Recommended Posts

In the last 20 years, N2E has split PHRF boats into classes in a number of ways;  separate ULDB classes, separate Sprit boat classes, separate Maxi class, etc.  In recent years, classes have been divided by rating alone.  The SB-KH race separates ULDBs into their own classes, and non-ULDB into their own classes, split on a Performance Factor of 2.7.  (SoCal PHRF uses 2.1 as their ULDB definition, probably set a long time ago).   The idea is to group similar performing boats, since ULDBs go faster in more wind than is predicted by the displacement hull speed based PHRF TOD rating, and non-ULDBs do not.   I like separate ULDB classes.  With the general lower participation in today's sailboat races, this will result in larger rating spreads in classes of more similar performing boats.

The question for you all, is which do you prefer?  The current classes by ratings only , or separate groups of ULDB classes and non-ULDB classes, rating splits within their groups.

Bill

NOSA VC Race

PS - I don't race in PHRF so no effect to me personally :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer separate divisions for foiling, planing and non-planing boats.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separate groups of ULDB classes and non-ULDB classes, with rating splits also based on the performance factor, within their groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One effect of separating ULDB and non-ULDB classes, is that ULDB boats would not be in classes with Corinthian rated boats.

Share this post


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

 since ULDBs go faster in more wind than is predicted by the displacement hull speed based PHRF TOD rating, and non-ULDBs do not.    With the general lower participation in today's sailboat races, this will result in larger rating spreads in classes of more similar performing boats.

 

Even with larger rating spreads the actual results are likely to be closer and likely to be considered “fairer” across a range of conditions, especially for those conditions at the higher and lower ends of the scale, if the classes are separated according to PF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is "performance factor" defined?  A quick search isn't helping me, and I'm not aware of this formula.  What was a ULDB when my boat was made is different than what is a "sport boat" today.

I like it when large races (like Swiftsure) break groups up into "light" and "heavy".  In smaller races I prefer having them together, even if it isn't "fair" just so that I'm not racing in a class with only 3 boats.  I'm capable of pay attention to my own performance relative to boats like mine without necessarily having to have the classes split that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with your local efforts!

On Lake Champlain, all organizers are volunteers, and PHRF has no budget. For LCYC and the multi-club Lake Champlain Championship Series, class splits are based on PHRF and displacement. The numbers are not random or arbitrary; they are meant to place known boats in classes and plan for potential new boats.

https://lcyc.info/racing/divisions

https://lcyc.info/racing/registration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current N2E splits seem reasonable. The problem is when do boats start to plane. For example, SC50/52s are listed as ULDB, but they just don't plane (well maybe over 20 kts), while a J125 can start to plane at 4-16 knots. Unless we define ratings by predominat wind in the race (way too complicated for N2E), then the best we can do is split out the light weight sprit boats, and then use rating gaps within the ULDB and non-ULDB classes. But if the wind ever gets back over 18 kts for the race, then the TP52s will walk away from the sleds, the Hobie 33 will walk away from the.......

 

Best we can do is keep the true displacements racing against like boats, else the wind range is too much a factor.

Share this post


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

The current N2E splits seem reasonable. The problem is when do boats start to plane. For example, SC50/52s are listed as ULDB, but they just don't plane (well maybe over 20 kts), while a J125 can start to plane at 4-16 knots. Unless we define ratings by predominat wind in the race (way too complicated for N2E), then the best we can do is split out the light weight sprit boats, and then use rating gaps within the ULDB and non-ULDB classes. But if the wind ever gets back over 18 kts for the race, then the TP52s will walk away from the sleds, the Hobie 33 will walk away from the.......

 

Best we can do is keep the true displacements racing against like boats, else the wind range is too much a factor.

I would love to see a J125 plane in 4 knots of breeze

Share this post


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

One effect of separating ULDB and non-ULDB classes, is that ULDB boats would not be in classes with Corinthian rated boats.

What are Corinthian ratings? 

Share this post


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

I would love to see a J125 plane in 4 knots of breeze

was thinking the same thing. he forgot a 1 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it needs to be that complicated? If a boat type gets on a plan it should be in its own division.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VWAP said:

What are Corinthian ratings? 

A recent change in PHRF is to offer boats rating adjustments for specific cruise gear on board.  The rating with these adjustments is a Corinthian rating, intended to race against normally rated boats in race trim.  See Appendix F in the PHRF Rule link above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

The problem is when do boats start to plane. For example, SC50/52s are listed as ULDB, but they just don't plane (well maybe over 20 kts), while a J125 can start to plane at 4-16 knots. Unless we define ratings by predominat wind in the race (way too complicated for N2E), then the best we can do is split out the light weight sprit boats, and then use rating gaps within the ULDB and non-ULDB classes. But if the wind ever gets back over 18 kts for the race, then the TP52s will walk away from the sleds, the Hobie 33 will walk away from the.......

 

Best we can do is keep the true displacements racing against like boats, else the wind range is too much a factor.

Another alternative is to use PHRF TOT for ULDB boats.  TOD assumes hull speed.  TOT assumes boats sail proportionately faster in more wind, which is kinda of what you are describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 10:52 AM, Bill Gibbs said:

One effect of separating ULDB and non-ULDB classes, is that ULDB boats would not be in classes with Corinthian rated boats.

My boat is an 80's era ULDB which is a modern displacement boat unless it blows.

 

On 8/3/2018 at 2:34 PM, Bill Gibbs said:

Performance factor is defined in SoCal PHRF rules, even gives the formula.

There Perf Factor as I understand it is being rewritten with the help of some NA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 11:01 AM, Meat Wad said:

My boat is an 80's era ULDB which is a modern displacement boat unless it blows.

 

There Perf Factor as I understand it is being rewritten with the help of some NA's.

Your 80's era ULDB (and boats like it) is probably why SBKH uses 2.7 as the line for being a "ULDB" rather than the old PHRF line at 2.1

It's nice that PF may get a new formula.  But the problem is that better math can't solve this problem with one value supposed to be perfect for all courses and wind conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 9:53 AM, Dude said:

I would prefer separate divisions for foiling, planing and non-planing boats.

 

Where is this fleet of foiling PHRF boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Delta Dog said:

Where is this fleet of foiling PHRF boats?

I think we have to wait till after the next America’s Cup.

Share this post


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

Where is this fleet of foiling PHRF boats?

It'll happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 1:05 PM, Bill Gibbs said:

Your 80's era ULDB (and boats like it) is probably why SBKH uses 2.7 as the line for being a "ULDB" rather than the old PHRF line at 2.1

It's nice that PF may get a new formula.  But the problem is that better math can't solve this problem with one value supposed to be perfect for all courses and wind conditions.

Which is why I have argued at meetings that we should be rated on the Light, Medium and Heavy Air instead of the course. My boat loves light and Heavy air but in Medium  it is work to not make any mistakes and even then I have been beaten B4B by a J 30 that I owe time to.

PHRF should be done away with and every one should get the ORR EZ Rating.
But then every RC would need accurate wind instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

PHRF should be done away with and every one should get the ORR EZ Rating.
But then every RC would need accurate wind instruments.

I went off and skimmed thru the ORR EZ rules and overview.  There is no mention of boats needing wind instruments.  It doesn't sound all that different from other systems.  They  calc a rating from their VPP, have a committee to adjust from observed performance, rate for a variety of conditions, and give the Organizing Authority some ability to guess the wind condition mix for a specific race.

Heck, PHRF rates for a variety of race conditions.    Maybe ORR EZ is better.  My first problem arises when conditions in a coastal race don't match expectations, or simply vary all over the place.  A common N2E race starts upwind in light wind, shifts into a windy downwind race, than variable light wind all night. Which one category best describes it?   Portsmouth has the ability to pick a single wind range, but as far as I know it is rarely used.

If a rating system uses observed performance at all, it is hard and subjective to separate out which part of that performance is crew performance or boat condition.  I have heard discussions of rating systems using measured wind conditions on individual boats (is there one being used?).  But if a rating system uses actual boat experienced wind conditions, you are factoring out the sailing skill it took to get into better wind, and the boats need calibrated wind instruments as you mentioned.

These are not simple problems  to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

Which is why I have argued at meetings that we should be rated on the Light, Medium and Heavy Air instead of the course. My boat loves light and Heavy air but in Medium  it is work to not make any mistakes and even then I have been beaten B4B by a J 30 that I owe time to.

PHRF should be done away with and every one should get the ORR EZ Rating.
But then every RC would need accurate wind instruments.

You could also do that by using TOT scoring - adjust the "B" factor for wind and type of race. But then folks would complain because it's a lot harder to figure out whether they're correcting on someone or not while out on the racecourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meat Wad said:



PHRF should be done away with and every one should get the ORR EZ Rating.
 

Then why don't you shut down your phrf board and stop issuing rating certificates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 3:23 PM, Bill Gibbs said:

I went off and skimmed thru the ORR EZ rules and overview.  There is no mention of boats needing wind instruments.  It doesn't sound all that different from other systems.  They  calc a rating from their VPP, have a committee to adjust from observed performance, rate for a variety of conditions, and give the Organizing Authority some ability to guess the wind condition mix for a specific race.

Heck, PHRF rates for a variety of race conditions.    Maybe ORR EZ is better.  My first problem arises when conditions in a coastal race don't match expectations, or simply vary all over the place.  A common N2E race starts upwind in light wind, shifts into a windy downwind race, than variable light wind all night. Which one category best describes it?   Portsmouth has the ability to pick a single wind range, but as far as I know it is rarely used.

If a rating system uses observed performance at all, it is hard and subjective to separate out which part of that performance is crew performance or boat condition.  I have heard discussions of rating systems using measured wind conditions on individual boats (is there one being used?).  But if a rating system uses actual boat experienced wind conditions, you are factoring out the sailing skill it took to get into better wind, and the boats need calibrated wind instruments as you mentioned.

These are not simple problems  to solve.

Bill, bless your heart, I said every RC (Race Committee) would need  accurate wind instruments.

 

On 8/10/2018 at 4:00 PM, TJSoCal said:

You could also do that by using TOT scoring - adjust the "B" factor for wind and type of race. But then folks would complain because it's a lot harder to figure out whether they're correcting on someone or not while out on the racecourse.

But still PHRF would have to do away with the Bouy, RLC and OW ratings.
Where as ORR is already set up for wind ranges and used world wide.
PHRF could give every boat and Offset for the wind range. But if ORR has already done it WTF???

 

On 8/10/2018 at 8:54 PM, VWAP said:

Then why don't you shut down your phrf board and stop issuing rating certificates 

Grow up. Until something else is adopted, PHRF will limp along.

I have often said PHRF stands for

Pretty Hokey racing Fleet
People Handicapping Racing Fleet
Political Handicap Racing Fleet

You call it

This may be my last year trying to get anything done.

Share this post


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

 

 

Grow up. Until something else is adopted, PHRF will limp along.

I have often said PHRF stands for

Pretty Hokey racing Fleet
People Handicapping Racing Fleet
Political Handicap Racing Fleet

You call it

This may be my last year trying to get anything done.

Grow up?

You can be a leader or a follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 5:36 PM, Meat Wad said:

Bill, bless your heart, I said every RC (Race Committee) would need  accurate wind instruments.

 

But still PHRF would have to do away with the Bouy, RLC and OW ratings.
Where as ORR is already set up for wind ranges and used world wide.
PHRF could give every boat and Offset for the wind range. But if ORR has already done it WTF???

 

Grow up. Until something else is adopted, PHRF will limp along.

I have often said PHRF stands for

Pretty Hokey racing Fleet
People Handicapping Racing Fleet
Political Handicap Racing Fleet

You call it

This may be my last year trying to get anything done.

 

23 hours ago, VWAP said:

Grow up?

You can be a leader or a follower

Maybe you have never been on a regional board that stretched for almost 200 mile, encompasing  areas that are so different that it becomes impossible to manage.

If you have then why hide it. Give me some guidance, because I am about ready to just drop out of this sailing shit because it is becoming a pile of shit.
All I get is grief from people on this site and this never any help anywhere.

Scot is an A hole and too many more here are too and US Sailing does not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, PHRF does a pretty good job of matching up wildly different horses, and iwldly different courses. yes, viritually all boats will have areas/wind ranges where they suck - and if its obvious that its not the crew (and usually it is the crew) then PHRF will listen, but needs something to go on - other PHRF area ratings, actual results (more detailed the better like actual leg timings versus other like boats), or with big boats their VPP based ratings and relative to their peers.

 

My experience is that between the PH board, their industry inputs (sailmakers, designers, etc) and real world sailing results, they usually get it right. I do think that at then end of each season, they should look at the winners and likley hit them a second or two. That will start to drive parity for those who spend the money on brand new sails versus their peers with older, slightly slowers. If the A-holes defined above don't like competiton, tell them its just easier and cheaper to buy a pickle dish directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The input here was generally favorable to the idea of separating ULDB/planing boats from the other monos (as I understood the comments), so we did it.

2019 N2E will have separate PHRF classes for ULDB & non-ULDB boats.  How bad can it be?

(NORs posted and Entries open a couple weeks now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

PHRF should be done away with and every one should get the ORR EZ Rating.

My experience with ORR-EZ was a complete farce and downright shady.    Got the certified weigh-in, LOA/LWL, etc.  Got a rating of .89.  Boats that rate close to me under PHRF (50-60) rate between high 8s and low 9s.  Raced two of the 3 races in the California Offshore Race Week (the Spinnaker Cup and Coastal Cup) then post-races they changed my rating to .98.  No explanation how/why the "formula" changed after they issued my rating. A SC50 and J/125 rate 1.01.  According to ORR-sleeZEE I'm suppose to owe a bunch of time to a Melges 32 (.93) which rates 30sec/mil faster under PHRF.  A rating that can be changed post calculations is not a measurement rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 9:33 AM, Bill Gibbs said:
On 10/6/2018 at 12:36 PM, Bill Gibbs said:

The input here was generally favorable to the idea of separating ULDB/planing boats from the other monos (as I understood the comments), so we did it.

2019 N2E will have separate PHRF classes for ULDB & non-ULDB boats.  How bad can it be?

(NORs posted and Entries open a couple weeks now)

 

It all depends on the wind Strength. A uldb is far different than a planning boat. What planet are you on Bill?

Light , Medium or Heavy air is what you should be using for a standard, Not the course.. oh wait NOSA is a bunch of old guys.

 

I will never take my boat in the N2E because the odds are worse than going to Vegas. Roll the dice a month or 2 in advance and hope the wind gods favor your boat.

No thanks.

Do you guys even do TOT?? is it even a real race any more?? The boats are so different and NOSA is a bunch of old guys who have no idea what the F they are doing. And you rely on PHRF.................HA HA HA
I remember when everybody had either a ULDB or a disp boat. No sprit planning boats. It was real back then. Now.it's almost a ..............JOKE. You put a 90's Farr 30 up against the Sprit planning boats. If it blows, the Farr 30  has no chance. People wonder why some fleets die off. Thanks NOSA and PHRF.

Hell, you don't even finish at Ensenada any more. WTF

Nothing is as it ever was............................. parties??  YAWN, as I been told

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I’ve got this right, you bought a limited production run old boat that doesn’t have a performance curve near to any other boat, and you bitch that some volunteers can’t handicap your boat for all conditions.

do you even like to sail?

Share this post


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

It all depends on the wind Strength. A uldb is far different than a planning boat. What planet are you on Bill?

Light , Medium or Heavy air is what you should be using for a standard, Not the course.. oh wait NOSA is a bunch of old guys.

 

I will never take my boat in the N2E because the odds are worse than going to Vegas. Roll the dice a month or 2 in advance and hope the wind gods favor your boat.

No thanks.

