Thanks Michael, that very interesting. Cheers, Randy
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Michael Brown via CnC-List > <cnc-list@cnc-list.com> wrote: > > Some notes on the C&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&C 30-1 > > > > > > > From: Randy Stafford <randal.staff...@icloud.com > <mailto:randal.staff...@icloud.com>> > To: cnc-list <cnc-list@cnc-list.com <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&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 >> <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&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 <http://www.hoytsailing.com/> >> >> From: CnC-List [mailto:cnc-list-boun...@cnc-list.com >> <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/ >> <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 >> <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 >> <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 > <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
