Conference unifix::sailing

You're asking about the Performance Handicap Racing Fleet system. See 
note 961 for an entertaining discussion of its merits and shortcomings. 

    Also, find out what area they want the ratings for.  That does vary
    by geography even to the extent that Cape Cod ratings are different
    than Mass Bay ratings.  A good source is USYRU (United States Yacht
    Racing Union) in Newport, RI.  If you are in the Boston area, call
    Jim Taylor of Taylor Yacht design in Marblehead.
    
    For the Catalina, the rating will also vary if he has the tall rig
    or not.  As you are finding, there is no one easy answer.
    
    Dave

    Thanks for the pointers and I'll ask the suggested questions.
    Mostly they sail Mass Bay, although when I crew with them
    some folks might not call it "sailing".
    
    Power_person_who_sailed_first_in_Sept.
    Jerry
     

RE:.2 by AKOV12::DJOHNSTON

> For the Catalina, the rating will also vary if he has the tall rig or not.  

Catalina 27's have two different keels,  different props and or motors (there 
are at least three stock types I know of) and jib size varies depending on 
what the owner has bought.  All of these factors affect the handicap.


Have fun!

Phil

    
       It's good to see you're reforming Jerry. Once you've tried
    sailing you'll never go back to those other boats. The fumes
    are bad for you anyways. How'd you do on the weather test last
    night?
    
                Steve
    

    Time will tell.....guess weather is more important when 6 knots
    is the norm rather than my present 30!
    
    If only I'd get over the fear of hanging myself in all lines and
    sheets and halyards and stays and and and.......God only knows what
    else.
    
    Fence-sitter
    Jerry
    

    So, none of you racers out there want to answer the simple question
    in .0. Looks like a cruiser will have to do it!
    
    The USYRU PHRF Handicaps (1986) for Catalina 27's and Tanzer 28's are
    as follows: 
                                    sec/mile  # in Fleet  Fleet
                                     -------  ----------  ----------    
    Catalina 27 (Inboard)              207       7        New England
    Catalina 27 (Outboard)             204       8        New England       
        "     "      "                 198       3        Cape Cod
    Catalina 27 (Tall Mast,Outboard)   192       2        New England
    Tanzer 28                          204       1        New England

    There are approximately 50 other fleets that have one or more of
    the other Catalina 27 permutations (Sail Drive, shoal draft, tall
    mast, inboard, outboard, etc) but these are the only local ratings.

    J_R

    I was about to enter a follow-up on my base note, but it's now 
    unnecessary! Thanks for the numbers. Everyone one was telling me
    if you had access to the "little book" it should be no problem.
    
    One other question.....why should the rating vary from location
    to location? It is the same boat....isn't it?
    
    Jerry
    

    >  One other question.....why should the rating vary from location
    >  to location? It is the same boat....isn't it?
    
    As Alan suggested, you need to read note 961. PHRF is very subjective,
    not too scientific, prone to politics, etc. etc. Sometimes a whole
    fleet is rated lower (or higher) than the rest of the country,
    other times a particular boat has a 'hot' crew, and so forth.

    

    Note 961 only partially explains the situation.  A good example
    is how the J 35 (which is sort of a benchmark class in PHRF) rates.
    In Mass Bay it rates 72.  In Long Island it rates 75.  But almost
    all of the other boats that have rationgs in both locations have
    that same 3 second per mile difference and the deltas remain the
    same.  This is frustrating but can be lived with.
    
    Now in Annapolis the J 35 rates 66.  All other benchmarks such as
    One Tonners are the same as in Mass Bay.  Why the difference? A
    guy named Charlie Scott who went on to win just about everything
    in his J 41 "Smiles" picked up a new J 35, optimized it and kicked
    butt so badly that the committee will never forget.  So now every
    poor bloke who happens to be an average sailor in a J 35 has to
    pay for his dominance for his one season he raced it.  That is where
    PHRF just about falls apart.  Charlie should not have been punished
    for his superior sailing, especially in a boat where the population
    is so large that the average sailor's performance can be accurately
    measured.
    
    In short, nobody, and I do mean nobody likes the system, but it
    is the best we have right now.  
    
    Dave

    Didn't Wiley Wakeman do the same sort of thing with one of the
    J-boats in Buzzards Bay?
    
    Adding to the problem is when the pro's or 'rock stars' are involved.
    Isn't Charlie Scott and Scott Sailmakers one and the same?

    With the proliferation of so many "VPPs" (Velocity Prediciton Programs),
    you'd think it would be possible to come up with an optimum performance 
    prediction for any given hull.  Period.  
    
    It certainly does seem completely unfair to let crew performance
    influence a boat's rating.  If that's absolutley necessary, however,
    it should show up as a separate handicap tacked on to the base handicap,
    and it should be assigned on a boat-by-boat basis.  Perhaps that's
    where the current PHRF committees could be most useful: Have a central
    committee (computer) dispense ratings and individual committees
    could rate crews.  Somewhat tactless, but less devious than throwing
    an entire class out of whack.
    
    Imagine the committee meetings:
    
    "Would the skipper form Notsofast please advance his arguments
     for changing Toofast's rating?"
    
    "Well, we've been timing their take-downs.  On average,
     they beat us by 10 seconds, so I'd like ten seconds for
     every take-down on a given course."
    
    ;)

    Re -.2  No, the Scott in Scott Sailmakers is Jimmy Scott, also from
    Annapolis.  Used to be the Hood rep there until he went independent.
    Charlie runs a boatyard or something.
    
    Dave

    I've been following this note (and others on handicapping) with
    interest becuase we seem to have a more equitable system over here,
    although whether it's totally fair or not is another debate.  
    
    I have a list of handicaps for the Clyde Cruising Club (my own)
    and every boat of the same class has the same rating.  At least
    when in class races you know it's all down to crew skill! Maybe
    that's why I never win anything ....!!!!!
    
    Brian

    Not to go down a rat hole but...
    
    In the 1987 season we (Fat Tuesday) won virtually nothing.  We were
    stioll learning the boat and its capabilities.  We then had a rating
    of 60.  The committee changed that to 63 for the 88 season.  By
    then we had learned the boat and did better, winning our share of
    the silver.  Whole new crew, better attitude and consistency paid
    off.  So, without any changes to the boat, the committe had decided
    (prior to the storm) to change us to 57!  Now Dean will argue that
    is the right number to begin with, but the point is that there is
    definite rating adjustment for one-offs or non-production boats
    based on crew performance.  Nothing else had changed in that time
    period except ADDING internal ballast (approx 800 pounds) which
    was for IMS/IOR purposes and would certainly not speed us up!
    
    Dave

re .15 and others:

PHRF = Performance Handicap Racing Fleet (or some such). The assumption 
is apparently being made that what PHRF handicaps is boats, in which
case lowering the rating of a winning boat is unfair. But .... if what
is being handicapped is the boat AND crew, then lowering the rating of a
winning boat is fair. 

What is the intent of PHRF? If it is to handicap the boat only, then, in 
the long run, the best crew should win consistently. But, let's be 
honest, losing consistently isn't fun and some owners/captains/crew have
more time/money/skill than others. It can be argued (as I am about to
do) that one way to maximize the participation in racing and the fun of
racing is to fiddle the ratings so that everyone has an equal chance of
winning, regardless of his/her boat and the amount of time and money
spent on the boat. This implies that ratings should be fiddled after
every race. If you win (or finish near the front of the fleet) this
week, your rating is lowered for next week. (By the way, I think that
something similar is done in some sports car racing -- winning cars have
to add ballast before the next race.) 

One design racing classes (and I suppose IOR) can be seen as an attempt
to provide racing where the crew with the most skill wins. What racing
seems to lack is racing where everyone, regardless of financial and time
resources and regardless of skill, can have a good time and win once in
a while. 

    Re .16
    
    Any competition, sailboat racing or otherwise, where anyone can
    win "regardless of skill" is useless. Sounds like a game created
    for a kiddy birthday party; everyone goes home with a prize and
    nobody cries.
    
    To win should be an accomplishment brought about by a superior boat
    and/or crew, not because it's your turn. That's the challenge.
    
    -Paul 

    Alan, I couldn't disagree with you more!  What you propose is that
    a skipper that doesn't take the time to train his crew, clean his
    bottom, learn to trim his sails, practice good starts, oreven try
    all that hard should, over time be given a rating that raflects
    these slovenly habits and the racer who gives a damn should be slowly
    penalized to the point that both have statistically the same chance
    of winning.  
    
    Boy am I glad you're not on the rating committee.  Starts to make
    the guys we have there look good ;^).
    
    Dave

re .17 and .18:

I am not proposing that ALL racing be as I suggested in .16. It is a 
rude fact of life that not everyone can spend the same number of dollars 
and the same amount of time on racing. To a very real extent, he with 
the most time and money wins, which isn't a whole lot of fun for those 
without time and money. What I'd like to see is that SOME racing be as I 
proposed. If there were, there might be a lot more boats racing. Really 
guys, it is very discouraging for a beginning racer to know that he will 
have to spend many a summer developing his skills before he has even a 
remote chance of winning. Encouragement along the way is nice. 

Some modification to my proposal might make it more attractive, such as 
limits on how much a rating can be raised or lowered. 

    I would tend to agree with Alan - to a point.  There is a very strong
    case for not rewarding the slovenly boat/crew compination by changing
    their handicap, but it is demoralising for those who are at least
    trying, but on limited resources, to rarely if ever win anything.
    This effort should be rewarded as it is the stimulation of achievement
    that spurs the moderately good to improve and keep the racing
    interesting.
    
    I also happen to afvour class racing - but I'm the only boat in
    my class in this part of the world ....

    I still disagree with the contention that a lot of money is needed
    to succeed at the club level of racing.  Sure, the bigger the boat
    the more it is going to cost, but to get into Class C shouldn't
    set you back a whole lot.  We pride ourselves on the tight budget
    we use to race in class A.  Our greatest source of amusement is
    in beating up on brand new quarter-million dollar machines in a
    boat that cost us a quarter of that amount.
    
    The time factor is one that you can't get around.  Practice does
    indeed make perfect.  We have "lent" some of our crew out to others
    who honestly are trying to put together a program and need some
    guidance.  We also take on less experienced crew who are eager to
    learn.  That is the time it takes to learn to compete.  
    
    I believe that anyone who sets his/her mind to it can achieve a
    goal of winning at the club level within two years.  I would be
    against any move that negated all the hard work that the successful
    racers put in before the start to help guarantee results.
    
    Now, is there a place for the less than committed racer?  Not enough
    of one, I'd agree.  On LongIsland Sound several clubs sponser "novice"
    classes that even use spinnakers.  One can race in that class until
    winning a certain amount of races and then is coldly booted into
    the real world of the regular classes.  
    
    Dave

    re .15
    
    57!! C'mon.  Try 45.  ;)  
    
    It must be difficult to subjectively rate a one-off design.  However,
    that Fat Tuesday started with a 60 and the committee bumped you
    up and down to 57 over the course of two years seems reasonable.  You guys
    were moving better than 57 most of the time last year, so I tend to 
    think that the rating committee "triangulated" over time to come
    up with 57.  If you had carried a 57 last season, how would you have 
    finished?  It would be fun to crank through the numbers, but I'm
    willing to bet you'd have done just about the same overall.  The only 
    difference would be that you would not have kicked-butt so often
    based on blazing speed for one leg.
    
    How about Claddagh getting a 72?  Do you think that bump is correct?
    71 would have pleased me, as there's no use arguing for a change to our
    rating.  On that count, do you know how frustrating it can be to
    be a "benchmark" boat?  We've done very well for several successive 
    seasons, but because we are a benchmark, the committee factors our 
    performance into measuring the rest of the fleet:  In a system that 
    tries to promote improvement, we're the fulcrum, and of course,
    you're lever isn't particularly useful if your fulcrum is all 
    the way out on one end.
    
    Dave, buy a J.  
    
    ;)

    As I have stated elsewhere, I don't think it's right to penalize
    a boat and crew because they have worked hard to give themselves
    an edge over their competitors.  Sailing is by it's nature an expensive
    hobby.  And sailboat racing is an expensive sport.  Why shouldn't
    you be able to improve your performance by buying top shelf gear.
    Every other sport that I can think of offers this opportunity.
    
    If you want to race without getting into all the high-tech stuff,
    go cruising class.  This class was created for the not-too-serious
    sailor who wants to occasionally race.  No spinnakers or anything.
    
    Serious racers should be allowed to compete at the top levels, which
    means go-fast (and expensive) racing gear, experienced crews, money,
    and politics, without fear of being penalized for being good.  Just 
    like in any other sport.  (Yes I said politics.  If you want a
    favorable rating in Marblehead buy yourself a Taylor.  If you want
    a favorable rating in Newport, buy a J.  If you want a favorable
    rating elsewhere, find out what boats the local merchants are pushing
    and buy one.)
    
    If you want to compete at the top levels, you must commit yourself
    to spending the time, money, and energy required to make your boat
    and your crew the best that it can possibly be.  And that means
    more than just what you can do with $$$.  You have to be willing
    to send somebody over the side to make sure your bottom is clean
    before each race, for example.  You have to get your crew together
    on days when you might rather be doing something else, and practice.
    You have to intentionally put yourself in adverse conditions and
    circumstances and practice how to make the most of it.  Just like in 
    any other sport.
    
    The "hottest" boats don't always win, as Dave has pointed out. 
    Crew experience means a lot too.  And the hard work that it takes
    to put a good crew together can't be measured in dollars.  And ratings
    committees are wrong to penalize crews who are willing to put in
    the necessary work to make themselves good.  If they do as Alan
    has suggested, where's the incentive to work hard to make yourself
    and your crew better?
    
    Winning is nice, but it's not all there is to sailboat racing. 
    We haven't won anything above the local club level since about 1985.
    But it doesn't keep us from trying harder.  There's a lot to be
    said for coming in 4th if the boats you beat were kicking your butt
    last season.  There's a certain satisfaction that comes from simple
    things like a good spinnaker set, a nice maneuver at the turning
    mark, or just doing a good job at figuring out your gybe angles.  
    If the rest of the fleet can do these things better than you, then 
    you don't deserve to win.  And any ratings committee that tries to 
    help you win by changing your competitors' rating isn't doing the 
    sport itself any favors.
    
    And if you think you can't have fun racing sailboats without winning,
    just talk to some of our fellow Noters who have been out racing
    on WAGS.  What it's REALLY all about is challenging yourself and
    your crew, concentrating just a little harder than you have in the
    past, trying out ideas and techniques that you've learned from others
    (or from your own mistakes) and crossing the finish line with the
    feeling that you, your boat, and your crew, did the best you could,
    regardless of where you ended up in the standings.
    
    PHRF is far from perfect.  So is every other ratings system I've
    heard of.  But without some kind of a rating system, sailboat racing
    as we know it couldn't exist.  So let's work with what we have,
    influence changes whenever we can, and keep on b*tching about the
    way things are if it makes you feel any better.
    
    ... Bob

    A race where everyone wins, sooner or later, no mater how much or
    little they put into it doesn't sound like competition.  It sounds like
    a lottery.  Why not just go sail around and have a nice day, then
    come in and throw dice to see who won?                
    
    To seperate money from skill, most sports have races with tightly
    controlled equipment, one-designs like Hobie cats.  This gets pretty 
    hard to do with larger boats but if you want to race based on skill
    you need some tight equipment controls.  This kind of competition
    is great for developing a few highly skilled competitors, but doesn't
    contribute much to improving equipment.
    
    Different sports, classes, leagues, etc. reward different things.
    All reward practice and inate ability, most reward tactical skills,
    some reward technical skills, some reward political skills, most
    reward financial resources.  All racing seems to be some blend of
    these factors, you just need to choose on what basis you want to
    compete and pick your race.  Unfortunately local availability may
    dominate your choice unless financial resources are strong or you
    are willing to change sports.
    
    If you want to compete on skill, for instance, try one-design
    boardsailing.  The cost of a year's mooring would pay for all the
    equipment you need to dominate, but the skill can't be bought. 
    The America's cup, on the other hand, is a political competition.
    All the technology, tactics, etc can be bought but political ability
    controls all, even the money.  But I suppose political ability can
    be bought too.
    
    Rick,