• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Polaris

Americap

16 posts in this topic

I am trying to do some comparisons for each system for different boats. Does anybody know the equation to convert Americap/ORR number to a phrf equivalent?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily, the answer is found here:

 

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:nViOl...us&ie=UTF-8

 

There are a number of other handicapping systems that can be useful information when looking at empirical handicaps. Although none of these can be expected to be identical to PHRF, they are useful for determining if you are in the "ballpark". Here are several conversions for going from one handicapping system to another.

 

IRC: The RORC web site recommends a conversion factor to Time on Distance of 600/IRC. However, the following formula seems to give better results:

 

PHRF = (650/IRC) - 555

 

IMS: The IMS General Purpose (GPH) number can be useful. You have to keep in mind that IMS does not do a great job of handicapping boats that are not designed to the latest version of the rule. The most common conversion is:

 

PHRF = IMS GPH - 550

 

The 550 factor should perhaps be decreased a little if the boat is an older one and increased a little if the boat is a state of the art racing machine. Another conversion, determined by Nils Nordenstrom of Norway is:

 

PHRF = - 480 + 0.9 * IMS GPH

 

The accuracy of these can vary from year to year as the IMS rule changes. For boats not designed to the rule this can give answers that 10 to 10 Seconds per Mile, and more, in error. The error is usually to over estimate the speed. Some sprit boats are prime examples of this error. Ligh displacement boats also tend to be severly handicapped by IMS.

 

Dixie Portsmouth: The PHRF conversion from the Dixie Portsmouth system used in the United States is:

 

PHRF = 6 * DPN - 330

 

ASPN: The Atlantic Speed Potential Number is a Time on Time factor used by the Nova Scotia PHRF. The following is the relationship to PHRF Time on Distance:

 

PHRF = (63000/ASPN) - 400

 

Argentine PHRF: The Argentine PHRF handicap is given in feet, as the IOR was. Converting to PHRF Time on Distance is similar to converting from the IOR itself. The conversion into a Time Correction Factor is:

 

TCF = (2.6 * R)/10

 

LYS: The LYS system is a Time on Time system used in the Nordic countries. The conversion to PHRF is:

 

PHRF = - 480 + 720/LYS

 

The LYS handicap itself can be related to the IMS by:

 

LYS = 800/IMS GPH

 

The LYS handicap can be related to the ORC TCF by:

 

LYS = 600/ORC TCF

 

ECHO: This is the "personal" handicapping system used in Ireland. Basically they start out with an empirically derived base number. Then a crew factor is applied. This system also has a "Jockey Factor". For instance, if you import a ringer for a regatta, your handicap will be adjusted accordingly.

 

The time correction factor can be reasonably converted using the standard formula.

 

PHRF = (600/ECHO) - 500

 

IOR: The International Offshore Rule presents a difficult conversion problem. Being a very type forming rule, conversion is very sensitive to when the boat was designed. For boats not designed to any version of the rule, all bets are off. The formulae shown here attempt to represent the extremes, early and late, of IOR designs.

 

Early IOR Conversion: PHRF = - 9.7 * R + 384.9

 

Late IOR Conversion: PHRF = - 10.8 * R + 379.8

 

The actual PHRF handicap "should" be somewhere between the two numbers generated above.

 

Time-on-Time: Time-on-Time scoring can help, over Time-on-Distance scoring if there are unusual race conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason the full conversion table of time allowances does not appear under the link I posted above, but the link at the top of that HTML page does contain the full table of conversion factors.

 

What boat are we talking about here, P?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E= MC2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm waiting for the Portsmouth Yardstick conversion.

 

D-PN = PHRF / 6 + 55

PHRF = D-PN – 55 x 6

 

Portsmouth and PHRF don't agree very well, however. Keep in mind that they were developed for very different sorts of boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that any PHRF-style 1 number system is going to be pretty limited, the Americap idea did make me wonder how much better a 2 number system would be. It seems a obvious idea to use the PHRF as the main corrector and use a small TOT adjustment. Has anyone ever seen a system like that?

 

Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the above calculations a long time ago but with a 530 instead of a 550 (for the IMS conversion). Any comments??

 

Also any comments on using your ORR certificate to justify a PHRF#? It seems reasonable to me that if you have gone to all the effort and costs to get an ORR certificate, you should be able to derive a phrf# from your certificate (thus avoiding the "politics" of the comittee)....

 

can of worms...... now open!!! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using the conversion to phrf as a base to compare the different systems for a boat that we were buying. I know that you can't compare apples to oranges. An idea is all I was looking for. In our case, the boat is a surfer and does better under ORR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw the above calculations a long time ago but with a 530 instead of a 550 (for the IMS conversion). Any comments??

 

Also any comments on using your ORR certificate to justify a PHRF#? It seems reasonable to me that if you have gone to all the effort and costs to get an ORR certificate, you should be able to derive a phrf# from your certificate (thus avoiding the "politics" of the comittee)....

 

can of worms...... now open!!! :unsure:

 

HSD: The 530 number that you see in Hawaii is probably a reflection of the local fleet: the 550 number discussed was pulled form a discussion of the fleet in a major sailing center (Newport RI) and was only intended to reflect the reality of the greater prevalence of higher performance boats in that area. As such it would be equally acceptable in Annapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles or other areas with faster boatsc but not in Hawaii, Alaska or St. Loius. This is not a reflection on the conditions or skill of the sailors but simply upon the relative prevalence of very fast boats.

 

As for phrf vs ORR, ORR (like IRC) is a rating based upon a measurement system and phrf is a rating based upon observed performance, so no, I don't think your local phrf committee would be impressed. That would be like the owner of one observedly slower phrf boat asking IRC for a rating that reflects more closely a slower boat regardless of the measurement: the J120 vs. the J122 comes to mind in this regard. If IRC were to ever "open that can of worms" it would essentially become another observed performance rating system.

 

For a pretty good analysis of ORR (Americap II in some qrtrs) there was an article by Tim Kernan on SA (SA...what a great resource. Thanks Scot!) which you can view here:

 

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2005/...1%2012-5-05.htm

 

Polaris, you're not going to fake anybody out with the Synergy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D-PN = PHRF / 6 + 55

PHRF = D-PN – 55 x 6

 

Portsmouth and PHRF don't agree very well, however. Keep in mind that they were developed for very different sorts of boats.

I prefer to instead interpolate. IE if I have a boat with a Portsmouth rating but no PHRF, I go look up 2 boats near in PM rating, and interpolate between them proportionally in PHRF. And vice versa. I use the US Sailing Portsmouth ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HSD: The 530 number that you see in Hawaii is probably a reflection of the local fleet: the 550 number discussed was pulled form a discussion of the fleet in a major sailing center (Newport RI) and was only intended to reflect the reality of the greater prevalence of higher performance boats in that area. As such it would be equally acceptable in Annapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles or other areas with faster boatsc but not in Hawaii, Alaska or St. Loius. This is not a reflection on the conditions or skill of the sailors but simply upon the relative prevalence of very fast boats.

 

As for phrf vs ORR, ORR (like IRC) is a rating based upon a measurement system and phrf is a rating based upon observed performance, so no, I don't think your local phrf committee would be impressed. That would be like the owner of one observedly slower phrf boat asking IRC for a rating that reflects more closely a slower boat regardless of the measurement: the J120 vs. the J122 comes to mind in this regard. If IRC were to ever "open that can of worms" it would essentially become another observed performance rating system.

 

For a pretty good analysis of ORR (Americap II in some qrtrs) there was an article by Tim Kernan on SA (SA...what a great resource. Thanks Scot!) which you can view here:

 

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2005/...1%2012-5-05.htm

 

Polaris, you're not going to fake anybody out with the Synergy!

 

That was not our intent. We just wanted an idea of how it would rate since the boat has never raced in IRC or ORR and PHRF was the only conversion that we have. I know that a surfer usually does better under ORR than IRC. In PHRF it does excellent. We have won enough, and nobody cares who wins a race other than the guy that won, we just want an exhilarating ride and we didn't buy the boat to play the rating game. If that was the case, we would have kept our Tripp 40 that won big races under every rating system. No games here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer to instead interpolate. IE if I have a boat with a Portsmouth rating but no PHRF, I go look up 2 boats near in PM rating, and interpolate between them proportionally in PHRF. And vice versa. I use the US Sailing Portsmouth ratings.

 

That's a good idea.

 

It's also true that boats of similar form designed and built around the same time for the same purpose usually sail about the same. So for PHRF, if you find the boats closest in loa, sa, and disp, you will have a pretty good idea of what the rating should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was not our intent. We just wanted an idea of how it would rate since the boat has never raced in IRC or ORR and PHRF was the only conversion that we have. I know that a surfer usually does better under ORR than IRC. In PHRF it does excellent. We have won enough, and nobody cares who wins a race other than the guy that won, we just want an exhilarating ride and we didn't buy the boat to play the rating game. If that was the case, we would have kept our Tripp 40 that won big races under every rating system. No games here!

I was only kidding.

 

Maybe.

 

(IIRC phrf is 54?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites