Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Randy Stafford via CnC-List]

Thanks Michael, that very interesting.

Cheers,
Randy

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Michael Brown via CnC-List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Some notes on the C 30 rating history at PHRF Lake Ontario.
> 
> 1985 FS:168 NFS:168
> 
> Record created in the current database
> 
> 1996 FS:162 NFS:162
> 
> Handicap adjustment by Central Council based on performance history
> 
> 2000 FS:162 NFS:180
> 
> +18 Disconnect of NFS-SP from FS-SP rating
> 
> 2006 FS:168 NFS:186
> 
> PHRF-LO did a blanket +6 sec/mile adjustment to all classes, more inline
> with other PHRF regions
> 
> 2010 FS:174 NFS:186
> 
> Performance based review by Central Council
> 
> 2012 FS:174 NFS:195
> 
> A VPP analysis of "NFS-Delta" using a formula from Jim Teeters
> changed the delta from 12 sec/mile to 21 sec/mile. All classes
> were reviewed ( that fly spinnaker )
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Brown
> Windburn
> C 30-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Randy Stafford  <mailto:randal.staff...@icloud.com>> 
> To: cnc-list mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> 
> Sent: 6/11/2019 3:13 PM 
> Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating 
> 
> Thanks y’all for your interesting comments on this.
> 
> I got my new rating yesterday and it came back 180.  The handicapper wrote in 
> the “notes and clarifications” section of my RSA’s PHRF certificate form the 
> following: "There are no comparables listed in US Sailing for this model of 
> boat in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is a compromise between lake sailing 
> ratings of 174 at Lake Norman, Oklahoma and Texoma, TX; and the previous 
> rating for this boat of 186/198. Mitigating factors are: 1. +10% above base 
> weight, even when empty; 2. The lighter air pressure at altitude which makes 
> it even more difficult to move a heavy boat.”
> 
> The 10% over base weight remark was from a discussion she and I had on 
> “brochure weight” (8000 lbs for a 30 MK I as on sailboatdata.com 
> <http://sailboatdata.com/>) versus actual weight.  I’ve actually weighed my 
> boat on a truck scale, and weighed all her gear.  I calculate she weighs 
> about 8682 pounds with empty tanks and no gear aboard.  So with full fuel 
> tank, anchor & rode, sails, etc., her as-raced weight is closer to 9000 
> pounds before crew weight.  According to the Schell regression formula, that 
> 1000-pound difference in brochure versus actual weight translates to at least 
> six seconds difference in rating, so the handicapper gave that to me.
> 
> In my RSA we don’t really have the local politics as badly as in some other 
> areas apparently.  The handicapping committee is one volunteer, and the 
> position turns over every few years.  I think most of our handicappers have 
> tried to do a reasonably fair job with the information they have available.  
> And none of them have been from the sailing industry.
> 
> That said, there are a couple boats in my fleet in my club that seem to have 
> gift ratings.  There’s a Catalina 25 to which I give 43 sec/nm, and a Cal 22 
> to which I give 48 sec/nm.  In light air with everybody executing well, I 
> might not beat them uncorrected, let alone corrected.  Both boats seem to be 
> rated at least 12 seconds slower in my RSA than in most others RSAs in the 
> US, and I’m sure their owners would strongly resist lowering their ratings, 
> because they win a lot on corrected time.  I had a half-dozen races last year 
> where I took line honors and they corrected over me.
> 
> My main competition is a pair of Catalina 27s and a Ranger 26, all 
> well-sailed.  In heavy air the Ranger 26 can’t stay in control; he has to 
> depower way before I do.  A couple times a season when the wind is really up, 
> I’ll have the joy of beating the fleet by three minutes in a half-hour race.  
> But that’s the exception to the rule where I sail.  And unfortunately for me 
> the Ranger 26’s rating didn’t change this year, whereas mine did - six 
> seconds faster.
> 
> I accept that PHRF is an imperfect system.  At the end of the day, I’m out 
> there on Wednesday nights to have fun.  That said, I like the competition, 
> and I’d like it to be as fair as possible.
> 
> Cheers,
> Randy
> S/V Grenadine
> C 30-1 #7
> Ken Caryl, CO
> 
>> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List > <mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Randy
>>  
>> When comparing boats across different areas make sure you look at other 
>> boats in those areas as well.  Pacific NW tends to rate most of their fleet 
>> 9 – 12 sec/mile slower than most other areas … not just the C 30.
>>  
>> Also look at the prevailing wind conditions in the areas.  Nort

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Michael Brown via CnC-List]

Some notes on the C 30 rating history at PHRF Lake Ontario.


1985 FS:168 NFS:168


Record created in the current database


1996 FS:162 NFS:162


Handicap adjustment by Central Council based on performance history


2000 FS:162 NFS:180


+18 Disconnect of NFS-SP from FS-SP rating


2006 FS:168 NFS:186


PHRF-LO did a blanket +6 sec/mile adjustment to all classes, more inline
with other PHRF regions


2010 FS:174 NFS:186


Performance based review by Central Council


2012 FS:174 NFS:195


A VPP analysis of "NFS-Delta" using a formula from Jim Teeters
changed the delta from 12 sec/mile to 21 sec/mile. All classes
were reviewed ( that fly spinnaker )




Michael Brown

Windburn
C 30-1







 From:   Randy Stafford  
 To:   cnc-list  
 Sent:   6/11/2019 3:13 PM 
 Subject:   Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating 



Thanks y’all for your interesting comments on this.


I got my new rating yesterday and it came back 180.  The handicapper wrote in 
the “notes and clarifications” section of my RSA’s PHRF certificate form the 
following: "There are no comparables listed in US Sailing for this model of 
boat in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is a compromise between lake sailing 
ratings of 174 at Lake Norman, Oklahoma and Texoma, TX; and the previous rating 
for this boat of 186/198. Mitigating factors are: 1. +10% above base weight, 
even when empty; 2. The lighter air pressure at altitude which makes it even 
more difficult to move a heavy boat.”


The 10% over base weight remark was from a discussion she and I had on 
“brochure weight” (8000 lbs for a 30 MK I as on sailboatdata.com) versus actual 
weight.  I’ve actually weighed my boat on a truck scale, and weighed all her 
gear.  I calculate she weighs about 8682 pounds with empty tanks and no gear 
aboard.  So with full fuel tank, anchor & rode, sails, etc., her as-raced 
weight is closer to 9000 pounds before crew weight.  According to the Schell 
regression formula, that 1000-pound difference in brochure versus actual weight 
translates to at least six seconds difference in rating, so the handicapper 
gave that to me.


In my RSA we don’t really have the local politics as badly as in some other 
areas apparently.  The handicapping committee is one volunteer, and the 
position turns over every few years.  I think most of our handicappers have 
tried to do a reasonably fair job with the information they have available.  
And none of them have been from the sailing industry.


That said, there are a couple boats in my fleet in my club that seem to have 
gift ratings.  There’s a Catalina 25 to which I give 43 sec/nm, and a Cal 22 to 
which I give 48 sec/nm.  In light air with everybody executing well, I might 
not beat them uncorrected, let alone corrected.  Both boats seem to be rated at 
least 12 seconds slower in my RSA than in most others RSAs in the US, and I’m 
sure their owners would strongly resist lowering their ratings, because they 
win a lot on corrected time.  I had a half-dozen races last year where I took 
line honors and they corrected over me.


My main competition is a pair of Catalina 27s and a Ranger 26, all well-sailed. 
 In heavy air the Ranger 26 can’t stay in control; he has to depower way before 
I do.  A couple times a season when the wind is really up, I’ll have the joy of 
beating the fleet by three minutes in a half-hour race.  But that’s the 
exception to the rule where I sail.  And unfortunately for me the Ranger 26’s 
rating didn’t change this year, whereas mine did - six seconds faster.


I accept that PHRF is an imperfect system.  At the end of the day, I’m out 
there on Wednesday nights to have fun.  That said, I like the competition, and 
I’d like it to be as fair as possible.


Cheers,
Randy
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO



On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List  
wrote:

 
 

Hi Randy
 
When comparing boats across different areas make sure you look at other boats 
in those areas as well.  Pacific NW tends to rate most of their fleet 9 – 12 
sec/mile  slower than most other areas … not just the C 30.
 
Also look at the prevailing wind conditions in the areas.  Northern California 
is known to be windy whereas LI Sound is known for fairly light winds.  A C  
30-1 would perform much better in the windier areas and should have a faster 
rating in Northern California than in LIS for example.
 
Yes PHRF sucks.  However all of the systems suck.  Some suck worse than others. 
 ORR, IMS, IRC, etc …require measurements of each boat.  It is difficult to  
find a measurer and quite expensive to get a boat measured.  However a 
measurement rule seems to be a lot fairer for point to point distance racing 
than a single number system.  You can have a race like Marblehead to Halifax 
that is hundreds of miles of mostly  reaching.  In that sort of race a big long 
waterline boat that is horrible at W/L short leg races will tend to do very 
well as it would be on its best point of sail most of the

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[dwight veinot via CnC-List]

As i know the C 30 MKI your phrf at 180 is fair. Don’t know about the
other boats you typically race against but 180 is good and especially if it
includes spin and folding prop. Max headsail use LP150 for this but in
light air the boat can easily handle a 160/170 probably with a
corresponding rating change. If you care about handicap you will probably
stretch your budget for the best of sails and crew and keep that bottom
clean and smooth. It will take at least 4 crew including helmsman to do
spinnaker races efficiently.  Get her in the “grove”and go fast every
tack.  Best of luck to you because luck will probably account for at least
50 percent or more of how well you do in most races

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:14 PM Randy Stafford via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Thanks y’all for your interesting comments on this.
>
> I got my new rating yesterday and it came back 180.  The handicapper wrote
> in the “notes and clarifications” section of my RSA’s PHRF certificate form
> the following: "There are no comparables listed in US Sailing for this
> model of boat in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is a compromise between
> lake sailing ratings of 174 at Lake Norman, Oklahoma and Texoma, TX; and
> the previous rating for this boat of 186/198. Mitigating factors are: 1.
> +10% above base weight, even when empty; 2. The lighter air pressure at
> altitude which makes it even more difficult to move a heavy boat.”
>
> The 10% over base weight remark was from a discussion she and I had on
> “brochure weight” (8000 lbs for a 30 MK I as on sailboatdata.com) versus
> actual weight.  I’ve actually weighed my boat on a truck scale, and weighed
> all her gear.  I calculate she weighs about 8682 pounds with empty tanks
> and no gear aboard.  So with full fuel tank, anchor & rode, sails, etc.,
> her as-raced weight is closer to 9000 pounds before crew weight.  According
> to the Schell regression formula, that 1000-pound difference in brochure
> versus actual weight translates to at least six seconds difference in
> rating, so the handicapper gave that to me.
>
> In my RSA we don’t really have the local politics as badly as in some
> other areas apparently.  The handicapping committee is one volunteer, and
> the position turns over every few years.  I think most of our handicappers
> have tried to do a reasonably fair job with the information they have
> available.  And none of them have been from the sailing industry.
>
> That said, there are a couple boats in my fleet in my club that seem to
> have gift ratings.  There’s a Catalina 25 to which I give 43 sec/nm, and a
> Cal 22 to which I give 48 sec/nm.  In light air with everybody executing
> well, I might not beat them uncorrected, let alone corrected.  Both boats
> seem to be rated at least 12 seconds slower in my RSA than in most others
> RSAs in the US, and I’m sure their owners would strongly resist lowering
> their ratings, because they win a lot on corrected time.  I had a
> half-dozen races last year where I took line honors and they corrected over
> me.
>
> My main competition is a pair of Catalina 27s and a Ranger 26, all
> well-sailed.  In heavy air the Ranger 26 can’t stay in control; he has to
> depower way before I do.  A couple times a season when the wind is really
> up, I’ll have the joy of beating the fleet by three minutes in a half-hour
> race.  But that’s the exception to the rule where I sail.  And
> unfortunately for me the Ranger 26’s rating didn’t change this year,
> whereas mine did - six seconds faster.
>
> I accept that PHRF is an imperfect system.  At the end of the day, I’m out
> there on Wednesday nights to have fun.  That said, I like the competition,
> and I’d like it to be as fair as possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Randy
> S/V Grenadine
> C 30-1 #7
> Ken Caryl, CO
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Randy
>
>
>
> When comparing boats across different areas make sure you look at other
> boats in those areas as well.  Pacific NW tends to rate most of their fleet
> 9 – 12 sec/mile slower than most other areas … not just the C 30.
>
>
>
> Also look at the prevailing wind conditions in the areas.  Northern
> California is known to be windy whereas LI Sound is known for fairly light
> winds.  A C 30-1 would perform much better in the windier areas and
> should have a faster rating in Northern California than in LIS for example.
>
>
>
> Yes PHRF sucks.  However all of the systems suck.  Some suck worse than
> others.  ORR, IMS, IRC, etc …require measurements of each boat.  It is
> difficult to find a measurer and quite expensive to get a boat measured.
> However a measurement rule seems to be a lot fairer for point to point
> distance racing than a single number system.  You can have a race like
> Marblehead to Halifax that is hundreds of miles of mostly reaching.  In
> that sort of race a big long waterline boat that is horrible at W/L short
> leg races will tend to do very 

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Randy Stafford via CnC-List]

Thanks y’all for your interesting comments on this.

I got my new rating yesterday and it came back 180.  The handicapper wrote in 
the “notes and clarifications” section of my RSA’s PHRF certificate form the 
following: "There are no comparables listed in US Sailing for this model of 
boat in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is a compromise between lake sailing 
ratings of 174 at Lake Norman, Oklahoma and Texoma, TX; and the previous rating 
for this boat of 186/198. Mitigating factors are: 1. +10% above base weight, 
even when empty; 2. The lighter air pressure at altitude which makes it even 
more difficult to move a heavy boat.”

The 10% over base weight remark was from a discussion she and I had on 
“brochure weight” (8000 lbs for a 30 MK I as on sailboatdata.com 
) versus actual weight.  I’ve actually weighed my 
boat on a truck scale, and weighed all her gear.  I calculate she weighs about 
8682 pounds with empty tanks and no gear aboard.  So with full fuel tank, 
anchor & rode, sails, etc., her as-raced weight is closer to 9000 pounds before 
crew weight.  According to the Schell regression formula, that 1000-pound 
difference in brochure versus actual weight translates to at least six seconds 
difference in rating, so the handicapper gave that to me.

In my RSA we don’t really have the local politics as badly as in some other 
areas apparently.  The handicapping committee is one volunteer, and the 
position turns over every few years.  I think most of our handicappers have 
tried to do a reasonably fair job with the information they have available.  
And none of them have been from the sailing industry.

That said, there are a couple boats in my fleet in my club that seem to have 
gift ratings.  There’s a Catalina 25 to which I give 43 sec/nm, and a Cal 22 to 
which I give 48 sec/nm.  In light air with everybody executing well, I might 
not beat them uncorrected, let alone corrected.  Both boats seem to be rated at 
least 12 seconds slower in my RSA than in most others RSAs in the US, and I’m 
sure their owners would strongly resist lowering their ratings, because they 
win a lot on corrected time.  I had a half-dozen races last year where I took 
line honors and they corrected over me.

My main competition is a pair of Catalina 27s and a Ranger 26, all well-sailed. 
 In heavy air the Ranger 26 can’t stay in control; he has to depower way before 
I do.  A couple times a season when the wind is really up, I’ll have the joy of 
beating the fleet by three minutes in a half-hour race.  But that’s the 
exception to the rule where I sail.  And unfortunately for me the Ranger 26’s 
rating didn’t change this year, whereas mine did - six seconds faster.

I accept that PHRF is an imperfect system.  At the end of the day, I’m out 
there on Wednesday nights to have fun.  That said, I like the competition, and 
I’d like it to be as fair as possible.

Cheers,
Randy
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO

> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Randy
>  
> When comparing boats across different areas make sure you look at other boats 
> in those areas as well.  Pacific NW tends to rate most of their fleet 9 – 12 
> sec/mile slower than most other areas … not just the C 30.
>  
> Also look at the prevailing wind conditions in the areas.  Northern 
> California is known to be windy whereas LI Sound is known for fairly light 
> winds.  A C 30-1 would perform much better in the windier areas and should 
> have a faster rating in Northern California than in LIS for example.
>  
> Yes PHRF sucks.  However all of the systems suck.  Some suck worse than 
> others.  ORR, IMS, IRC, etc …require measurements of each boat.  It is 
> difficult to find a measurer and quite expensive to get a boat measured.  
> However a measurement rule seems to be a lot fairer for point to point 
> distance racing than a single number system.  You can have a race like 
> Marblehead to Halifax that is hundreds of miles of mostly reaching.  In that 
> sort of race a big long waterline boat that is horrible at W/L short leg 
> races will tend to do very well as it would be on its best point of sail most 
> of the race and therefore outsail its handicap under many systems.
>  
> For a typical small club race PHRF has one very redeeming feature.  It is 
> simple to use and easy to find existing handicaps for most production boats 
> that have been around for any length of time.  The ORR-EZ system that has 
> been discussed gives me a first impression that the Race Committee would have 
> more work to do in implementing on a race by race basis and would need to be 
> knowledgeable and could implement the incorrect number for a given race 
> condition.  Also on a race course at least with PHRF or any other single 
> number system as a sailor I know how much time I owe any other boat at any 
> given time during a race.  Multi number systems this would be much more 
> difficult
>  
> The only 

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[CHARLES SCHEAFFER via CnC-List]

FWIW, stating what I learned.  The PHRF is a rating based on projected boat 
speeds in multiple wind speeds on every angle of the wind.  They use one number 
for a typical boat in all wind and sea conditions.  This works OK for triangle 
races which provide upwind, reaching, downwind legs and if a season of races 
offers low wind and high wind races, the ratings are fair.  My boat excels 
upwind and we did well in triangle races jib and main, held our own reaching, 
and suffered a little downwind without a spinnaker.   


More recently I started racing in distance races and the majority have had a 
short leg upwind to allow a clean start, and then a turn downwind for 90% of 
the race.  I was racing solo against crewed boats and after a timid start 
because I have to keep clear, I'll typically pass four to five boats going the 
30 minutes upwind.  Then they pass me with their genekers or spinnakers on the 
4 hour downwind course to the finish.  One race turned back upwind at the 
finish and I was able to pass a boat on that final leg so I wasn't the last of 
60 boats across the line.  I have flown my spinnaker alone, but not during a 
race yet.  I'm working on that.


All in all, racing PHRF made us better sailors and I pushed some other skippers 
and they got better too so we all benefited.


Chuck S, Resolute, 1990 C 34R



> On June 11, 2019 at 10:49 AM "Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Correct (as usual) about sport boats.  It’s hard to beat a boat capable 
> of doing sport-boat speeds in moderate to heavy air.
>  
> From: Dennis C. via CnC-List mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:18 AM
> To: CnClist mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> Cc: Dennis C. mailto:capt...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating
>  
> The imperfections of handicap systems have been discussed a lot.  You 
> just have to accept them with all their warts.
>  
> One protection against local politics is to race a boat which has several 
> sisterboats.  If your boat is the only one like it in the fleet and you win a 
> lot, you probably will be hit.  On the other hand, if there are one or more 
> boats like yours in the fleet and the others are not well raced, you have a 
> small "buffer" against an adjustment.
>  
> Another protection is to be a member of the club with a local handicapper 
> or a club with clout.  Hence, the politics.
>  
> PHRF (Punishing Hard Racing Folks) is not a perfect system.  On the other 
> hand, there are racers who stretch the system.  They'll buy a "sleeper" boat, 
> trick it out to the max, win a few races then sell it when the handicappers 
> hit it.
>  
> IMHO, the biggest problem with PHRF is when there is a mixed fleet with 
> sport boats and displacement boats.  The system just doesn't have the 
> capability to handle the significant differences in performance in varying 
> conditions for disparate boat types.
>  
> Personally, I think the Portsmouth TOT system is better than PHRF.  I'm 
> monitoring my area's venture into ORR-EZ.
>  
> Dennis C.
> Touche' 35-1 #83
> Mandeville, LA
>  
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:56 AM Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List < 
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com > wrote:
> 
> > > What Edd refers to as “corruption” I referred to in my 
> earlier note as “local politics.”  In my view Edd is correct – corrupt local 
> politics is probably the biggest factor in rating anomalies.
> >  
> > From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> >         Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 4:42 PM
> > To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> > Cc: Edd Schillay mailto:e...@schillay.com
> > Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating
> >  
> > Randy,
> >  
> > As someone who was Commodore of a Western Long Island Sound yacht 
> > racing association for over 12 years and who has had access to ratings data 
> > from all over the USA, there is, simply, a one-word answer:
> >  
> > Corruption
> >  
> > First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if there is a a few 
> > C 30s that race in a particular area that do very well, one of their 
> > competitors will go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review 
> > stating it’s unfair racing, which may result in a change in that rating. 
> > The more someone complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to 
> > shut them up. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt.
> >  
> >

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List]

Correct (as usual) about sport boats.  It’s hard to beat a boat capable of 
doing sport-boat speeds in moderate to heavy air.

From: Dennis C. via CnC-List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:18 AM
To: CnClist 
Cc: Dennis C. 
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

The imperfections of handicap systems have been discussed a lot.  You just have 
to accept them with all their warts. 

One protection against local politics is to race a boat which has several 
sisterboats.  If your boat is the only one like it in the fleet and you win a 
lot, you probably will be hit.  On the other hand, if there are one or more 
boats like yours in the fleet and the others are not well raced, you have a 
small "buffer" against an adjustment. 

Another protection is to be a member of the club with a local handicapper or a 
club with clout.  Hence, the politics.

PHRF (Punishing Hard Racing Folks) is not a perfect system.  On the other hand, 
there are racers who stretch the system.  They'll buy a "sleeper" boat, trick 
it out to the max, win a few races then sell it when the handicappers hit it.

IMHO, the biggest problem with PHRF is when there is a mixed fleet with sport 
boats and displacement boats.  The system just doesn't have the capability to 
handle the significant differences in performance in varying conditions for 
disparate boat types.

Personally, I think the Portsmouth TOT system is better than PHRF.  I'm 
monitoring my area's venture into ORR-EZ.

Dennis C.
Touche' 35-1 #83
Mandeville, LA

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:56 AM Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List 
 wrote:

  What Edd refers to as “corruption” I referred to in my earlier note as “local 
politics.”  In my view Edd is correct – corrupt local politics is probably the 
biggest factor in rating anomalies.

  From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List 
  Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 4:42 PM
  To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com 
  Cc: Edd Schillay 
  Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

  Randy, 

  As someone who was Commodore of a Western Long Island Sound yacht racing 
association for over 12 years and who has had access to ratings data from all 
over the USA, there is, simply, a one-word answer:

  Corruption

  First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if there is a a few C 30s 
that race in a particular area that do very well, one of their competitors will 
go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review stating it’s unfair 
racing, which may result in a change in that rating. The more someone 
complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to shut them up. The 
squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt. 

  Now here is where the BIG corruption comes in to play: Quite often the 
members of the PHRF committees are people in the sailing industry, usually 
sailmakers. Give them business and changes will probably come in your favor. 

  In some areas, it’s gotten better, but it’s still a mess. Real racing factors 
such as sail area, displacement, waterline, etc. are not part of any PHRF 
calculation, except maybe when faced with a one-off new boat -- they’ll rate it 
similar to another boat with the same specs. 

  As you can tell, I’m not a fan. But other systems are either super expensive 
or have gone extinct (Americap had such promise). 

  What racing needs is a mathematician with some extra time on his hands that 
can create a formula that will calculate a rating system based solely on the 
boat’s characteristics. 


  All the best,

  Edd


  Edd M. Schillay
  Captain of the Starship Enterprise
  C 37+ | Sail No: NCC-1701-B
  City Island Yacht Club | City Island, NY 
  Venice Yacht Club | Venice, FL

  Starship Enterprise's Captain's Log







  On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
 wrote:

  Listers- 

  Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables.

  I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

  If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

  When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US Sailing’s 
Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade 
prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for the 2017 season 
and beyond.

  Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper 
is primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probabl

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Dennis C. via CnC-List]

The imperfections of handicap systems have been discussed a lot.  You just
have to accept them with all their warts.

One protection against local politics is to race a boat which has several
sisterboats.  If your boat is the only one like it in the fleet and you win
a lot, you probably will be hit.  On the other hand, if there are one or
more boats like yours in the fleet and the others are not well raced, you
have a small "buffer" against an adjustment.

Another protection is to be a member of the club with a local handicapper
or a club with clout.  Hence, the politics.

PHRF (Punishing Hard Racing Folks) is not a perfect system.  On the other
hand, there are racers who stretch the system.  They'll buy a "sleeper"
boat, trick it out to the max, win a few races then sell it when the
handicappers hit it.

IMHO, the biggest problem with PHRF is when there is a mixed fleet with
sport boats and displacement boats.  The system just doesn't have the
capability to handle the significant differences in performance in varying
conditions for disparate boat types.

Personally, I think the Portsmouth TOT system is better than PHRF.  I'm
monitoring my area's venture into ORR-EZ.

Dennis C.
Touche' 35-1 #83
Mandeville, LA

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:56 AM Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> What Edd refers to as “corruption” I referred to in my earlier note as
> “local politics.”  In my view Edd is correct – corrupt local politics is
> probably the biggest factor in rating anomalies.
>
> *From:* Edd Schillay via CnC-List 
> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2019 4:42 PM
> *To:* cnc-list@cnc-list.com
> *Cc:* Edd Schillay 
> *Subject:* Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating
>
> Randy,
>
> As someone who was Commodore of a Western Long Island Sound yacht racing
> association for over 12 years and who has had access to ratings data from
> all over the USA, there is, simply, a one-word answer:
>
> Corruption
>
> First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if there is a a few C
> 30s that race in a particular area that do very well, one of their
> competitors will go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review
> stating it’s unfair racing, which may result in a change in that rating.
> The more someone complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to
> shut them up. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt.
>
> Now here is where the BIG corruption comes in to play: Quite often the
> members of the PHRF committees are people in the sailing industry, usually
> sailmakers. Give them business and changes will probably come in your
> favor.
>
> In some areas, it’s gotten better, but it’s still a mess. Real racing
> factors such as sail area, displacement, waterline, etc. are not part of
> any PHRF calculation, except maybe when faced with a one-off new boat --
> they’ll rate it similar to another boat with the same specs.
>
> As you can tell, I’m not a fan. But other systems are either super
> expensive or have gone extinct (Americap had such promise).
>
> What racing needs is a mathematician with some extra time on his hands
> that can create a formula that will calculate a rating system based solely
> on the boat’s characteristics.
>
> All the best,
>
> Edd
>
>
> Edd M. Schillay
> Captain of the Starship Enterprise
> C 37+ | Sail No: NCC-1701-B
> City Island Yacht Club | City Island, NY
> Venice Yacht Club | Venice, FL
>
> Starship Enterprise's Captain's Log <http://enterpriseb.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Randy Stafford via CnC-List <
> cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:
>
> Listers-
>
> Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” (
> https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you
> can see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different
> fleets, from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the
> “C 30” and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s
> tables.
>
> I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring
> rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding
> prop, from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate
> the boat at 168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?
>
> If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations
> who can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.
>
> When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US
> Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed
> two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for
> the 2017 season and beyond.
>
> Now my RSA is 

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Richard Bush via CnC-List]

 Matt and Edd; I agree, that's why I quit racing...
 
Richard
 s/v Bushmark4: 1985 C 37 CB: Ohio River, Mile 584.4
Richard N. Bush  
2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite Nine 
Louisville, Kentucky 40220-1462 
502-584-7255 
 
-Original Message-
From: Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List 
To: cnc-list 
Cc: Matthew L. Wolford 
Sent: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 9:56 am
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

What Edd refers to as “corruption” I referred to in my earlier note as “local 
politics.”  In my view Edd is correct – corrupt local politics is probably the 
biggest factor in rating anomalies. From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List Sent: 
Monday, June 10, 2019 4:42 PMTo: cnc-list@cnc-list.com Cc: Edd Schillay 
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating Randy,  As someone who was Commodore 
of a Western Long Island Sound yacht racing association for over 12 years and 
who has had access to ratings data from all over the USA, there is, simply, a 
one-word answer: Corruption First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if 
there is a a few C 30s that race in a particular area that do very well, one 
of their competitors will go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review 
stating it’s unfair racing, which may result in a change in that rating. The 
more someone complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to shut 
them up. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt.  Now here is 
where the BIG corruption comes in to play: Quite often the members of the PHRF 
committees are people in the sailing industry, usually sailmakers. Give them 
business and changes will probably come in your favor.  In some areas, it’s 
gotten better, but it’s still a mess. Real racing factors such as sail area, 
displacement, waterline, etc. are not part of any PHRF calculation, except 
maybe when faced with a one-off new boat -- they’ll rate it similar to another 
boat with the same specs.  As you can tell, I’m not a fan. But other systems 
are either super expensive or have gone extinct (Americap had such promise).  
What racing needs is a mathematician with some extra time on his hands that can 
create a formula that will calculate a rating system based solely on the boat’s 
characteristics. 

All the best, Edd  Edd M. SchillayCaptain of the Starship EnterpriseC 37+ | 
Sail No: NCC-1701-BCity Island Yacht Club | City Island, NY Venice Yacht Club | 
Venice, FL Starship Enterprise's Captain's Log 


 On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
 wrote: Listers-  Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US 
PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables. I’m 
trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring rating, is 
174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, from what I 
understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 168 sec/nm, 
for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186? If we have any listers 
from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who can shed light on this 
question, I’d be very interested. When my boat was first rated by my RSA 
(https://rmsail.org, in US Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a 
rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I 
got a folding prop for the 2017 season and beyond. Now my RSA is re-rating all 
boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper is primarily looking at the 
above US Sailing document, and probably choosing the most-often occurring 
rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating will probably change to 174. 
Can anyone explain the range of ratings? Thank You,Randy StaffordS/V 
GrenadineC 30-1 #7Ken Caryl, CO___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

 ___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --  https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[David Risch via CnC-List]

Well my 1981 40-2 is definitely a light air screamer.  Yet she rates faster in 
Buzzards Bay (home of the Smokin’ Southwester), than Narragansett Bay which has 
lighter winds.

Go figure.   I stick to long distance races now where those anomalies iron out 
(hopefully).

David F. Risch
Gulf Stream Associates
(401) 419-4650

From: CnC-List  On Behalf Of Matthew L. Wolford 
via CnC-List
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 9:43 AM
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
Cc: Matthew L. Wolford 
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

Different PHRF organizations in different parts of the country assign ratings 
based on performance (the P in PHRF).  If the boat does better in heavy 
weather, for example, its racing results will be better in regions where there 
is more wind (and thus a lower base rating).  If it’s a light air boat, the 
opposite is true.  Then there’s design/construction differences, modifications, 
props, roller furlers, mast size, etc.  In addition, a base rating could be 
changed as a result of a rating adjustment request or a competitor’s challenge. 
 And my personal favorite, local politics.

From: dwight veinot via CnC-List<mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:56 AM
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com<mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>
Cc: dwight veinot<mailto:dwight...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

Most of our best racing fun happens whenever we see another mast on a boat with 
similar rating to Alianna. These “races” usually take less than 15 min to 
decide who has the edge on any particular tack then we break away to have fun 
going wherever we want to go. That said we have done hundreds of handicapped 
races and the one positive i will note about those is that they were an 
excellent way to learn how to sail for best performance. So handicap racing is 
a learning experience not to be taken too seriously. I never really liked 
Spending a nice day on the water sailing a course that someone else had set and 
which often resulted in collisions and most often congestion at marks on 
otherwise open water. Amazing what some racers will do at the start line and 
mark rounding in particular to gain an advantage given that most enter these 
races with a rather limited knowledge of the racing rules of sailing and are 
operating rather expensive toys with valuable but often ill informed lives 
aboard. Nuff said

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:26 PM Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
mailto:cnc-list@cnc-list.com>> wrote:
Listers-

Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ussailing.org%2Fcompetition%2Foffshore%2Fphrf%2Fphrf-handicaps%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8538abdd8cb465080b108d6ee72fc0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636958574951516219=u8iAPljNhCMYsHg0XsyjlyMIWWWunM%2FHRRZKrlKN4mk%3D=0>),
 you can see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different 
fleets, from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the 
“C 30” and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s 
tables.

I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

When my boat was first rated by my RSA 
(https://rmsail.org<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frmsail.org=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8538abdd8cb465080b108d6ee72fc0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636958574951526224=ly26SdUFglOqjxKMh%2BXamAmirb59pk1CruF2EAx6oL0%3D=0>,
 in US Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a 
fixed two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for 
the 2017 season and beyond.

Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper is 
primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probably choosing the 
most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating will 
probably change to 174.

Can anyone explain the range of ratings?

Thank You,
Randy Stafford
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   
https://www.paypal.me/stumurray<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.paypal.me%2Fstumurray=02%7C01%7C%7Cf8538abdd8cb465080b108d6ee72fc0c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636958574951536229=jv7QyYlKvC6Fytc7hdlrR%2B5%2

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List]

What Edd refers to as “corruption” I referred to in my earlier note as “local 
politics.”  In my view Edd is correct – corrupt local politics is probably the 
biggest factor in rating anomalies.

From: Edd Schillay via CnC-List 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 4:42 PM
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com 
Cc: Edd Schillay 
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

Randy, 

As someone who was Commodore of a Western Long Island Sound yacht racing 
association for over 12 years and who has had access to ratings data from all 
over the USA, there is, simply, a one-word answer:

Corruption

First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if there is a a few C 30s 
that race in a particular area that do very well, one of their competitors will 
go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review stating it’s unfair 
racing, which may result in a change in that rating. The more someone 
complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to shut them up. The 
squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt. 

Now here is where the BIG corruption comes in to play: Quite often the members 
of the PHRF committees are people in the sailing industry, usually sailmakers. 
Give them business and changes will probably come in your favor. 

In some areas, it’s gotten better, but it’s still a mess. Real racing factors 
such as sail area, displacement, waterline, etc. are not part of any PHRF 
calculation, except maybe when faced with a one-off new boat -- they’ll rate it 
similar to another boat with the same specs. 

As you can tell, I’m not a fan. But other systems are either super expensive or 
have gone extinct (Americap had such promise). 

What racing needs is a mathematician with some extra time on his hands that can 
create a formula that will calculate a rating system based solely on the boat’s 
characteristics. 


All the best,

Edd


Edd M. Schillay
Captain of the Starship Enterprise
C 37+ | Sail No: NCC-1701-B
City Island Yacht Club | City Island, NY 
Venice Yacht Club | Venice, FL

Starship Enterprise's Captain's Log







On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
 wrote:

Listers- 

Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables.

I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US Sailing’s 
Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade 
prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for the 2017 season 
and beyond.

Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper is 
primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probably choosing the 
most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating will 
probably change to 174.

Can anyone explain the range of ratings?

Thank You,
Randy Stafford
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray






___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List]

Different PHRF organizations in different parts of the country assign ratings 
based on performance (the P in PHRF).  If the boat does better in heavy 
weather, for example, its racing results will be better in regions where there 
is more wind (and thus a lower base rating).  If it’s a light air boat, the 
opposite is true.  Then there’s design/construction differences, modifications, 
props, roller furlers, mast size, etc.  In addition, a base rating could be 
changed as a result of a rating adjustment request or a competitor’s challenge. 
 And my personal favorite, local politics.

From: dwight veinot via CnC-List 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:56 AM
To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com 
Cc: dwight veinot 
Subject: Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

Most of our best racing fun happens whenever we see another mast on a boat with 
similar rating to Alianna. These “races” usually take less than 15 min to 
decide who has the edge on any particular tack then we break away to have fun 
going wherever we want to go. That said we have done hundreds of handicapped 
races and the one positive i will note about those is that they were an 
excellent way to learn how to sail for best performance. So handicap racing is 
a learning experience not to be taken too seriously. I never really liked 
Spending a nice day on the water sailing a course that someone else had set and 
which often resulted in collisions and most often congestion at marks on 
otherwise open water. Amazing what some racers will do at the start line and 
mark rounding in particular to gain an advantage given that most enter these 
races with a rather limited knowledge of the racing rules of sailing and are 
operating rather expensive toys with valuable but often ill informed lives 
aboard. Nuff said

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:26 PM Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
 wrote:

  Listers- 

  Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables.

  I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

  If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

  When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US Sailing’s 
Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade 
prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for the 2017 season 
and beyond.

  Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper 
is primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probably choosing 
the most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating 
will probably change to 174.

  Can anyone explain the range of ratings?

  Thank You,
  Randy Stafford
  S/V Grenadine
  C 30-1 #7
  Ken Caryl, CO
  ___

  Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray


-- 

Sent from Gmail Mobile



___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[dwight veinot via CnC-List]

Most of our best racing fun happens whenever we see another mast on a boat
with similar rating to Alianna. These “races” usually take less than 15 min
to decide who has the edge on any particular tack then we break away to
have fun going wherever we want to go. That said we have done hundreds of
handicapped races and the one positive i will note about those is that they
were an excellent way to learn how to sail for best performance. So
handicap racing is a learning experience not to be taken too seriously. I
never really liked Spending a nice day on the water sailing a course that
someone else had set and which often resulted in collisions and most often
congestion at marks on otherwise open water. Amazing what some racers will
do at the start line and mark rounding in particular to gain an advantage
given that most enter these races with a rather limited knowledge of the
racing rules of sailing and are operating rather expensive toys with
valuable but often ill informed lives aboard. Nuff said

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 5:26 PM Randy Stafford via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Listers-
>
> Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” (
> https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you
> can see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different
> fleets, from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the
> “C 30” and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s
> tables.
>
> I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring
> rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding
> prop, from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate
> the boat at 168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?
>
> If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations
> who can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.
>
> When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US
> Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed
> two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for
> the 2017 season and beyond.
>
> Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the
> handicapper is primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and
> probably choosing the most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I
> believe my boat’s rating will probably change to 174.
>
> Can anyone explain the range of ratings?
>
> Thank You,
> Randy Stafford
> S/V Grenadine
> C 30-1 #7
> Ken Caryl, CO
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Hoyt, Mike via CnC-List]

Hi Randy

When comparing boats across different areas make sure you look at other boats 
in those areas as well.  Pacific NW tends to rate most of their fleet 9 – 12 
sec/mile slower than most other areas … not just the C 30.

Also look at the prevailing wind conditions in the areas.  Northern California 
is known to be windy whereas LI Sound is known for fairly light winds.  A C 
30-1 would perform much better in the windier areas and should have a faster 
rating in Northern California than in LIS for example.

Yes PHRF sucks.  However all of the systems suck.  Some suck worse than others. 
 ORR, IMS, IRC, etc …require measurements of each boat.  It is difficult to 
find a measurer and quite expensive to get a boat measured.  However a 
measurement rule seems to be a lot fairer for point to point distance racing 
than a single number system.  You can have a race like Marblehead to Halifax 
that is hundreds of miles of mostly reaching.  In that sort of race a big long 
waterline boat that is horrible at W/L short leg races will tend to do very 
well as it would be on its best point of sail most of the race and therefore 
outsail its handicap under many systems.

For a typical small club race PHRF has one very redeeming feature.  It is 
simple to use and easy to find existing handicaps for most production boats 
that have been around for any length of time.  The ORR-EZ system that has been 
discussed gives me a first impression that the Race Committee would have more 
work to do in implementing on a race by race basis and would need to be 
knowledgeable and could implement the incorrect number for a given race 
condition.  Also on a race course at least with PHRF or any other single number 
system as a sailor I know how much time I owe any other boat at any given time 
during a race.  Multi number systems this would be much more difficult

The only thing that really works is OD racing.  Of course that means that 
everyone has to go get the same boat and usually not the one they prefer.  I 
really do not wish to spend all my time on a Farr 30 especially for a fun one 
off race on a Saturday ….  OD tends to weaken the mixed fleet participation 
which is its cost.  Then you have all these C and other boats sitting at the 
dock …

Is PHRF perfect?  No.  Not at all.  However in theory it is based on observed 
performance so is inexpensive to implement.  It does assume that a boat is in 
race condition including folding/feathering prop, decent sails, spinnaker, etc …

Happy Tuesday

Mike Hoyt
Persistence
1987 Frers 33 #16
Halifax, NS
www.hoytsailing.com

From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Randy 
Stafford via CnC-List
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 5:26 PM
To: cnc-list
Cc: Randy Stafford
Subject: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

Listers-

Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables.

I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US Sailing’s 
Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade 
prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for the 2017 season 
and beyond.

Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper is 
primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probably choosing the 
most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating will 
probably change to 174.

Can anyone explain the range of ratings?

Thank You,
Randy Stafford
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Dennis C. via CnC-List]

Other than the points Edd makes, some authorities might add/subtract a
blanket adjustment to ALL boats in their fleet for prevailing wind
conditions.  No rationale for it that I can determine.

Dennis C.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:26 PM Randy Stafford via CnC-List <
cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote:

> Listers-
>
> Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” (
> https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/), you
> can see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different
> fleets, from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the
> “C 30” and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s
> tables.
>
> I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring
> rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding
> prop, from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate
> the boat at 168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?
>
> If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations
> who can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.
>
> When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org, in US
> Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a rating of 186, with a fixed
> two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I got a folding prop for
> the 2017 season and beyond.
>
> Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the
> handicapper is primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and
> probably choosing the most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I
> believe my boat’s rating will probably change to 174.
>
> Can anyone explain the range of ratings?
>
> Thank You,
> Randy Stafford
> S/V Grenadine
> C 30-1 #7
> Ken Caryl, CO
> ___
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Re: Stus-List 30 MK I PHRF Rating

[Edd Schillay via CnC-List]

Randy,

As someone who was Commodore of a Western Long Island Sound yacht racing 
association for over 12 years and who has had access to ratings data from all 
over the USA, there is, simply, a one-word answer:

Corruption

First of all, the P in PHRF is Performance. So, if there is a a few C 30s 
that race in a particular area that do very well, one of their competitors will 
go to the PHRF committee and ask for a rating review stating it’s unfair 
racing, which may result in a change in that rating. The more someone 
complains, the more likely a change will be made, just to shut them up. The 
squeaky wheel gets the oil. That alone is corrupt. 

Now here is where the BIG corruption comes in to play: Quite often the members 
of the PHRF committees are people in the sailing industry, usually sailmakers. 
Give them business and changes will probably come in your favor. 

In some areas, it’s gotten better, but it’s still a mess. Real racing factors 
such as sail area, displacement, waterline, etc. are not part of any PHRF 
calculation, except maybe when faced with a one-off new boat -- they’ll rate it 
similar to another boat with the same specs. 

As you can tell, I’m not a fan. But other systems are either super expensive or 
have gone extinct (Americap had such promise). 

What racing needs is a mathematician with some extra time on his hands that can 
create a formula that will calculate a rating system based solely on the boat’s 
characteristics. 

All the best,

Edd


Edd M. Schillay
Captain of the Starship Enterprise
C 37+ | Sail No: NCC-1701-B
City Island Yacht Club | City Island, NY 
Venice Yacht Club | Venice, FL

Starship Enterprise's Captain's Log 





On Jun 10, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Randy Stafford via CnC-List 
 wrote:

Listers-

Looking at US Sailing’s “History of US PHRF Affiliated Fleet Handicaps” 
(https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/phrf/phrf-handicaps/ 
), you can 
see that there is a range of ratings for the 30 MK I across different fleets, 
from 168 to 186 seconds per nautical mile.  Note I believe that the “C 30” 
and “C 30 (1-506)” models are the same boat in that document’s tables.

I’m trying to understand why that is.  The mode, or most often occurring 
rating, is 174.  That’s with spinnaker, and generally assumes a folding prop, 
from what I understand.  But why would the Newfoundland fleet rate the boat at 
168 sec/nm, for example, and the Northwest fleet rate it at 186?

If we have any listers from those fleets / Regional Sailing Associations who 
can shed light on this question, I’d be very interested.

When my boat was first rated by my RSA (https://rmsail.org 
, in US Sailing’s Area F) back in 2016, she was given a 
rating of 186, with a fixed two-blade prop.  Her rating stayed at 186 after I 
got a folding prop for the 2017 season and beyond.

Now my RSA is re-rating all boats in the region.  I believe the handicapper is 
primarily looking at the above US Sailing document, and probably choosing the 
most-often occurring rating as the base.  So I believe my boat’s rating will 
probably change to 174.

Can anyone explain the range of ratings?

Thank You,
Randy Stafford
S/V Grenadine
C 30-1 #7
Ken Caryl, CO
___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray


___

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray