Eastern CT Sailing Assoc PHRF

 

Home Forums Hardware & Setup Technical Eastern CT Sailing Assoc PHRF

This topic contains 10 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Zeke Wolfskehl 2 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2032

    Zeke Wolfskehl
    Participant

    The Eastern CT Sailing Association PHRF Committee is considering rating adjustments for hull stiffeners such as the beam between chain plates and ties between the chain plates and mast stem and deck and mast step. I have all three systems and the proposed penalty is 6 seconds per mile. Hull #144 built 1981, all tabbing had failed

    Does anyone have any input on the relative performance of original build O-30’s vs stiffened.

    #3762

    Jim Saylor
    Participant

    Zeke,
    The relative performance gains are minor. When our boats were built dacron was the norm and the associated loads were less shocking as they are with modern sail materials. The stiffeners were a simple way to prevent damage due to more modern materials and consequently tighter rig tuning. In my opinion 6 seconds is ridicules. Beams and jock straps are allowed under our one design rules w/o penalty why should they be under PHRF.

    #3763
    SWG
    SWG
    Keymaster

    Agree – a good strategy for the PHRF committee would be to emphasize how the Class Association allows the Beam and cables. These additions to your boat should not garner a penalty.

    #3764

    Bill Vosteen
    Participant

    I would use the argument of improving the integrity of the boat and extending its life, not noticeable improvements on the race course.

    #3765
    Bruce Hubble
    Bruce Hubble
    Participant

    I’m a Lake Michigan PHRF area handicapper and on the technical committee.

    The correct way to address this is:

    1. It does not enhance the performance/speed of the boat, just structure.
    2. It is allowed by the class and provide those rules.
    3. Even if it did help performance, it would not be 3 seconds per mile.

    #3 is the real issue. PHRF is adjusted in increments of 3. If it doesn’t meet 3, usually no change is made.

    #3766

    Zeke Wolfskehl
    Participant

    Thanks for the input. I am trying to help the committee come to a logical decision.

    Is there any data that would indicate that stiffened O-30’s have done better than “as built” in the national and or regional one design regattas?

    I have attached an engineers analysis that our PHRF committee is using. I would appreciate any comments that I can pass on.

    #3767
    Bruce Hubble
    Bruce Hubble
    Participant

    Remember that PHRF is a comparison of equal or near equal boats. It is not a ‘penalty box’ for alterations as some believe. If the alteration does not make the boat faster, it does not affect handicap.

    With that said, the PHRF committee is correct in requiring alterations to ‘stock’ be subject to analysis. This is to keep fairness to competitors.

    Just keep that in mind as you steer conversation in the PHRF review.

    #3768

    Bill Vosteen
    Participant

    I’m guessing you have a good race record and they’re trying to single you out. I have a friend on Lake Ontario with a Soverel 33, the LO phrf committee kept hitting them as a fleet, mainly because they were well sailed boats compared to the rest of their fleet. It truly wasn’t fair. Hopefully they’re not out to get you, though it does sound like this might be the case. If you look, the Soverel 33 is normally 90+, in Lake Ontario they sail with an 81 handicap. This can happen when good sailors gravitate towards a boat.
    Good luck.

    #3769
    Bruce Hubble
    Bruce Hubble
    Participant

    On Lake Michigan the Soverel is 90+.

    Sounds like someone is abusing the handicap appeal process. HOWEVER..don’t compare one area to another. Look at relativity to similar boats if you are comparing areas.

    Ratings of a competitor can be made, however there is usually a lot of scrutiny on the protesting boat first to not award them for poor performance. If race results in a fleet are being used and rewarding others, that rating should be left alone if the competitors are not sailing up to par.

    LO does seem to have lower ratings in general, so the number is not as important as the differences in seconds between boats.

    #3771

    Jason Adamson
    Participant

    If you need results I can attest that a boat stiffened with class approved measures is equal to one without. I actively race against another Olson, I have no stiffeners, no BOD, or jockstraps and I am a single spreader. My competition has all the class approved stiffeners and a double spreader rig. Right now we are exactly tied for position in our clubs series races.
    Stiffening and re-enforcement of the boats helps to reduce loads on an old structure, they do not increase performance. Drivers skill, picking the right side of the course and sail conditions/hull conditions have a much greater effect on speed.
    +6 sec a mile is ridiculous, you might as well have gone from an aluminum rig to carbon for that penalty.
    As a side note our local PHRF board, PHRF SoCal, has recently adopted a +1/-1 sec/mile adjustment scheme to more fairly rate any performance modifications.

    #3772

    Zeke Wolfskehl
    Participant

    Thanks Jason, exactly the type of info I’m looking for. More comparisons like yours will help convince the committee that there are no competitive advantages between a stock boat and a boat with BOD and jockstraps.

    Is there anyone that has knowledge of O-30 regatta results and the hull condition: original build or BOD/Jockstrap?

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.