Do you guys even do TOT?? is it even a real race any more?? The boats are so different and NOSA is a bunch of old guys who have no idea what the F they are doing. And you rely on PHRF.................HA HA HA
I remember when everybody had either a ULDB or a disp boat. No sprit planning boats. It was real back then. Now.it's almost a ..............JOKE. You put a 90's Farr 30 up against the Sprit planning boats. If it blows, the Farr 30  has no chance. People wonder why some fleets die off. Thanks NOSA and PHRF.

Hell, you don't even finish at Ensenada any more. WTF

Nothing is as it ever was............................. parties??  YAWN, as I been told

You should volunteer on the  PHRF board and fix things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 7:00 PM, TJSoCal said:

You could also do that by using TOT scoring - adjust the "B" factor for wind and type of race. But then folks would complain because it's a lot harder to figure out whether they're correcting on someone or not while out on the racecourse.

no, this doesn't work, unless you're adjusting the B factor separately for each boat. All it does is compress or expand the fleets. In no universe does adjusting the B factor make a boat that is meh in light air, great in medium air, and hole in the water in heavy air competitive against a light air machine, dog in medium, and planing in heavy. In order to fairly rate boats against each other in different conditions, you need two things: 1) a clear understanding of the wind ranges you want to use and 2) a modeling system that can reliably give you those numbers.

solosailor's experience notwithstanding, we had a pretty good season with ORR-ez in MBSA, and for the most part it worked the way it was supposed to. A few anomalies, yes, a few complaints, yes, but one of the things we're learning about the system is that they are willing to listen, provide rationales and re-examine ratings that simply don't make sense. I expect 2019 to be better and smoother than 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Raz'r said:

So, if I’ve got this right, you bought a limited production run old boat that doesn’t have a performance curve near to any other boat, and you bitch that some volunteers can’t handicap your boat for all conditions.

do you even like to sail?

I sail all the time. The boat is fast but in medium air, it does not have the waterline.
Low wetted surface in light air, windy it will break loose. But in medium air and no sea (with a 22.6' WL). it is tough to beat a well sailed Catalina 36 that rates 144 when I am 135.
That is Random Leg BS that many ULDB complain about. This has been an issue for long periods. 135 miles with no break loose conditions and you owe time. Yea Right.

I win plenty and lose too. I sail hard and put the boat away wet, only to come back and clean it up the next day.

So up yours.

The Ensenada Race is a 135 mile joke because NOSA is afraid to take charge. They would rather blame it on others. OH my
I've done the Ensenada race 23 times between 73 (I was 15) to 95 ( 3 years before I broke my back) and will not do it again unless I am on a 50+ boat.

Bill thinks he is getting opinions here. That is laughable.

 

Share this post


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

I sail all the time. The boat is fast but in medium air, it does not have the waterline.
Low wetted surface in light air, windy it will break loose. But in medium air and no sea (with a 22.6' WL). it is tough to beat a well sailed Catalina 36 that rates 144 when I am 135.
That is Random Leg BS that many ULDB complain about. This has been an issue for long periods. 135 miles with no break loose conditions and you owe time. Yea Right.

I win plenty and lose too. I sail hard and put the boat away wet, only to come back and clean it up the next day.

So up yours.

The Ensenada Race is a 135 mile joke because NOSA is afraid to take charge. They would rather blame it on others. OH my
I've done the Ensenada race 23 times between 73 (I was 15) to 95 ( 3 years before I broke my back) and will not do it again unless I am on a 50+ boat.

Bill thinks he is getting opinions here. That is laughable.

 

If your goal in life is to beat a Catalina 36, why not get a Catalina 36?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raz'r said:

If your goal in life is to beat a Catalina 36, why not get a Catalina 36?

 

Ummmmm....... this thread is not about one design racing.

 you life in pa has rotted your brain 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N2E is an entry level race. It's run in a typically benign time of the year. The intent is to get cruisers interested in racing. Years ago it was also a feeder race to start off the Southern California race season. Yachting Cup is right afterwards. Then we used to have Ahmanson, Cal Cup and finish off with LBRW.

There are a gazillion classes. So, most everyone can compete somewhere. Just don't get too serious about it. Some years you'll get your weather and others you won't. We have lots of races through out the year for the more seasoned competitive teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tom O'Keefe said:

N2E is an entry level race. It's run in a typically benign time of the year. The intent is to get cruisers interested in racing. Years ago it was also a feeder race to start off the Southern California race season. Yachting Cup is right afterwards. Then we used to have Ahmanson, Cal Cup and finish off with LBRW.

There are a gazillion classes. So, most everyone can compete somewhere. Just don't get too serious about it. Some years you'll get your weather and others you won't. We have lots of races through out the year for the more seasoned competitive teams. 

Way too reasonable....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Bill thinks he is getting opinions here. That is laughable.

Oh, I definitely think I'm getting opinions.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N2E would like to attract as many participants as possible, for a fun race to Ensenada.

NOSA is not a rating organization.  We chose a ULDB split based on Performance Factor (PF), because PF is defined by the PHRF SoCal rules.  We choose PHRF SoCal for monohull ratings, because this is the largest racing fleet in southern California.  If a group of boats approached us and asked for a one Design or alternate rating class, we would oblige them.  If we could get more boats racing under an alternate rating system, we would consider it.  As a race organizer we provide a service to our customers, the participants.  We try to understand their desires.  This does not make everyone happy.  Oh well.

I enjoy seeking SA comments.  I don't think SA is necessarily the mainstream opinion of most racers, but they do represent many of the different perspectives out there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the PHRF Performance Factor (PF), the formula is simple

[(.67*LWL)+(.34*LOA)] * (SA/DISP)]

I am no hydrodynamicist, but this makes a certain sense.  The SA/DISP is going to ramp up the PF for highly powered light boats.  Boats that are likely to plane.  The LWL & LOA factors recognizes that boats don't sail at their static LWL.

All single value handicap systems (and I include PHRF because we only use one of their 3 ratings in a race) strive to be perfect for one wind speed, one sea state, and one point of sail (or one combination of these).  Different boats perform differently as a race deviates from these target conditions, reducing accuracy of CT results.  Our 120nm coastal races deviates a lot.  One solution is to group similarly performing boats.  In PHRF the rating itself is one indication of "similarly performing", but misses the ULDB effect of going faster in more wind (planing being one reason).  The Performance Factor is another performance grouping factor that considers this.  We are using both in 2019.

Share this post


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

 

I enjoy seeking SA comments.  I don't think SA is necessarily the mainstream opinion of most racers, but they do represent many of the different perspectives out there.  

Perhaps what they could do is have a separate race for each of the different class of boats. PHRF could have a separate race and ULDB could also have a separate race. ORR and ORC and even may be IRC could also have individual races. Heck, they could even have a separate race for people who might want to motor part of the way in the interest of time constraints and being able to participate. Those who don’t want to do the race could stay home. If they ran all of the separate races on the same day they would benefit from economies of scale . Some sort of catchy marketing phrase like calling it “The Newport to Ensenada International Sailboat Race” might make it more attractive and perhaps increase participation. Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formulas here are extra confusing.

SA/DISP in Bill's formula isn't for the standard definition of SA/D.  There are also two definitions of SA/D on the same page in the PHRF socal page.  I'm using the one that is in the same block of text as PF, even though it disagrees with the one 3 lines above.

I find numbers useful, so I ran numbers for some common boats (plus my own):

image.png.0a9d564cf6f4541c0d81a80264525464.png

One comment is that displacement should probably include crew weight.  This can be a big factor on a lightweight boat like an Olson 30 that might often be crewed with 6-8 crew, where a J/109 or Express 37 might be crewed with 7-10.

alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tom O'Keefe said:

N2E is an entry level race. It's run in a typically benign time of the year. The intent is to get cruisers interested in racing. Years ago it was also a feeder race to start off the Southern California race season. Yachting Cup is right afterwards. Then we used to have Ahmanson, Cal Cup and finish off with LBRW.

There are a gazillion classes. So, most everyone can compete somewhere. Just don't get too serious about it. Some years you'll get your weather and others you won't. We have lots of races through out the year for the more seasoned competitive teams. 

10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Way too reasonable....

 

N2E is Entry level race...................that is not reasonable.

Idiots have died in the joke of a race and that is entry level??????????????

