Rick, to clarify, PHRF of the Chesapeake does not have the NS and S boats in 
the same class with different ratings.

They have a different NS rating for boats which have something about their 
spinnaker which makes it different than a 'stock' boat. So, the J-24 that I 
raced, which had a masthead spinnaker (stock is a fractional), was rated as 171 
in non spinnaker configuration (the standard J-24 OD rating) and 165 in 
spinnaker. But we would have to race in a JAM race to get that 171 rating. 
Similarly, a J-30 or C&C 115 with an oversized pole would have a different JAM 
rating than a spin rating, usually a 3 second difference.

Gary Nylander
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rick Brass 
  To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:26 AM
  Subject: Re: Stus-List PHRF ratings - Spin vs non-spin


  Just for clarification, the race in question is a middle distance (about 16 
nm) pursuit race run on a course that has 8 legs of varying lengths and 
directions. Last year we had a fleet of 37 PHRF boats that ranged from a 
Farrier 31 tri at 59 to a Menger 18 catboat at 330+.  The 6 boats in the spin 
fleet all started in the second half of the fleet (the Farrier started well 
over an hour after the Menger) but all the spin boats finished in the first 8 
or 9 boats over the line.

   

  Lots of local clubs with small fleets (and some PHRF organizations like 
Chesapeake Bay PHRF) have non-spin ratings that let spin and non-spin boats 
compete in the same race. No question that having separate spin and non-spin 
fleets is preferable to a single fleet, and that one design racing eliminates 
all the arguments about PHRF ratings being fair or not. But separate fleets are 
not always possible.

   

  What I'm asking for is suggestions for a rating adjustment that lets 
disparate boats compete fairly in a small fleet.

   

   

  Rick Brass

  Washington, NC

   

   

   

  From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com] On Behalf Of Josh 
Muckley
  Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:14 AM
  To: cnc-list@cnc-list.com
  Subject: Re: Stus-List PHRF ratings - Spin vs non-spin

   

  Agreed Dwight.  I can't envision a way that this would turn out well.  Seems 
like you need two fleets or a course that has little or no downwind legs.  You 
could also just say no handicap for non-spin or just not allow any spinnakers.  
I'm thinking very few, short, downwind legs is the best answer if a mixed fleet 
is the only option.

  Josh Muckley
  S/V Sea Hawk

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album
  http://www.cncphotoalbum.com
  CnC-List@cnc-list.com
_______________________________________________
This List is provided by the C&C Photo Album
http://www.cncphotoalbum.com
CnC-List@cnc-list.com

Reply via email to