As i know the C&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&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&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&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&Cs 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 > <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&C 30” and “C&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&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 > > -- 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
