wingssail

PHRF is not run by self-interested clowns

Recommended Posts

"your PHRF rating is determined by a bunch of self-interested clowns taking wild shots in the dark"

Wrong, and sounds like sour grapes. In my area, and everywhere I have sailed, the PHRF handicappers, especially at meetings where they are trying to resolve requests for changes, are knowledgeable volunteers who listen to owners and consider data and try to come up with fair handicaps, and by and large they do.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PHRF obviously has considered a lot of variables, boat data, conditions and performance to establish accurate ratings cuz we are winning often.

I luv phrf. hey my boat builder helps them assign ratings. What could be wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love PHRF time on distance, but I hate PHRF time on time.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Luketougas1 said:

I love PHRF time on distance, but I hate PHRF time on time.

 

Probably because you aren’t winning any more with a better rating rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PHRFs greatest strength is that is is a simple one number rating system based of observed performance run by volunteers and that it is cheap.

 
PHRFs biggest failing is that it is a simple one number rating system that is run by volunteers.
 
Sailboats operate in a chaotic environment and that environment does not effect all boats equally. In a fleet of dissimulator boats a one number rating system is not capable of rating all boats fairly. 
 
Some(SoCal) regional PHRF committees has tried to address this by adjusting the rating by type of course. That is a start but more important to my mind is an adjustment for wind speed. Some boats prefer light air, others heavy and unusual is the boat the does well in both conditions.
 
The quality of your PHRF experience is directly related to the quality of the volunteers on your PHRF committee. Some regions are really good and some really bad with most somewhere in the middle. If yours is in the not so good category  there is little you can do about it as the operation of the handicap committee is opaque, controlled by the committee and not subject to change from outside the committee.
 
There certainly is self interest among PHRF committees. Just look at the number of sail makers, boat builders, boat designers, and other sailing industry figures that serve on PHRF committees. Then there are the long  serving members, on the handicappers committee for 25-30 years. Some are no longer active racers They are the ones who control the committee, keeping new blood out. Ever wonder why PHRF hates sport boats, multi hulls?
 
I think that one of PHRF biggest failings is that they are secretive. Maybe not intentionally or in the case of the bad ones it is intentional. They don't tell the sailors that they serve what they are they are doing on their behalf. They may be working hard on reviewing  base boat ratings, revising measurement adjustments, reviewing U S Sailing's RWB book before publication, but nobody knows because they aren't telling them. ECSA posts "Recent Council Actions" on the ECSA web site but maybe one in ten of the ECSA sailors knows that. Council meeting are open to ECSA members but again, maybe one in ten knows that. 
 
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:

 

PHRFs greatest strength is that is is a simple one number rating system based of observed performance run by volunteers and that it is cheap.

 
PHRFs biggest failing is that it is a simple one number rating system that is run by volunteers.
 
Sailboats operate in a chaotic environment and that environment does not effect all boats equally. In a fleet of dissimulator boats a one number rating system is not capable of rating all boats fairly. 
 
Some(SoCal) regional PHRF committees has tried to address this by adjusting the rating by type of course. That is a start but more important to my mind is an adjustment for wind speed. Some boats prefer light air, others heavy and unusual is the boat the does well in both conditions.
 
The quality of your PHRF experience is directly related to the quality of the volunteers on your PHRF committee. Some regions are really good and some really bad with most somewhere in the middle. If yours is in the not so good category  there is little you can do about it as the operation of the handicap committee is opaque, controlled by the committee and not subject to change from outside the committee.
 
There certainly is self interest among PHRF committees. Just look at the number of sail makers, boat builders, boat designers, and other sailing industry figures that serve on PHRF committees. Then there are the long  serving members, on the handicappers committee for 25-30 years. Some are no longer active racers They are the ones who control the committee, keeping new blood out. Ever wonder why PHRF hates sport boats, multi hulls?
 
I think that one of PHRF biggest failings is that they are secretive. Maybe not intentionally or in the case of the bad ones it is intentional. They don't tell the sailors that they serve what they are they are doing on their behalf. They may be working hard on reviewing  base boat ratings, revising measurement adjustments, reviewing U S Sailing's RWB book before publication, but nobody knows because they aren't telling them. ECSA posts "Recent Council Actions" on the ECSA web site but maybe one in ten of the ECSA sailors knows that. Council meeting are open to ECSA members but again, maybe one in ten knows that. 
 

+1, well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wingssail said:

" As a board member  your my PHRF rating is determined  sometimes by us on the board ,a bunch of self-interested clowns taking wild shots in the dark   giving ourselves a gift rating 

 

"Wrong, and sounds like sour grapes. In my area, and everywhere I have sailed, the PHRF handicappers, especially at meetings where they are trying to resolve requests for changes, are knowledgeable volunteers who listen to owners and consider data and try to come up with fair handicaps, and by and large they do.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

 

Ever wonder why PHRF hates sport boats, multi hulls?

 
 

As a multihull owner, multi racer and former sportsboat sailer, I thought it was because;

1- PHRF was created by the owners of monohull cruiser/racers for monohull cruiser/racers, and that's the constituency they want to cater for. They are volunteers so what gives multihullers the right to demand that volunteers give up their own time (and often money) to cater for multis or sportsboats?

2- Multis often don't fit in with PHRF fleets and often don't get enough numbers to be a viable class. Same with sportsboats.

3- Sadly, we multihullers (and sportsboat sailors) often complain that offshore-style monos don't cater for us. That's ridiculous. We don't normally run races for kites, windsurfers, foiling Moths or skiffs either. All too often, we expect special treatment and demand that mono races be opened to us, when we rarely open our races to other types. Demanding special treatment and to be treated differently to the way we treat others isn't a good look.

No one hates those of us who sail multis, it's just that for some strange reason we expect to be treated differently from just about every other sailing type. Kites, windsurfers, canoes, offshore racers and just about every other type developed its own scene, their own rules, their own clubs and their own events rather than demanding entry into cruiser/racer mono events. We multihullers should just do the same and stand on our own feet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Probably because you aren’t winning any more with a better rating rule. 

no, I just think that if your at a level a competitiveness where you need to factor wind speed and the last boats time into your rating, than you should be using IRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I lived in a place where the wind and currents were so magically consistent across time and space that a race committee could just use a multiple number, wind speed determined rating system along with their observations from a single point. Sadly I don’t.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dunno bout that original premise.  When phrf gives boats with almost identical dimensions (LWL, beam, displacement, draft, sail area) a 36 sec per mile difference, they are either incompetent and do not belong on the committee, or self interested pricks, or both.

I've seen that specific case. wtf could they be thinking if not for self interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bgytr said:

dunno bout that original premise.  When phrf gives boats with almost identical dimensions (LWL, beam, displacement, draft, sail area) a 36 sec per mile difference, they are either incompetent and do not belong on the committee, or self interested pricks, or both.

I've seen that specific case. wtf could they be thinking if not for self interest?

PHRF is not a measurement rule, it's an observed-performance rule

Boats with identica LWL, beam, disp, sail area, etc etc will not necessarily be the same speed. a 36 point difference seems like a lot, but assume one is a early 1960s boat with a draggy keel-centerboard and a stumpy mast, the other a modern boat..... what would that mean?

16 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

 

PHRFs greatest strength is that is is a simple one number rating system based of observed performance run by volunteers and that it is cheap.

 
PHRFs biggest failing is that it is a simple one number rating system that is run by volunteers.
 

...    ...   ...

 

^ wisdom ^

PHRF is great because you can buy a boat that you like, that is comfortable for your family or your beer buddies or whatever, and go race it. PHRF sucks because some people confuse for a competitive event. It is a social event.

Sore losers will be unhappy no what system they loose under.

The best remedy if you are unhappy with the way PHRF is run, in your neighborhood, is to volunteer for the committee which runs it.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

PHRF is great because you can buy a boat that you like, that is comfortable for your family or your beer buddies or whatever, and go race it. PHRF sucks because some people confuse for a competitive event. It is a social event.

 

 

FB- Doug

So, to summarize.  PHRF is not a competition, it is a social gathering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 We multihullers should just do the same and stand on our own feet.

SoCal has done this for decades.  It is called ORCA (Offshore Racing Catamaran Association.  It does include trimarans despite the outdated acronym).

I believe NorCal has the same with BAMA (Bay Area Multihull Association).

Many PHRF regattas include a start for ORCA.  Except for dwindling participation, a widespread problem it seems, ORCA has done well in SoCal.  As with any other committee that has operated for decades, one can't please everyone.  But, ORCA has a long history of participation in well known regattas including the N2E.  

Share this post


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

PHRF is not a measurement rule, it's an observed-performance rule

Boats with identica LWL, beam, disp, sail area, etc etc will not necessarily be the same speed. a 36 point difference seems like a lot, but assume one is a early 1960s boat with a draggy keel-centerboard and a stumpy mast, the other a modern boat..... what would that mean?

^ wisdom ^

PHRF is great because you can buy a boat that you like, that is comfortable for your family or your beer buddies or whatever, and go race it. PHRF sucks because some people confuse for a competitive event. It is a social event.

Sore losers will be unhappy no what system they loose under.

The best remedy if you are unhappy with the way PHRF is run, in your neighborhood, is to volunteer for the committee which runs it.

FB- Doug

No shit captain obvious.  When the boats are nearly identical hull forms, fin keel, spade rudder, same draft, nearly identical principal dimensions, and one boat comes in new on the scene with a 36 point rating advantage, with certain connections to the handicappers and a lot of lobbying at the outset... draw your own conclusions.  I sure as hell draw my own.

I'm a naval architect, you don't need to lecture me  on the various influences on speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bgytr said:

No shit captain obvious.  When the boats are nearly identical hull forms, fin keel, spade rudder, same draft, nearly identical principal dimensions, and one boat comes in new on the scene with a 36 point rating advantage, with certain connections to the handicappers and a lot of lobbying at the outset... draw your own conclusions.  I sure as hell draw my own.

I'm a naval architect, you don't need to lecture me  on the various influences on speed.

Yes, what you're describing now does seem a little fishy.

I've seen a bunch of abuses of the system including ratings changed retroactively, and having a spouse on the Race Committee alter elapsed times. What to do? I volunteer to help run some local races, just to try and push for honesty, and I go race one-design.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hitchhiker said:

So, to summarize.  PHRF is not a competition, it is a social gathering.

I'm not sure that's completely correct. Maybe PHRF is the sailing equivalent of a jam session? Folks playing on diverse equipment get together to do something technical and social and competitive. A PH race might have lots of competitive or interesting moments that aren't much correlated to the final scores. The handicapping is useful structurally even if it doesn't perfectly sort skill and talent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bgytr said:

No shit captain obvious.  When the boats are nearly identical hull forms, fin keel, spade rudder, same draft, nearly identical principal dimensions, and one boat comes in new on the scene with a 36 point rating advantage, with certain connections to the handicappers and a lot of lobbying at the outset... draw your own conclusions.  I sure as hell draw my own.

I'm a naval architect, you don't need to lecture me  on the various influences on speed.

As a Naval Architect, you should then be better positioned to challenge the rating, if a "New on the scene" boat of similar characteristics is given an unreasonable rating. Others of us are not technically competent to present a well reasoned and convincing case based on unassailable technical facts, logic and calculations so we tend to bitch and moan. 

My 40' 1962 boat rates 171 and another well known 40' 1962 production boat rates 114.

When I can momentarily sail boat for boat with one of them, is it indicative of my rating being a gift, or perhaps they are not sailing their boat up to it's?

When a local club decides to just toss the non spinnaker boat (me) into a spinnaker class with no rating adjustment is that reasonable? 

 When PHRF NORCAL states that they don't have any means to suggest such an adjustment, but PHRF NE uses 15 sec for lack of any other does that make sense? 

It's supposed to be fun. 

Share this post


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

As a Naval Architect, you should then be better positioned to challenge the rating, if a "New on the scene" boat of similar characteristics is given an unreasonable rating. Others of us are not technically competent to present a well reasoned and convincing case based on unassailable technical facts, logic and calculations so we tend to bitch and moan. 

My 40' 1962 boat rates 171 and another well known 40' 1962 production boat rates 114.

When I can momentarily sail boat for boat with one of them, is it indicative of my rating being a gift, or perhaps they are not sailing their boat up to it's?

When a local club decides to just toss the non spinnaker boat (me) into a spinnaker class with no rating adjustment is that reasonable? 

 When PHRF NORCAL states that they don't have any means to suggest such an adjustment, but PHRF NE uses 15 sec for lack of any other does that make sense? 

It's supposed to be fun. 

yup I did challenge the rating in that case.  That boat got a rating knock of 18 secs per mile the next season after wiping up, which is still a gift, even though I did a write up comparing the boats.  The point is, the most basic dimensions were not even looked at and compared to other boats, or if they were, they were ignored.  Either utter stupidity or politics.

It's supposed to be fun, but incompetence and/or politics plus seemingly intentional lack of fair play makes it unfun considering the time and financial investment involved.

Share this post


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

When PHRF NORCAL states that they don't have any means to suggest such an adjustment, but PHRF NE uses 15 sec for lack of any other does that make sense? 

It's supposed to be fun. 

PHRF NORCAL could easily incorporate the same non-spinnaker adjustments that PHRF-NE uses - they're not secret, in fact they are in this document right here: http://www.phrfne.org/uploaded_files/handicap_adjustments_nov_3_changes.pdf - essentially the amount of adjustment is based on the type of rig you have. it's not rocket surgery.

 

Share this post


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

SoCal has done this for decades.  It is called ORCA (Offshore Racing Catamaran Association.  It does include trimarans despite the outdated acronym).

I believe NorCal has the same with BAMA (Bay Area Multihull Association).

Many PHRF regattas include a start for ORCA.  Except for dwindling participation, a widespread problem it seems, ORCA has done well in SoCal.  As with any other committee that has operated for decades, one can't please everyone.  But, ORCA has a long history of participation in well known regattas including the N2E.  

Yep, and Florida has the same setup as well. Areas like that seem to get more multis than the ones where people just complain because they can't race a Farrier against a J/30. The thing is that there's no evidence that PHRF hates multis.

Share this post


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

When a local club decides to just toss the non spinnaker boat (me) into a spinnaker class with no rating adjustment is that reasonable? 

If your standard rating is without a spinnaker then there shouldn't be any adjustment if you are put into a class with spinnakers.  Rating shouldn't change based on what class you are placed in, just based on what configuration you are sailing the boat in.  It sounds like the alternative would be to have you race in a class by yourself, which isn't very fun.

Is PHRF-NW they give boats two ratings, FS and NFS.  If you never carry a spinnaker then I think you'd only get the NFS rating.

Racing NFS against FS boats certainly isn't as much fun, especially if it is a one way downwind race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We race non Spinnaker except for the annual Octoberfest FUN race where we use ALL of the halyards on ALL of the masts  to get extra "rating" credit for most sails flown concurrently, otherwise takes too many crew to be worthwhile. (Other rating credits for that one include Lederhosen, dirndls, gratuitous flashing etc. )

I know about the 15 sec  "cruising credit",  because I used to race out of Portsmouth, NH and did the Monhegan, Corinthian 200, Figawi, PHRF NE's etc. That being said, PHRF NORCAL states that they don't think its feasible to combine w/ & w/o and they are the local governing body who set the ratings etc.

As an aside: we will be experimenting, and if successful will be changing our rating to shove the 1962 spinnaker pole 5' out in front as a sprit, and take 3x 10% of J penalty for an over-length pole on a non spinnaker boat, and fly the ancient 180% light genoa as our downwind/Code Zero equivalent. Previewed that with the committee, and had a positive determination on the rating impact...  I suspect that there's a few members who have a sense of humor. 

We raced off Berkeley pier 12/1 and with only 155% Genoa, Main and Mizzen beat everyone out there on a W/L except the Melges 24 under PHRF TOT.  (Nailing the start, and getting the 20 Degree Right hand shift to being nearly able to lay the rhumbline with 15 kts TWS helped a lot.) 

But as you will notice we are a fleet of 1, so we were also concurrently DFL, and having FUN while we do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

 

There certainly is self interest among PHRF committees. Just look at the number of sail makers, boat builders, boat designers, and other sailing industry figures that serve on PHRF committees. Then there are the long  serving members, on the handicappers committee for 25-30 years. Some are no longer active racers They are the ones who control the committee, keeping new blood out. Ever wonder why PHRF hates sport boats, multi hulls?
 

Who else is more qualified to handicap boats than designers, builders and sail makers? Their lives revolve around boats, they see more and in more detail than any owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

There certainly is self interest among PHRF committees. Just look at the number of sail makers, boat builders, boat designers, and other sailing industry figures that serve on PHRF committees. Then there are the long  serving members, on the handicappers committee for 25-30 years. Some are no longer active racers

To be fair, I think any rating system needs sailmakers, boat builders, and designers on the committees - they do have the knowledge of what makes a boat fast and ostensibly know how to rate one against another. But your other point about transparency and inner circles is also I think valid, although your ECSA argument is less so. Compared to other areas, like PHRF-NE, ECSA is an open book. At least they have open meetings, even if they're hard to find. Ask me some time what happened when a fleet captain representing his yacht club (since no one else was available) attended a PHRF-NE meeting. You'd think Putin himself was sitting with the Joint Chiefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

The best remedy if you are unhappy with the way PHRF is run, in your neighborhood, is to volunteer for the committee which runs it.

FB- Doug

That sounds like a reasonable thing to do until you really examine what is actually involved.

 
Look at the by-laws of your handicap committee. You will find that new members to the committee are elected to the committee by the existing committee members. Now look at how many members of the committee have been on the committee for more than 10 years. These are the people who run the committee and you can be sure that they are very careful about who they let in. They certainly don't want someone who is proactive and might the rock the boat.
 
Volunteer for the handicap committee and you will probably get "thanks but no thanks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 6:05 PM, Luketougas1 said:

I love PHRF time on distance, but I hate PHRF time on time.

 

Really?  You eek out a lead in light air over three hours, and cross the finish line just as the afternoon breeze kicks in and everyone else finishes in the next couple of minutes.  You love that? Really?

Share this post


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

Who else is more qualified to handicap boats than designers, builders and sail makers? Their lives revolve around boats, they see more and in more detail than any owner.

Yes boat designers and sail makers do have a professional understanding of the technical issues of boat performance and I certainly consult with my sail maker when I think about making a change on my boat. The question is,when they are on a handicap committee, how objective are they? 

 
Sail makers  make a living selling sails. I once had a sail maker handicapper tell me that there was nothing wrong with my rating that new sails wouldn't fix(my sails were excellent). Go back and look at the Western Long Island Sound PHRF thread from a couple of years ago. One of the big complaints was a sail maker on the handicap committee who was thought to be helping out his customers with their handicap reviews.
 
 
Some years ago, Larry White, the long time Coast Guard Academy sailing coach  was writing a sailing column in the local paper. One of his columns was about the local handicap committee trying to rate a newly introduced production boat. The boat designer was on the handicap committee. Speed  trials were run using an older boat from the same designer. The older boat was a very popular model, very fast and very well sailed. The older boat was found to be slightly faster upwind and the new boat faster down wind. When the handicap committee issued the certificate the new boat was rated 99. The older boat rated 72. I don't know if the boat designer recused himself from the vote but I'll bet he had a lot of input into the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sailorman44 said:

That sounds like a reasonable thing to do until you really examine what is actually involved.

 
Look at the by-laws of your handicap committee. You will find that new members to the committee are elected to the committee by the existing committee members. Now look at how many members of the committee have been on the committee for more than 10 years. These are the people who run the committee and you can be sure that they are very careful about who they let in. They certainly don't want someone who is proactive and might the rock the boat.
 
Volunteer for the handicap committee and you will probably get "thanks but no thanks".

 

Not all regions have the same rules. Most of the ones I've been active in are elected but nobody ever volunteers; so anybody who wants to can get selected.

And if it a closed loop, good-old-boy club, just be nice and see how it goes. Doesn't hurt to try.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can think of a more thankless inside, non physical job than serving on a committee for any aspect of a rich man's sport, let me know. 

If the committee did a perfect job of rating all the boats, for all the conditions, so that the only differences were: 

  • Boat preparation
  • Sail quality
  • Sailor quality
  • Skipper quality

They'd still be abused because those that didn't prepare and achieve parity would bitch. 

Share this post


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

To be fair, I think any rating system needs sailmakers, boat builders, and designers on the committees - they do have the knowledge of what makes a boat fast and ostensibly know how to rate one against another. But your other point about transparency and inner circles is also I think valid, although your ECSA argument is less so. Compared to other areas, like PHRF-NE, ECSA is an open book. At least they have open meetings, even if they're hard to find. Ask me some time what happened when a fleet captain representing his yacht club (since no one else was available) attended a PHRF-NE meeting. You'd think Putin himself was sitting with the Joint Chiefs.

PHRF must be fair and must be seen to be fair.

 Handicap committees don't do enough to let the member sailors know what they are doing on their behalf. I few terse lines on a web sight that nobody knows about doesn't do it. Like letting sailors know about changes to adjustment rules before retroactively springing it on them. Suddenly a sail that was legal last season and that you have been using for 6 years is no longer legal.
 
ECSA is one of the better handicap committees. They are active, they review the ratings on 20-25 boats each year, over and above the ones where a rating review is requested. The meetings are open. They report "Recent Council Actions" on the ECSA website.
 
That's not to say that that it couldn't be Improved. ECSA maintains a members email list. Send out the recent actions to the membership, let them know what you are doing. Let them know about changes to the rating adjustment rules you are thinking about and why you think they are needed. Tell us what you are doing for us!
 
The committee has brought in some new members, but mostly when someone dies or retires to Florida. Three quarters of the handicappers have been on the committee for more than ten years, some for more than thirty. Thank you for your service, it's time for new blood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:

PHRF must be fair and must be seen to be fair.

 Handicap committees don't do enough to let the member sailors know what they are doing on their behalf. I few terse lines on a web sight that nobody knows about doesn't do it. Like letting sailors know about changes to adjustment rules before retroactively springing it on them. Suddenly a sail that was legal last season and that you have been using for 6 years is no longer legal.
 
ECSA is one of the better handicap committees. They are active, they review the ratings on 20-25 boats each year, over and above the ones where a rating review is requested. The meetings are open. They report "Recent Council Actions" on the ECSA website.
 
That's not to say that that it couldn't be Improved. ECSA maintains a members email list. Send out the recent actions to the membership, let them know what you are doing. Let them know about changes to the rating adjustment rules you are thinking about and why you think they are needed. Tell us what you are doing for us!
 
The committee has brought in some new members, but mostly when someone dies or retires to Florida. Three quarters of the handicappers have been on the committee for more than ten years, some for more than thirty. Thank you for your service, it's time for new blood

Anyone on the board should have their rating locked for a period of time.before and after serving 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Boats with identica LWL, beam, disp, sail area, etc etc will not necessarily be the same speed. a 36 point difference seems like a lot, but assume one is a early 1960s boat with a draggy keel-centerboard and a stumpy mast, the other a modern boat..... what would that mean?

36 point is only about 5% (depending on the actual rating). This kind of difference doesn't really need that radical differences in design. E.g. same sail area with a 150% genoa vs. a bit higher rig with just a 100% jib has a big effect. Actually that alone can cause about that much change. I just tested in a VPP putting a 9/10 rig and sails (102% jib) from a 1999 design to a boat from designed in 1981 with 7/8 and 150% genua. The change was 37 sec/M with a larger spinnaker and 32 sec/M with the original size spinnaker. The new rig had just slightly more sail area (22.4 m2 main + 16.7 m2 jib vs. 20.2 m2 main + 17.2 m2 genoa).

Add to that a bit more efficient appendages and small changes in hull form it's easy to get 36 sec/m differences and even more without any different in the listed parameters.

I have done a numerical fit to our local LYS rating system. It includes many more parameters (P, E, J, I, sail areas, LOA, LWL, disp, draft etc.). Still it doesn't explain the difference between say 80's design and a more more design or a difference between a cruiser and a cruiser/racer without adding some kind of a "hull factor" or a "design year". Using a desing year you need to adjust modern cruisers as much older than their real date or some desings like J/24 to much newer than their real data in order to get a good fit to actual LYS number.

bgytr told later that the boats had similar hull form etc. I'm just trying to make a point that it isn't easy to give a rating based on basic dimensions and the same basic dimensions doesn't have to mean the same rating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

Sail makers  make a living selling sails. I once had a sail maker handicapper tell me that there was nothing wrong with my rating that new sails wouldn't fix(my sails were excellent). Go back and look at the Western Long Island Sound PHRF thread from a couple of years ago. One of the big complaints was a sail maker on the handicap committee who was thought to be helping out his customers with their handicap reviews.

Which is precisely why there are no more sailmakers on YRALIS PHRF Committee. More than 50% of the committee offered their letter of resignation about 2-3 years ago and the then president gleefully accepted their stepping aside. They were thanked for their 'years of service'. Which was somewhere north of a decade on average with several having been serving multiple decades. New blood was brought into the mix to compliment the three 'steady hands' that remained from the prior incarnation. This had an effect in that those racing on WLIS seemed to feel that turnover on the PHRF Committee was a positive change.

What was it they say about politicians? "Like diapers they should be changed often".... applies to most PHRF Committees. YRALIS had also discussed term limits for those serving the PHRF Committee. Idea tabled as it would be a violation of the powers ascribed the president in the bylaws. Personally I think they should have amended the bylaws but IIRC the resolve was that a term on the PHRF Committee would be for 1 year and that the president of YRALIS would select the next committee as per normal. That little change meant that  those serving the PHRF fleet would not be automatically seated and would need to be invited to serve each season. This ensured that the president would have to select each committee member rather than just assume a standing committee was already in place and thus could be ignored in perpetuity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, sailorman44 said:

PHRF must be fair and must be seen to be fair.

 Handicap committees don't do enough to let the member sailors know what they are doing on their behalf. ....    ...    ...

BINGO!!

The problem is that of course PHRF isn't fair. Such a simplistic rating system is going to favor some boats (especially in that boat's favored conditions) no matter what, and the better sailors with well-prepped boats are going to better. Sore losers are going to be sore, no matter what.

The fact that it's going downhill, seems to inicate to me that a more open, friendlier, more welcoming attitude ought to be the way forward; the strengths of PHRF can be emphasized instead of the sore-loser griping.

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Really?  You eek out a lead in light air over three hours, and cross the finish line just as the afternoon breeze kicks in and everyone else finishes in the next couple of minutes.  You love that? Really?

Yup, because what you just said makes no sense at all

Share this post


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

If you can think of a more thankless inside, non physical job than serving on a committee for any aspect of a rich man's sport, let me know. 

If the committee did a perfect job of rating all the boats, for all the conditions, so that the only differences were: 

  • Boat preparation
  • Sail quality
  • Sailor quality
  • Skipper quality

They'd still be abused because those that didn't prepare and achieve parity would bitch. 

So here is the problem, as seen above. 1.  Sailor Quality.   Joe Weds night can't understand why he gets beat by the guys and gals that travel and sail one design.  They figure its got to be the rating.  Tough Job, I help do it and I can't wait to get off of the committee.

Share this post


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

Joe Weds night can't understand why he gets beat by the guys and gals that travel and sail one design.  They figure its got to be the rating. 

Joe Wednesday in my limited experience tends to be pretty consistent about racing on the de Nile river. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So here is the problem, as seen above. 1.  Sailor Quality.   Joe Weds night can't understand why he gets beat by the guys and gals that travel and sail one design.  They figure its got to be the rating.  Tough Job, I help do it and I can't wait to get off of the committee.

 
PHRF rates the boat NOT the sailor. PHRF assumes that all boats are well prepared and well sailed. So they say, however,
 
PHRF does take into consideration sailing ability, boat preparation and sail quality. The PHRF concept is based on observing  the relative performance of boats in the racing fleet and all these factors contribute to performance. The reality is that as ratings were developed they were based of the performance of winning boats not the mid fleet and tail end Charlies. So the criteria was set by the boats with the best sailors, the best sails,and the best preparation. If you want to win this is the level yon have to aspire to.
 
When a sailor goes before the handicap committee to protest his rating you better believe that the first thing the committee considers is his sailing ability, boat preparation, and sail inventory.
 
Sailing ability is by far the most important. All other things being equal a really good sailor will always beat a pretty good sailor. All things are not always equal so the pretty good sailor wins once in a while. 
 
Some have advocated a golf style handicap to level the playing field. Hard to do as the performance handicap has to be applied to a crew not an individual, and the makeup of the crew is always changing on most boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:
 
PHRF rates the boat NOT the sailor. 
 

That is the theory.  Not the practice.

PHRF SoCal doesn't understand this, even though it has been written into their rulebook forever.  Members will argue this point with you.  The fools there can't hope to beat Vince Brun in any one design boat, but somehow think they should be able to under PHRF.  What a joke.

The SoCal Board can't evaluate sailing ability, boat prep, or inventory because most of the Board don't ever see most of the boats that come before them.  They make decisions based on RESULTS, NOT OBSERVED PERFORMANCE.

Not to mention most of the Board are just fucking terrible sailors who have no idea how to prepare a boat, or what good sails look like, or what good sail trim looks like, or what the term  tactics might refer to.  For years their Chief Handicapper would race his boat in One Design and sail around the course more than a minute a mile behind the competitive boats.  How can someone who is that bad do a good job evaluating any other boat?

Most PHRF Boards are populated by similar idjits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:

When a sailor goes before the handicap committee to protest his rating you better believe that the first thing the committee considers is his sailing ability, boat preparation, and sail inventory.

The best way that I've seen to game PHRF is the other way around.  Buy a popular cruiser that is rarely raced, and when it is raced it is done with stock cruising gear, a dodger, and bad sails.  Buy that boat, prep the shit out of it and invest in good sails.  Now you probably have a boat that rates above it's rating, since the rating was based on observed performance of some badly prepared boats.  My guess is that this is worth about 20 seconds.

Having said all of that: I'm having a lot of fun with our boat right now because most of the boats in the Puget Sound PHRF 72-75 range are on a similar budget and out there for similar reasons.  It makes for competitive and fun racing and we all support and encourage each other.  Nic on Darkside has been doing a great job of getting the energy out there and more boats are coming out as a result.  PHRF ratings on J/35, Express 37, Schock 35, C&C 115 are pretty well established and no one bothers to complain about them.  I think that this is what PHRF is about, letting similar but not identical racer/cruisers sail against each other in a fun and competitive way.

alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:
 
 
When a sailor  committee member  goes before his handicap committee to protest his rating you better believe that the first thing the committee considers is not  his sailing ability, boat preparation, and sail inventory only he is loosing and embarrassing their committee
 
 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you don’t like your PHRF rating you could do what the Farr 40 guy did in Buffalo. He held his own awards banquet and gave himself all first and boat of the year.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One means to minimize bitching would be to post an appeal of a rating to all of the competitors, and invite public scrutiny and comment, whether by the owner or interested bystander. 

Those who have legitimate issues will get their concerns heard and validated by consensus. 

The self promoters who whine for redress on their rating will be held to ridicule, especially if they present an emotional vs reasoned argument. 

The fee for posting the appeal could be refunded if approved, and donated to the end of year party kitty if denied. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One means to minimize bitching would be to post an appeal of a rating to all of the competitors, and invite public scrutiny and comment, whether by the owner or interested bystander. 

 Those who have legitimate issues will get their concerns heard and validated by consensus. 

The self promoters who whine for redress on their rating will be held to ridicule, especially if they present an emotional vs reasoned argument. 

The fee for posting the appeal could be refunded if approved, and donated to the end of year party kitty if denied. 

 

You can do this now in ECSA. All meetings are open to ECSA sailors. It doesn't happen often but I have participated in a number of rating appeals as an observer or witness. The only reason it doesn't happen often is that it is not well published. No reason it couldn't be. Perhaps the handicap committee prefers it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Joakim said:

36 point is only about 5% (depending on the actual rating). This kind of difference doesn't really need that radical differences in design. E.g. same sail area with a 150% genoa vs. a bit higher rig with just a 100% jib has a big effect. Actually that alone can cause about that much change. I just tested in a VPP putting a 9/10 rig and sails (102% jib) from a 1999 design to a boat from designed in 1981 with 7/8 and 150% genua. The change was 37 sec/M with a larger spinnaker and 32 sec/M with the original size spinnaker. The new rig had just slightly more sail area (22.4 m2 main + 16.7 m2 jib vs. 20.2 m2 main + 17.2 m2 genoa).

Add to that a bit more efficient appendages and small changes in hull form it's easy to get 36 sec/m differences and even more without any different in the listed parameters.

I have done a numerical fit to our local LYS rating system. It includes many more parameters (P, E, J, I, sail areas, LOA, LWL, disp, draft etc.). Still it doesn't explain the difference between say 80's design and a more more design or a difference between a cruiser and a cruiser/racer without adding some kind of a "hull factor" or a "design year". Using a desing year you need to adjust modern cruisers as much older than their real date or some desings like J/24 to much newer than their real data in order to get a good fit to actual LYS number.

bgytr told later that the boats had similar hull form etc. I'm just trying to make a point that it isn't easy to give a rating based on basic dimensions and the same basic dimensions doesn't have to mean the same rating.

 

A canoe body hull, fin keel with identical draft, same displacement within a few pounds, same sail dimensions (I J P E within roughly 6 inches or less) almost exactly the same ballast to displacement ratio, same beam, same LWL...  and the newer design by some 15+ years comes on the scene with a 36 second slower rating?  Similar finish of performance cruiser interior.  The older boat is a well known production boat with (est.) build number in the hundreds and well established performance in US and Europe.

So what makes that new boat 36 secs per mi slower?  That's either incompetence, self interest, or a combination by the rating yahoos.

Share this post


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

A canoe body hull, fin keel with identical draft, same displacement within a few pounds, same sail dimensions (I J P E within roughly 6 inches or less) almost exactly the same ballast to displacement ratio, same beam, same LWL...  and the newer design by some 15+ years comes on the scene with a 36 second slower rating?  Similar finish of performance cruiser interior.  The older boat is a well known production boat with (est.) build number in the hundreds and well established performance in US and Europe.

So what makes that new boat 36 secs per mi slower?  That's either incompetence, self interest, or a combination by the rating yahoos.

I'm not saying that there wasn't an error in the rating. Just saying that the limited amount of numbers alone in PHRF/LYS etc. can't really predict a rating even at 5% accuracy. You need to add something more to it.

In the original message you said only sail area. Now you added I, J, P and E, which rules out the 150%->100% with the same sail area. Still there are factors that could have made the 36 sec/M difference. Having been on the committee trying to figure out the empirical ratings, I'm not that surprised to see an error of that magnitude. Or is the error even full 36 sec/M? It's not an easy job especially for boats you haven't seen on water. I had a VPP to help me, but it doesn't help much for designs you don't have all the input it needs for an accurate output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Joakim said:

I'm not saying that there wasn't an error in the rating. Just saying that the limited amount of numbers alone in PHRF/LYS etc. can't really predict a rating even at 5% accuracy. You need to add something more to it.

In the original message you said only sail area. Now you added I, J, P and E, which rules out the 150%->100% with the same sail area. Still there are factors that could have made the 36 sec/M difference. Having been on the committee trying to figure out the empirical ratings, I'm not that surprised to see an error of that magnitude. Or is the error even full 36 sec/M? It's not an easy job especially for boats you haven't seen on water. I had a VPP to help me, but it doesn't help much for designs you don't have all the input it needs for an accurate output.

the absolute first thing a rating committee should look at is similar boats.  The old boat I mentioned is a common boat of damn near same dimensions.  That is the first boat boat that popped into my head to use as comparison, and also should have been for the rating folks.  Tells me they don't know what they are doing, or they are listening to someone influential bend their ears.  Either way, it paints a sorry picture for the raters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there's always the question of who's ox is getting gored... 

In NorCal : we have a pretty diverse committee where there are these members, who are generously donating their time: 

  • 4 Sailmakers (2 well known international brands, 1 local loft that represents an old school internationally known brand,  1 purely local) 
    • Disclosure: Have done business with 2/4 firms recently, personally, 1/4 as historically on East Coast. 
  • 2 currently active designers with local offices
  • 1 professional sailor who set record passages all over the world as navigator and raced successfully > 40 yrs from dinghy's to campaigning a Cal 40 around SF. 
  • 1 amateur , (retired but does Access Database work) in his mid  late 80's who sails a Merit 25 with an all female crew on Wednesday nights / occasional Sunday brunch races. 
    • He's from my YC, and we do have meetings at various marks as well as the bar... 

Within the scope of monthly meetings, they are doing a lot of work, especially when a bigger race such as the Pac Cup looms. 

Do boats designed by, or equipped by, or from clubs they belong to  appear before them?

Certainly; there's likely enough transparency on results, (though not fully on deliberations,) to keep it reasonable.

Would more amateurs make it better, or just slow down deliberations by adding uninformed opinion?

Is a "professional cabal" likely to devolve to insider vs outsider where buying your sails or hiring database/navigation/design services gives you a lobbying position?

Who would better serve? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Well there's always the question of who's ox is getting gored... 

In NorCal : we have a pretty diverse committee where there are these members, who are generously donating their time: 

  • 4 Sailmakers (2 well known international brands, 1 local loft that represents an old school internationally known brand,  1 purely local) 
  • 2 currently active designers with local offices
  • 1 professional sailor who set record passages all over the world as navigator and raced successfully > 40 yrs from dinghy's to campaigning a Cal 40 around SF. 
  • 1 amateur from my YC, (retired but does Access Database work) in his mid  late 80's who sails a Merit 25 with an all female crew on Wednesday nights / occasional Sunday brunch races. 

Within the scope of monthly meetings, they are doing a lot of work, especially when a bigger race such as the Pac Cup looms. 

Do boats designed by, or equipped by, or from clubs they belong to  appear before them?

Certainly; there's likely enough transparency on results, (though not fully on deliberations,) to keep it reasonable.

Would more amateurs make it better, or just slow down deliberations by adding uninformed opinion?

Is a "professional cabal" likely to devolve to insider vs outsider where buying your sails or hiring database/navigation/design services gives you a lobbying position?

Who would better serve? 

 

Do they rate,  re rate their own boats or boats they have self interest in, or do they step aside when they come up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VWAP said:

Do they rate,  re rate their own boats or boats they have self interest in, or do they step aside when they come up. 

As the two that I know race their own boats have well established (> 20 yrs) production boats, I don't think that's an issue. 

I personally don't think there is any issue, people of integrity will do the right thing , the question I am raising is what would you do differently? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Self interested clowns taking shots in the dark." As in any human endeavor, some handicappers are independent and diligent, and others let ignorance and prejudice (whether it's known or not) determine their work. Regardless, the problem isn't the humans making those calls, it's just the system.

Problem one for serious racers: For fuck's sake, we should not be allowed to appeal ratings. Not are own, not other's. That just drives wedges between serious competitors. Handicappers shouldn't have that latitude either. It has to be independent of judgement - like math and computers. Of course formulas etc can be wrong, but then you fix them.

Problem two for serious racers: If it falls anywhere in the realm of human judgement, it will NEVER be perceived as independent and fair.

PHRF has a vital role it's perfectly suited for: handicapping casual/less serious racers. This is the bigger and arguably more important group. Everybody gets a rating, cheaply. Easy to give adjustments for stuff (I'm thinking the cruiser who wants to sail with old sails and an anchor on the bow). By definition, these sailors aren't as caught up in the results and will just accept PHRF's foibles. And for those of you who say "But you can't split the fleets" I say "What's left of the fleets is pretty well split already."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

As the two that I know race their own boats have well established (> 20 yrs) production boats, I don't think that's an issue. 

I personally don't think there is any issue, people of integrity will do the right thing , the question I am raising is what would you do differently? 

They should recuse themselves whenever someone in their fleet or same boat or whatever  is being reviewed. Sailmakers ,designers , etc should be advisers not voting members 

It is that simple 

Share this post


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

the absolute first thing a rating committee should look at is similar boats.  The old boat I mentioned is a common boat of damn near same dimensions.  That is the first boat boat that popped into my head to use as comparison, and also should have been for the rating folks.  Tells me they don't know what they are doing, or they are listening to someone influential bend their ears.  Either way, it paints a sorry picture for the raters.  

Heya bgytr, why the veiled secrecy regarding the two designs in question?  Any particular reason not to share the particulars?

Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CriticalPath said:

Heya bgytr, why the veiled secrecy regarding the two designs in question?  Any particular reason not to share the particulars?

Cheers!

 

ya i don't wanna finger any specific folks, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, LionessRacing said:

 

Would more amateurs make it better, or just slow down deliberations by adding uninformed opinion?

Who would better serve? 

 

 

I have no doubt that a technical background is useful but I wonder how many of those designers and sail makers on the committee are actively racing and observing the performance of the boats around them. Conceptually, PHRF is not a numbers game but one of observed performance in the fleet. Interested non professionals who are out there racing have a pretty good idea of the relative performance of the boat they race against.

 

1 hour ago, LionessRacing said:

Do boats designed by, or equipped by 3/4 of the members appear before them?

Certainly; there's likely enough transparency on results, (though not fully on deliberations,) to keep it reasonable.

Is a "professional cabal" likely to devolve to insider vs outsider where buying your sails or hiring database/navigation/design services gives you a lobbying position?

It depends of the perceived integrity of the committee members. There is ample evidence in other PHRF regions that there is cause for concern. Transparency helps keep them honest but how much transparency is there really? How many non-members attend the meetings other that those appealing something.  How much of a check on each other are the committee members. Sometimes cozy relationships develop between long serving members. The perception of fairness is just as important as actual fairness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 10:50 AM, bgytr said:

dunno bout that original premise.  When phrf gives boats with almost identical dimensions (LWL, beam, displacement, draft, sail area) a 36 sec per mile difference, they are either incompetent and do not belong on the committee, or self interested pricks, or both.

I've seen that specific case. wtf could they be thinking if not for self interest?

I wonder how that new boat with the "gift" rating did boat-for-boat with other boats of similar measurement? If he can stay with them then the rating is a gift. If he can't then the rating may be justified and the question becomes why. Is he a not so good sailor, needs better sails, boat poorly prepared, all of the above? Or is it just a bad racing design but a good cruising design? Obviously if he is beating similar boats boat-for-boat then the rating really, really is a gift.
 
Go back to what PHRF is; observed performance in the fleet, not a measurement rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sailorman44 said:
Go back to what PHRF is; observed performance in the fleet, not a measurement rule.

the performance of "the fleet"  is hard to observe if there's extreme variability in sailing conditions which are objectively observable, as well as variability in boat prep, sailing ability and tactical/strategic choices which may be more subjective.

Appealing your rating when it takes you 5 extra boat lengths distance to tack/gybe and 10 to set/strike a sail is inappropriate, but the only way that can comprehended that is by the on the water observation. Then also if your particular boat in fact tacks slower and accelerates slower due to rig/hull you may particularly under perform in light winds. At 20,000 lbs and full length keel we are especially awkward at < 4 kts TWS, while the 2000 lb boats with fin keels can maneuver more adroitly. "It's supposed to be fun" remains valid

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:06 PM, sailorman44 said:

Some years ago, Larry White, the long time Coast Guard Academy sailing coach  was writing a sailing column in the local paper. One of his columns was about the local handicap committee trying to rate a newly introduced production boat. The boat designer was on the handicap committee. Speed  trials were run using an older boat from the same designer. The older boat was a very popular model, very fast and very well sailed. The older boat was found to be slightly faster upwind and the new boat faster down wind. When the handicap committee issued the certificate the new boat was rated 99. The older boat rated 72. I don't know if the boat designer recused himself from the vote but I'll bet he had a lot of input into the discussion

I'm assuming you're talking about the J/105 compared to the J/35? This is a perfect example of how PHRF bases a boats rating on observed performance and not perceived performance and In my opinion they got it right with these boats. When the 105 first came out it was 10 years newer, lighter, and had a low sheer line with its reduced headroom, the thing just looked fast but when it came time to perform against the J/35, it fell short of expectations. To this day people buy a J/35 expecting to be competitive with a rating of 72 and people with a J/105 don't even bother entering a PHRF race with a rating of 99.

PHRF numbers aren't set in stone. If a new boat comes out and its consistently crushing everything in its path, they lower the rating. If it can't win anything with a boat full of professionals and brand new sails, they'll raise the rating. The more of one type of boat there is, the more data there is and the more accurate the rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on our local PHRF board, and the introduction of National Reference Ratings from US Sailing have given us VPP-based PHRF ratings for almost 300 popular boats. We have found it to be incredibly useful, both to rate those boats, and as reference points for rating similar boats. Here are a few examples:

177 J/22 ODR    
171 J/24 ODR
171 S2 7.9 (IB)
168 S2 7.9 (OB)
141 J/30
126 Tartan 10/LS 10
120 Melges 20
120 J/80 ODR
117 J/70 ODR
117 Cal 40
111 J/29 (OB MH)
108 C&C 99
102 Viper 640 ODR
102 Olson 30
096 Melges 24 ODR
090 Melges 24 PHRF
090 J/105 ODR
090 Hobie 33 ODR
084 J/33
081 J/105 PHRF
078 Bene 36.7
072 J/35 (Reference boat for NRRs)
072 SR-33 (Henderson)
072 Schock 35
069 J/109 PHRF
066 Viper 830
066 C&C 115
051 J/120 (AL)
048 J/120 (CF)
048 Flying Tiger 10M
048 Bene 40.7 Racing
045 Mumm 36 UC
045 Henderson 30
039 J/111
039 Bene 44.7
033 J/122
024 Melges 32 ODR
-03 J/125
-06 Farr 40 ODR
-18 Farr 400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen anything in the NRR that suggests that they are VPP based. As far as I know, they are simply the agreed-upon observational ratings based on years of observational data, not any kind of VPP output. I could be wrong, but it certainly isn't mentioned in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have made that assumption because of the data they sent me when I asked for help rating a Farr 400 with a modified dreadnaught bow.:

In our history of records we have the configuration for one specific Farr 400 that modified their bow.  The associated displacement change with the Bow Modification is the only change between the configurations.   Please see the table below, these values are referenced in Seconds Per Mile.

 

Original Bow

Wind Velocity:

6kt

8kt

10kt

12kt

16kt

20kt

24kt

Wnd/Lwd VMG

857.6

696.7

619.3

573.9

515.6

464.8

432

CircularRandom

699.1

571

503.9

463.4

415.5

383.4

359.2

Ocean for PCS

788.2

610

508.4

439.6

360.5

314.9

283.3

Non-Spinnaker

785.9

629.4

545

493.9

437.1

403.4

378

Reverse Bow

Wnd/Lwd VMG

851.7

689.6

611.8

566.5

509.3

460.3

427.1

CircularRandom

692.2

564.5

497.6

457.4

410.3

378.9

354.9

Ocean for PCS

780.1

603.1

502.4

434.3

356.5

311.7

280.3

Non-Spinnaker

780.1

623.6

539.1

488.1

431.6

398.6

374.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please let me know if you need any further information, although it would appear the difference would be approximately 6 seconds per mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Handicap racing can be great fun, if you treat it as such. 

For most people, by the time they're good enough to worry about winning things, they know enough about how boats work to realise a single number is some ways of representing it's performance and they get involved in some class racing. You can accept handicap racing for what it is; a bit of a competitive cruising with mates from the club, and for that purpose the more generic and fudged the number, the better, because it's not pretending to be something it's not. In fact, many don't even have to get that good, or go and race in class racing to reach this realisation. 

Where things seem to go wrong is when sailors believe they are competing at some super high level where seconds (or even minutes) matter, or even results at all matter. They seem stuck in this limbo where they're good enough to realise the numbers aren't quite right, but not good enough to realise why that doesn't matter. 

The answer is to try and set up a class where you sail, or travel to race in a class if it frustrates you that much. But you'll have to make compromises on the boat you sail.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, USA 5184 said:

PHRF numbers aren't set in stone. If a new boat comes out and its consistently crushing everything in its path, they lower the rating. If it can't win anything with a boat full of professionals and brand new sails, they'll raise the rating. The more of one type of boat there is, the more data there is and the more accurate the rating.

Yes, PHRF ratings are malleable and if you know how to work the system you can get a rating improvement.  A lot depends on your local handicap committee and how active they are. Just don't expect them to raise your rating automatically. You need to be proactive.

 
When my boat was new it was rated 7 based on design specifications. After two years my club measurer, who was on the handicap
committee,  let me know that they would look favorably on an appeal. 18 years later, after 8 or 9 appeals the rating is 93 and it is almost right. Nothing will happen unless you make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Wow 7 to 93... I'd like to meet your handicapper and I feel sorry for those racing against something like a Farr 40 with a PHRF rating of 93 :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, USA 5184 said:

^ Wow 7 to 93... I'd like to meet your handicapper and I feel sorry for those racing against something like a Farr 40 with a PHRF rating of 93 :)

Like a Farr 40, not nearly as fast except above 15 kts true and a reachy course. 

The rating of 7 was based on design spec before the boat was launched. The boat came out of the build 2000 lb heavy, didn't perform anywhere near VPP prediction. At  9 - 15 true  the 93 rating is fair, over 15 it is over rated and if the course is a reach I'd give back 60 seconds a mile. In less than 7 true Ensigns beat me.
 
There is always the question; is it the boat or is it the skipper? I don't helm, have had a number of helms over the years, some good, some better but none have been to get to boat to take off.
 
You are local, come give it a try, see what you can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Streetwise said:

I may have made that assumption because of the data they sent me when I asked for help rating a Farr 400 with a modified dreadnaught bow.:

In our history of records we have the configuration for one specific Farr 400 that modified their bow.  The associated displacement change with the Bow Modification is the only change between the configurations.   Please see the table below, these values are referenced in Seconds Per Mile.

 

Original Bow

Wind Velocity:

6kt

8kt

10kt

12kt

16kt

20kt

24kt

Wnd/Lwd VMG

857.6

696.7

619.3

573.9

515.6

464.8

432

CircularRandom

699.1

571

503.9

463.4

415.5

383.4

359.2

Ocean for PCS

788.2

610

508.4

439.6

360.5

314.9

283.3

Non-Spinnaker

785.9

629.4

545

493.9

437.1

403.4

378

Reverse Bow

Wnd/Lwd VMG

851.7

689.6

611.8

566.5

509.3

460.3

427.1

CircularRandom

692.2

564.5

497.6

457.4

410.3

378.9

354.9

Ocean for PCS

780.1

603.1

502.4

434.3

356.5

311.7

280.3

Non-Spinnaker

780.1

623.6

539.1

488.1

431.6

398.6

374.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please let me know if you need any further information, although it would appear the difference would be approximately 6 seconds per mile.

If you want some reference there is a Farr 400 (Jeroboam) in the Chesapeake with the bow mod - there are both PHRF and ORC ratings for the boat.  For relative rating up against an unmodified Farr 400 the unmodded 400 is Meridian X (that one does have dual wheels instead of tiller which and may be a tad heavier but it is pretty close.  Note that you have to look at the sails as at least Jeroboam does carry a C0, which is not part of the OD config.  The mod has a huge impact in certain situations - especially in chop and light air.  And it is a hell of a lot drier...........:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought PHRF had some interesting problems and strangely benefited some boats, until I had to get an ORC rating!

F me! What a hit I got killed with! Not even remotely close..

I'll stick with PHRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first rule of PHRF is 'protect the fleet' so somebody doesnt come in with an obscure new rocket, get a generous rating because there is no data and crush everybody. Thats why some boats LOOK like the PHRF guys hate them, there is no measurable data, so first season with a new boat may appear unfair.

PHRF is based on data yet many clubs do not report the race results so a decent cross section of data doesnt exist. Clubs in a PHRF area are supposed to send in race results to the committee so we know boat type X is doing much better than boat type X raced at a different club. 

Phrf is the only weekly venue open to many racers, all phrf meetings are open to all certificate holders, go sit in and see how it works, ask any questions you want. Its not a secret society.

Or buy a one design and STFU, until your arent winning in OneD either, then moan about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 12:47 PM, wingssail said:

"your PHRF rating is determined by a bunch of self-interested clowns taking wild shots in the dark"

Wrong, and sounds like sour grapes. In my area, and everywhere I have sailed, the PHRF handicappers, especially at meetings where they are trying to resolve requests for changes, are knowledgeable volunteers who listen to owners and consider data and try to come up with fair handicaps, and by and large they do.

Thanks for the pat on the back instead of a kick in the ass. :)

Data is king and that is why your rating change request and data packet must be prepared and not just thrown together. Some of the worst I have dealt with come from owners of the big fancy expensive race boats. These owners must think everyone knows them or even cares. I do not race against 99% of the boats we review and that is why the DATA is so important.

When I prepared my packet 4 years back, it was about 19 pages of data, past meeting minutes , it took lots of time to dig shit up, and other boats certs compared to my boats cert.
I wrote a cover letter with bullet points and referenced page numbers where the data could be found. At the end of the letter I clearly stated my request so at the meeting I did not have to stumble trying to find the right words, you are given 5 minutes to state you case. I read and edited about 3 times before feeling good about my presentation. Then 15 copies for the board so everyone has the same packet, this is so important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, crankcall said:

PHRF is based on data yet many clubs do not report the race results so a decent cross section of data doesnt exist. Clubs in a PHRF area are supposed to send in race results to the committee so we know boat type X is doing much better than boat type X raced at a different club. 

Phrf is the only weekly venue open to many racers, all phrf meetings are open to all certificate holders, go sit in and see how it works, ask any questions you want. Its not a secret society.

Race results are not DATA, with regard to a boat's true potential.  Yet this is what PHRF uses to make their decisions.

It is not the responsibility of the clubs to provide info to PHRF.  It is the responsibility of the Owner to provide info when asking for a rating review.

All PHRF Meetings are not open to all certificate holders.  PHRF SoCal does all their deliberation in secret, where they can say anything among themselves and make their decisions based on anything they want to, no data from them required.

Share this post


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

Data is king and that is why your rating change request and data packet must be prepared and not just thrown together. Some of the worst I have dealt with come from owners of the big fancy expensive race boats. These owners must think everyone knows them or even cares. I do not race against 99% of the boats we review and that is why the DATA is so important.

When I prepared my packet 4 years back, it was about 19 pages of data, past meeting minutes , it took lots of time to dig shit up, and other boats certs compared to my boats cert.
I wrote a cover letter with bullet points and referenced page numbers where the data could be found. At the end of the letter I clearly stated my request so at the meeting I did not have to stumble trying to find the right words, you are given 5 minutes to state you case. I read and edited about 3 times before feeling good about my presentation. Then 15 copies for the board so everyone has the same packet, this is so important.

Yet you continue to claim you have been rat fucked by PHRF.  Sounds like your preparation was for nothing.

Do you think the fools on the Board read your 19 pages, or used any of it in their decision making?

Did they provide you with a 19 page report saying why they decided as they did?  A one pager?  One paragraph?  No.  They just gave you your number with no explanation and sent you on your way.  There is no accountability for the decisions by that group.  Putting anything in writing would make the JA lose his mind.

Share this post


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

Race results are not DATA, with regard to a boat's true potential.  Yet this is what PHRF uses to make their decisions.

It is not the responsibility of the clubs to provide info to PHRF.  It is the responsibility of the Owner to provide info when asking for a rating review.

All PHRF Meetings are not open to all certificate holders.  PHRF SoCal does all their deliberation in secret, where they can say anything among themselves and make their decisions based on anything they want to, no data from them required.

Are you on the board in So Cali? 

Share this post


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

Yet you continue to claim you have been rat fucked by PHRF.  Sounds like your preparation was for nothing.

Do you think the fools on the Board read your 19 pages, or used any of it in their decision making?

Did they provide you with a 19 page report saying why they decided as they did?  A one pager?  One paragraph?  No.  They just gave you your number with no explanation and sent you on your way.  There is no accountability for the decisions by that group.  Putting anything in writing would make the JA lose his mind.

I have never  said I have been fucked by PHRF.
I did say that the boat I bought was fucked when the previous owner, put a bunch of cowboys on board when it had a gift rating of 144.
One of the guys who recently cheated the Corinthian system, was the Chief Handicapper at the time and was a previous area A dick wad, fucked the Zap over.
They went from a 144, 144, 144 which was a gift to a 132, 126, 120.
All the while an SC 27 rated 138,138,138. I asked for a rating of 132, 132, 132

Look up the SC27 California Zephyr and my my boat Gumbercules, 56267.
Not much difference. There is no way a Zap 26 could give an SC27 18 sec/m in any off the wind race or 12 sec/m in an RLC race. The problem was everyone hated that fact that a local sail maker was racing a boat with a gift rating. Instead of being fair, they screwed the boat and the whole Zap fleet in So Cal. Yes every Zap in the So Cal area has left of other harbors.

Some people should be never be allowed to be on a local or regional board. My packet pointed this out and I argued it with, past meeting minutes. There was no argument. It was obvious that the regional board in the past was wrong.

Incidentally, the person, whose name I will not mention, had been denied local and regional board membership because he is not a good person.
Some people are just not good.

Share this post


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

Incidentally, the person, whose name I will not mention, had been denied local and regional board membership because he is not a good person.
Some people are just not good.

Adgreeded, Scot shoude notte be ivollved sailleng in that mannere.                                                  :)

Share this post


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

Adgreeded, Scot shoude notte be ivollved sailleng in that mannere.                                                  :)

Try not to set the bar too high Snoggarama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

Adgreeded, Scot shoude notte be ivollved sailleng in that mannere.                                                  :)

No, it was not Scot.

 

Share this post


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

Incidentally, the person, whose name I will not mention, had been denied local and regional board membership because he is not a good person.

Some people are just not good.

Sure.  And just how many years was this no good person in charge at PHRF SoCal with the rest of the Board going right along with his bullshit?  Wasn't he involved in some other Board deliberations just this year, as some sort of consultant?  It never ends with these PHRFools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites