Handicap systems that account for sportboats

[bcardarella]

I want to compare various rating systems in use, specifically when it comes to sportboats in the mix. Does anyone have recommendations on ratings that they've felt have been fair across various wind ranges between lighter displacement and heavier displacement boats?

 

[solosailor]

You can't have your cake and eat it too..... you can either have them "fair" in lighter winds or in heavier winds but likely not both. It's more the question...... where do you live and what rating rule(s) they use unless your asking were should you move to?

 

[robalex117]

ORC - but you need to use it by selecting wind range, High, medium or low and select type type of course. Works well.

 

[BrightAyes]

PHRF Time on Time is much more "fair" and accurate than simplistic Time on Distance. Time on Time helps to balance conditions with boat potential. The multiple handicap ratings used by some locations provides an additional layer of fairness. That said, 90% of PHRF locations use a single Time on Distance knucklehead system.

 

[ryley]

I don't know, @bcardarella , but I can tell you that no other system you've been involved with will give you as much free time and energy as the one you're currently dealing with to try to make things right. Also, email me for an update.

 

[solosailor]

Can't remember the last time I saw a PHRF ToD..... only ToT here. Still we only use a single # PHRF, should be 3x courses like many regions use.

 

[Foredeck Shuffle]

Hahaha, so many comedians here. PHRF which does not measure much of anything, has no wind ranges, and has no way to adjust ratings in the future other than throwing more darts at the dart board.

ORC with wind ranges works well.

The abandoned US D-PN system had five wind ranges (perhaps two too many) but the ratings are no good unless someone takes scores and adjusts the rating yearly, which hasn't been done in two decades. So ORC with wind ranges is the only way forward.

 

[Varan]

PHRF Time on Time is much more "fair" and accurate than simplistic Time on Distance. Time on Time helps to balance conditions with boat potential. The multiple handicap ratings used by some locations provides an additional layer of fairness. That said, 90% of PHRF locations use a single Time on Distance knucklehead system.

Sorry noob, but that's pretty much bullshit. TOT versus TOD does nothing to balance conditions. Consider a dying breeze. Faster rated boats spend less time on the course and in more breeze than slower rated boats.

Now consider a front moving in where everyone is waffling around waiting for the new breeze. Tick, tick, tick, clock is still ticking. Boats converve, then boom, the breeze fills in and everyone finishes. Advantage, slow rated boats.

In terms of knucklehead, TOT is easy, no distance measurements required. That's why we use it. Makes it easy on the few volunteers we find for Race Committee. They can change course, shorten courses, whatever, without having to worry about distances. The only time we use TOD is for the occasional persuit start, where we need assess handicaps prior to starting.

That's about as nice of a welcome you will ever see here, so enjoy.

 

[BrightAyes]

I feel loved fckface. Thank you for agreeing with me: TOT is superior to TOD. lmfao

 

[robalex117]

Hahaha, so many comedians here. PHRF which does not measure much of anything, has no wind ranges, and has no way to adjust ratings in the future other than throwing more darts at the dart board.

ORC with wind ranges works well.

The abandoned US D-PN system had five wind ranges (perhaps two too many) but the ratings are no good unless someone takes scores and adjusts the rating yearly, which hasn't been done in two decades. So ORC with wind ranges is the only way forward.

ORC - Solves the problems. Besides giving better ratings than PHRF it gets rid of a hell of a bunch of work. Think of all the PHRF committees all over the USA dishing out their own form of ratings. Forget the websites and admin and paperwork to get it all done.

But to get an ORC rating you need to have design files for your hull or get it scanned. Most hulls are in the ORC database but not all especially custom older designs. I think ORC should actually pay for the few people who need hull scans to eliminate that issue. They could contract with a firm in each region and negotiate a good price for what may be a bunch of work.

Sails are also another possible issue but easier to deal with. ORC requires sail measurements. Some PHRF regions such as Narragansett bay require them, but not all. People with newer sails can get that info from their sail maker. Older sails just need to be measured which is not that hard.

Let me also say I am basically ok with my PHRF or ORC rating. But the issue is a few boats have blatantly wrong PHRF ratings and nobody wants to be the person to complain.

 

[ryley]

So ORC with wind ranges is the only way forward.

ORR has more wind ranges than ORC and is cheaper.

 

[Foredeck Shuffle]

ORR has more wind ranges than ORC and is cheaper.

ORR is interesting, similar to ORC and ultimately a good cert will require hull measurements for input to derive a VPP. I'm not sure how that happens when a boat with no prior cert exists and there are not good prexisting hull measurements?

I've seen ORR advertised as a smart Yardstick, but I think that the writer had never read how D-PN or PYS actually works.

ORR from the ORA, seems to just be a similar competitor to ORC, one being US based, the ladder being EU based. ORR seems to be less money hungry. I have not had a boat measured for an ORR cert so I do not know if the measurements are thorough enough to properly rate the difference between very different boats of similar length. I didn't know wind ratings were part of the deal, that's a huge plus.

Both read better than the RYA IRC rating systyem that induces type forming of sub 35ft/10.5m boats and hides its rating dart board.

 

[ryley]

I'm not sure how that happens when a boat with no prior cert exists and there are not good prexisting hull measurements?

in ORR full, you have to get measured, and the costs are basically the same as ORC measurement. In ORR-ez, the hull file can be built usually from other sources. It won't be perfect but it is usually a close enough approximation for the model, and it can be tweaked if it isn't appropriate. ORA provides that service at little to no cost for ez certs.

 

[Irrational 14]

ORR has more wind ranges than ORC and is cheaper.

Need more ORR and ORRez in SoCal. Working on a cert for next year.

 

[robalex117]

ORR is like a black hole and is only used the USA. Go to the ORR website and then go to the ORC website. No comparison on the information you get get. ORC lets you easily run test certs and in general is an open system. ORR not so much. Not sure of the cost of ORR but ORC is not very expensive. Yes in general they work the same, VPP rule, but in practice ORC has done a better job. Regarding more wind ranges I am not sure more is better.

ORC also has the club certificate that is like the Orr-ez. You don't need to be fully measured, as easy as getting a PHRF certificate.

 

[ryley]

ORR is like a black hole and is only used the USA. Go to the ORR website and then go to the ORC website. No comparison on the information you get get. ORC lets you easily run test certs and in general is an open system. ORR not so much. Not sure of the cost of ORR but ORC is not very expensive. Yes in general they work the same, VPP rule, but in practice ORC has done a better job. Regarding more wind ranges I am not sure more is better.

ORC also has the club certificate that is like the Orr-ez. You don't need to be fully measured, as easy as getting a PHRF certificate.

it is not nearly as easy to get an orc-club certificate, which has to go through the US Sailing offshore office, is submitted in a spreadsheet, and has no data checks to ensure you're not throwing garbage at the vpp. ORC also does not have a low-cost hull file generation program. you are absolutely correct that the ORC resource website is far and away more useful and comprehensive than ORA's, but the decision to make ORR a "black hole" was a conscious, calculated choice. ORC does some sketchy value manipulation in order to get to the 'right' rating that does not exist in ORR (Ez has a small subjective adjustment for poorly designed boats). And yeah, it's an American product. appeals go through Newport.

My experience with ORC has been that they are not responsive to legitimate requests and they are not interested in the concerns of US Sailors. The lack of data integrity resulted in a mistake I made causing the issuance of a rating I couldn't possibly sail to. Yes it was my mistake, but even a minor amount of integrity checking would have caught it (ORR did).

My ORC club certificate cost about twice the advertised price because they supposedly had to modify my hull file appendages, which is charged on an hourly rate.

My cert is still on the orc site, I think 2016? see if you can spot the error

 

[Raz'r]

Well, let's see.

Moved a SoCal boat to NorCal - got a nice and tough PHRF rating.

Did the full ORR thing. Out of the water, files from the NA, in the water measurements like inclination and freeboard for calculated displacement, back to sailmaker for measurements, etc. Got the ORR rating, submitted the new ORR rating to our PHRF board, and the PHRF board changed my rating changed by 12 sec/mile (got slower)

Not sure why some think testing is hard with ORR - we tested a few different configs this last winter, and other than costing some boat bucks for each test, it was easy to do.

I race under both systems, as almost all of our local racing is PHRF, but the PacCup is ORR for my division.

ORR does have wind ranges/course configs - but that's up to the RC to determine, not ORR.

Not that I will race in the St Francis BBS, on my boat anyway, but that one real ORR event has moved to ORC.

 

[Y88]

PHS you could argue all day

I had our Y88 rated under AMS and we rate very well against bigger yachts.

 

[moist]

PHS you could argue all day

I had our Y88 rated under AMS and we rate very well against bigger yachts.

Sorry man but your 88 is small boat, not a sport boat. It's semi displacement.
A Elliott 7 is what's pretty much widely considered the bottom cut-off.
Ams is terrible for sport boats, sms was created to try to even the score a bit but all that happened was an arms race and made it impossible for sport boats to compete in mixed fleets. Go the that "sms is broken" thread for more info.
Orc is what might be the fairest system, should be coming to hobart in a hurry pretty soon.
There's a club up north a bit that runs sport boats with mixed fleets pretty well. They take the cbh/yardstick/your actual performance data and kinda massage it in to a mixed fleet handicap but it's really hard when you have some boats competing 5 laps in the time it takes the slowest to complete 1, as wind changes can form a unfair advance or disadvantage after the first boats have finished.