needs of the PHRF-D end of the rating band are being given as much consideration as the PHRF-A end of the rating band because I don't believe they are the same.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firefly, forgive me if I don't address all of your issues on Sailing Anarchy. We have some really good reasons to move away from PHRF, and especially PHRF-NE, and trust me when I say that at every step of the decision making process, we have tried to keep in mind everyone from the TP52 to the Thunderbirds (no offense Thunderbirds!). I think you'll find most of the answers to what your asking at the meeting. We are trying to keep all of the racing equitable, and while you bring up some good points about boat age, and type, etc. I want you to feel confident that a: you're not the first to ask these questions and b: that if your boat is closer to a J24 than a J70 chances are pretty good it will remain closer to a J24 than a J70. There are some pretty good minds behind the rule and how we're planning to implement it.

Please be sure to introduce yourself tonight. I'll be the one with the darts and arrows sticking out of his back ;)

Lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply, I will be there and introduce myself, and I will keep an open mind.

 

I tried to send these to the 2nd email address that you sent out but I got a reply form the recipient that he is not involved with MBSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the rule, it looks like it wouldn't rate Viper 640s, VX Ones, or Etchells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Firefly-DC said:

How much does an ORC certificate cost

$150 for a new ORC Club cert, paid through US Sailing. Plus for boats that don't have an offset file, measurement so you may as well pay for a full ORC cert at that point. You do get a discount on the ORC Club cost if you're a US Sailing member.

I spent about $400 all up for an ORC Club cert that, despite being given all the right information, was based on the wrong boat. It was subtle enough that I didn't catch it, and If I'd ever actually raced under that cert, I would have been DFL no matter how well we sailed. 

BTW, the levy from ORC.org for a club cert is $50, so US Sailing charges a 150% (100% if you're a member) markup to a European product.

Streetwise, those rules are really no different from most PHRF organizations rules, and based on our conversations last night there's a lot of flexibility about how to apply them. I'm sure a Viper could get a rating, it would just be up to the OA to determine ability to participate in a handicap event. Just like it is under PHRF now.

Christian, I'm sure you have your horror stories about ORR or ORRez. My horror story with ORC started when I had to apply twice, pay for a file modification, not get my cert until after the event I ordered it for had passed (despite giving US Ailing a 3 month lead time), and then finding out they'd based my cert not on the offset file whose name I had explicitly given them from a sister ship, but from the Carbon 32 "version" of my boat, which is similar in length only, really. Maybe we'll find out you're right and it's full of empty promises. If so, we'll march down to Rhode Island and lash Jim and Bjorn with wet noodles until they repent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ryley said:

$150 for a new ORC Club cert, paid through US Sailing. Plus for boats that don't have an offset file, measurement so you may as well pay for a full ORC cert at that point. You do get a discount on the ORC Club cost if you're a US Sailing member.

I spent about $400 all up for an ORC Club cert that, despite being given all the right information, was based on the wrong boat. It was subtle enough that I didn't catch it, and If I'd ever actually raced under that cert, I would have been DFL no matter how well we sailed. 

BTW, the levy from ORC.org for a club cert is $50, so US Sailing charges a 150% (100% if you're a member) markup to a European product.

Streetwise, those rules are really no different from most PHRF organizations rules, and based on our conversations last night there's a lot of flexibility about how to apply them. I'm sure a Viper could get a rating, it would just be up to the OA to determine ability to participate in a handicap event. Just like it is under PHRF now.

Christian, I'm sure you have your horror stories about ORR or ORRez. My horror story with ORC started when I had to apply twice, pay for a file modification, not get my cert until after the event I ordered it for had passed (despite giving US Ailing a 3 month lead time), and then finding out they'd based my cert not on the offset file whose name I had explicitly given them from a sister ship, but from the Carbon 32 "version" of my boat, which is similar in length only, really. Maybe we'll find out you're right and it's full of empty promises. If so, we'll march down to Rhode Island and lash Jim and Bjorn with wet noodles until they repent.

Hey, I am not saying ORC is perfect and they cannot screw up.  But; the peeps I have talked to are pretty happy with ORC and the ORC racing I have done seem to indicate that the ratings work pretty well.

Now the dirty secret is that both ORC and ORR are derivatives of IMS and while on the face of it promises fair ratings while the implementation of the VPP leave a fair bit to be desired.  Even more - the application of the full ratings are not easy and most OA/RC's will tend to take the easy way out and go with a general rating rather than applying the full wind based ratings.  If the full wind based ratings are actually applied - don't forget to bring your calculator or a laptop with a spreadsheet to figure out on the water how you are doing as it gets a bit complicated.

It didn't work well when it was calles IMS - I don't see what has changed............

When ORC Club and ORR EZ promises the "accuracy" of scientific calculations based on a "sophisticated" VPP they are both over selling it - without precise wanding and measurements (to insure the boat actually is built s designed and that any hull mods are taken into account) is a fallacy - but is sounds good on paper.  

The addition of a 10% fudge factor for ORR EZ just makes you go:  "hmmmm - guess the sophisticated science based VPP's are not even believed to be very accurate by the peeps administering the rule"  

Realisticly, I would say that the ratings (based on a VPP) are probably no better/worse than designers's VPP prediction, which we all know are not that accurate.

 

I am sure a Viper can NOT get a rating unless they bend the rules, which clearly states that hiking straps are not allowed and ratings do require auxillary propulsion capable of moving the boat at hull speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So SA is probably not the right place to argue this, but let's talk about a few of your points:

first off it's no secret that the VPP that IMS and ORC and ORR use goes back to a graduate program at MIT in the 70s. So what? If things were still static at the 70s level, then cool - we have something to bitch about since boat design is very different now than it was in the day.

second, no one is suggesting that ORR/ez is going to be 100% accurate all the time, especially without the added expense of wanding a boat and getting the boat measured etc. etc. And contrary to your comments, EZ is not being *sold* as a 100% accurate rule. Everyone knows that there are limitations (for instance, ORR doesn't take into account sheeting angles yet). and I get what you're saying about calculating who's winning and who's not winning if we go whole-hog on the wind ranges (which we don't plan to do). 

Except for this: most reasonable sailors know whether they're sailing a good race. They know their usual competition. They know how good their competition is. And in a given race in given conditions with their own performance, they know pretty intuitively if they are winning, losing, or it's damn close, no matter what the rating system is. In my mind, switching to ORx is an attempt to codify what sailors already know from years of racing against the same boats, but which PHRF does not reflect consistently in the results.

Lastly, (and btw the ORA folks say this too) for most weekend races that aren't at the grand prix level, PHRF does a pretty good job with handling production boats. Where it goes off the rails is with the adjustments for changes to the boat, and some of the credits that were designed in the 70s to help boats with clearly inferior gear to remain competitive. Most phrf regions have no clear idea how to handle conversion from symmetric to asymmetric spins and are either overly penalizing or overly lenient. "recreational" handicap adjustments aren't as relevant any more. PHRF doesn't take into account boat age. and on and on.. and yes EZ has a subjective portion to it, which is partly to make up for the fact that everyone (including the rule owners) KNOWS that it's not perfect. And frankly, we're not interested in perfect - we're only interested in BETTER. 

P.S. Despite what the EZ rules say, you *can* get a rating for a Viper, or an Etchells, or even a VX-One. I got the info straight from the horse's mouth, so I know it's true. Whether it makes sense to or not is a different discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did attend the MBSA meeting last night and sat through the 2 hour presentation and Q&A session with ORA.  I would recommend if you have an opportunity to go to one of their talks like this that you attend with an open mind, so thank you to MBSA for having them come in and talk and explain ORR-EZ.

First, neither Mr. Teeters nor Mr. Johnson is overselling the capabilities of ORR-EZ.  Their process for developing the initial VPP is, I believe, technically sound.  Their process will likely accurately predict the difference in performance between similar boats; say a J-24, Kirby 25 and a Merit 25.  MBSA appears to be going to a 6 number system that accounts for high, medium and low wind speeds as well as W/L and random leg courses instead of the single number PHRF system.  I believe that the process described by ORA will accurately predict the performance differences between similar boats over those conditions.  I have sailed for over 50 years, raced for 45 years and been an aerospace engineer for 35 years so I believe I am qualified to make this judgement.

That said, there are aspects that I don’t like about ORR-EZ, specifically the “black box” aspect of the rule.  I did a conversion from fractional symmetric to fractional asymmetric on my boat 2 years ago.  All of the impacts on my PHRF rating were spelled out on the PHRF-NE site so I could know before making the decision to change what the impact on my rating would be.  Maybe the PHRF penalties for the conversion were fair, maybe they weren't, but at least I knew before I committed the cost and effort what the impact would be.   Under ORR-EZ I would have to pay for a test certificate to find that out. 

Again I will point out that I am coming from the perspective of the PHRF-D fleet.  There are no custom performance racers built for this fleet.  If there is a boat that is under 20 years old in this fleet I would be shocked.  Were the guys sailing the boat we have as best we can on a limited budget.  Going from a $35 PHRF certificate to a $100 ORR-EZ is 2 entry fees or wrist bands for the crew at the Ted Hood regatta.  A $400 ORC certificate means I might as well just stay home.  If you “Grand Prix” races don’t want us dinosaurs out on the course with you, just say so and stop raising fees to keep us out.

I do not believe that is what MBSA is trying to do.  I do believe that they are trying to provide as fair a playing field as possible for as many as possible.  I also believe that Mr. Teeters and Mr. Johnson have the same goal with ORR-EZ. 

On the implementation side, it is not clear if there is a plan to phase in just one system so that at least every MBSA sanctioned event is scored under just ORR-EZ.  I think it would be good to have a plan to move to 1 rating system in 2 to 3 years.

I think it would be helpful to those of us who are unfamiliar with ORR-EZ for ORA to publish the equivalent of a PHRF valid list on their website so that we can see how ORR-EZ treats existing boats allows those of us with orphans a point of reference.  Long term it would be nice if they could extract a set of guidelines regarding common modifications the way PHRF does.  Perhaps this could be as simple as providing a sample rating certificate of a stock J-24 to a J-24 with an asymmetric tacked to the bow and an asymmetric tacked to a 130% sprit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ryley said:

So SA is probably not the right place to argue this, but let's talk about a few of your points:

first off it's no secret that the VPP that IMS and ORC and ORR use goes back to a graduate program at MIT in the 70s. So what? If things were still static at the 70s level, then cool - we have something to bitch about since boat design is very different now than it was in the day.

second, no one is suggesting that ORR/ez is going to be 100% accurate all the time, especially without the added expense of wanding a boat and getting the boat measured etc. etc. And contrary to your comments, EZ is not being *sold* as a 100% accurate rule. Everyone knows that there are limitations (for instance, ORR doesn't take into account sheeting angles yet). and I get what you're saying about calculating who's winning and who's not winning if we go whole-hog on the wind ranges (which we don't plan to do). 

Except for this: most reasonable sailors know whether they're sailing a good race. They know their usual competition. They know how good their competition is. And in a given race in given conditions with their own performance, they know pretty intuitively if they are winning, losing, or it's damn close, no matter what the rating system is. In my mind, switching to ORx is an attempt to codify what sailors already know from years of racing against the same boats, but which PHRF does not reflect consistently in the results.

Lastly, (and btw the ORA folks say this too) for most weekend races that aren't at the grand prix level, PHRF does a pretty good job with handling production boats. Where it goes off the rails is with the adjustments for changes to the boat, and some of the credits that were designed in the 70s to help boats with clearly inferior gear to remain competitive. Most phrf regions have no clear idea how to handle conversion from symmetric to asymmetric spins and are either overly penalizing or overly lenient. "recreational" handicap adjustments aren't as relevant any more. PHRF doesn't take into account boat age. and on and on.. and yes EZ has a subjective portion to it, which is partly to make up for the fact that everyone (including the rule owners) KNOWS that it's not perfect. And frankly, we're not interested in perfect - we're only interested in BETTER. 

P.S. Despite what the EZ rules say, you *can* get a rating for a Viper, or an Etchells, or even a VX-One. I got the info straight from the horse's mouth, so I know it's true. Whether it makes sense to or not is a different discussion.

I think PHRF (especially if it were nationalized to avoid local political bs, lobbying and favoritism) will do just as good (or bad) job as ORC and ORR as well as their derivatives - so maybe the only advantage you get is to get around the local PHRF board, which I can certainly see would be an advantage.

Choosing ORR EZ over ORC is imho not smart as ORR seems to be growing rapidly and will probably end up pushing far ahead of ORR EZ in numbers and racing OA's using it

 

But - good luck  - will be interesting to see what you think in a year or two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Christian said:

I think PHRF (especially if it were nationalized to avoid local political bs, lobbying and favoritism) will do just as good (or bad) job as ORC and ORR as well as their derivatives - so maybe the only advantage you get is to get around the local PHRF board, which I can certainly see would be an advantage.

Choosing ORR EZ over ORC is imho not smart as ORR seems to be growing rapidly and will probably end up pushing far ahead of ORR EZ in numbers and racing OA's using it

 

But - good luck  - will be interesting to see what you think in a year or two

Christian, I respect your opinion, however since US Sailing has decided there's no money in nationalizing PHRF then it really doesn't matter and remains a hypothetical. And even if they did, surprisingly some of our sailors would completely balk at having to be a US Sailing member to get a racing cert. Also I'm sure you meant ORC is growing rapidly, but to put it in perspective, if MBSA gets 3/4 of its active racers to switch to ORR then they'll double their numbers in 2018 ;)

But that doesn't mean that they don't have access to the same database of offsets that ORC does. I agree, though, that it will be interesting to see what we think in 2 years. I know I'm tired of buying 4 phrf certs a year and having them all be different, not just in absolute numbers but in relative numbers to my competition as well. 

By the way, we had some 'local talent' at the talk who are supportive of this move, including Jud Smith and Jim Taylor. Again, we're not shooting for perfect, we're shooting for better, and while you may think ORC is better than ORR, our experience is that ORC is less interested in being inclusive of the types of boats and sailors we have in our fleet.

There are things that bug me about ORR, like the lack of a listing of boats, certs, and ratings. But through involvement with MBSA, that is going to change and while the VPP will remain closed, the certs will be available just like in ORC and most PHRF areas now. It's a positive step for an organization that is trying to grow in an established space, and I commend them for being open to suggestions that not only improve the ratings, but also the ease of working with ORA.

One other thing I want to say is that yes, there is an ORRez rule book. It was clear from the presentation last night, though, that they encourage areas to examine those rules and adopt as they apply to their areas. Clearly we want to stay aligned nationally, but at the same time we're not trying to create arms races. So for instance, at least for year 1, we'll be adopting PHRF-NE's limitations on numbers and types of sails, and we'll evaluate it at the end of year one to see if those are good limitations. It's an iterative process, of course, but we've made more progress with our OA's and skippers in the past 4 months than have been accomplished in the past 4 years trying to work with PHRF-NE. The people who make PHRF-NE are on the whole excellent people who are volunteers and should be thanked for the amount of abuse they take. But at the end of the day, they always, "hey, what do you want for $25?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christian said:

I think PHRF (especially if it were nationalized to avoid local political bs, lobbying and favoritism) will do just as good (or bad) job as ORC and ORR as well as their derivatives - so maybe the only advantage you get is to get around the local PHRF board, which I can certainly see would be an advantage.

Choosing ORR EZ over ORC is imho not smart as ORC seems to be growing rapidly and will probably end up pushing far ahead of ORR EZ in numbers and racing OA's using it

 

But - good luck  - will be interesting to see what you think in a year or two

fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ryley said:

Christian, I respect your opinion, however since US Sailing has decided there's no money in nationalizing PHRF then it really doesn't matter and remains a hypothetical. And even if they did, surprisingly some of our sailors would completely balk at having to be a US Sailing member to get a racing cert. Also I'm sure you meant ORC is growing rapidly, but to put it in perspective, if MBSA gets 3/4 of its active racers to switch to ORR then they'll double their numbers in 2018 ;)

But that doesn't mean that they don't have access to the same database of offsets that ORC does. I agree, though, that it will be interesting to see what we think in 2 years. I know I'm tired of buying 4 phrf certs a year and having them all be different, not just in absolute numbers but in relative numbers to my competition as well. 

By the way, we had some 'local talent' at the talk who are supportive of this move, including Jud Smith and Jim Taylor. Again, we're not shooting for perfect, we're shooting for better, and while you may think ORC is better than ORR, our experience is that ORC is less interested in being inclusive of the types of boats and sailors we have in our fleet.

There are things that bug me about ORR, like the lack of a listing of boats, certs, and ratings. But through involvement with MBSA, that is going to change and while the VPP will remain closed, the certs will be available just like in ORC and most PHRF areas now. It's a positive step for an organization that is trying to grow in an established space, and I commend them for being open to suggestions that not only improve the ratings, but also the ease of working with ORA.

One other thing I want to say is that yes, there is an ORRez rule book. It was clear from the presentation last night, though, that they encourage areas to examine those rules and adopt as they apply to their areas. Clearly we want to stay aligned nationally, but at the same time we're not trying to create arms races. So for instance, at least for year 1, we'll be adopting PHRF-NE's limitations on numbers and types of sails, and we'll evaluate it at the end of year one to see if those are good limitations. It's an iterative process, of course, but we've made more progress with our OA's and skippers in the past 4 months than have been accomplished in the past 4 years trying to work with PHRF-NE. The people who make PHRF-NE are on the whole excellent people who are volunteers and should be thanked for the amount of abuse they take. But at the end of the day, they always, "hey, what do you want for $25?"

Yes - you caught my typo. 

I can see that changing the rules might be possibly locally - BUT - then you end up with ratings that are not(or at least should not be) transferable top other locales, which is kinda limiting in itself and thus shortsighted it the aim is to have a rating that can be used nationally.  E.G. if the rules say that hiking straps are not allowed but you choose to ignore that locally, the Vipers (and others) that get a rating certificate should not be allowed to race in other locales where the rules have not been bent.  I would severely question the whole rating system if USS allows rating boats that do NOT adhere to the published rules. 

 

Did you look at the current number of ORR/ORR EZ certs vs ORC/ORC Club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian,

I agree with you about what can be allowed locally vs nationally, and honestly it's probably a small problem in reality - people don't buy vipers or etchells to race handicap. But at the same time, every region makes some sort of concession - even PHRF-NE allows Melges 24s and J22s to get provisional ratings even though they don't strictly meet the PHRF laws. Hell, Hingham Bay rated an A-cat one time.

As to the number of certificates, yes, we've looked at the numbers. Obviously there are more ORC/Club certs than there are ORR. So what? there are more PHRF certs than there are ORC. That doesn't mean it's a good system ;)

And honestly? I'm not sure why you care so much. If ORR/EZ ends up sucking, I'll be out of a volunteer job with pitchforks sticking out of my back and people can go back to paying for PHRF certs. Meantime, the general consensus here has ranged from cautious optimism to it's about damn time. 

Anyway, that's probably as much as I'm going to say (and gone on too long anyway) on an ORR Long Island thread. If someone wants to start an ORR MBSA thread then I'll probably poke in there. Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jason Ker's articles in Seahorse, the ORC VPP underwent some huge changes a couple of years ago. AIUI, no longer really related at all to the original IMS (MHS) VPP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Presuming Ed said:

According to Jason Ker's articles in Seahorse, the ORC VPP underwent some huge changes a couple of years ago. AIUI, no longer really related at all to the original IMS (MHS) VPP.

well that's a good thing.  Certainly the IMS VPP was not at all able to deal with lighweight planing hulls and also had some pretty detrimental typeforming built in - the last one being the death of IMS with absolutely stupid and un-seaworthy boats being built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now