Archived

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

BigWaveDave

IRC Super Secret Rating Recipe

Recommended Posts

This was touched upon in another thread, but I’m curious as to others’ thoughts…

 

The Cool Breeze rating change mid-regatta did not help the musical places situation at Key West in IRC2.

 

Read the letter buried in the IRC2 results page: http://www.premiere-racing.com/09_KW_Results/RORC-COOL-BREEZE-90123.pdf ://http://www.premiere-racing.com/09_K...EEZE-90123.pdf

 

Excerpts here…

 

The error is that the IRC Hull Factor was incompletely assessed before issue of the certificate. The originally issued certificate, dated 9 January 2009 shows Hull Factor of 9.0 and TCC of 1.168. The corrected Hull Factor is 10.8 which results in TCC of 1.192.

Mistakes happen, and all involved responded (I think) appropriately. Total bummer that this has happened at a high level event, where an incredible effort is put in by competitors, organizers, volunteers, families, support teams….

 

So here’s the question – How do we avoid this in the future?

 

If race organizers followed the advice of RORC, rating anomalies stand a good chance of being caught before the competition. RORC recommends that the IRC certificates be available for review of the fleet.

 

Surprised?

 

Shocked?

 

Before a regatta or series starts, race committees should require that all competitors show the original of their certificate to the regatta office. It is good practice to take copies 1) for the file and 2) so that a complete set of all competitors certificates can be made available to the fleet. -Reference RORC document: Race Management Guide, Issue 1, January 2004

 

Intersting wording here. Should. Not May, Might, Can. Should.

 

I’ve requested of local race organizers that certificates be posted pre-competition at IRC events in the past. The answer has come back ”RORC won’t let us, as it might reveal intricacies of the secret formula…”.

 

OK, so which is it? If the certificates were made public, even though we are ignorant of the secret speed recipe, someone might have cautioned against a Hull Factor that was 20% off (or gone and inspected Cool Breeze in search of a Jacuzzi tub and massage chairs).

 

Or do we, as the Yacht Racing Community, want to continue to live in ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool Breeze got fucked over. But it doesn't surprise me one bit of the antics and politics that go on down at that event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool Breeze got fucked over. But it doesn't surprise me one bit of the antics and politics that go on down at that event.

How so? Their original cert was incorrect from the rating office, it was corrected.

 

At least they did not get some kind of arbitrary, politically based adjustment like the PHRF Consortium/Mafia of All Knowing Mind Fucked Experts hand out every year. <_<

 

Will Museler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was touched upon in another thread, but I'm curious as to others' thoughts…

 

The Cool Breeze rating change mid-regatta did not help the musical places situation at Key West in IRC2.

 

Read the letter buried in the IRC2 results page: http://www.premiere-racing.com/09_KW_Results/RORC-COOL-BREEZE-90123.pdf ://http://www.premiere-racing.com/09_K...EEZE-90123.pdf ://http://www.premiere-racing.com/09_K...EEZE-90123.pdf

 

Excerpts here…

 

The error is that the IRC Hull Factor was incompletely assessed before issue of the certificate. The originally issued certificate, dated 9 January 2009 shows Hull Factor of 9.0 and TCC of 1.168. The corrected Hull Factor is 10.8 which results in TCC of 1.192.

Mistakes happen, and all involved responded (I think) appropriately. Total bummer that this has happened at a high level event, where an incredible effort is put in by competitors, organizers, volunteers, families, support teams….

 

So here's the question – How do we avoid this in the future?

 

If race organizers followed the advice of RORC, rating anomalies stand a good chance of being caught before the competition. RORC recommends that the IRC certificates be available for review of the fleet.

 

Surprised?

 

Shocked?

 

Before a regatta or series starts, race committees should require that all competitors show the original of their certificate to the regatta office. It is good practice to take copies 1) for the file and 2) so that a complete set of all competitors certificates can be made available to the fleet. -Reference RORC document: Race Management Guide, Issue 1, January 2004

 

Intersting wording here. Should. Not May, Might, Can. Should.

 

I've requested of local race organizers that certificates be posted pre-competition at IRC events in the past. The answer has come back "RORC won't let us, as it might reveal intricacies of the secret formula…".

 

OK, so which is it? If the certificates were made public, even though we are ignorant of the secret speed recipe, someone might have cautioned against a Hull Factor that was 20% off (or gone and inspected Cool Breeze in search of a Jacuzzi tub and massage chairs).

 

Or do we, as the Yacht Racing Community, want to continue to live in ignorance?

 

Aren't certificates readily available?

 

I don't know if things have changed but I have bought IRC certificates of boats that I was interested in purchasing in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So here’s the question – How do we avoid this in the future?

Race OD?

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool Breeze got fucked over. But it doesn't surprise me one bit of the antics and politics that go on down at that event.

How so? Their original cert was incorrect from the rating office, it was corrected.

 

At least they did not get some kind of arbitrary, politically based adjustment like the PHRF Consortium/Mafia of All Knowing Mind Fucked Experts hand out every year. <_<

 

Will Museler

 

 

The problem there is that "Hull Factor" IS arbitrary- not formula based but a completely discretionary fudge factor. That is the reality of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least here the rating office admits a mistake.

On our boat the Hf was increased from 7.4 to 7.7 with no change to the boat

 

As a bene 44.7 has a Hf of 8.0 you have to wonder.

 

No new IRC boat coming any time soon in this part of the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well at least here the rating office admits a mistake.

On our boat the Hf was increased from 7.4 to 7.7 with no change to the boat

 

As a bene 44.7 has a Hf of 8.0 you have to wonder.

 

No new IRC boat coming any time soon in this part of the woods.

 

How about a SC37 with a HF of 11.7... Does that make any sense???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF so you can bitch at they rating guy at your club. IRC sucks. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF

Exactly, if IRC already has an arbitrary component to it, what would make it

more accurate than an arbitrary handicap system such as PHRF? The fact that

it has three digits to the right of the decimal point ? That sure makes it appear

accurate. The three number PHRF rating scheme, with separate ratings for Bouy/

Random Leg/ and Offwind races, holds a better promise of achieving more equitable

handicapping. In fact it already does for a large number of designs. And the ratings

are in a form that everyone can easily understand, sec/ mi, so it is usually fairly easy

to compute how you are fairing on the race track. The problem over the last decade

is that monohull sailboat design is getting so diverse, and performance is increasing

so rapidly that the rating committees are struggling to get a handle on all of it. It is not

easy to rate a boat that is limited by it's 25' LWL on one leg, but planes past displacement

boats twice it size off the wind. It can not be done with a single number rating system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't certificates readily available?

 

I don't know if things have changed but I have bought IRC certificates of boats that I was interested in purchasing in the past.

 

It gets expensive and anyway you can only buy so many in a season (about 12 from memory).

 

IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF so you can bitch at they rating guy at your club. IRC sucks. :ph34r:

 

AFAIK PHRF doesn't absolutely discriminate against any boat type, IRC on the other hand will tax the SC37 and its like out of the silver-ware until the end of days and there's nothing you can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF

Exactly, if IRC already has an arbitrary component to it, what would make it

more accurate than an arbitrary handicap system such as PHRF? The fact that

it has three digits to the right of the decimal point ? That sure makes it appear

accurate. The three number PHRF rating scheme, with separate ratings for Bouy/

Random Leg/ and Offwind races, holds a better promise of achieving more equitable

handicapping. In fact it already does for a large number of designs. And the ratings

are in a form that everyone can easily understand, sec/ mi, so it is usually fairly easy

to compute how you are fairing on the race track. The problem over the last decade

is that monohull sailboat design is getting so diverse, and performance is increasing

so rapidly that the rating committees are struggling to get a handle on all of it. It is not

easy to rate a boat that is limited by it's 25' LWL on one leg, but planes past displacement

boats twice it size off the wind. It can not be done with a single number rating system.

 

 

You are spot on sir. But some people like the warm and fuzzies they get from the pseudo-scientific number that is IRC. For some reason nobody wants to admit it's subjective when it is fairly blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't certificates readily available?

 

I don't know if things have changed but I have bought IRC certificates of boats that I was interested in purchasing in the past.

 

It gets expensive and anyway you can only buy so many in a season (about 12 from memory).

 

IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF so you can bitch at they rating guy at your club. IRC sucks. :ph34r:

 

AFAIK PHRF doesn't absolutely discriminate against any boat type, IRC on the other hand will tax the SC37 and its like out of the silver-ware until the end of days and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

 

Buy 12 IRC certs a season? When it's known far and wide that a portion of the "formula" is a partially subjective number? That's the funniest fucking thing in a long time. Even funnier is the idea that we should pay these guys money to measure boats and then attach a random number into the formula. Europhrf is a perfect description.

 

Hell, but 12 phrf certs. I bet the phrf guys would be happy, and you'll still have a completely made up number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK PHRF doesn't absolutely discriminate against any boat type, IRC on the other hand will tax the SC37 and its like out of the silver-ware until the end of days and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Couldn't have said that better myself. At least PHRF admits to being a performance based rating system. IRC makes you believe it is measurement based, but it's just completely wrong. Not even performance based. It's based on who they want to win, i.e. Mills boats.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF so you can bitch at they rating guy at your club. IRC sucks. :ph34r:

 

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The only difference is that you know the people on your local PHRF board and can go talk to them, whereas IRC are some random pommie and froggin fucks 3000 miles away who you will never meet and cant talk to. Who will, by the way use hull form as a fudge factor to get the boats rating to where THEY think it should be.

 

Fuck IRC and fuck any system that encourages slower (heavier) boats because of its own inability to rate downwind speed.

 

PressureDrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's based on who they want to win, i.e. Mills boats.....

 

What a load of bollocks. It's one thing to say that IRC doesn't know how to rate a light, planing boat. It's another altogether to accuse them of "favoring" a specific designer. I assure you, Mark Mills can design a boat that sucks under IRC. He chose not to, while Tim Kernan elected to ignore the rule in his design of the SC37. I also assure you that Kernan could have designed the SC37 to be favored under IRC had he chosen to do so. None of this is a fucking accident.

 

You guys knew going into KWRW that IRC wasn't going to do you any favors and you know that it's not going to do you any favors at home. So please, if that's your weapon of choice, suck it up and quit your fucking immature bitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's based on who they want to win, i.e. Mills boats.....

 

What a load of bollocks. It's one thing to say that IRC doesn't know how to rate a light, planing boat. It's another altogether to accuse them of "favoring" a specific designer. I assure you, Mark Mills can design a boat that sucks under IRC. He chose not to, while Tim Kernan elected to ignore the rule in his design of the SC37. I also assure you that Kernan could have designed the SC37 to be favored under IRC had he chosen to do so. None of this is a fucking accident.

 

You guys knew going into KWRW that IRC wasn't going to do you any favors and you know that it's not going to do you any favors at home. So please, if that's your weapon of choice, suck it up and quit your fucking immature bitching.

 

Completely agree.

 

No different than Doug Peterson or Ron Holland optimizing their designs for IOR, except the rule was published and penalized stability.

 

Anyone who designs or races a 37' boat with a D/L ratio of 92 under the sole premise that "fast is fun", and expects the boat to rate well under IRC is smoking their socks and has little if any familiarity with the rule.

 

Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inquisitive and informed debate about rating rules is critical to improving big boat racing, and it's interesting watching sailors in the USA voice similar complaints to those felt everywhere else when CHS or IRC began to be used. After many years of using the systems, I think one becomes reasonably aware of the bumps in the rule and what features make a boat a winner under IRC. It should be pointed out that almost ALL boats can be made winners under IRC. The bulk of boats winning under IRC are good-looking, fast, pleasant to sail, seaworthy boats. It's not a bad state of affairs when you can choose from - and win in - anything from the modern custom designs of Reichel-Pugh, Mark Mills, John Corby or Jason Ker, or re-worked old IOR boats like quarter-tonners or one-tonners, plus the production boats from Beneteau, Grand Soleil, J-Boats, Swan and Archambault.

Having said that, I do feel it is a pity that fast (especially offwind) boats at or below 40' in length seem to be more difficult to make win than heavier boats in that size - whereas once you get up to 50'+ it doesn't seem to be an issue having a boat that goes really fast. I don't really see the difference in the performance curves of Mumm 30s, Ker 11.3s, Farr 40s, or TP52s, but the first three are tough to win IRC in (although some blokes in Australia have made a Farr 40 pretty competitive, which is a minor miracle) whereas TP52s seem to win every time they hit the water. Even though even this argument has exceptions, as anybody who saw Camp Freddie the Rocket 31 clean up Class 1 at Cowes Week in the early 90s will remember!

 

On the hull factor front, there is a RORC Rating Office article that gives some insight into Hull Factor. As it says, "HF, perhaps because of its very nature, continues however to cause upset among owners and designers." - not wrong. There was a strange experience at Commodores' Cup in 2008 where a First 45 and an X41 had significantly different hull factor although to the eye they looked to be a similar blend of cruiser/racer.

Anyway here's the link.

http://www.rorcrating.com/ir2000/IRC/HF_Le...re_IRC_2008.pdf

 

Where else are there big IRC regattas in the USA this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Tim but you can see perennial IRC winners at:

John Corby's boats at http://gallery.mac.com/jcboats#gallery. (Quokka and Rosie are the top 36 footers in UK/Ireland)

Mark Mills' boats at http://www.mills-design.com/dd39.htm (Marinerscove.ie is pretty much unbeatable when well-sailed)

Jason Ker's boats at http://www.kerdesign.com/cruiserracer2.html#jump (Jump Juice is the 37' footer which won the UK IRC Nationals this year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF

Exactly, if IRC already has an arbitrary component to it, what would make it

more accurate than an arbitrary handicap system such as PHRF? The fact that

it has three digits to the right of the decimal point ? That sure makes it appear

accurate. The three number PHRF rating scheme, with separate ratings for Bouy/

Random Leg/ and Offwind races, holds a better promise of achieving more equitable

handicapping. In fact it already does for a large number of designs. And the ratings

are in a form that everyone can easily understand, sec/ mi, so it is usually fairly easy

to compute how you are fairing on the race track. The problem over the last decade

is that monohull sailboat design is getting so diverse, and performance is increasing

so rapidly that the rating committees are struggling to get a handle on all of it. It is not

easy to rate a boat that is limited by it's 25' LWL on one leg, but planes past displacement

boats twice it size off the wind. It can not be done with a single number rating system.

 

 

You are spot on sir. But some people like the warm and fuzzies they get from the pseudo-scientific number that is IRC. For some reason nobody wants to admit it's subjective when it is fairly blatant.

 

No, it's not subjective and it's not blatant. Well, not according to the Farr office, Welbourne, Mills and Corby etc. Not according to the Rating Office.

 

Look at it this way. The Rating Office has made several public announcements that the rating rule is NOT subjective. Based largely on that, an enormous number of people have spent enormous sums of money on getting their boats to rate IRC. That includes the several maxis built to the old S-H 1.600 IRC limit, as well as production boats.

 

Do you think that RORC and UNCL are just bullshitting? If so, it would only take a single member of the rating office staff, past or present, to blow the whistle and RORC and UNCL and their directors could find themselves getting sued by Beneteau, Archambault, X Yachts, Dufour, the supermaxi owners and just about everyone who has ever spent a cent on IRC racing. And no insurer would cover such a dishonest statement, so the RORC, UNCL and Rating Office directors would be personally liable. They wouldn't end up owning a hat to beg in the street with.

 

Why in the world would the directors of these clubs and companies open themselves up to a billion-dollar damages bill by pretending IRC is something that it's not?

 

Any chance that the countries who are new to the rule will stop imagining that they have been able to work it out better than those with decades of experience with IRC and CHS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another article with useful information is at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb49...ag=artBody;col1

Cheers

 

Jeezers, what has National Publications done to end up with the copyright to that article I *&^%$#@!ing well wrote years ago???? :huh:

 

They didn't get the heading right, and they ignored the fact that it was written to be laid out with drop-out boxes and sub-heads! :angry: Don't blame me if it's unintelligible.

 

It was while I was researching that and the accompanying articles that the Rating Office and top designers told me loud and clear, once again, that the rule's formulae are NOT subjective. I'd rather believe an expert's words on record for publication, than rumours spread by those with little or no experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

%^&* me !

 

i am so over yanks bitching about IRC...

 

guys, if you don't like it, don't use it. end of story

 

the rest of the world does not give a stuff whether you do not or

 

cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another article with useful information is at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb49...ag=artBody;col1

Cheers

 

Jeezers, what has National Publications done to end up with the copyright to that article I *&^%$#@!ing well wrote years ago???? :huh:

 

They didn't get the heading right, and they ignored the fact that it was written to be laid out with drop-out boxes and sub-heads! :angry: Don't blame me if it's unintelligible.

 

It was while I was researching that and the accompanying articles that the Rating Office and top designers told me loud and clear, once again, that the rule's formulae are NOT subjective. I'd rather believe an expert's words on record for publication, than rumours spread by those with little or no experience.

 

I don't know.. its sort of funny. "Farr 40" morphs into a "Fan 40" then a "Fart 40"

 

A nice summary of the rule. Looks like essential reading for anyone wanting to mod an older boat for IRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The original rating was flawed due to an internal Rating Office procedural error, not stemming from any of the measured inputs which were all correct. Once they spotted this they were obliged to change it, and unfortunately a second error crept in at that stage to make the correction too large. Needless to say we are working to make sure the 2009 revalidation which is due will be for the correct configuration,

So the corrected rating is still wrong :o What a fuck-up.

 

It should be pointed out that almost ALL boats can be made winners under IRC.

 

I do feel it is a pity that fast (especially offwind) boats at or below 40' in length seem to be more difficult to make win than heavier boats in that size .... Even though even this argument has exceptions, as anybody who saw Camp Freddie the Rocket 31 clean up Class 1 at Cowes Week in the early 90s will remember!

You can't be serious! To say that all boats can be made winners under IRC is simply nonsense. I wonder why no-one has been been trying to get Camp Freddie for their Commodore's Cup team :lol:

 

 

It was while I was researching that and the accompanying articles that the Rating Office and top designers told me loud and clear, once again, that the rule's formulae are NOT subjective. I'd rather believe an expert's words on record for publication, than rumours spread by those with little or no experience.

Well, duh, of course the formulae are not subjective - by definition. There is more to IRC than formulae and measurements and there most certainly are subjective elements. No one who knows anything about IRC says otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

 

The problem is that some regattas, like BIRW (STC) require all boats rating under 90 PHRF to race IRC. It sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...fast (especially offwind) boats at or below 40' in length seem to be more difficult to make win than heavier boats in that size

 

Really? Damn, then I gotta get me one of them ratings for my Lapworth cruiser....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No handicapping rule is going to make everyone happy, especially not a single number based one. All handicapping rules are type forming to some extent, whether it is the heavy, wide, pinched transoms of IOR, the slab sided ugly ass boats of IMS or the heavy(ier) displacement "racer/cruisers" of IRC.

 

FWIW, I do think IRC is an improvement over PHRF in most cases having sailed under it for a few years, but it is not the holy grail of handicapping, nor would anyone claim it is. It is a measurement based rule that has international reach and standardization, but it is more costly (than PHRF) and subject to it's own inherent bias, as with any rule. And any single number rule will always be a horses for courses proposition, where the boats rated favorably for that condition will most likely do well. People instinctively mistrust any black box process where they don't get to really understand what is taking place. I doubt it is subjective towards designers, I don't doubt that some designers have through research and practice managed to find the IRC "sweet spots" to make their designs rate more favorably under IRC. Sailing is at least as competitive among designers as sailors themselves, it is bound to happen with any rule. There will always be a place for PHRF, especially at the club or intro level. It is cheap, quick and in a lot of cases works well enough.

 

IMHO, the dual number rules are a much better option for higher level racing, but until you can really take advantage of their capabiliies to factor in conditions, they will be watered down versions that gain limited acceptance. Unfortunately you wind up with the worst of both worlds, higher cost, and lesser accuracy than you could have.

 

What really sucks is that currently around here, most boats need a PHRF cert for local racing, an IRC cert for some racing, and an ORR cert for the Chicago Mac race,a dn optionally this year the BYC Mac. I doubt that will change anytime soon. Next time you wonder why participation is down in a tough economy, ponder that.

 

Or sail OD. But then make sure it is an OD class recognized by IRC/ORR etc.... :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't take long for this to become a "IRC sucks, PHRF sucks, OD is the end-all" discussion - Which is totally missing the point...

RORC has instructions to race organizers directing that certificates
should
be made available to the entire fleet for review.

 

I've been racing IRC since 2005, I have made this request and it has been denied.

 

Has anyone ever seen it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

 

The problem is that some regattas, like BIRW (STC) require all boats rating under 90 PHRF to race IRC. It sucks.

Yeah but you also qualify for WASP of the Week Award as well, so you have that going for you! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we yanks all agree...IRC = PHRF UK

 

This HF calculation - is there a committee that asigns that number...it didn't sound very scientific to me, seemed like..."We don't have the drawings, so we take a look at the measurers notes and some more critieria and do soem calculations and assign a HF for the boat"

 

So - Is this a smoke filled room, on lease from the PHRF school of "take care of my rating first" approach???

 

So - anyone with an IRC rating should be able to appeal the HF and the criteria in which their boat was assigned a HF and show said committee that their SB is a cruiser/racer, racer or whatever...

 

Seems like the IRC secret ingredient is in fact - BULLSHIT!

 

Mikie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all you seppos agree, then stick to what you have got. Oh, I forgot, you hate PHRF even more.

 

IRC works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole discussion is absolutely hilarious...especially the part where the Yanks try to say that IRC should have a VPP portion of it within the rule. Let me lay out a couple of thoughts for y'all:

 

1) VPPs are highly imperfect. In 1992 we went to the first International GP IMS regatta: Kenwood Cup. We had an unmodified SC40. We owed the brand new IMS designed Farr 40 "High 5" 7 seconds per mile AROUND THE BOUYS!!!! Yup. VPPs are fair.

 

2) Sail a ULDBish boat: Makes sure that she's over 46 feetish. IRC made a decision to favor boats the both represent the majority of the market and have a higher resale value...figuring that was good for the sport. Yup, in the under 46 foot range they said heavy racer/cruisers (the kind non-sailing wives like to have a glass of wine aboard) were the best direction for the rule. Not only that, they chose to favor the largest portion of the market.

 

3) SC Yachts should have known better. Maybe they should go to their local JC and take a basic marketing course. Marketing is all about momentum...and they are about to learn that one the hard way.

 

Don't bash the rule. Bash the people who refused to do their research. In other words, if you're dumb enough to bring a knife to a gun fight you deserve to get your ass shot first.

 

Then again, I would take an SC37 on the Coastal Cup over a King 40 99 times out of 100.

 

One number rules, and IOR was king of this, totally favor horses for courses. Remember the purple Pendragon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IRC is europhrf, how long will it take for you guys to get it? Just go back to real PHRF

Exactly, if IRC already has an arbitrary component to it, what would make it

more accurate than an arbitrary handicap system such as PHRF? The fact that

it has three digits to the right of the decimal point ? That sure makes it appear

accurate. The three number PHRF rating scheme, with separate ratings for Bouy/

Random Leg/ and Offwind races, holds a better promise of achieving more equitable

handicapping. In fact it already does for a large number of designs. And the ratings

are in a form that everyone can easily understand, sec/ mi, so it is usually fairly easy

to compute how you are fairing on the race track. The problem over the last decade

is that monohull sailboat design is getting so diverse, and performance is increasing

so rapidly that the rating committees are struggling to get a handle on all of it. It is not

easy to rate a boat that is limited by it's 25' LWL on one leg, but planes past displacement

boats twice it size off the wind. It can not be done with a single number rating system.

 

in honor of your signituare, "stop making sense!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

 

Ah yer the best!!! Can you call the St.FYC here in SF and ask them to put the gun down, because unless you are OD, IRC is what you get to race under...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

 

Ah yer the best!!! Can you call the St.FYC here in SF and ask them to put the gun down, because unless you are OD, IRC is what you get to race under...

OK, they considered making it a PHRF only regatta but said IRC participation was solid last year, they received positive feedback from the fleet, and they're also hosting the IRC Nationals this year, so their is a minor conflict. You're still welcome to enter though. Maybe you just need more time to sort out the design, or;

 

Three or four more and you can have your own one design fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't like IRC ??? let me know who has the gun to your head to race under it and I'll tell them to put it down.

 

Ah yer the best!!! Can you call the St.FYC here in SF and ask them to put the gun down, because unless you are OD, IRC is what you get to race under...

OK, they considered making it a PHRF only regatta but said IRC participation was solid last year, they received positive feedback from the fleet, and they're also hosting the IRC Nationals this year, so their is a minor conflict. You're still welcome to enter though. Maybe you just need more time to sort out the design, or;

 

Three or four more and you can have your own one design fleet.

 

It used to be a PHRF race and that was absolutely dismal. It chased all of the non-NorCal PHRF boats away. IRC was a HUGE improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

 

wow Chris. all you had to say was that comparing a time on distance h'cap to a time on time rating makes no sense.

 

bloody good rant tho...let em sort it...it's not like there haven't been enough threads on this over the last 5 years or so

 

fun to watch eh!

 

ps..you forgot to add that sending really nice Gilets to the rating office gets you extra clicks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The original rating was flawed due to an internal Rating Office procedural error, not stemming from any of the measured inputs which were all correct. Once they spotted this they were obliged to change it, and unfortunately a second error crept in at that stage to make the correction too large. Needless to say we are working to make sure the 2009 revalidation which is due will be for the correct configuration,

So the corrected rating is still wrong :o What a fuck-up.

 

Can I please clarify that the 'second' error was nothing to do with the Rating Office. This was a completely separate issue which was NOT a Rating Office error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

You just spent a shitload of time spouting a whole bunch of shit I didn't say. Nothing in that post other than IRC has subjective parts to it has any bearing on this conversation in the least. Are you this big of a windbag in person? IRC is subjective, you said it yourself in your post. That was my statement and still is. Quit having subjective elements, and you won't have a subjective rule. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

You just spent a shitload of time spouting a whole bunch of shit I didn't say. Nothing in that post other than IRC has subjective parts to it has any bearing on this conversation in the least. Are you this big of a windbag in person? IRC is subjective, you said it yourself in your post. That was my statement and still is. Quit having subjective elements, and you won't have a subjective rule. Simple.

 

Upon what basis do you theorize that IRC is subjective? You have no basis of fact for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

You just spent a shitload of time spouting a whole bunch of shit I didn't say. Nothing in that post other than IRC has subjective parts to it has any bearing on this conversation in the least. Are you this big of a windbag in person? IRC is subjective, you said it yourself in your post. That was my statement and still is. Quit having subjective elements, and you won't have a subjective rule. Simple.

 

Upon what basis do you theorize that IRC is subjective? You have no basis of fact for this.

Did you read his post, he list subjective factors right there. Keel and Hull being two of them. Saying something isn't "totally" subjective doesn't make it not subjective, it's just double speak to dance around the issue that people plug it in, not a formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim,

if i were to write you a check tomorrow for a 37 footer that would rate well/ kick ass under IRC, how would it differ from the current SC37?

 

N.

 

For starters it would be closer to 40'. And I'd have to submit the IRC app under someone else's name...

 

TK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not subjective

Yes, it is. Get over it.

 

On what logical basis would I believe an anonymous person on a forum with little IRC experience, when what they say is contradicted by Russell Bowler, John Corby, Mike Unwin, and a host of other NAs, both IRC fans and IRC haters?

 

Come on, do you really think RORC and UNCL have run the biggest confidence trick in yachting and got away with it? Do you seriously consider that someone like Neville Crichton, who has spent many millions on boats for IRC racing, would just give a whimsical chuckle if the junior secretary in the rating office came out and said that it was all just a hoax? No, many owners, builders and designers would torch RORC in their rage at wasting all that money.

 

Would RORC's directors REALLY sit back there and pull that BS?

 

Do you guys seriously think that you are that much smarter than Russ Bowler or Frietrich Judel? They do NOT say that the IRC is just PHRF. Ask them. Some of us here have.

 

Yes, there may be subjective ELEMENTS in the rule; for example, there is no clear definition of keel types that is publicly available. That's because the Rating Office knows that if they issue a definition of the division between (say) a bulb and a low c of G keel, designers will design right up to the limit of one to get a rating advantage. That does not mean that the classification of a keel type, for example, is totally subjective.

 

The Rating Office has also gone on the record as saying that these days, there is almost no subjectivity in the Hull Factor.

 

Once again, please explain why the directors of RORC and UNCL would be opening up themselves to potential damages claims of tens of millions of dollars by making false claims about IRC. Please explain why people like Jen wouldn't blow the whistle, if they knew the "rule" was a fake.

 

It would be nice if those with the least experience of the rule would stop pretending that they knew the most about it.

You just spent a shitload of time spouting a whole bunch of shit I didn't say. Nothing in that post other than IRC has subjective parts to it has any bearing on this conversation in the least. Are you this big of a windbag in person? IRC is subjective, you said it yourself in your post. That was my statement and still is. Quit having subjective elements, and you won't have a subjective rule. Simple.

 

Upon what basis do you theorize that IRC is subjective? You have no basis of fact for this.

Did you read his post, he list subjective factors right there. Keel and Hull being two of them. Saying something isn't "totally" subjective doesn't make it not subjective, it's just double speak to dance around the issue that people plug it in, not a formula.

 

How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim,

if i were to write you a check tomorrow for a 37 footer that would rate well/ kick ass under IRC, how would it differ from the current SC37?

 

N.

 

For starters it would be closer to 40'. And I'd have to submit the IRC app under someone else's name...

 

TK

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Luv Ya Timmy!!! The RP guys were saying the same thing over a year ago... You put your name on the Ocelot and it's HF was in the high 12's...

 

And I still wonder why Cool Breez (Mills 43) had a lower HF than the SC... There must be some logic behind it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Look at the HF for all the different boats, then look at the differences between the boats and..... Wait, why don't you give us some evidence that it's not subjective.... It's pretty clear to most that, "it don't make no sense"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Nobody has because nobody is allowed to. I have been told by experienced professionals that this is the case, and I trust their word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Look at the HF for all the different boats, then look at the differences between the boats and..... Wait, why don't you give us some evidence that it's not subjective.... It's pretty clear to most that, "it don't make no sense"

 

 

 

the movement of the stars and planets didn't make sense to man until fairly recently; that doesn't mean it was totally subjective.

 

And you're only taking a very small sample of all the boats in the world. I would guess a sample that most statisticians would say is 'insignificant'. I bet if you really looked at a broad range of certificates, worldwide, it would start to make sense.

 

I have had drinks with both Jason Ker and John Corby. Both of whom said that HF was a predictable beast. Jim Antrim looked at IRC fairly closely when designing our boat. Sure enough, he felt the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NorCalHater,

 

You need to stop blaming the rule. You took a boat that was at an extreme within a rule that hates extremes. Then you put it on a course that was perfect for the opposite extreme. Then you got your ass handed to you. Most of us saw that one coming the first time we saw the designed dimensions of the boat. Pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Look at the HF for all the different boats, then look at the differences between the boats and..... Wait, why don't you give us some evidence that it's not subjective.... It's pretty clear to most that, "it don't make no sense"

 

"So, unlike the early days of CHS, HF assessment under IRC is as objective as it is realistically possible to be. Yes, of course there are subjective elements that we can never entirely escape." Jean SANS and Mike Urwin

 

Their words. TK

February 2008

 

 

the movement of the stars and planets didn't make sense to man until fairly recently; that doesn't mean it was totally subjective.

 

And you're only taking a very small sample of all the boats in the world. I would guess a sample that most statisticians would say is 'insignificant'. I bet if you really looked at a broad range of certificates, worldwide, it would start to make sense.

 

I have had drinks with both Jason Ker and John Corby. Both of whom said that HF was a predictable beast. Jim Antrim looked at IRC fairly closely when designing our boat. Sure enough, he felt the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

Come on then, share what you have learned. What sort of effect on hull factor does a stripped interior have compared to a fully fitted interior? How about the difference between T bulb keels and eliptical keels? In line spreader rigs with runners versus swept spreader rigs w/o runners?

 

I have not looked at alot of IRC certs. What are the effects?

 

And I am not trying to be a wanker, just want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorCalHater,

 

You need to stop blaming the rule. You took a boat that was at an extreme within a rule that hates extremes. Then you put it on a course that was perfect for the opposite extreme. Then you got your ass handed to you. Most of us saw that one coming the first time we saw the designed dimensions of the boat. Pretty simple.

 

I'm not blaming the rule for how we did. I blame our decision to race IRC. I always knew we weren't going to be the best boat in IRC, but the worst was not expected either. It still doesn't explain why they tagged us with such a harsh HF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Look at the HF for all the different boats, then look at the differences between the boats and..... Wait, why don't you give us some evidence that it's not subjective.... It's pretty clear to most that, "it don't make no sense"

 

Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

Come on then, share what you have learned. What sort of effect on hull factor does a stripped interior have compared to a fully fitted interior? How about the difference between T bulb keels and eliptical keels? In line spreader rigs with runners versus swept spreader rigs w/o runners?

 

I have not looked at alot of IRC certs. What are the effects?

 

And I am not trying to be a wanker, just want to hear.

 

 

On a 40 footer, I've found a couple of very general rules based on both running certs for a single boat and in looking at other certs:

 

diff between a swept spreader, aluminum rig and a IMS style, runners, jumpers, et al: about .017

 

diff between 97 over lap and 155: .018

 

roughly for every 100 kgs of disp: .001

 

diff between a 1996 carbon stipped hull and a 1996 glass hull with a reasonable interior (in 2004) was difference in hull factor of about 1.4ish...for 40s of similar displacement.

 

help?

 

they only began rating specific bulb keels this year.

 

But you don't have to look at too many certificates to know that a 14,000lbs, glass hull with a full fit-out will be owed time by a 37 foot 8,600 lbs boat with less fit out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

 

 

It certainly seems like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

 

 

It certainly seems like it.

 

but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night if that make any difference...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

 

 

It certainly seems like it.

 

but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night if that make any difference...

 

All the difference in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

 

 

You missed the point completely, if it's not measured it has to be subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

 

 

You missed the point completely, if it's not measured it has to be subjective.

 

 

 

 

Only when you take a broad interpretation of what's written.

 

I didn't miss the point. I interpreted the subjective nature of the rule totally differently...from you. The way it was explained to me, the subjectivity that exists allows them to close exposed loopholes and re-rate the boats who jumped through it to a more equitalble number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

Antony's comments are correct in this, but here is a little more explanation. The static inclining test that Naval Archirects use to measure the GM of a vessel is well know, but it is very difficult to het pure results from - there are always factors, wind, current, even in very sheltered areas that will knock the results of the tippy test one way or the other. Go and read up on the Brava Q8 remeasuring and remeasuring that happened in the ILC 40 division of the Admirals Cup in 1995, and you will see what I mean. When they got the answer they wanted, they stopped, went racing, and cleaned up.

 

On a more fundamental point, there are big differences between static, and dynamic stability, so what looks statically very unstable, can actually sail ok, with ten big guys on the rail, and a very good driver, and keep the boat moving... the thig is that the movement of the boat itself makes the boat more stable - I can wax lyrical for ever about Nicholson, and what he did with the original Britannia - it's all in Uffa's books if you have them, but it's true, a yacht gains stability from it's very movement through the water, and althought there are hull shapes which work better (particularly boats like J-133s, in my view) it applies to every boat. The tippy test only shows up one element of the overall stability of a boat.

 

So why incline? It's flawed, it does not give you the whole answer, and, at the end of the IOR era, everyone hoped that the next set of boats, IMS boats, would be proper boats, with lead keels, and not the bottom half of the keel made of wood? Could MIT write that out of the programme??? NO!!! Within a very short pierod of time IMS boats also had the bottom half of their keel made of wood, and the bilge full of lead. What is the sense in that?

 

So what happens if you take out the tippy test???? Well there is an interestintg question. Surely designers will give boats the stability that they need, so we end up with low CG keels, but no lead in the bilge (what would the point of that be?) and boats that are safe, seaworthy and stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily, it could be an interpolation based upon measurements that ARE taken.

 

Are you referring to stability? Or the reasoning behind designers drawing stiff boats with high RM's that appear to be heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

Well I live one big land mass, and one pretty big ocean away from you, so I have no effing idea what El Toros is. What sort of boat is it, what length, displacement, sail area, hull factor and rating do you have?

 

Then we might understand a bit more what ails thee.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

 

 

You missed the point completely, if it's not measured it has to be subjective.

 

Oh really?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

Well I live one big land mass, and one pretty big ocean away from you, so I have no effing idea what El Toros is. What sort of boat is it, what length, displacement, sail area, hull factor and rating do you have?

 

Then we might understand a bit more what ails thee.....

Indeed, what is the hull factor of an El Toro? :lol:

 

It must be awfully high considering the stripped out interior, light displacment and low stability!

 

Thiep, think of an optimist w/o the gunter rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

 

 

You missed the point completely, if it's not measured it has to be subjective.

 

 

 

 

Only when you take a broad interpretation of what's written.

 

I didn't miss the point. I interpreted the subjective nature of the rule totally differently...from you. The way it was explained to me, the subjectivity that exists allows them to close exposed loopholes and re-rate the boats who jumped through it to a more equitalble number.

So hull factor is subjective. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, what type of boat do you sail NCH???

 

I sail El Toros, but act like I know what I'm taking about!!!

 

Well I live one big land mass, and one pretty big ocean away from you, so I have no effing idea what El Toros is. What sort of boat is it, what length, displacement, sail area, hull factor and rating do you have?

 

Then we might understand a bit more what ails thee.....

 

 

it's a glorfied opti, sailed in SF Bay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

From the IRC rule:

 

 

27.2 Hull Factor

27.2.1 Hull factor (HF) is an assessment by the Rating Authority of the features of the boat

and their character and efficiency when compared to a basic cruising configuration.

27.2.2 Stripped out interiors, the use of light and hi-tech structures and/or materials, removal

of furniture or other fitted equipment, etc. may lead to the application of higher than

standard hull factor to compensate for potential increase in performance. Such

features shall be declared to the Rating Authority.

 

and

 

2.6 Calculation of IRC ratings is secret and contains subjective elements. Subjective judgement

where exercised is the sole responsibility of the Rating Authority (see Rule 5.1).

 

I think of Hull Factor was a formula, they would just say it in the definition, but they call it an "assessment", I think the whole statement is defining a subjective element.

 

You decide whether its good or bad, I'm just pointing out the language.

 

 

 

And how much of this wording is truth and how much do you think is focused on protecting the 'black box' nature of the rule?

 

To a large extent the more certs I look at the more predictable it becomes.

 

I see that the subjective nature of the rule is focused on closing loopholes (a la Aera's bow), not on the broad swathes of the rated community as you guys suppose.

 

OK, here's a "for instance": the rule doesn't measure stability, yet there are frequent references in the rule to stability and that the rule favors stability. So if it isn't measured how do you encourage, reward and rate it? So long as the subjective judgement of the rating authority is sound, it will work, but the point is if the data isn't measured to accurately calculate it, it has to be subjectively derived.

 

 

 

Are you serious? You can't be that naieve. Every rule that has ever measured stabilty ended up favoring unstable boats. IOR, IMS etc.

 

So how do they do it? By not measuring it they encourage designers to lower the VCG as much as possible, and increasing RM as much as possible.

 

 

You missed the point completely, if it's not measured it has to be subjective.

 

 

 

 

Only when you take a broad interpretation of what's written.

 

I didn't miss the point. I interpreted the subjective nature of the rule totally differently...from you. The way it was explained to me, the subjectivity that exists allows them to close exposed loopholes and re-rate the boats who jumped through it to a more equitalble number.

So hull factor is subjective. Got it.

 

For 99.99% of the boats on the water, no. For those that have found a loophole, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily, it could be an interpolation based upon measurements that ARE taken.

 

From which IRC measurements that are taken would you interpolate stability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you know that it isn't a formula? Just because it isn't transparent doesn't automatically make it subjective.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who says that, including the IRC supporters and several industry types I have asked.

 

 

I've yet to see anyone actually present data to support that hull factor is subjective. We all know that it is an important part of the secret sauce. We also know that it is affected by a number of things: age date, hull shape, interior fit out, displacement, keel type, rudder type...all of these things. But never have I seen anyone unequivocally state that the whole thing is subjective. Have you seen proof of that fact?

 

Look at the HF for all the different boats, then look at the differences between the boats and..... Wait, why don't you give us some evidence that it's not subjective.... It's pretty clear to most that, "it don't make no sense"

 

Have you put much time into an analysis of the critical elements of IRC ?

 

This was a helpful starting point -

ircmeas08_1.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily, it could be an interpolation based upon measurements that ARE taken.

 

From which IRC measurements that are taken would you interpolate stability?

 

 

 

One would probably start with Length, beam, draft, keel type, bulb weight, rig height, rig type, hull type, and go on from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites