312 replies to this topic

[sloansailing]

Here is what started it:

 BBC Final Report 9-26-12-1.pdf   190.28K   370 downloads

Lets have a civil discussion about the BBC's actions. Please identify yourself in your posts.

Ian Sloan
Owner, Anacortes Rigging and Yacht Services
Manager, SV ICON

[sloansailing]

For the history of what has been discussed so far in the 2012 RTC thread:

http://forums.sailin...pic=138959&st=0

[pogmothoin]

If you dont know who I am you have not been around the racing scene long or havent asked anyone else.

It is difficult to have a civil discussion with people who hide behind being "Volunteers" when they have financial interests in the rating adjustments that benefit programs they are involved in and the entier debacle is heading towards legal action.

With scheduled work and sails being cancelled by programs as a result of this wholesale adjustment, there is now a clear BREACH of DUty.

Duty owed, ( follow the PHRF rules for adjustment of ratings)

Breach of Duty ( ignoring the rules and arbitrary adjustment of ratings to benefit the few)

Compensation ( loss of revenue for yards and sail makers due to cancelled orders and scheduled work)

Damages ( compensation)

[sloansailing]

If you dont know who I am you have not been around the racing scene long or havent asked anyone else.

While I agree with much of what you've posted in these threads, in my opinion I shouldn't have to ask anyone "who is pogmothoin on SA". You only have 12 posts so its not as though I can read through your post history and deduce from that 1) what boat you sail on, 2) where you normally race out of, or 3) who the heck you are. If my time in the NW racing scene has been too short to recognize who you are, forgive me, I've only been racing around here for 7 years. I'm a bit dense sometimes so do me (and maybe some others) a favor and tell us your name and what boat(s) you normally sail on!

[wildangels]

If you are reading this and are a PHRF member please make a point of attending the annual meeting typically held in Seattle during the Seattle Boat Show, Jan 25-Feb 3. We as members need to support our fellow members and faithful volunteers. If I understand correctly, and I'm sure I have not heard the whole story but it appears some ratings were changed in ways that are not consistent with PHRF guidelines as far as size of the adjustment or the members ability to say his side of the story. Perhaps the PHRF director could send out a letter or at least an email to subdue the concerns of some of the membership. I agree that SA might not be the best place for this but hey let's make sure any new folks get a proper welcome!
Andy Schwenk
owner
Northwest Rigging

[SailnGame]

Just a bump.
While I know the owners of boats are trying to get this sorted out, this is a great idea for the rest of us to put some input out there and keep in the loop if we don't happen to be directly connected with boats/people involved in this.

[wildangels]

I am stunned this had to be bumped to keep it near the top, don't people realize what just happened or do they figure it could never happen to them....?

[SailnGame]

maybe once we are all over hearing the stories and seeing pictures from RtC this will take off

[TeamGladiator]

I am stunned this had to be bumped to keep it near the top, don't people realize what just happened or do they figure it could never happen to them....?

One word Andy... APATHY!!

Been down this road before... Talk's cheap and few are wiling to stand up, stick it out, make waves, or push for change...

In other words, it really isn't important to those involved or paying to be members that a Washington State corporation is in violation of their own bylaws and procedures.

BTW, where are the minutes from this meeting from which the 9/26 announcement came from?

Eric
Former PHRF director, handicapper, regional chair, and thankfully, no longer a member either...
GLADIATOR--Martin 241X, Cheetah 30, Beneteau 461
POKER FACE--i550

[Ishtarsdog]

So what is happening? I gather that there was initially some unity in the big boat fleet, a letter to PHRF saying "we don't like this," there has been a bit of racing, results appear mixed, but after that we all got focused on RTC. I haven't heard anything since.

I know many of the folks on the committee and respect them. I also know many of the folks who don't buy what's been done here, and they seem to be in the right about not getting to have a voice in the decision. So how do we break the logjam and get to a meaningful discussion about what it fair?

My two cents: the old ratings were a little off, the new ones look a little off too, although I think more racing will eventually show us for sure. In the meantime, a middle ground might make sense for some of the harder hit boats.

But you have to give everyone a say in it. Let them argue their side in public, and then the committee has all the information, and can decide where to start the adjustment. if they get it wrong, let people talk about it, adjust a few boats again, and again, if necessary until they are pretty close. PHRF doesn't do perfect, and no one who has done this very long expects it.

Bottom line: We need the big boat fleet. They bring a ton of excitement, lots of bodies, and credibility to every race they join. So let's get them involved in the discussion.

Graeme
Kotuku

[soling2003]

This needs to be settled once and for all....if that is even possible....soon. It seems to me, looking at this from afar, that what seemed like a good idea in the beginning went sideways. I know plenty of the people on the board and I do believe that they care and tried to do the best they could. It isn't like they are trying to rate a bunch of J109's. These for the most part are custom boats, have huge speed ranges depending on the wind, and plenty of money to throw at their boats. It is just as bad in the smaller boat range with custom/one off boats, but we don't have the speed differences that the bigger boats have, so the magnitude of being off just a few seconds a mile isn't as big of a deal.

I may be nieave, but I do believe that the people on the board are really trying to make things equitable with the BBC. Meeting that end may be a bit harder to accomplish. I hope that the info keeps flowing and things get straightened out soon.

Gary Morgan
You all know the chute on What? A Tripp!

PS - Pogmothoin, maybe I know you or of you, maybe not, but even after 50 years of racing here in the PNW, I'm not sure if I do or not, so do us all a favor and spill the beans.

[sloansailing]

Glad this got bumped up and has some responses. There are quite a few issues surrounding what has happened with the Big Boat Council, and I'm sure we all have opinions about all of it. Full disclosure I have an interest in all this, as I am personally and financially attached to the ICON program. That said, I think it is important to accept our biases, and contribute from our perspectives, since that is what shapes all of our thoughts on the matter. I DO NOT agree that anyone can speak "objectively" about any of this while having personal or financial connections to the boats affected (which includes boats whose ratings were not adjusted). This isn't Fox News... I am going to try to flesh out a bit of what I consider the biggest problems with what has happened.

1) PHRFNW acted against their bylaws and changed the ratings mid-season of boats without a "T" designation on their certificate.

2) PHRFNW made the change without notifying the owners before the change was made. The first notice most owners got was the letter circulated in an email (linked earlier in this thread) or their new PHRF certificate.

Both 1 and 2 are problems with how PHRF conducted the change, so are in essence problems with management, not the ratings themselves. While I don't know much about the corporate structure of PHRF, I believe Eric and "Pogmothoin" have some valid points that how this change was conducted could have legal consequences. Obviously that is something that should concern all members of PHRFNW!

3) The ratings that the BBC developed are based on a possibly flawed methodology, of converting ORR ratings into PHRF ratings. While some folks think this is a good way to develop ratings, some do not. ORR speed potential ratings use some pretty complex math, that I can't even begin to understand. From my layman's perspective, a resulting change of 20, 30, and up to almost 40 seconds per mile from ratings that have stood static for quite a number of years, would indicate that there is something wrong with the method. Could boats' ratings have been THAT far off for SO LONG without some significant prior scrutiny?

4) Some of the affected boats have ratings from when they were in California. Double Take (ex- Bad Pak) and Wasabi are both California boats who raced under PHRF. Westerly also has a CA PHRF history. Additionally you have similar boats to those in the NW Big Boat fleet, a OD48, J160, which have valid CA PHRF certificates. See SoCal PHRF lookup here: http://www.phrfsocal...ookup.php?key=2 While SoCal uses a 3 number system, we can at least get a good idea of these boats' ratings. I would suggest using the "Random Leg" rating to compare to PHRFNW as it appears to me this is supposed to be the "all purpose" rating in SoCal. So, why is it that Wasabi rated -27 (Random Leg) in CA, used to rate -24 in PHRFNW, and the BBC decided to change their rating to -51? Is the boat THAT much faster than it was in CA? Why is it that a OD48 rates -27 in SoCal, rated -24 in PHRFNW, and was changed to -51? Again, THAT much faster than in CA? Why is PHRFNW so much different than PHRF SoCal? This is a simple observation that leads me again to the conclusion that something is wrong with the methodology used to develop these updated ratings...

5) While the ratings adjustments changed the deltas between the big boats some, they didn't extend to the 40 footers. So, overall results will be changed dramatically as a result. The same goes with multihulls. It seems to me the big losers in this are the -0 rated boats who sail against +0 raters on a regular basis, namely the actively campaigned Seattle area -0 rated boats.

6) I think many of the owners of the most actively raced Big Boats have pretty good ideas on where their boats should rate in relation to their competition. I certainly have my opinions but I'm just a pawn in all this! Certainly the owners should be given a chance to give their input into the matter. I think this is going to happen, I HOPE this is going to happen...

7) This is a contentious subject, but has to be considered. There is a pretty substantial difference in the level of preparation between many of the boats that rate 0 or faster.

My points 3-7 are focused on the ratings themselves. There are other topics that could be disucssed, but in my opinion these are the most pertinent. As I said, I'm really just a pawn in all this. I want to have fun, be competitive, and see more boats on the water. I DON'T think what the BBC did will encourage more boats to come out, and may discourage currently active boats from sailing.

[n00b]

I typed up a detailed response to this whole thing about a week ago, and posted it here, and deleted it about 20 min later. I don't own one of the boats in question, so it's not really my fight. But I guess for me the fundamental thing is that this entire shenanigan has just completely eroded any trust that these boats would be treated fairly and with any due process. The outcome of this is not-that-uncertain, you can already see the effects

[Ballard Sailor]

Ian,

Concerning #1 & #2 PHRF NW has set the precedent over the past 15 years that it is OK to do both these points. They did it to my boat, they did it your boat, they've done it to others. This is not a new thing and since it wasn't fought about years ago it's OK for them to do it now.

Not saying its right, it just is.

Ben Braden

[pogmothoin]

Ballard Sailor

The difference with BBC this time is that there is now demonstratable damages as a result of this. Work has been cancelled and revenue lost. It is the business's that have lost revenue that have an actionable case as a result of the loss of revenue.

PHRF has exposed the entier membership to this as Washington is a Joint and Several Liable State.