Raz'r, you need to grow a few.

 

9 hours ago, Bill Gibbs said:

Regarding the PHRF Performance Factor (PF), the formula is simple

[(.67*LWL)+(.34*LOA)] * (SA/DISP)]

I am no hydrodynamicist, but this makes a certain sense.  The SA/DISP is going to ramp up the PF for highly powered light boats.  Boats that are likely to plane.  The LWL & LOA factors recognizes that boats don't sail at their static LWL.

All single value handicap systems (and I include PHRF because we only use one of their 3 ratings in a race) strive to be perfect for one wind speed, one sea state, and one point of sail (or one combination of these).  Different boats perform differently as a race deviates from these target conditions, reducing accuracy of CT results.  Our 120nm coastal races deviates a lot.  One solution is to group similarly performing boats.  In PHRF the rating itself is one indication of "similarly performing", but misses the ULDB effect of going faster in more wind (planing being one reason).  The Performance Factor is another performance grouping factor that considers this.  We are using both in 2019.

Bill, have you and NOSA even been in touch with with regional...................I've been told all equations are changing. At least I have heard no one is happy with the current equations.
You guys should pay someone to actually make some real factors for your jaunt.

NOSA and TransPac using PHRF for race long distance races is a big joke.
Especially TransPac YC using SO Cal PHRF to race 2000 miles into the Trades is really stupid.

sorry for being honest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For TransPac we're using a new wind matrix with 5 degree TWA reference angles and a historical average wind data field derived from 7 races  of zero hour wind data and plus minus 2 days start times. I believe there will be 189 data points in the wind matrix. So, the result should be an ORR handicap with less gaps and closer to historic averages.

At least that's the boards intent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

sorry for being honest.

I appreciate your honesty.

It doesn't mean I agree with you however.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

N2E is Entry level race...................that is not reasonable.

Idiots have died in the joke of a race and that is entry level??????????????

Raz'r, you need to grow a few.

 

Bill, have you and NOSA even been in touch with with regional...................I've been told all equations are changing. At least I have heard no one is happy with the current equations.
You guys should pay someone to actually make some real factors for your jaunt.

NOSA and TransPac using PHRF for race long distance races is a big joke.
Especially TransPac YC using SO Cal PHRF to race 2000 miles into the Trades is really stupid.

sorry for being honest.

 

Meat Wad I'm sure you are passionate about your position.  But, N2E is all about bringing new people into racing. A tragic accident does not change the basic premise. 

And see above about how we rate TransPac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

I've been told all equations are changing.

When PHRF makes changes, NOSA will follow PHRF's rules and ratings, as they are the rating organization and define the "PHRF Class".  As we would for any Class we offer starts to.

The only changes I've heard of relate to changing the Corinthian ratings significantly, even to losing the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 6:54 PM, Tom O'Keefe said:

Meat Wad I'm sure you are passionate about your position.  But, N2E is all about bringing new people into racing. A tragic accident does not change the basic premise. 

And see above about how we rate TransPac.

You are saying that Newport to Ensenada is about bringing new people into the sport??
You should say it is about bringing new Partiers into the sport.

Ensenads is not a race for new sailors to start racing...................maybe that is the problem.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 6:55 PM, Bill Gibbs said:

When PHRF makes changes, NOSA will follow PHRF's rules and ratings, as they are the rating organization and define the "PHRF Class".  As we would for any Class we offer starts to.

The only changes I've heard of relate to changing the Corinthian ratings significantly, even to losing the name.

Bill, please just post links to the rules. posting excerpts from the rules is dangerous because the rules can change and your posts will live forever.

One of these days you old guys will understand posting links instead of static information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to US Sailing today. I think I will try ORR EZ. 

Think PHRF measurements meet VPP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few PH ULDB #s to ponder:

TP52             4.8-6.2

FT                 4.75-5.2

J125             4.75

SC50-52        3.0/3.1

J120              2.6/2.7

SCH35           2.0

CAT30           1.15

Now, as Bill says, if you tie rating bands with ULDB bands, you will probably get closer/fairer racing than we do today.

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