PHRF conflicts with LWL -

[agprice22]

Seriously, PRHF means we do not have to be one-class to race. It will awlways be a compromise... Sawlry for the spelling... I have been painting with Awlgrip this weekend... it forces me to use funny spelling!
PHRF means I can race my trimaran against monohulls... if the club will allow it... without PHRF, you would have to spend a lot of money to win... this way, we can "run whatchya brung!"

 

[Bill Roosa]

Well you really have to race and keep records (and not mod the boat!) to tell what your rating really is. Course that will only give you a rating relative to the other boats you race, that should be OK as that is really the point IMHO. Things to consider when "doin the math" are that all the boats did not travel the same distance. the first boat over the finish line gets a 0 rating, if the race was 60 minutes exactly and you came over the finish line 10 minutes after the first boat your rating is 10 (minutes/hour). Now if you did a lot of tacking your actual rating would be lower due to your traveling a longer distance.......repeat and then average your score.

 

[dlochner]

Well you really have to race and keep records (and not mod the boat!) to tell what your rating really is. Course that will only give you a rating relative to the other boats you race, that should be OK as that is really the point IMHO. Things to consider when "doin the math" are that all the boats did not travel the same distance. the first boat over the finish line gets a 0 rating, if the race was 60 minutes exactly and you came over the finish line 10 minutes after the first boat your rating is 10 (minutes/hour). Now if you did a lot of tacking your actual rating would be lower due to your traveling a longer distance.......repeat and then average your score.

Bill, you're on the right track. The big issue with PHRF is that boats get a class rating not a individual boat rating. This causes a host of problems. What this means is that your boat's rating is not based on how you sail it, but how people sail similar boats. This sounds fair and good, until you consider that if your particular kind of boat is the only one in the PHRF region, then the handicap is essentially your rating and is not affected how someone else sails a similar boat. With a larger class, it would not be unexpected to see some variation in each's boat's speed potential, just because no matter how hard boat builders try there is always some slight variation between boats that may affect speed. If you happen to have a slower boat, say 6 sec/mile below the class average, you are at a disadvantage, if you have a faster boat than the class average, then you have an advantage.

Now, back to Bill's point. He is laying the ground work for developing a rating system based on an individual boat. He's right to note that doing the math includes variables that are hard to measure accurately and consistently and that will affect the results. The way around these concerns is to use a ratio of your boat's time to complete a race to a standard. The most appropriate standard is the median completion time for the boats in the fleet. The reasoning behind this is too long to post in a forum, however, you can read this article: I. Towards a Fair and Equitable Handicapping System if interested.

Two last points. In an earlier post, there was a link to rating adjustments based on boat equipment. Has there ever been any empirical data to verify those numbers? Or are they just some educated (?) guesses?

PHRF is PHRF. Get used to it.

PHRF is the result of sailors being dissatisfied with prior handicapping systems, such as the Portsmouth numbers and others. It is pretty clear that there is growing dissatisfaction with PHRF in its current form and there is discussion on this forum and elsewhere about finding a better solution. In each of the past 2 springs, ScuttlebuttSailing.com has published articles about the topic, prodding sailors to find a better solution.

Perhaps PHRF is past it's prime. Maybe it is time to learn from PHRF and build a new system.

Edits: I really should proofread before posting. The edits were minor spelling and grammar edits. No posting before completing the first cup of coffee!

 

[Chief RA]

I don't do formal racing but I have looked up my PHRF rating. With the tall mast and wing keel I see various ratings but 222 seems to be about right. That seems to be a decent number for what I consider a sailing "floating cabin". It seems to move well except for pointing that fat bow upwind. My Clipper Marine 26 would probably outpoint this boat by 20 degrees.
Chief

 

[dlochner]

I don't do formal racing but I have looked up my PHRF rating.

Class ratings are useful for somethings, like determining the relative sailing ability between different boats. And under some conditions it is a reasonably fair system. Rating individual boats is actually easier and has fewer unintended consequences.

 

[RussC]

Class ratings are useful for somethings, like determining the relative sailing ability between different boats. And under some conditions it is a reasonably fair system. Rating individual boats is actually easier and has fewer unintended consequences.

I suspect the vast majority of us use the PHRF system for boat purchase decisions and bragging rights rather than formal racing. speaking for myself here, my attention span when sailing isn't long enough to get through a whole race without being distracted [squirrel!]. I'd just like to better understand what design elements affect the ratings most, and why. just my curious nature I guess. no system will ever be perfect, but PHRF seems to be a huge asset for racers and hobbyist alike.

 

[shemandr]

[QUOTE="dlochner, post: 1380051, member: 123499"
PHRF is the result of sailors being dissatisfied with prior handicapping systems, such as the Portsmouth numbers and others. It is pretty clear that there is growing dissatisfaction with PHRF in its current form and there is discussion on this forum and elsewhere about finding a better solution. In each of the past 2 springs, ScuttlebuttSaili.ng.com has published articles about the topic, prodding sailors to find a better solution. Perhaps PHRF is past it's prime. Maybe it is time to learn from PHRF and build a new system.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not against a better system or even a proponent of PHRF. But like MS Windows, which isn't the best operating system, it is the most prevalent. Neither is going away very soon. IRC (Which most club racers aren't going to spend their money on), MORC, IOR, CCA all caused boat designers to try to beat the rule. Can you say that about PHRF? There I go again ...

 

[Jackdaw]

Here's the net-net.

PHRF is a single number rating system, which gives a single rating for use with a boat in good racing condition for all windspeeds directions and courses. But it's really measured in 8 to 12 kn, going up wind and down. It's what happens outside of those conditions and course directions which really affect the number

A good race boat will sail as close to that number as possible in all of conditions conditions and courses. This is really what separates race boats from non-race boats. A Catalina 25 will keep up with the J/24 On a reach in 14 kn a breeze, but going upwind in 5 it gets hammered. Good race boats sail to the numbers in all sorts of conditions.

PHRF isn't going anywhere. Newer, formulatic VPP based systems are clearly more accurate, but they require your boat to get measured. That costs, and the vast majority of casual racers won't do it.

 

[rschuss]

I agree, you're racing against your potential, boat included, with PHRF.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Help me out here. What else contributes to a low PHRF other that LWL? there are quite a few boats out there that claim sub 200 PHRF that are under 25'. Pointing ability obviously would be a factor here, but can that really be the whole story?? seems like a worthy discussion to have.

Here's the application you must fill out to get a PHRF rating in southern California. Notice that it asks for several boat parameters.

https://b6.caspio.com/dp.asp?AppKey=0dc330003286c8a62852408a9afc

 

[Kings Gambit]

PHRF is the result of sailors being dissatisfied with prior handicapping systems, such as the Portsmouth numbers and others. It is pretty clear that there is growing dissatisfaction with PHRF in its current form and there is discussion on this forum and elsewhere about finding a better solution. In each of the past 2 springs, ScuttlebuttSailing.com has published articles about the topic, prodding sailors to find a better solution.

Perhaps PHRF is past it's prime. Maybe it is time to learn from PHRF and build a new system.

dlochner, et al.--you can read about it here.

KG
http://www.phrfsocal.org/phrf-history/

 

[Kings Gambit]

The "solution" to PHRF is one-design racing fleets. If a bunch of folks at a yacht club wish to each buy a certain class of yacht and race against other owners with the same class yacht, then you're good. Regional races would be one-design classes only, etc.; no PHRF. The problem is that everybody wants everything for the least money, etc. No way that many folks are going to have a class (one-design) boat for racing and then a cruising yacht for the family, etc.; at least not expensive ones. No, they wish to race their cruising yacht or cruise their racing yacht and be handicapped by a system widely seen certainly as imperfect if not outright unfair; and then complain about it. The most absurd example I've seen was in the X-41--a one design racer--which had detachable furniture below! Take it all off for racing; put it all back on to take the wife or GF cruising for a weekend, etc. Then, there's the "inclusivity" aspect--oh, we have to get all these folks out there racing in their cruising (or otherwise non-optimized) yachts to expand the sport [or we won't have anyone to beat. No trophies if only two boats in a race!! OMG!].

 

[JamesG161]

In my case, the Captain gets an extra 7 seconds for just my...

Gray Hair...

Captain Jim..

 

[Jackdaw]

The "solution" to PHRF is one-design racing fleets. If a bunch of folks at a yacht club wish to each buy a certain class of yacht and race against other owners with the same class yacht, then you're good. Regional races would be one-design classes only, etc.; no PHRF. The problem is that everybody wants everything for the least money, etc. No way that many folks are going to have a class (one-design) boat for racing and then a cruising yacht for the family, etc.; at least not expensive ones. No, they wish to race their cruising yacht or cruise their racing yacht and be handicapped by a system widely seen certainly as imperfect if not outright unfair; and then complain about it. The most absurd example I've seen was in the X-41--a one design racer--which had detachable furniture below! Take it all off for racing; put it all back on to take the wife or GF cruising for a weekend, etc. Then, there's the "inclusivity" aspect--oh, we have to get all these folks out there racing in their cruising (or otherwise non-optimized) yachts to expand the sport [or we won't have anyone to beat. No trophies if only two boats in a race!! OMG!].

The vast majority of people that I know that race PHRF accept and understand the formats limitations. One design (for keel boats) is nice if it fits your plans and there is local competition, much less so if there is not. If you want to go this route, its not that hard to do. Look around and see 10 and 20+ boat fleets of J/105, j/109, First 36.7 First 40.7 etc everywhere. These are comfortable, fast boats than can be raced in highly competitive OD fleets, and will scorch the average cruiser on the the way to the weekend anchorage.

If you are looking at an uncommon performance boat (like the X41) to race at a higher level than PHRF, the more complex ORC or ORR systems will rate the boat much more fairly. They use these system in the Fastnet and Sydney-Hobart races and nobody complains about ratings.

The typical person that buys a $300k+ boat is normally pretty smart and knows what they are getting in to. I've never seen someone buy into something like that and then be 'surprised' by how PHRF treats them.

Oh speaking of the X41, its totally common for these type of boats to have removable dining tables to make room for crew and sails during maneuvers. We pull out the table on the 367, as do the J we race against. Just a SS loop remains as a balance.

 

[dlochner]

) , et al.--you can read about it here.

KG
http://www.phrfsocal.org/phrf-history/

KG thanks for the link. I had read sometime in the past. Somewhere in my organizationally challenged office is a copy of the handicapping rules for Lake Ontario, circa 1910. Very interesting reading. Maybe they will surface some time and I'll post scans of them.

To perhaps oversimplify the issue, there are 2 kinds of competitive sailors, those that race in order to sail and those that sail in order to compete. Yes, the divisions are not totally dichotomous, however, we can look around our respective clubs and see those that are hard core racers (and lots of them are over on SA) and there are those that are out for sail, like a little competition, and are happy telling lies at the club bar afterwards.

My concern about PHRF is that the hardcore races see PHRF fleets as easy pickings and discourage the more casual sailors from competing. Ultimately, this is bad for the sport as many sailors are not able nor willing to invest the time and money to compete against the hard core. This is really an issue in less populated areas. In Annapolis, Newport, San Diego and other venues there are probably enough options to accommodate both groups. In places like the east end of Lake Ontario, there just aren't enough people to support a variety of fleets that can serve multiple skill and interest levels.

A few years back my club would put 20+ boats on the starting line in the summer. Now the club is lucky to get half that much. One factor contributing to the decline is a handful of hard core racers who always seem to win and are willing to castigate those who do not put forth the same effort and resources to the sport.

Folks, the big issue is getting people to sail, supporting clubs, and providing a future market for classic plastics.

 

[Kings Gambit]

The typical person that buys a $300k+ boat is normally pretty smart and knows what they are getting in to. I've never seen someone buy into something like that and then be 'surprised' by how PHRF treats them.

Lucky for me, I'm not the guy who got "surprised."

 

[John Nantz]

Let me thow in a couple thoughts.
First thought, on weight:

Actually, light weight is the biggest factor for any given length.

Post #15
This is a real problem for those who use their boats for non-racing cruises because we have everything on board: food, bedding, full tanks of water and fuel, spares, books, anchoring gear, refrigeration instead of an ice box, large house bank and start battery, outboard (for the dingy), ..... and the list goes on. When I put the boat away for the season it takes several trips with a F-150 long bed to bring everything home.
The rating is based upon being in full race mode (or words to that effect). So ..., Wanna race competitively for that weekend? Learn to strip the boat of everything you can.

Second thought, on the Rater, or measurer:
If the area you're in has an established rating for your boat you may be good to go. Normally that means existing boats of the same make and model as the one you have. However, bring in a new boat and the rating you get will be up to the rater. Speaking from experience, as the skipper of "Kiwi Express" (one of the better/best performing boats) said to me prior to my one and only PHRF race, "He didn't do you no favor." As it turned out, he didn't.
As has been said in the posts above, the higher the number the better, and seconds count. After paying fees to join PHRF Northwest, getting a rater for our area (west Puget Sound) assigned, the boat ('88 Hunter 35) was given a rating of 118. Had no clue at the time where that fit in the fleet but it didn't take long to find out. One of the boats in our class was a Hobie 33.

Third thought:
Want to revisit your rating? That's not so easy. From what I found out, one has to essentially file something like a protest then go before a (rating?) board to defend why it should be different. Not exactly something a novice really wants to do.
I've heard it said that it takes time for the racers to move up the ladder and it isn't all about learning how to sail or tricking the boat out (although that part helps). Re-evaluating one's boat rating appears to be one of the methods.

The annual dues I paid was for the calendar year (not a year from the time I joined) and that was the last race of the year. Ouch! Live and learn. Decided not to re-join the next year, or ever since. That is really too bad because, in spite of everything, it really was fun. On the 6-hour race, came in 4th, 2' 30" behind first (the Hobie 33) and just seconds behind 3rd place (the Boat of the Year boat). Chances of getting a better number after that was slim to none, even though a lot of it was totally dumb luck and tactics!!! Unfortunately, the good results would never have helped "in court" (before the board). Shot myself in the foot? I think so.

It's too bad there can't be some kind of adjustment for a cruising (non-racing) configuration but I can understand why because that would be very difficult to apply and enforce. It's bad enough even when everybody is in racing configuration and there are still those who bend or break the rules. Big boats especially are getting too expensive to own in order to have a dedicated racing boat. With more stringent environmental rules targeting recreational boats and boatyards being turned into condominiums big boat ownership will become more expensive so trailerable boats will probably be the future.

 

[shemandr]

I've been following this thread but unable to keep up for posting due to my business day.
So much has gone by but I want to ask John why he feels so abused by a 4th place finish and just seconds out of 3rd place. To me it doesn't sound like the fleet handicapper had it that wrong about your boat given that you are not a regular racer. I agree that putting a Hobie 33 in your class may have been wrong but sometimes, if there aren't enough boats, stuff like that happens.
With regard to the PHRF fee, which seems to me what you are really upset about, I don't know why they do that. It is a bad policy that is keeping at least one boat off the race course.
The weight issue: When I had the 356 I used to argue that there should be a division of cruising boats that are required to have a grill, corian counters, three anchors and chain, dacron sails, ..... and towing a dingy (As long as it they do it for every race) so that those loaded cruising boats could get in on the fun. I was only half kidding. A lot of sailors don't want to make endless trips to the car for an afternoon diversion. I think there really needs to be an accommodation to the less competitive part of the fleet that could get those cruising boats off their moorings and into the fun.

 

[Kings Gambit]

It's too bad there can't be some kind of adjustment for a cruising (non-racing) configuration but I can understand why because that would be very difficult to apply and enforce. It's bad enough even when everybody is in racing configuration and there are still those who bend or break the rules. Big boats especially are getting too expensive to own in order to have a dedicated racing boat. With more stringent environmental rules targeting recreational boats and boatyards being turned into condominiums big boat ownership will become more expensive so trailerable boats will probably be the future.

Actually, there is in So. Cal. See attached .pdf

 

[Kings Gambit]

Except perhaps in championship class races, finishes in one-design races can be as far apart in time [corrected] as you might see in PHRF boats that are close in rating; even not so close sometimes. It means that RATING is probably not the principal cause of variance or "under performance" in corrected finishing times among PHRF fleets. The factors that determine the winning or losing of races are: 1) boat speed; 2) tactics (when close in space, such as during rounding and starting); and 3) coursemanship. Many folks THINK they are getting their best boat speed & crew performance when they are not. Others are not sailing the course well enough to win consistently, etc. They do not get enough practice with their crews; and regrettably, fault rating. A rating review in So. Cal. PHRF assumes that your boat is optimized for racing, e.g.--fairly new sails that maximize the allowed (non-penalty) sail area; a clean, well-maintained, smooth bottom; and some months history of sailing with the same crew, etc. If you meet those criteria, THEN the PHRF committee may take a look at your rating. However, rating adjustments are typically one unit at a time. That is, your review may get you a 3 sec/mi adjustment. That's it.