[Irish River]

I have no dog in this fight, I race OD boats most of time, and have been in some great races against Mikey. Following results from VI360, RtC, ect, where the big boats are often on the same course as boats rated 0+, is that the ratings where out of whack a bit. Granted ICON, goes so quick she is often in a different wind pattern than a slower boat. But most of the combined fleet races were finishing in the same order as the ratings.

Gord Can 591

[Ballard Sailor]

"pogwhothehellareyoumothoin",

I don't disagree that the amount of money involved here is larger than with a sub 30' boat, but I'm guessing the % of wealth is very similar. As well, I don't disagree with the harm to industry, all are valid points.

The point I'm trying to make is that, PHRF NW has been doing things like this for years and we have either let them, or not had any recourse - possibly because of our limited funds or simple lack on interest. Maybe they finally slapped the wrong backside here and something positive will happen in the end. I disagree that litigation is a good or the only avenue to go. What about a member boycott (i.e. holding back funds for 2013) or simply starting a new organization similar to the B.C. group.

PHRF may not be perfect but it's stood the test of time and is the best thing we got going.

Ben

[Mistaken]

Speaking as an owner who has both a big and small boat, there are two issues which are particularly disconcerting with this whole ratings fiasco:

1 - THE PROCESS
PHRF NW in secret administratively changed well established boats to T ratings, then made dramatic rating changes without any public meetings, minutes, or giving the owners the possibility to review or appeal the changes. In addition to being a clear violation of PHRF bylaws their actions are also having the unfortunate side effect of significantly undermining the trust members have in the organization. This is a big deal over the long run...

2 - THE METHODOLOGY
The methodology used by PHRF-NW in coming up with these new ratings is seriously flawed at best and had they performed even the most rudimentary comparative analysis to ratings in other areas or used the mechanisms suggested by US Sailing for performing ratings conversions they would have recognized this. In addition, other than trying out the new ratings on a couple of historical races, they performed no back testing whatsoever - instead telling the fleet to go try it for a year! Unfortunately this really doesn't work as the level of investment required to seriously campaign any boat is significant and owners are not going to race if they don't believe the racing is reasonably fair.

Why does all this matter you might say -- well because it affects everyone and your boat could be the next one to receive a 30-40 second hit without review or appeal. In addition, if this situation is not rectified quickly and fairly I suspect we will see an appeal at a national level or a move to other rating systems for a segment of the fleet (as has happened in nearly every other region of the country)...

As to what the big boat owners are doing right now -- they have sailed in a few regattas with the new ratings, they have completed an imputed rating analysis of the last 3 years of racing under both the old and new ratings, they have been working with US Sailing with respect to ratings conversions, and they have been meeting behind the scenes with various owners and handicappers. The objective in all this is to come up with a revised set of ratings for consideration by PHRF-NW for use next season.

But then, what do I know...

[Mistaken]

So what is happening? I gather that there was initially some unity in the big boat fleet, a letter to PHRF saying "we don't like this," there has been a bit of racing, results appear mixed, but after that we all got focused on RTC. I haven't heard anything since.

I know many of the folks on the committee and respect them. I also know many of the folks who don't buy what's been done here, and they seem to be in the right about not getting to have a voice in the decision. So how do we break the logjam and get to a meaningful discussion about what it fair?

My two cents: the old ratings were a little off, the new ones look a little off too, although I think more racing will eventually show us for sure. In the meantime, a middle ground might make sense for some of the harder hit boats.

But you have to give everyone a say in it. Let them argue their side in public, and then the committee has all the information, and can decide where to start the adjustment. if they get it wrong, let people talk about it, adjust a few boats again, and again, if necessary until they are pretty close. PHRF doesn't do perfect, and no one who has done this very long expects it.

Bottom line: We need the big boat fleet. They bring a ton of excitement, lots of bodies, and credibility to every race they join. So let's get them involved in the discussion.

Graeme
Kotuku

Graeme,

First, thanks for your insightful and considerate comments -- they are greatly appreciated!

I did however want to ask a question regarding your comment that "the old ratings were a little off". This is extremely important and behind it lies the impetus for the big change made by PHRF-NW -- it seems that there was a fundamental feeling within the handicapper group that the ratings were grossly unfair and that a substantial change had to be made as illustrated by their implementation of the largest rating changes in PHRF history.

If the old ratings were a little off can someone please provide me with any sort of substantive evidence that would substantiate this! I have asked repeatedly for this (even from PHRF-NW) and no one to date has yet come up with anything.

In the absence of this information, I too have looked into this from numerous angles -- are the big boats dominating (ie -- is there a correlation between finish position and rating); are certain boats sailing faster than their rating by significant amounts (using the US Sailing imputed handicap method); do certain boats of a well established class have a soft rating, etc... After an extensive statistical analysis of the big boat fleet and their results over the last three years all I can find is the following:

1 - the fleet scoring is relatively normal (just like the other fleets in the PNW)
2 - nearly all the well prepared & sailed boats have their day
3 - there is no real correlation between finish position & rating (it is highly dependent on the conditions)
4 - a few of the big boats were statistically sailing close to their imputed rating
5 - the wider the ratings spreads (as is done for overall positions) the more variability in results

Based on this all the data and my personal participation in most of these events it would seem that some smaller changes might be in order, but nothing like what was imposed on the fleet...

Have I missed something?

[TeamGladiator]

What about a member boycott (i.e. holding back funds for 2013) or simply starting a new organization similar to the B.C. group.

Ben

Better idea... what about SMS for sport boats and stop all of the shit fighting from the IRC 40 fleet about those boats ratings and racing against them.

Use ORC or IRC for the "Big Boats" and maybe even the IRC 40s

And the best solution... use PHRF NorCal for everyone else. No political BS. No LOCAL games. No secret agendas and rating manipulation. Solve the problem and cut the head(s) off of the hydra!

[Oxygen Mask]

I am stunned this had to be bumped to keep it near the top, don't people realize what just happened or do they figure it could never happen to them....?

Seriously?
1. SA is a WORLD-wide place. The PNW is dear to only a portion of all SA.
2. Not everyone cares to follow external links and read supporting docs to find out just what the fack you guys are bitching about. Sounds PRECISELY like the usual age old ratings bitching at first glance.

So yeah, people probably don't realize what just happened. A synopsis of what this is about, short and to the point, might generate interest.
Factual facts or imagined facts, a primer is handy ;-)

[Mistaken]

What about a member boycott (i.e. holding back funds for 2013) or simply starting a new organization similar to the B.C. group.

Ben

Better idea... what about SMS for sport boats and stop all of the shit fighting from the IRC 40 fleet about those boats ratings and racing against them.

Use ORC or IRC for the "Big Boats" and maybe even the IRC 40s

And the best solution... use PHRF NorCal for everyone else. No political BS. No LOCAL games. No secret agendas and rating manipulation. Solve the problem and cut the head(s) off of the hydra!

The problem with moving to a different rating system (and we very well may come to this) is that you need to reach critical mass before race organizers will provide alternative divisions. In addition, getting and maintaining an ORR or IRC rating is a time consuming & expensive proposition, plus these rating systems change annually and can be type formed. Furthermore, these measurement based systems while being formulaic aren't necessarily fair or accurate in certain cases. For example, US Sailing themselves recognizes this problem as it under-rates many one-design classes where sailors have learned how to beat the system.

The big boat owners want to stay in PHRF and fully recognize the limitations of a single number rating system -- at the same they want it to be properly and fairly managed according to the agreed rules (ie bylaws).

[TeamGladiator]

What about a member boycott (i.e. holding back funds for 2013) or simply starting a new organization similar to the B.C. group.

Ben

Better idea... what about SMS for sport boats and stop all of the shit fighting from the IRC 40 fleet about those boats ratings and racing against them.

Use ORC or IRC for the "Big Boats" and maybe even the IRC 40s

And the best solution... use PHRF NorCal for everyone else. No political BS. No LOCAL games. No secret agendas and rating manipulation. Solve the problem and cut the head(s) off of the hydra!

The problem with moving to a different rating system (and we very well may come to this) is that you need to reach critical mass before race organizers will provide alternative divisions. In addition, getting and maintaining an ORR or IRC rating is a time consuming & expensive proposition, plus these rating systems change annually and can be type formed. Furthermore, these measurement based systems while being formulaic aren't necessarily fair or accurate in certain cases. For example, US Sailing themselves recognizes this problem as it under-rates many one-design classes where sailors have learned how to beat the system.

The big boat owners want to stay in PHRF and fully recognize the limitations of a single number rating system -- at the same they want it to be properly and fairly managed according to the agreed rules (ie bylaws).

Actually pretty simple... Get the OAs to use PHRF NorCal. Cut them off at the knees...

The big boat owners "want" to stay with PHRF??!!?? Wow... With that track record? Amazing. To cheap for a real rating system? To lazy to take the bull by the horns? To apathetic to make a move? Unbelievable. Amusing to watch. Oh wait... More back room bull shit. Nothing changes. Whatever

[Ishtarsdog]

So what is happening? I gather that there was initially some unity in the big boat fleet, a letter to PHRF saying "we don't like this," there has been a bit of racing, results appear mixed, but after that we all got focused on RTC. I haven't heard anything since.

I know many of the folks on the committee and respect them. I also know many of the folks who don't buy what's been done here, and they seem to be in the right about not getting to have a voice in the decision. So how do we break the logjam and get to a meaningful discussion about what it fair?

My two cents: the old ratings were a little off, the new ones look a little off too, although I think more racing will eventually show us for sure. In the meantime, a middle ground might make sense for some of the harder hit boats.

But you have to give everyone a say in it. Let them argue their side in public, and then the committee has all the information, and can decide where to start the adjustment. if they get it wrong, let people talk about it, adjust a few boats again, and again, if necessary until they are pretty close. PHRF doesn't do perfect, and no one who has done this very long expects it.

Bottom line: We need the big boat fleet. They bring a ton of excitement, lots of bodies, and credibility to every race they join. So let's get them involved in the discussion.

Graeme
Kotuku

Graeme,

First, thanks for your insightful and considerate comments -- they are greatly appreciated!

I did however want to ask a question regarding your comment that "the old ratings were a little off". This is extremely important and behind it lies the impetus for the big change made by PHRF-NW -- it seems that there was a fundamental feeling within the handicapper group that the ratings were grossly unfair and that a substantial change had to be made as illustrated by their implementation of the largest rating changes in PHRF history.

If the old ratings were a little off can someone please provide me with any sort of substantive evidence that would substantiate this! I have asked repeatedly for this (even from PHRF-NW) and no one to date has yet come up with anything.

In the absence of this information, I too have looked into this from numerous angles -- are the big boats dominating (ie -- is there a correlation between finish position and rating); are certain boats sailing faster than their rating by significant amounts (using the US Sailing imputed handicap method); do certain boats of a well established class have a soft rating, etc... After an extensive statistical analysis of the big boat fleet and their results over the last three years all I can find is the following:

1 - the fleet scoring is relatively normal (just like the other fleets in the PNW)
2 - nearly all the well prepared & sailed boats have their day
3 - there is no real correlation between finish position & rating (it is highly dependent on the conditions)
4 - a few of the big boats were statistically sailing close to their imputed rating
5 - the wider the ratings spreads (as is done for overall positions) the more variability in results

Based on this all the data and my personal participation in most of these events it would seem that some smaller changes might be in order, but nothing like what was imposed on the fleet...

Have I missed something?

Hi Kevin,

Sorry, I don't have anything concrete re: the "problem" that these changes address. You guys are looking at this with a magnifying glass and we tend to watch your fleet from a ways back. I have seen Icon leg out on the Car in a variety of conditions that might mean that a 3 second delta between the boats is a little light, and truthfully Jam looks sticky compared to the fleet in a lot of situations, but there are too many variables. Your statement that "small changes might have been appropriate" pretty much captures my thinking. Certainly the rating hit that Icon, Flash, the Car, and Darkstar took seemed huge to me.

I do want to say that it would suck if the big boats go to a different rating system than us. We are used to getting waxed by you guys in big boat conditions, but we still like to think that we are in the same fight. That's one of my favorite parts of races like RTC, Swiftsure, and Straits, and I would hate to have Long Course ORC and Long Course PHRF distinctions.

[Asymptote]

What about a member boycott (i.e. holding back funds for 2013) or simply starting a new organization similar to the B.C. group.

Ben

Better idea... what about SMS for sport boats and stop all of the shit fighting from the IRC 40 fleet about those boats ratings and racing against them.

Use ORC or IRC for the "Big Boats" and maybe even the IRC 40s

And the best solution... use PHRF NorCal for everyone else. No political BS. No LOCAL games. No secret agendas and rating manipulation. Solve the problem and cut the head(s) off of the hydra!

The problem with moving to a different rating system (and we very well may come to this) is that you need to reach critical mass before race organizers will provide alternative divisions. In addition, getting and maintaining an ORR or IRC rating is a time consuming & expensive proposition, plus these rating systems change annually and can be type formed. Furthermore, these measurement based systems while being formulaic aren't necessarily fair or accurate in certain cases. For example, US Sailing themselves recognizes this problem as it under-rates many one-design classes where sailors have learned how to beat the system.

The big boat owners want to stay in PHRF and fully recognize the limitations of a single number rating system -- at the same they want it to be properly and fairly managed according to the agreed rules (ie bylaws).

Actually pretty simple... Get the OAs to use PHRF NorCal. Cut them off at the knees...

The big boat owners "want" to stay with PHRF??!!?? Wow... With that track record? Amazing. To cheap for a real rating system? To lazy to take the bull by the horns? To apathetic to make a move? Unbelievable. Amusing to watch. Oh wait... More back room bull shit. Nothing changes. Whatever

To mis-quote Winston Churchill, PHRF is the worst form of a sailboat ratings system, except for all the others.

[jibeset]

PHRF has for as long as I can remember pushed good qualified people away from helping the organization. Many easy solutions have been offered at annual meetings and behind the scene while nothing has ever been adopted or changed. Ratings have been stagnet for way to long. Many have had gift or pentalized ratings with no change for years. Overall people don't want to be the bad guy to challange a handicap. PHRF needs to make a easier way of reporting problems. Handicappers at that point could look at these issues and make changes. Change overall is usually good. While PHRF will never be 100% correct it could be a lot closer than it has been for years.

As a Event promoter I made the choice to change handicaps at WIRW several years ago. The reason for this was to make boats at WIRW competitive in the conditions raceweek normally sees. It shook up PHRF and many handicaps where changed. Since that it has progressively slowed down on change. Just as a note also all of the handicaps that I changed at WIRW have now been changed to or more of a handicap has been placed upon those boats. It should not take a Event like WIRW to have handicappers look at ratings to see if they are correct.

Handicappers need to be out sailing and or atleast attending events to here what people are saying. Many of the handicappers do not sail anymore. I admire those handicappers that do sail and see what is going on. What I don't appreciate is handicappers that do sail and see problems and do nothing about problems. I have had many handicappers tell me that it is not there job to bring appeals forward that it is the job of the members. While this may be true, I would think that as a handicapper if you know of a problem and you are involved directly with the organization that you should be more proactive at making a change.

Last year at raceweek a email went out to competitors in a couple of classes that had not paid there dues to PHRF from a handicapper encouraging those to protest them if they where not current. How does this help? Whats worse is that I had collected PHRF money from several of the offenders and they where compliant within the rules.


Gary Stuntz

[sloansailing]

Seriously?
1. SA is a WORLD-wide place. The PNW is dear to only a portion of all SA.

I don't think Andy was saying that he was surprised that anyone outside the PNW wasn't reading this thread, rather that he was surprised those who were so vocal on the subject in the RTC thread had not posted anything here yet... It's a PNW issue, and I don't think anyone expects folks in CA to care too much...

[wildangels]

So my fellow PHRF'ers who is in for a show of support at the annual meeting typically held during the Seattle Boat Show Jan 25-Feb 3rd? I'm not sure if it is no host bar or BYOB. (BTW Miller Lite Car won NASCAR Championship) Seriously though I think it would be healthy for our BOD and Handicappers to see there are a bunch of us that care enough to show up and support solutions to this Big Boat issue.

[Je Prefere]

So my fellow PHRF'ers who is in for a show of support at the annual meeting typically held during the Seattle Boat Show Jan 25-Feb 3rd? I'm not sure if it is no host bar or BYOB. (BTW Miller Lite Car won NASCAR Championship) Seriously though I think it would be healthy for our BOD and Handicappers to see there are a bunch of us that care enough to show up and support solutions to this Big Boat issue.

Just today got an email from the Chief handicapper asking for agenda items, and Appeals, which apparently must be filed by Dec. 13th, ahead of the Jan 13th Meeting

[Flash48]

There are many good posts in this thread that have addressed many of the issues involved in this change. I have no desire to rehash them, nor do I have a desire to appear in any way to be “complaining” about a new rating. My problem is the process that PHRF used and the methodology. Both are flawed and they do not wish to admit it. Contact with US Sailing has told me that the use of ORR, as used by PHRF is wrong and can generate flawed numbers given the large spread of boats they are trying to work on.
In essence that is the problem of the 0 and faster boats. The spread it too large to have us all grouped together. There are three distinct groups – I am in the middle one (Flash, Wasabi and Dark Star). Several years ago in running the Big boat regatta, since we had 12 to 14 boats, I was able to break the boats into three groups. I believe everyone had fun within their own groups while also competing against the boats in the other two groups.
I think in any honest assessment most owners know how they do within their own grouping. They know if they are well prepared or not, if they have the same crew or not ( or even enough) , or if they are purchasing new sails. Within each group, each boat has distinct conditions in which they have an advantage. So be it, that is racing against disparate boats – it’s fun and challenging.
Over the years I have owned Flash (eight seasons) the rating has been – 24. I have several times suggested to PHRF that my rating should go faster and was told that they would prefer that I stay and be a fixed point other boats can be adjusted around. Obviously something changed, and as has been pointed out, owner input was not solicited, or obviously in the opinion of the handicapper council, even warranted?
I’ve made a point of attending the last three annual (January) handicapper’s meetings. No appeals or issues, I just wanted to be there to offer any support that I could to the volunteers that do the job. It is interesting to hear the appeals and to watch the process (although, in no way do I want to be a rater)!!!
To have been involved in the Big boat fleet as an owner for 15 years, and as crew on a big boat for 20 years before that. The process used by PHRF, and the lack of any input solicited from any big boat owners, was disappointing. I am now supposed to appeal, there are a whole set of instructions on how to do this, what to provide, when to provide it and whom to provide it to. Interesting that they have all these rules for me to follow, but they have no interest in following their own published rules???
Of the suggestions that I have seen proposed that would rectify some of the issues, one is to use the Southern California ratings as a basis. At least then we are not trying to reinvent the wheel. I have been told however that PHRF wants some form of scientific analysis to support this. NO idea where this is going to come from other than trying to twist some numbers to fit some program that PHRF Northwest wants to use.

Steve Travis
s/v Flash

[yotracr]

OK, against my better judgement, i will put in this thread what i have been saying for years. The intention is to start a discussion to rebuild the structure and philosophy of PHRF NW. Most boats are fairly close, there are issues with a couple of boats in many classes. This BBC realignment is a good start.

1) PHRF is not a viable measurement system. it never has been and never will be, from Walt Little to present. It does not have the tools or structure.
2) There is too diverse a cross section of boats to handicap effeciently as anything but a subjective rating.
3) You can not give credits for small sails, a boat must be rated at 100% of its designed sail area, stop the BS of cutting a little out here for 3 seconds a mile, it only skews a system that is subjective to begin with and already tends to rate the sailors rather than the boats.
4) The new BBC system from what i have been able to gather is nothing more than a mix of measurement systems that we dont even know if any of these boats fit in these systems by actual measurement. Again if you are going to run a measurement system then the boats had better comply with it.

OK so enough criticism, so what do you do about it?

1) Take PHRF for what it is, a purely subjective handicapping system that does work with most boats.
2) Adopt So. Cal PHRF. simple, active, tried and true. There are always some boats that are annomalies, there is a 7 person panel made up of industry professionals that are ACTIVE racers, that make a living of sailing and racing that give thier time and input. It is an advisory panel and it does work. At least go online and take a look at it. The rule is only a couple pages long, is simple and to the point.

According to all racing guide lines you are expected to show up with good sails, good bottom, good crew. We have all seen how some boats are sailed, Ian and Icon are one of the best programs on the water. Icon is professionslly prepared, has new sails, and when pointed in the right direction does very well, just about regardless of her rating. Same can be said for Braveheart, Flash, Wasabi and many more. Some are not so prepared, have a tough time around the race course.

While historically this is a pretty simple system, PH NW has turned down many volunteers to try to implement an advisory board with enough Professionals to offset any business related tendancies to one side.

Hope this helps, it is only one persons opinion, one that has been racing for way too long now.
Cheers,
Bob Pistay

[sloansailing]

OK so enough criticism, so what do you do about it?

1) Take PHRF for what it is, a purely subjective handicapping system that does work with most boats.
2) Adopt So. Cal PHRF. simple, active, tried and true. There are always some boats that are annomalies, there is a 7 person panel made up of industry professionals that are ACTIVE racers, that make a living of sailing and racing that give thier time and input. It is an advisory panel and it does work. At least go online and take a look at it. The rule is only a couple pages long, is simple and to the point.

Bob,
Thanks for going against your better judgement and posting. I agree with both your points above. PHRF does generally work pretty well, especially for such a simple system. Though every boat has its conditions where it excels over its competition, a well sailed boat will generally win against a boat that is not as well sailed. As far as adopting SoCal PHRF rules, I just read through them (http://www.phrfsocal...ESandBYLAWS.pdf) and think that could be a good start. At a minimum bringing PHRFNW ratings more in line with SoCal and NorCal PHRF and national averages is a necessary step. I believe if PHRFNW ratings matched those of SoCal, fitting in the boats that don't have a rating or history in that area would be quite easy to figure out. As Steve mentions above, most owners know where they stand in comparison to their competition, and generally what the deltas should be.

I plan to attend the annual meeting in January. And I'm hoping there is a reasonable proposal by the owners of <0 rated boats that can be considered by the board.

[Mistaken]

Not to be a naysayer, but I think it highly unlikely that PHRF NW will adopt SoCal PHRF rules -- we have an entrenched local organization with its own bylaws and leadership. I think the best we can do is:

• Work with our elected board members to "fine tune" the PHRF NW bylaws so that they clearly spell out member's rights and what due process we will follow (for example, the right of members to be involved in the process of all rating changes).
  
• Work with the handicappers to create a considerably a more rigorous & analytical approach to ratings analysis which brings PHRF NW ratings more in line with the true speed potential in way which is consisted to other regions.

In the work that I have done researching the conversion of ORR and IRC numbers to PHRF I have had the opportunity to compare and contrast the results produced with what many class boats are rated in other areas. While we may have unique sailing conditions here in the NW that require some rating differences, there are many classes of boats whose ratings are materially different from national norms.

This is the elephant in the room which no one is talking about -- in contrast the big boat rating fiasco only affects a small number of boats and people.

[WHL]

........snip...................

This is the elephant in the room which no one is talking about -- in contrast the big boat rating fiasco only affects a small number of boats and people.

If that's your view, then the <0 boats can't compete for an Overall position against boats in the >0 divisions.

Isolating one population of the PHRFNW fleet and buggering with their ratings has wider consequences.

[Mistaken]

I agree with you completely -- we need to look at everything in totality recognizing that we have a one-number system and that when scoring on an overall basis you will seldom have identical conditions for all boats (ie, one end of the spectrum or the other will dominate). This does not mean that some of the big boats should not have ratings changes.

The point that I was trying to make (albeit not very well) is that in order for PHRF to work well it needs to be effectively & analytically managed across the entire spectrum. The recent big boat rating changes were based on flawed mechanisms which isolated one population of the PHRF NW fleet. The resulting rating changes as we are seeing are having much wider and unintended consequences (as you correctly point out).

[ctutmark]

I really do hope that PHRF-NW can resolve this in a manner that is acceptable to all. Right now it seems that PHRF-NW has some serious challenges ahead and most of this revolves around deciding who their customers are along with are they rating boats or the people who sail them.

It seems the starting intent of the BBC while good, it does not seem like their actual methods or results are in any way satisfactory for growing the sport of sailboat racing in the NW.

In a number of discussions with the handicappers there has been a policy with almost all new boats to the area to rate them faster than they "think" they should be from the onset. The justification is they think that being harsh and them "giving the boat boat some time" with later adjustments in some way helps to grow the sport or protect the fleet. I see it as exactly the opposite and looking at the number of new boats people are willing to bring into the area supports this. It also assumes the existing boats' ratings are correct which is often a huge stretch of an assumption. As someone who works in the industry this concerns me as it sends the message to people who want to bring newer or high tech boats into the NW that they likely will be treated harshly. These people will look at doing something else which is unfortunate.

As for PHRF wanting input from outside their own group, I know of many knowledgeable people who have offered up assistance which has been ignored. In other regions, the PHRF committee looks at the results at the end of each year and makes adjustments to boats that sail consistently faster than their rating, this is done by PHRF versus boats needing to appeal their ratings. Seems that this is a simple thing to do and might help in this area

At the end of the day, PHRF-NW needs to remember who their customers are and if the customers are unhappy they are either going to change the way things are or go somewhere else.

[Thigh high]

Great conversation! I'm going to stay out of the constitutional part of this discussion because I feel I am not qualified. It was my understanding that PHRF really only works in 30sec bands or so and that is why there are splits into fleets. I can't imagine that PHRF can actually do an accurate job of determining the overall results between boats like Icon, Braveheart, Rage, the Sc 70s and the >0 boats. Most of the time they are racing in another "time zone" to the rest ot the fleet. Don't get me wrong, having overall winners is a great thing but is a J29 or a SC27 sailing the same race as Icon. It's really an "atta boy" to the winner.
With that in mind, there are indeed 3 distinct fleets within the BBC as Steve has pointed out and it was clear in this years Grand prix and RTC. It was great racing!! The results were just an afterthought. As Steve said everybody knows who had a good race and who didn't.
In my humble opinion, PHRF is a subjective, one number rating system that should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Here's a question: Are the new numbers closer this year than last year?
Alan Barnes
crewing on JAM

[Mistaken]

The constitutional part of the discussion is actually pretty simple -- the PHRF NW bylaws clearly state that owners should be included in the process when their ratings change -- with the recent changes each big boat owner simply received their new rating in the mail with no warning or opportunity to comment. As you know we are not talking about a small 3-6 sec/nm change, these were the largest changes in PHRF history (30-40 sec/nm in some cases)! This is concerning to most owners as what happened to one group could very well happen to them.

Regarding whether the new ratings result in closer racing -- the answer to this is clearly yes. You now have poorly prepared and poorly sailed boats that are infrequently raced which can easily beat very prepared and sailed boats which race regularly. If we were golf handicapping then this would be a desirable outcome, but we aren't so one can reasonably conclude that the PHRF NW went way to far.

So what to do? I think everyone wants to come up with a rating system which is both fair and which accurately reflects the true speed potential of the boats in question. The key problem is determining the true speed potential of these boats, especially since many are custom boats with varying degrees of preparation and execution. We do however have a lot of information to go on if we would only use it ---

• PHRF Ratings in other areas
• Ratings using measurement based systems (ORR, IRC)
• Imputed PHRF ratings (we have considerable history here)
• Observed differences between boats (owner input)

In some cases you have boats which have ratings in other regions or under other systems, in others you have ratings for similar boats in other regions or systems which you then need to adjust.

The problem with the new ratings is that they just don't make sense from any angle -- take Flash for example. Flash is a well prepared and consistently well sailed boat -- it is also a boat which is raced in stock form. As a result it has many well established ratings in other areas & systems (including ORR and IRC). By way of illustration here is how Flash's new PHRF rating compares:

Old PHRF Rating = -24
New PHRF Rating = -51
US Sailing National Averages = -30 (high of -24, low of -42)
Northern CA PHRF Rating = -30
Southern CA PHRF Rating = -30 Buoy, -27 Random Leg, -30 off wind
IRC Conversion = -30 (using PHRF NE IRC to PHRF regression formula)
ORR Conversion = -32.09 (using US Sailing regression formula based on a class boat using PHRF-NW wind mix)
Imputed PHRF Rating = -28 (based on 3-years of racing history)

Looking at this in totality a reasonable person would likely conclude that at -51 Flash is incorrectly rated. So what should Flash rate? If you asked the Flash crew and those of their immediate competitors they would likely tell you that they should be rated -30 to -33 (very similar if not identical to Wasabi although they are clearly very different boats).

Using this same process one can start filling in the pieces for the rest of the fleet...

[Thigh high]

Mistaken:
you said:
"Regarding whether the new ratings result in closer racing -- the answer to this is clearly yes. You now have poorly prepared and poorly sailed boats that are infrequently raced which can easily beat very prepared and sailed boats which race regularly. If we were golf handicapping then this would be a desirable outcome, but we aren't so one can reasonably conclude that the PHRF NW went way to far."

Strider, JAM, Artemis, Marda Gras, Freebird, Double Take and Gem. Except for Gem have full interiors (like most PHRF boats) and their ratings changed a max 6sec. Are these the boats you are referring to??? That's 1/2 the BBC at RTC and GP. Most are production boats with lots of PHRF data and are close to other PHRF areas.

So it's really about 1/2 the fleet or actually the fastest 2 groups of the fleet. Except for Flash all the others are custom. The SC70 aren't the same boats.

With a little conversation I think these boats can figure out where they stand.
I think the "very prepared and sailed boats which race regularly" know exactly what their handicap should be against each other and then slide it into the mix.

Barnesie

[Mistaken]

In order to analyze the effects of the rating changes you need to perform back testing over several years of racing -- while the boats you mention do benefit from the rating changes (as the boats faster than them were hit harder), they are not the real beneficiaries and were not who I was thinking of. The real and perhaps unintended beneficiaries are those plus rated boats who are grouped by race organizers into the same division as the negative raters. This becomes abundantly clear when you back test, although I not sure many are aware of this (see attached analysis).

Regarding the custom boat issue, while difficult there are still many points of data which can be used to determine the performance potential of these boats. Many have current ORR or IRC certificates which can be carefully converted to PHRF ratings. Some of them have or had PHRF ratings in other regions, and still others are only slightly different from well known class boats.

I also agree with you that most of the regular competitors know what their handicap should be and the big boat owners in preparing their appeal to the BBC are actively seeking to make this part of the mix...

Attached Files

•  PHRF Big Boat Rating Analysis (as-sailed vs new).pdf   292.58K   52 downloads

[Who? Me?]

Mistaken:

Looking at the IRC cert for the 1D48 Bodacious one finds the rating of 1.242. Using the PHRF-NE conversion formula the PHRF rating would, indeed, come out to -34. However, my understanding is that when you make the adjustments for the sails that Flash uses (-21spm) the rating comes out to -55.

As a further bit of info, there are 5 1D48s listed with ORR certs. Using the conversion formula used by PHRF-NW here's what their handicap ratings would be:

Sjambok (40552): -50
It's OK (41368): -49
Chayah (41370): -46
Trigarante (41379): -44
Flyer (42088): -48

[Mistaken]

Mistaken:

Looking at the IRC cert for the 1D48 Bodacious one finds the rating of 1.242. Using the PHRF-NE conversion formula the PHRF rating would, indeed, come out to -34. However, my understanding is that when you make the adjustments for the sails that Flash uses (-21spm) the rating comes out to -55.

As a further bit of info, there are 5 1D48s listed with ORR certs. Using the conversion formula used by PHRF-NW here's what their handicap ratings would be:

Sjambok (40552): -50
It's OK (41368): -49
Chayah (41370): -46
Trigarante (41379): -44
Flyer (42088): -48

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems -- the PHRF-NW conversion formula from ORR ratings to PHRF is fundamentally flawed on several counts --

• It arithmetically combines ORR values from a variety of models (40% of windward leeward at 8knots, 20% of w/l at 12 knots, etc). This is a big no-no as the underlying VPP is fundamentally non-linear and when you arithmetically combine things you dramatically increase the variability of the result (ie, error).
• PHRF-NW assumed the conversion is linear -- it is not, nor are PHRF ratings in seconds/mile. When you apply the PHRF-NW conversion model to other class boats with well established ratings you end up with stupid numbers that no rational person would accept. Furthermore there was no mathematical justification for their conversion other than "oh, it is just seconds/mile so we can just subtract the base value for a J-160 and it should all be fine".

To illustrate this, here is what the PHRF-NW ORR Conversion says some well established class boats should be:

Henderson 30 = 36 (actual is 54)
J-120 = 95 (actual is 54)
Express 37 = 89 (actual is 72)
Hobie 33 = 123 (actual is 96)
Cal 40 = 178 (actual =129)

I could go on & on -- the net-net is the PHRF-NW conversion formula doesn't work very well for any boat rated much differently than a J-160 where they forced it into agreement...

Having done a lot of research into converting ORR to PHRF and speaking several times at length with the ORR people they have repeatedly said you shouldn't try to convert ORR to PHRF -- they are fundamentally incompatible systems and when you do so you will get unpredictable results. They did however say that if you must do it you should create a wind matrix, send it in to them and have them run the VPP and come up with the ORR values. You then use linear regression analysis to come up with your conversion. The resulting model while not perfect should be much, much closer to reality and can be applied to boats across the spectrum with reasonable results. This is exactly what PHRF-NE did for their IRC conversion model.

Regarding Flash's rating -- to my knowledge they are not sailing with any special sail adjustments and if so I think this would be news to the owner as well. Furthermore, if one uses the conversion method described in the previous paragraph (as is specified by US Sailing) on the boats you list using the PHRF-NW wind matrix you will get PHRF ratings in the range of -30 to -34. This is much more in line with what all the other PHRF regions and conversion methods tell you the ratings should be.

[Asymptote]

Mistaken:

Looking at the IRC cert for the 1D48 Bodacious one finds the rating of 1.242. Using the PHRF-NE conversion formula the PHRF rating would, indeed, come out to -34. However, my understanding is that when you make the adjustments for the sails that Flash uses (-21spm) the rating comes out to -55.

As a further bit of info, there are 5 1D48s listed with ORR certs. Using the conversion formula used by PHRF-NW here's what their handicap ratings would be:

Sjambok (40552): -50
It's OK (41368): -49
Chayah (41370): -46
Trigarante (41379): -44
Flyer (42088): -48

So the PHRF-NW committee has been using an IRC conversion that lands on a rating for 1D48s that many believe is realistic. Fair enough. You should stop there. But from that point on you proceed to go off the rails.

First, where do you get the information that Flash is using sails that should receive a -21-second a mile hit? This is either accusing Flash of sandbagging on their PHRF certificate or claiming there is an extraordinary oversight by the CYC-S rater. I strongly doubt either scenario. Which is it....in your opinion?

Second you seem to be using the same, very challengeable, ORC conversion assumptions to show that other 1D48s would come put about the same as the -51 seconds/mile Flash has received. This second comparison, to be valid, would have to assume that Flash is sailing in the same configuration as the other 1D48s. But you've just claimed that Flash has "mystery sails". So should your (news to everyone else) -21 seconds per mile be added to the conversion you've done for Sjambok or It's OK? Should Flash really rate -72 by your "understanding" and "calculations"?

On another note, Mistaken and others are absolutely correct that the >0 boats have to be stirred into this <0 rating stew pot. Or maybe this is a dish that didn't really need to be cooked in the first place.

[Flash48]

No idea who " who me" is, as noted in the beginning of this chain, please identify yourself?

I am not aware of any mystery sails that I am using? Can you clarify the one, ( or the ones) that apparently is ( are) a mystery sail?

FYI - Bodacious last IRC cert is at 1.233 ( cert # 17910) - not 1.242 as you claim - just look at ST Francis YC big boat series web site if you doubt it.
Sjambok is no longer a OD 48 - they have extended the boat and their last IRC rating is 1.271.

There are large variations in IRC certs for OD 48's based on what sail configuration you chose to use and you can adapt sail combinations to fit the area you are sailing in and also to optimize for rating - for example IRC favors boats with prods and very large asymetrical kites and penalizes boats with poles and runners.

US Sailing has stated, to me at least, that IRC cannot be directly converted to PHRF, IRC is a secret formula and they do not endorse such conversion. They did state that PHRF NE four years ago developed a formula, different that what RORC suggests using, to attempt such a conversion, however they cautioned that it should be used very carefully, as any use of such formula is not linear, i.e. the variations get wilder the larger the spread of numbers you are trying to convert.

One suggestion would be to use the following fomula
. http://www.pipeline....ayneb/java4.htm to convert to PHRF - it's simple and

uses established, easily available measurements to come up with PHRF ratings.

What PHRF NW seems to have done is try to cook up a recipe using a little of this, old ORR ratings, and a little of that, a mix of ORC distance and windward leeward numbers, then a spread of wind ranges, then a PHRF NE study to come up with something. Sort of like casting chicken bones in the shaman's tent and then declaring that it's a scientific analysis.

[Asymptote]

Too late to edit my post, but it should have been PHRF-NE in the first line.

[Asymptote]

Ran my boat through the calculator posted by Flash48. It came within 1 second/mile of my current rating. Interesting.

[wildangels]

So what is happening with the 0 and - ratings? Are they going to address this topic at the annual meeting?

[Dan R.]

So what is happening with the 0 and - ratings? Are they going to address this topic at the annual meeting?

There is a hour an hour dedicated to the big boat fleet appeal - http://www.phrf-nw.org/meetings

...I'm sure it will take longer.

[TeamGladiator]

So what is happening with the 0 and - ratings? Are they going to address this topic at the annual meeting?

There is a hour an hour dedicated to the big boat fleet appeal - http://www.phrf-nw.org/meetings

...I'm sure it will take longer.

Maybe someone will ask where the REQUIRED meeting minutes from the BBC meetings are.

[Maxx Baqustae]

I don't have dog on this fight anymore except for Straits as a lot of big boats cross-pollinate for that race but this has been published in January 48 North - page 80. : http://digital.turn-....com/i/100017/0

And from the last paragraph:

"Ultimately, the goal of PHRF-NW is to provide fair handicaps that are mostly likely to show the end of the day has prepared sailed their boat the best and deserves to win."

Really? I know a couple of boats that might beg to differ.

[n00b]

Speaking of South Straits, I'm still waiting to here wot Strum's new rating is

[sloansailing]

Speaking of South Straits, I'm still waiting to here wot Strum's new rating is

Strum has not been included in ANY of the discussions of big boat ratings by the PHRFNW BBC. Yet, Coruba has? Cassiopeia has not been included either, yet that boat seems closer to making a return to racing in the NW than Coruba.

[sloansailing]

January 13, 2013 Annual General Meeting

Appeal documents as provided by the owners are linked at the bottom of this page.
Any yacht that is on the appeals list that is not a 2013 member at the time of the meeting on Sunday may be removed from the list.

To: Officers, Directors, Handicappers, and Interested Members
From: Alan Grim, Chief Handicapper
Date: December 13, 2012
Re: Annual Meeting of the Handicappers Council
The annual general meeting of the Handicappers Council of PHRF-NW will be conducted on Sunday January 13, 2013 at the Bellingham Yacht Club, Bellingham WA, beginning at 1000 hours. Via copy of this notice previously forwarded to the address of PHRF-NW Officers, Directors and Handicappers, and to those member owners of boats with ratings scheduled for appeal, all interested parties shall be deemed to have been duly advised of this Meeting’s Agenda and request for attendance. PHRF-NW members and their guests are welcome to attend. Times below are tentative. Please arrive early for your session.


http://phrf-nw.org/meetings

[sloansailing]

I don't have dog on this fight anymore except for Straits as a lot of big boats cross-pollinate for that race but this has been published in January 48 North - page 80. : http://digital.turn-....com/i/100017/0

And from the last paragraph:

"Ultimately, the goal of PHRF-NW is to provide fair handicaps that are mostly likely to show the end of the day has prepared sailed their boat the best and deserves to win."

Really? I know a couple of boats that might beg to differ.

There are a few things in the 48N article I find strange...

"There are functionally two ways the
handicap of a boat can be determined.
Evaluating the Speed Potential (SP)
of a boat, or its general performance
(PF) over the course of several races. In
the latter case the rating is like a “golf
handicap,” since two identical boats may
be maintained and sailed very differently
and therefore assigned different ratings.
This method can be used effectively at
the club level where the fleet is a melting
pot of designs and sailors. PHRF-NW
ratings, on the other hand, are used in
races in which boats from many different
yacht clubs participate and thus need to
be standardized using SP.
The Speed Potential (SP) of a boat
is defined as, “…the maximum racing
speed which can be obtained by a top 1%
skipper and crew with a top condition
standard boat (and is) the observed
average performance over several
representative races.”

Was anyone else confused by these couple of paragraphs? I just don't see the distinction between PF and SP if PF is "the general performance over the course of many races" and SP is "the observed average performance over several representative races"...

"A little over 15 years ago, this entire
fleet was reset by the Handicappers
Council with help from an industry
observer. Since then many boats in this
fleet have come and gone, many rating
appeals have been filed and handicaps
have been adjusted on a boat by boat
basis (usually to slower ratings). The end
result has been a significant compression
in the rating spread of boats in this fleet
and the ratings have become more like
golf handicaps rather than SP ratings.
In addition, there have been requests by
some owners of boats in the BBF to have
a comprehensive review of their relative
handicap ratings."

I would have liked to read WHO this "industry observer" was, and if it was the same "industry observer" on the current BBC. 15 years ago? 1998? That is before Braveheart, ICON, Dark Star, Wasabi, Double Take, Free Byrd were built... And, what does "reset" mean? I would also have liked to see some examples of these ratings appeals which resulted in boats being adjusted to slower ratings. Also, examples or evidence of owners requesting a comprehensive review of handicap ratings? As Steve points out in the fourth paragraph of his appeal (http://phrf.intransp...lash Appeal.pdf) who these owners are that requested a comprehensive review is a mystery to him as well.

I think Steve's appeal is a very good summary of the situation, and also suggests reasonable adjustments to the Big Boat Fleet, that make sense based on consistency with other PHRF areas, other handicapping methods, and observed performance. The article in 48N unfortunately appears to me to be continued justification of a huge mistake by PHRFNW. As Steve puts it "...this is a volunteer organization, and volunteers make mistakes. It is sad when they choose not to recognize this and correct their errors."

[redmond]

Even though this only impacts the big boat fleet short term, it is important to get it amicably resolved because, if allowed to fester, it is bound to infect the rest of the classes as well. Maintaining enthousiasm, for the PHRF classes, is a hard enough task already and it certainly does not deserve to get dragged in the mud if suddenly all ratings start being questioned for fairness. No-one is served if the PHRF-NW ratings become more like a golf handicap and, as a group, most owners should be consulted when major rating changes are being implemented. It is difficult to see the same people win all the time but that is not an uncommon occurrence in most OD fleets. Certain boats are just better prepared and better sailed than others and should not be penalized for that. That is the nature of most competitive sports.

[dogger]

I'm guessing the meeting will be canceled as it conflicts with the Seahawks game?

[sloansailing]

I'm guessing the meeting will be canceled as it conflicts with the Seahawks game?

Nope! But, the Big Boat time slot isn't until 2 so we should be able to catch most of the game before showing up.

[TeamGladiator]

No-one is served if the PHRF-NW ratings become more like a golf handicap...

But they already are! Ask someone that knows about all the times "but what about the economical sailor?" was brought up at a rater meeting when the real racers were trying close loopholes. The entire system of rating "credits" simply gives poorly prepared or poorly equipped boats a better chance. Why? The "rating" is supposed to assume a nearly perfectly prepared and sailed boat; it's right there in the handbook. Obviously more than a few raters haven't actually read the handbook. And obviously several raters don't find it necessary to follow the bylaws since there were no meeting minutes ever published from the BBC meetings.
All just symptoms of a much bigger problem which starts with the fact that the chief handicapper doesn't believe that he has to follow the rules. The minutes from the director's meeting in Bellingham are both hilarious and tragic. Well worth the read to shed light on certain raters clear disregard for the rules or the process.

[redmond]

I sure hope that the PHRF-NW board and the big boat owners have a plan to get this resolved. For most boatsand yacht clubs, there is not a rating plan B that they can use when plan A fails. Racing participation rates have dropped to alarming levels already and we can ill afford having skippers decide that they want to sit on the sideline for a while while these rating issues are getting resolved.

[ctutmark]

I sure hope that the PHRF-NW board and the big boat owners have a plan to get this resolved. For most boatsand yacht clubs, there is not a rating plan B that they can use when plan A fails. Racing participation rates have dropped to alarming levels already and we can ill afford having skippers decide that they want to sit on the sideline for a while while these rating issues are getting resolved.

There is a plan B but PHRF-NW will not like it

[TeamGladiator]

I sure hope that the PHRF-NW board and the big boat owners have a plan to get this resolved. For most boatsand yacht clubs, there is not a rating plan B that they can use when plan A fails. Racing participation rates have dropped to alarming levels already and we can ill afford having skippers decide that they want to sit on the sideline for a while while these rating issues are getting resolved.

There is a plan B but PHRF-NW will not like it

There is nothing to stop a club or regional authority from using their own PHRF system and charging or not. The US Sailing PHRF national averages are readily available and might be the solution simply administered by the clubs.

[redmond]

The problem is that boat owners could start shopping Yacht Clubs based on the rating that they can get assigned and we obviously would not want every Yacht Club to have their own and potentially differen ratings for a boat. Fleet Captain have enough on their plate already and they certainly sould not want yto be in the middle of that mess that would be created by such a system. I do not know how the board of PHRF-NW is elected/selected but I cannot see how it can survive if they are in conflict with their members. I hope everyone recognizes that this is a situation where plan A just has to be workable to everyones satisfaction.

[TeamGladiator]

The problem is that boat owners could start shopping Yacht Clubs based on the rating that they can get assigned and we obviously would not want every Yacht Club to have their own and potentially differen ratings for a boat. Fleet Captain have enough on their plate already and they certainly sould not want yto be in the middle of that mess that would be created by such a system. I do not know how the board of PHRF-NW is elected/selected but I cannot see how it can survive if they are in conflict with their members. I hope everyone recognizes that this is a situation where plan A just has to be workable to everyones satisfaction.

I don't know why change is so hard.

There are enough clubs in Seattle under "SARC" that could just use the national PHRF averages... Hell they can't be any less accurate than the abomination created by PHRF-NW.

At some point when you are paying every year for "plan A" you just have to say fuck the nonsense and do something else.

[Asymptote]

The problem is that boat owners could start shopping Yacht Clubs based on the rating that they can get assigned and we obviously would not want every Yacht Club to have their own and potentially differen ratings for a boat. Fleet Captain have enough on their plate already and they certainly sould not want yto be in the middle of that mess that would be created by such a system. I do not know how the board of PHRF-NW is elected/selected but I cannot see how it can survive if they are in conflict with their members. I hope everyone recognizes that this is a situation where plan A just has to be workable to everyones satisfaction.

I don't know why change is so hard.

There are enough clubs in Seattle under "SARC" that could just use the national PHRF averages... Hell they can't be any less accurate than the abomination created by PHRF-NW.

At some point when you are paying every year for "plan A" you just have to say fuck the nonsense and do something else.

Not a lot of "national PHRF averages for boats like Dark Star, Strum, Icon, etc. or even Madrona or my boat in the next band down.

Best is to train the Board and the ad-hoc BBC:

That communication and the appearance of fairness are as critical (or even more critical) than any numbers they might come up with.

That change is better done incrementally and openly than suddenly and quietly.

That all sports are passionately pursued activities, and that passionate responses to significant changes should be expected and prepared for.

And that in a sport with an extraordinarily high number of variables, it is not reasonable to expect that starting with an approximation of performance (i.e. rating), manipulating that approximation by the application of an arbitrary set of assumptions and the mathematical mine-field of an alternative rating system will assuredly provide a more accurate (and defensible) result.

[Je Prefere]

The problem is that boat owners could start shopping Yacht Clubs based on the rating that they can get assigned and we obviously would not want every Yacht Club to have their own and potentially differen ratings for a boat. Fleet Captain have enough on their plate already and they certainly sould not want yto be in the middle of that mess that would be created by such a system. I do not know how the board of PHRF-NW is elected/selected but I cannot see how it can survive if they are in conflict with their members. I hope everyone recognizes that this is a situation where plan A just has to be workable to everyones satisfaction.

I don't know why change is so hard.

There are enough clubs in Seattle under "SARC" that could just use the national PHRF averages... Hell they can't be any less accurate than the abomination created by PHRF-NW.

At some point when you are paying every year for "plan A" you just have to say fuck the nonsense and do something else.

Not a lot of "national PHRF averages for boats like Dark Star, Strum, Icon, etc. or even Madrona or my boat in the next band down.

Best is to train the Board and the ad-hoc BBC:

That communication and the appearance of fairness are as critical (or even more critical) than any numbers they might come up with.

That change is better done incrementally and openly than suddenly and quietly.

That all sports are passionately pursued activities, and that passionate responses to significant changes should be expected and prepared for.

And that in a sport with an extraordinarily high number of variables, it is not reasonable to expect that starting with an approximation of performance (i.e. rating), manipulating that approximation by the application of an arbitrary set of assumptions and the mathematical mine-field of an alternative rating system will assuredly provide a more accurate (and defensible) result.

Perhaps as important, what does the community do the moment someone makes a change to their sails or mods the appendages? National averages without local input won't solve those issues. Comes right back to managing local handicapping in a fair and transparent way.

[sloansailing]

The problem is that boat owners could start shopping Yacht Clubs based on the rating that they can get assigned and we obviously would not want every Yacht Club to have their own and potentially differen ratings for a boat. Fleet Captain have enough on their plate already and they certainly sould not want yto be in the middle of that mess that would be created by such a system. I do not know how the board of PHRF-NW is elected/selected but I cannot see how it can survive if they are in conflict with their members. I hope everyone recognizes that this is a situation where plan A just has to be workable to everyones satisfaction.

I don't know why change is so hard.

There are enough clubs in Seattle under "SARC" that could just use the national PHRF averages... Hell they can't be any less accurate than the abomination created by PHRF-NW.

At some point when you are paying every year for "plan A" you just have to say fuck the nonsense and do something else.

Not a lot of "national PHRF averages for boats like Dark Star, Strum, Icon, etc. or even Madrona or my boat in the next band down.

Best is to train the Board and the ad-hoc BBC:

That communication and the appearance of fairness are as critical (or even more critical) than any numbers they might come up with.

That change is better done incrementally and openly than suddenly and quietly.

That all sports are passionately pursued activities, and that passionate responses to significant changes should be expected and prepared for.

And that in a sport with an extraordinarily high number of variables, it is not reasonable to expect that starting with an approximation of performance (i.e. rating), manipulating that approximation by the application of an arbitrary set of assumptions and the mathematical mine-field of an alternative rating system will assuredly provide a more accurate (and defensible) result.

Very well put. Unfortunately none of these seem to have been accomplished yesterday.

[TeamGladiator]

Very well put. Unfortunately none of these seem to have been accomplished yesterday.

So what happened?

[sloansailing]

So what happened?

I will summarize. This is my perspective, others may have a slightly different view. I am only commenting on the Big Boat Ratings Appeal and the associated discussion. I was not present earlier in the meeting where there apparently was some discussion of process and bylaws. I was also not present at the Big Boat Committee meeting that was convened directly after the larger meeting adjourned.

1) Kevin Welch presented his appeal, which represented only a portion of the boats in the rating band affected, I believe from Dark Star up to ICON and Braveheart. His appeal did not include nor was he speaking for owners in the slower portion of the affected rating band. His appeal used imputed ratings, known PHRF ratings from other areas and US Sailing, and a multitude of different rating systems (ORR, IRC, IMS, converted to PHRF) to put forth new, adjusted PHRFNW ratings for the boats included in his appeal. He spoke about the method used by the BBC of converting ORR ratings to PHRF ratings, and tried to explain why, in his opinion, the methodology used was faulty. He also made clear his methodology and mathematics in the conversion he used for converting ORR to PHRF, which resulted in a different PHRF ratings than the BBC came up with. Using this composite method, combining and weighing the different ratings/conversions, he proposed a new set of ratings for the affected boats. This proposal was agreed to and supported by all the affected owners on whose behalf he was speaking.

2) David Lynch explained the BBC's methodology for converting ORR ratings to PHRF ratings, and how they had come up with the ratings that were applied in October of last year. There was much discussion of wind matrices and course selection as ORR requires specific course and wind input to determine ratings.

3) There was a motion made to adjust the ratings to 50% of the previous adjustment (a 10 second adjustment reduced to 5 etc...), with review after a year of racing. Part of this motion was that the previous adjustment was to be the maximum adjustment that could be made after a review of the ratings after a year of racing.

4) The appeal was denied.

5) The motion to adjust to 50% of the previous adjustment failed.

6) The PHRF council deferred all decisions concerning the Big Boat Fleet back to the Big Boat Committee. The BBC was to meet after the large meeting adjourned to further discuss the appeal and Big Boat ratings. I believe they came to some conclusion similar to the 50% proposal, but instead made an adjustment to 90% of the original rating adjustment (a 10 second adjustment reduced to 1...) I don't know for sure about this decision and am waiting to find out for sure what the decision was...

This is certainly not the total of what went on, there were many specifics and details, but in my opinion these are the primary points. Again this is just my perspective, and everyone knows who I am, so take it for whatever you will.

Oh, we also all watched the Seahawks lose in the closing seconds of the fourth quarter during lunch.

[n00b]

Thanks Ian, for your notes and for helping represent some of us who are affected by the original ruling. If there are new ratings, do you or anyone know when will they be published and when will they take effect?

[Je Prefere]

So what happened?

I will summarize. This is my perspective, others may have a slightly different view. I am only commenting on the Big Boat Ratings Appeal and the associated discussion. I was not present earlier in the meeting where there apparently was some discussion of process and bylaws. I was also not present at the Big Boat Committee meeting that was convened directly after the larger meeting adjourned.

1) Kevin Welch presented his appeal, which represented only a portion of the boats in the rating band affected, I believe from Dark Star up to ICON and Braveheart. His appeal did not include nor was he speaking for owners in the slower portion of the affected rating band. His appeal used imputed ratings, known PHRF ratings from other areas and US Sailing, and a multitude of different rating systems (ORR, IRC, IMS, converted to PHRF) to put forth new, adjusted PHRFNW ratings for the boats included in his appeal. He spoke about the method used by the BBC of converting ORR ratings to PHRF ratings, and tried to explain why, in his opinion, the methodology used was faulty. He also made clear his methodology and mathematics in the conversion he used for converting ORR to PHRF, which resulted in a different PHRF ratings than the BBC came up with. Using this composite method, combining and weighing the different ratings/conversions, he proposed a new set of ratings for the affected boats. This proposal was agreed to and supported by all the affected owners on whose behalf he was speaking.

2) David Lynch explained the BBC's methodology for converting ORR ratings to PHRF ratings, and how they had come up with the ratings that were applied in October of last year. There was much discussion of wind matrices and course selection as ORR requires specific course and wind input to determine ratings.

3) There was a motion made to adjust the ratings to 50% of the previous adjustment (a 10 second adjustment reduced to 5 etc...), with review after a year of racing. Part of this motion was that the previous adjustment was to be the maximum adjustment that could be made after a review of the ratings after a year of racing.

4) The appeal was denied.

5) The motion to adjust to 50% of the previous adjustment failed.

6) The PHRF council deferred all decisions concerning the Big Boat Fleet back to the Big Boat Committee. The BBC was to meet after the large meeting adjourned to further discuss the appeal and Big Boat ratings. I believe they came to some conclusion similar to the 50% proposal, but instead made an adjustment to 90% of the original rating adjustment (a 10 second adjustment reduced to 1...) I don't know for sure about this decision and am waiting to find out for sure what the decision was...

This is certainly not the total of what went on, there were many specifics and details, but in my opinion these are the primary points. Again this is just my perspective, and everyone knows who I am, so take it for whatever you will.

Oh, we also all watched the Seahawks lose in the closing seconds of the fourth quarter during lunch.

I'm new to the rating council, and don't have a dog in this fight, but thats pretty much how I saw it as well. good summary.

[dangerzone777]

So what was the overall final resolution? Is this to be an ongoing problem? Do you see it affecting over classes?

[soling2003]

The big question is do most of the owners effected think it is a fair resolution? Sounds like there might still be a lot of work to do.

[sloansailing]

So what was the overall final resolution? Is this to be an ongoing problem? Do you see it affecting over classes?

The final outcome was very little if any change from the BBC ratings imposed in October last year. Yes, I believe it is going to be an ongoing problem. I see it affecting other classes in a couple ways. Obviously all along the really big beneficiaries of this adjustment were the well sailed positive rated boats close to 0, who frequently get grouped in with the faster negative rated boats. The slower negative rated boats don't gain as much as this other group, because I believe in general they are not as well sailed as the well sailed 0 to +24 (ish) group. In my opinion this is where you will see the largest change in results, and in overall results (back testing shows this). The other significant effect it will have is the continued decline in confidence of PHRFNW's ability to fairly and equitably rate boats. Those who were upset or discouraged about the process and the adjustment don't have any indication that the perceived problems are going to get better.

The big question is do most of the owners effected think it is a fair resolution? Sounds like there might still be a lot of work to do.

I think that depends on who you ask. Certainly the slower rated negative rated boats and the faster rated positive boats are happy because they have a better chance of winning! Of course, this isn't to say it is "fair." There have already been some comments on this forum from a very active owner in the latter group (and others) indicating he doesn't think the BBC adjustment is totally "fair." The faster negative rated boats all agreed to the ratings that Kevin presented in his appeal, all signed the letter and the appeal, and I think generally wanted their ratings adjusted back closer to where they were before the change. So, I think the majority of these owners do not think this is a fair resolution. While some may accept the adjustment more willingly than others, I don't think any of this group really thinks their new rating is fair.

Again this is just my opinion, and others may have a different point of view.

[Je Prefere]

Has the BBC put out a final proposal ?

[sloansailing]

Has the BBC put out a final proposal ?

My understanding is that what the BBC puts out is not a proposal, but a decision. They have made it clear that owner input is basically going to be ignored. (It should be noted that there was never an actual vote on the appeal presented, no one ever actually denied or approved the appeal, in the council meeting or the subsequent BBC meeting. I was wrong about this part in my summary...) The PHRF council at large has also made it clear that they prefer this issue be handled entirely by the BBC. Unfortunately this leaves the BBC with total control over the ratings of the negative raters, with no oversight by the council or recourse by the owners.

[Je Prefere]

Has the BBC put out a final proposal ?

My understanding is that what the BBC puts out is not a proposal, but a decision. They have made it clear that owner input is basically going to be ignored. (It should be noted that there was never an actual vote on the appeal presented, no one ever actually denied or approved the appeal, in the council meeting or the subsequent BBC meeting. I was wrong about this part in my summary...) The PHRF council at large has also made it clear that they prefer this issue be handled entirely by the BBC. Unfortunately this leaves the BBC with total control over the ratings of the negative raters, with no oversight by the council or recourse by the owners.

I don't have quite such a negative view of the meeting, my impression was that the council, after hearing a number of proposals in the course of the appeal, gave the authority back to the bbc, who committed to meeting with the fleet representatives who where there presenting the appeal, immediately afterwards. The clear (i thought) intent, was for them come to an agreement about one or another of the proposals, such as the 50%, or 90%, or the owners' ratings, etc. its the results of that meeting that i've not heard anything about, and was asking about above.

[sloansailing]

Has the BBC put out a final proposal ?

My understanding is that what the BBC puts out is not a proposal, but a decision. They have made it clear that owner input is basically going to be ignored. (It should be noted that there was never an actual vote on the appeal presented, no one ever actually denied or approved the appeal, in the council meeting or the subsequent BBC meeting. I was wrong about this part in my summary...) The PHRF council at large has also made it clear that they prefer this issue be handled entirely by the BBC. Unfortunately this leaves the BBC with total control over the ratings of the negative raters, with no oversight by the council or recourse by the owners.

I don't have quite such a negative view of the meeting, my impression was that the council, after hearing a number of proposals in the course of the appeal, gave the authority back to the bbc, who committed to meeting with the fleet representatives who where there presenting the appeal, immediately afterwards. The clear (i thought) intent, was for them come to an agreement about one or another of the proposals, such as the 50%, or 90%, or the owners' ratings, etc. its the results of that meeting that i've not heard anything about, and was asking about above.

Yes that last post was a bit of editorializing on my part. Like I said, I have a strong opinion about this, I think everyone knows that! As far as I know there hasn't been a firm decision yet on the ratings from the BBC, they are still discussing and going over them. Only one of the fleet representatives was present during the BBC meeting, and he said everything he had to say to the council during the appeal, so there wasn't much else to do in the smaller group!

[TeamGladiator]

So who's the new chief handicapper?

[redmond]

It would appear that the big boat owners (BBC) were fairly united and could agree among themselves on equitable rating assignments for their boats. Judging from the comments made on the meeting last Sunday, it also appears equally clear that PHRF-NW is not likely to accept the rating decisions made by the BBC. If no compromise can be reached, the boat big boat owners have to decide whether to race their boats at all or ask the hosting yacht clubs to rate their boats in accordance to the BBC ratings agreement. That might present a problem for overall fleet placements, on the long distance races, but they could at least race as a fleet and that is probably what they care about most. Does it really matter whether the performance of a 26 ft boats can be matched with one of 68 ft on a long distance race? The tides will have more impact on the final results than the ratings probably would.

[TeamGladiator]

It would appear that the big boat owners (BBC) were fairly united and could agree among themselves on equitable rating assignments for their boats. Judging from the comments made on the meeting last Sunday, it also appears equally clear that PHRF-NW is not likely to accept the rating decisions made by the BBC. If no compromise can be reached, the boat big boat owners have to decide whether to race their boats at all or ask the hosting yacht clubs to rate their boats in accordance to the BBC ratings agreement.

Assume you meant Big Boat Owner's Agreement.
It would be a simple solution for the owners to provide their own ratings as a group to the OAs and basically form their own rating agency and handle those boats ratings themselves and remove them from -NW. Obviously wouldn't be able to sail for overall ratings in distance events and would be the same as having an IRC or ORC or SMS fleet.
Great solution until only one or two boats show up for an event and get lumped in with the Zero - 30 raters.

[alymatt]

No dog in the fight but...........

Why not move from PHRF NW to PHRF BC, apply and work to getting your desired ( and fairly rated of course ) cert and then hand that to the organizers of events and go from there.

[Asymptote]

Small boat in this fight....(why it has to be a fight, I dunno, but it seems like it is.)...there are many events where we >0 boats get sorted into the <0 races. Any adjustments cannot stop at 0. I, for one, don't believe large adjustments are really in order, but whatever is done can't be done in isolation.

[redmond]

If PHRF BC is willing to work with the big boat owners, it would solve several issues because the big boats would have ratings to participate in the long distance races up north with. The fact remains that you cannot have PHRF-NW and PHRF-BC rate boats dramatically different since there is significant cross-border pollination. Something will have to give and we just cannot have a situation where a big boat owner feels that they are being so unfairly treated that he/she loses their enthousiasm to race their boats.

[slimpickings]

PHRF - BC would only be useful for races in BC I am not convinced that they would even be interested in trying to stretch out... PHRF- BC also periodically states that boats have been adjusted to align with PHRF-NW so what's the difference...

Chad
naviguesser
Westerly

[sloansailing]

So who's the new chief handicapper?

Ron Jewula

[TeamGladiator]

So who's the new chief handicapper?

Ron Jewula

That's a joke, right?

[Jollymon]

So who's the new chief handicapper?

Ron Jewula

That's a joke, right?

Maybe....













Real answer is Bill Nelson

JM

[TeamGladiator]

So who's the new chief handicapper?

Ron Jewula

That's a joke, right?

Maybe....













Real answer is Bill Nelson

JM

Sweet Jesus! How did they get Bill to come back? Did the board promise to get rid of someone(s)?

[alymatt]

Sorry but boats every year do events like Swiftsure - RTC - N100, and they come with PHRF BC certs - and are accepted to race!

So if Westerly - just like Strum, go to Swiftsure and are allowed to race ( I am assuming Strum only has a BC rating and is converted ) why can't the rest of the boats in question?

[TeamGladiator]

Sorry but boats every year do events like Swiftsure - RTC - N100, and they come with PHRF BC certs - and are accepted to race!

So if Westerly - just like Strum, go to Swiftsure and are allowed to race ( I am assuming Strum only has a BC rating and is converted ) why can't the rest of the boats in question?

Because without a certificate from the measuring body that the OA indicates in the SI the entry is not a valid entry and is subject to protest and disqualification. But nobody protests on such trivial things, so why not?

[alymatt]

Ah last time I checked - not specific to Swiftsure however - most sailing instructions say they will convert to whatever rating system they folllow.

All that said, I believe NW needs to show leadership and "listen" to its members! Who do these radical changes serve - the majority or the minority?

[crashdog]

This PHRF thing is really depressing. In any other field of activity, such capriciousness would drive us into a more rational system. I can take my ORC-i certificate anywhere in the world and not have a problem when racing is under ORC and generally have not had any problem with having local IRC and PHRF give me provisional certificates that are generally within 2% of my ORC design speed and never over 5%. I drag my boat out to the PNW and have to skirt gingerly around this mess. I am not caught by the BBC, being one of those +0 customers, but this stuff causes me to reconsider my racing choices around here. It certainly impacts my interest in upgrading the boat to optimize its speed.

I am not sure how to go about it, but I would encourage all those in Div 0/1 to consider a more independent system of rating.

[Ishtarsdog]

Really disappointed by this. I was hoping there would be a come-to-Jesus-type discussion where the owners would be heard and listened to. Not that things have to go back to the way things were before this mess, but if you can get the bunch of them (BBOs) to more or less agree means that their argument ought to be taken pretty seriously.

Communication is pretty important too. The fact that no one is 100% clear on the decision or the process of getting to one doesn't restore my faith in the system.

[TeamGladiator]

This PHRF thing is really depressing. In any other field of activity, such capriciousness would drive us into a more rational system. I can take my ORC-i certificate anywhere in the world and not have a problem when racing is under ORC and generally have not had any problem with having local IRC and PHRF give me provisional certificates that are generally within 2% of my ORC design speed and never over 5%. I drag my boat out to the PNW and have to skirt gingerly around this mess. I am not caught by the BBC, being one of those +0 customers, but this stuff causes me to reconsider my racing choices around here. It certainly impacts my interest in upgrading the boat to optimize its speed.

I am not sure how to go about it, but I would encourage all those in Div 0/1 to consider a more independent system of rating.

Bingo. All this -NW nonsense is why we sold our boat and went back to OD.
Never had to try to game the system nor did I jerked around by NorCal.

[redmond]

I cannot help but believe that Bill's return, as chief handicapper, has something to do with the recognition, at PHRF-NW, that some kind of equitable resolution is necessary before problems start expanding to other rating classes. We have about six weeks left before the real 2013 racing season starts so lets hope that they can at least agree on some temporary solutions. As long as the <0 raters feel that their current rating is temporary, they might be willing to sail with those until the situation is resolved. Center Sound would not be the same if some of the big boats would not be there.

[sloansailing]

I am not sure how to go about it, but I would encourage all those in Div 0/1 to consider a more independent system of rating.

That may soon be a much more realistic option than it has been in the past.

Really disappointed by this. I was hoping there would be a come-to-Jesus-type discussion where the owners would be heard and listened to. Not that things have to go back to the way things were before this mess, but if you can get the bunch of them (BBOs) to more or less agree means that their argument ought to be taken pretty seriously.

Communication is pretty important too. The fact that no one is 100% clear on the decision or the process of getting to one doesn't restore my faith in the system.

My feelings exactly.

[Thigh high]

The "Big Boat Owners Agreement" are just the -45 and down, correct? Just want to clarify who this discussion involves and who are on the sidelines watching.

[Green Card]

Correct. I believe it is just the boats that rate Double Take (-27) and faster. I know that the slower rated fast boats (0 to -27) were excluded from discussions about the ratings. The word "fleet" is being used pretty losely.

[sloansailing]

The "Big Boat Owners Agreement" are just the -45 and down, correct? Just want to clarify who this discussion involves and who are on the sidelines watching.

Correct. I believe it is just the boats that rate Double Take (-27) and faster. I know that the slower rated fast boats (0 to -27) were excluded from discussions about the ratings. The word "fleet" is being used pretty losely.

Yes the "Big Boat Owners Agreement" was signed by Double Take and faster. The reason the focus is on the faster boats is because those are the boats whose ratings were adjusted significantly faster... Only 3 of the boats rated -18 and slower got rating hits (2 of them quite significant), the others stayed the same (or in 2 cases were re-rated slightly slower). The boats rated -18 or slower who were adjusted significantly faster were part of the appeal. The "fleet" I agree really should be two or three fleets, thats part of the problem.

[Asymptote]

The "Big Boat Owners Agreement" are just the -45 and down, correct? Just want to clarify who this discussion involves and who are on the sidelines watching.

Correct. I believe it is just the boats that rate Double Take (-27) and faster. I know that the slower rated fast boats (0 to -27) were excluded from discussions about the ratings. The word "fleet" is being used pretty losely.

Yes the "Big Boat Owners Agreement" was signed by Double Take and faster. The reason the focus is on the faster boats is because those are the boats whose ratings were adjusted significantly faster... Only 3 of the boats rated -18 and slower got rating hits (2 of them quite significant), the others stayed the same (or in 2 cases were re-rated slightly slower). The boats rated -18 or slower who were adjusted significantly faster were part of the appeal. The "fleet" I agree really should be two or three fleets, thats part of the problem.

One important point being that a "0 rating" is not a significant number in this discussion, except for its symbolic value. It is an artifact of the original PHRF formulation when boats faster than 0 were pretty much science fiction. It certainly doesn't define a significant point (or change of curve) in the rating spectrum. And it should not have been the break point for the BBC committee's work.