View Full Version : SSS Rating Adjustment--good idea?
I would like to propose the following addition to our standing SIs
Background
The SSS's mission includes the following statement:
"It is the intent of the SSS to make it possible for such sailors to compete in seaworthy sailing vessels of various types and designs on a fair and equitable basis."
SSS achieves this by use of PHRF TOD ratings converted to PHRF TOT ratings from approved sources.
Rating Adjustments
However, it is recognized that:
1) Some boats are designed for ease of short handed sailing. General examples include: boats with cat rigs (only one sail), boats with small fractional headsails of small size, and multihulls.
2) The PHRF ratings include an assumption that the courses will include equal distance legs of windward and leeward. Most SSS race courses are not designed with those parameters.
3) Some boats (by virtue of their hull shapes or displacement) exceed "hull speed" on a routine basis in heavy wind conditions. General examples include sportboats and skiffs and multihulls.
Consequently, to achieve the fair and equitable racing, the SSS will apply a correction factor to PHRF TOT ratings under the following conditions:
Boat SOA of the first finisher in either multihull or sportboat classes has an SOA in excess of 5 kts.
Explanation: When this SOA is achieved, the course and/or wind allowed the sportboat or multihull to exceed hull speed and consequently the rating will not be accurate (e.g., little beating but a lot of reaching). Also, the wind was high enough that the boats designed for easy short handing have an advantage.
Amount of Correction Factor:
Sportboats and Catboats--1%
Multihulls--4%
Skippers of multihulls or sportboats are encouraged to make arguments to the RIO and Race Deck whether or not it is appropriate to make an adjustment to your particular boat as SSS recognizes that this attempt to be fair to all may create an unwarranted burden on specific boat designs.
solosailor
08-30-2008, 07:20 PM
1) Some boats are designed for ease of short handed sailing. General examples include: boats with cat rigs (only one sail), boats with small fractional headsails of small size, and multihulls.
2) The PHRF ratings include an assumption that the courses will include equal distance legs of windward and leeward. Most SSS race courses are not designed with those parameters.
3) Some boats (by virtue of their hull shapes or displacement) exceed "hull speed" on a routine basis in heavy wind conditions. General examples include sportboats and skiffs and multihulls.This idea has come up many times over the years and did so when I was commodore. This is a HUGE can of worms that the SSS does not need to get involved with. I don’t see how we could administer rating changes when there are so many variables. The NorCal PHRF board is stocked with an unbelievable amount technical knowledge and they still cannot always make the right decision and there are more than enough people out there ‘unhappy’ about their rating for one reason or another. The PHRF committee already takes into account ‘hull speed’, rig setup, etc. Are we to survey every boat and see the modification that each made to optimize their boat for shorthanded sailing…… WHO would make this very arbitrary decision of what would change a rating and WHY? We lack the size, knowledge and NEED to tackle this non-issue. What you can do is buy a cat rigged boat, get your boat rated with small fractional headsails and optimize it for shorthanded sailing...... OR NOT. The PHRF committee will do their job and rate you accordingly.
Wylieguy
09-03-2008, 10:36 AM
The PHRF adjustment idea also came up while I was SSS Commodore, when I was Race Director at the Sausalito YC, and so on. I thought then, and continue to think it's best to leave assigned PHRF ratings alone. I think we have the best PHRF Committee in the country. If you're interested in PHRF "adjustments" read Paul Kamen's "Max Ebb" article in this month's "Latitude 38." Pat
The best PHRF ratings in the country???!!!
YRA doesn't even use actual performance (the P in PHRF)--it is a measurement rule system that truly only works for keelboats. The only way you can get YRA to listen to an unfair rating is to protest it and THEN you can submit race data to get it adjusted (assuming you get their attention and have the patience of JOB).
BAMA ratings are also problematic (otherwise a boat rated 69 could not have finished the Corinthian race with a rating sailed of ZERO). That rating committee is staffed with one non sailor, two cruisers and one racer with a vested interest in the status quo. They also do not use performance to adjust handicaps.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure the PHRF rating committees do their best--the flaw is not with the committees, the flaw is in PHRF ratings as a rating system. It is not POSSIBLE (I can show mathematical proof with given polars for any two hypothetical boats) for the same rating to be accurate in every wind condition, on every course (windward, leeward, reach). You all know where your boat's "sweet spot" is--it isn't sailing that much better there, it's sailing better compared to its rating...
solosailor
09-08-2008, 12:05 PM
You are very wrong in regards to the NorCal PHRF. The committee DOES use actual performance - I don’t know where you get the idea they don’t. Yes you have to protest a rating and submit actual data for them to analyze - how else would you suggest they do it? Guess? Listen to someone rant on the phone?
"That rating committee is staffed with one non sailor, two cruisers and one racer with a vested interest in the status quo." That may be BAMA but the NorCal PHRF is stocked full of solid, knowledgeable people like: Jim Antrim, Bill Colombo, Dave Few, George Gurrola, Stan Honey, Rob Moore, & Kame Richards. Not exactly hacks.
"It is not POSSIBLE (I can show mathematical proof with given polars for any two hypothetical boats) for the same rating to be accurate in every wind condition, on every course (windward, leeward, reach)."
Of course it's not possible to be accurate in EVERY wind or course condition. It's an average... based on an equal mix of windward/leeward. Yes, PHRF is not perfect and on any given day/course/conditions someone is going to be in their boats 'sweet spot' and rule the day - no surprise there. What IS surprising is how well PHRF actually works as a whole when you look at results over time.
Some PHRF regions used the 3 rating system.... one for windard/leeward, one for mixed and one for off the wind. However that is nowhere near perfect either. Who is going to determine 'which' kind of course was sailed that day?
No one will ever be fully satisfied with the PHRF system. So maybe you should be racing one-design. However the grass is always greener and I hear even more bitching about class legal boats issues and the like on their side as well.
And a note on your previous post:
"Amount of Correction Factor:
Sportboats and Catboats--1%
Multihulls--4%
Skippers of multihulls or sportboats are encouraged to make arguments to the RIO and Race Deck whether or not it is appropriate to make an adjustment to your particular boat as SSS recognizes that this attempt to be fair to all may create an unwarranted burden on specific boat designs."
So an old plywood, cruising trimaran should get the same correction factor as a new F31R? That's a laugh. So is 'skippers making arguments' for their boat...... yeah, that'l work soooo well.
I'm not trying to be a hard ass but how do you expect the SSS to do a better job than the PHRF committee? It would predict it would be the end of the SSS if that road was taken.
The "beauty" of the correction factor system I've outlined is that we don't have to do anything except apply the correction factor WHEN THE RACE RESULTS indicate that there was an advantage. That typically occurs when the SOA of the first finishing sportboat or first finishing multihull exceeds 5 kts--this is based on several years (about 10) of analyzing race data for multihulls versus monohulls. The correction factor isn't much (every 1% TOT correction is about 6 sec/mile depending on your boat's PHRF TOD rating). I doubt that it would have affected the results much--I do know that had this system been in place two years ago I would not have won the SHF; so don't think for a minute I'm trying to make it better for me-I'm trying to make it harder for me.
I've been reminded to mention that these are my personal opinions and observations and not those of the SSS Board.
Related to a Cross heavyweight getting the same correction as a F242...probably inequitable...but I would listen and accept arguments if the Cross had a D/L close to 200 (which is the breakoff we use for sportboat).
Related to the suggestion that folks who don't like PHRF sail one-design...you are correct, one design racers always bitch about someone skirting the edge of the rules (of course, THEY wouldn't do that). Multihull one design is a joke (there are no two boats out there alike).
You are very wrong in regards to the NorCal PHRF. The committee DOES use actual performance - I don’t know where you get the idea they don’t. Yes you have to protest a rating and submit actual data for them to analyze - how else would you suggest they do it? Guess? Listen to someone rant on the phone?
Well, I got the idea from the NCPHRF Rules and Guidelines that YRA posted. The only mention of performance data is a rather noncommittal statement that the Committee will "from time to time" look at performance and make adjustments they deem necessary. Nothing about how they will calculate the rating sailed (or whether they will use TOD or TOT) or which boat in which fleets they will use for comparison (winners, middle of pack, similar boats, keelboats...) to the "suspect" boat nor how frequently they will look at the data nor any statement about when they are compelled to make a change nor any statements about which data they should NOT use such as when there are giant wind holes that fill in from the back of the pack. Instead the document speaks volumes about what rating changes they will apply if you have this or that specific modification. That's why I call the NCPHRF system a measurement rule and not a performance handicap.
I must say in practice, though, that the Committee does listen to skippers who protest and they adjust ratings based on data when they are compelled to do so, but they don't have any "rules" to say how the data is to be treated. So the system "works" for the skippers who are serious and have the time, money and perseverence to keep the Committee busy dealing with them...the skippers who actually treat the sport like an amateur event, those guys stop racing.
I analyzed the races we did this year to date to determine what would be the effect of imposing this correction factor in the top finishers or whether or not it would apply.
3 Bridge-cannot apply. This is a pursuit race.
Single Handed Farralones. The CF would apply (SOA around 5.7 kts). In the top four finishers, one Catrigged boat would be displaced by a sloop.
Corinthian. The CF would apply (SOA around 10 kts of first multihull finisher). In the top four doublehanded finishers, no change; in the top 4 singlehanded finishers, one catrigged boat would be displaced by a sloop.
HMB. The CF would not apply -- SOA around 4.7 kts.
RSB. The CF would not apply -- SOA around 3.7 kts.
Multisailor
11-08-2008, 06:45 PM
The best PHRF ratings in the country???!!!
BAMA ratings are also problematic................That rating committee is staffed with one non sailor, two cruisers and one racer with a vested interest in the status quo. They also do not use performance to adjust handicaps.
This depiction of the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee is grossly unfair! :mad:
BAMA's PHRF Ratings Committee most certainly DOES use performance data when evaluating and administering PHRF handicaps!!!:mad::mad::mad:
Also............
The person Thom describes as a "non-sailor", is Steve Green. Steve most certainly is a sailor. Several years ago, Steve was involved in an unfortunate auto accident in which he severely injured his back. He has been unable to sail since the injury. However, in an effort to stay involved with the sport he loves, Steve has dedicated himself to helping the S.F. Bay Sailing community in many, many other ways. As the senior member of the BAMA Ratings Committee, Steve continuously monitors and evaluates the performance of the boats in the BAMA Racing Fleet, as well as other multihull fleets across the country. Steve works tirelessly to ensure that the BAMA PHRF Ratings are as accurate as possible.
The two "cruisers" on the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee are Randy Devol, and Bob Naber.
Randy has been an active member of BAMA for 15 years, and is very knowledgeable when it comes to the history of the BAMA Racing fleet.
Bob has been an active supporter of Multihulls for almost 10 years, and is the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee's "cruising multihull" representative.
As for the active racer, that Thom claims has "a vested interest in the status quo"? As the only currently active racer on the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee, I must assume that he is referring to me. As the 2008 BAMA Race Coordinator, it is my job to administer the BAMA PHRF Ratings, and issue BAMA PHRF Rating Certificates. Another part of my responsibility is that of Chairman of the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee. When I took on the job in January of 2008, and as the reigning BAMA Cup Champion, I was very sensitive to the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest in the administration of BAMA's PRHF Ratings. It is for this very reason that, from the beginning, I have abstained from ALL VOTING on all BAMA Rating issues addressed by the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee.
And..........FYI
Earlier this year the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee lost the services of Jim Antrim. Jim has been a VERY VALUED member of the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee for many years. Unfortunately, over those years, Jim became weary of the incessant complaints, and insults from a single BAMA member, regarding BAMA's PHRF Ratings. This one BAMA member's unfortunate and disrespectful behavior was one of the main reasons Jim gave for his decision to take a leave from the BAMA PHRF Ratings Committee!!!!!
Regards,
2008 BAMA Race Coordinator
Now, how about the actual suggestion?
Adjusting race results based on actual race conditions for the boats that are more likely to benefit from the conditions--sportboats, catboats and multihulls.
Can you deny that multihulls tend to sometimes race much faster than their ratings in SSS Races? What other class has a boat that raced more than 60 sec/mile faster than its rating?
Can you deny that catrigged boats tend to accumulate at the top of the leader board in higher wind reachy conditions?
Is it not a fact that sportboats are designed to exceed their hull speeds? Do they (particularly smaller LWL ones) not tend to race faster than their ratings on races where the "run" takes few gybes and the wind is big?
And don't blame Jim's leaving on me...he left for his own reasons (which he told me). I'm sure that he would be affronted with your implication that he left because I denigrated the job that BAMAs rating committee was performing-and will continue to denigrate so long as the rating committee ignores race data and only rates on measurements.
Like others in SSS have done, I started down this "shorthander's rating adjustment" trail awhile back. Max had done some noodling about it (to use his words) and had some good ideas, and IRC's interest in the issue, evidenced by their roll-out of a second IRC certificate specifically for shorthanders, caught my attention. So I appreciate Thom's effort to give it some thought and come up with an idea.
The apparent acrimony within BAMA is unfortunate. I hope these guys are able to get their issues sorted out via PM and e-mail.
Some specific comments on statements within this thread:
However, it is recognized that:
1) Some boats are designed for ease of short handed sailing. General examples include: boats with cat rigs (only one sail), boats with small fractional headsails of small size, and multihulls.
I was not aware that multihulls were designed for ease of short handed sailing. I'll suggest that some of the sprit boats with assymetric spinnakers (like my boat, the J/105's, etc.) have been marketed this way. (If you've watched me sail you may question the truth of the marketing, but I digress.)
2) The PHRF ratings include an assumption that the courses will include equal distance legs of windward and leeward. Most SSS race courses are not designed with those parameters.
Paragraph I of the PHRF Rules & Guidelines states that the rating values assume a mixture of Around the Buoy and Windward Leeward racing. I cannot find where it says "equal distance legs of windward and leeward."
Skippers of multihulls or sportboats are encouraged to make arguments to the RIO and Race Deck whether or not it is appropriate to make an adjustment to your particular boat as SSS recognizes that this attempt to be fair to all may create an unwarranted burden on specific boat designs.
Do you really want to encourage skippers to make arguments to the RIO and Race Deck about rating adjustments? (A rhetorical question, having "NO" as the answer.)
I believe the proof of the pudding is in Thom's analysis of the SSS season results, had his adjustment been in place. Out of our entire season, only two individual results would have changed. In studying these results I think I see which boats would have been affected, and neither boat regularly appears high in our race standings. So while I still think the concept has some merit, this particular method may not be the right one.
I'll echo what others have said in support of our local PHRF committee - I have been impressed with their accessability, their willingness to consider new ideas (like their inclusion of suggestions for non-spinnaker racing), and their fairness/impartiality. In light of the wrangling I've heard about committees in other regions, I think we're fortunate to have our committee.
My only concern has been whether we could fairly mix multihull ratings from BAMA with (monohull) PHRF ratings. If BAMA's ratings are derived using different criterea than NorCal PHRF uses, are we "mixing apples and oranges"? For this reason I suggested that mutihulls race in their own division and not be eligible for SSS's overall race and season trophies. There was not a consensus within the board on this suggestion and now that we have a new board, they can do with it what they choose. Unless we start to see multihulls winning a disproportionate number of overall trophies (and we aren't), I don't think we have a problem.
Finally I'll comment that I think it is cool that multis have a regular place to race (with SSS) where they can compete in larger fleets and enjoy the fun and frivolity of it all. I hope they continue to come out for the races.
AlanH
11-11-2008, 07:15 PM
Personally....this is just me, I only take the ratings thing very seriously within my own division. How to accurately rate a performance trimaran against a Cal 20? I mean, come on. :p
Anyway, here's a zinger. I'm THINKING about volunteering to be the 2009 LongPac chair. I'm not sure if I can do it, yet, but I'm trying to figure it out. But I can tell you this.... If I'm responsible for rating the participants as well as starting, finishing and monitoring them, and running a LongPac seminar and "meet the boats" Saturday, then forget it. No way will I have ANYthing to do with rating boats.
One last thing.... this is the SSS forum board. It's kind of not the place to air out disagreements about BAMA, eh? Then again, the forum has been really slow recently and we haven't had a good squabble since the TransPac, so maybe it's worth the entertainment value.:D
slainte
New board decided that status quo is "good enough".
I'm OK with that. My only purpose to this thread was to present a reasonable method to make things "more fair".
As we get more and more boats like Melges 24, Ultimate 24, and other short sportboats with D/L in the 70s, we're going to be getting more and more boats whose PHRF ratings change significantly depending on conditions...so keep an eye on it (and remember that you heard it here first):D:D.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.