Reposted below from Sailing Anarchy, this is one glaring example of why to stick with our 30 year proven, in all conditions, on all course, peer reviewed NC PHRF rating of e27 @ 129.

Unnecessary complexity is a trap!

Per my last report a point I missed; that $40 to challenge your current rating which I proposed for heavy boats desiring such an adjustement.

Pursuant to PHRF committtee, no one, for years has paid $40 fee to challenge their rating regardless of displacement. Which seems to suggest everyone is happy with their all around 'buoy' NC PHRF rating.

As I suggested in prior mail, heavy boats who want some slow time down wind should pay their $40 for that adjustment.

mb

Unhappy Together

Here are the emails.

The Opinion

Mary White,

I was extremely disappointed with Ron Jewula during this regatta. I came over to the 2005 Cow Bay Regatta with my PHRF-NW certificate from 2002 (75 AS SAILED) with the same boat, same sails and no modifications to the boat or equipment. I also had my PHRF-BC certificates from 2000-2005 (60), and my 2003 PHRF-SC (Southern California, managed out of LA where we have 4 M243 racing PHRF) with a windward-leeward rating of 60, an offset rating of 45 (I suggested this rating for Cow Bay) and a down wind rating of 15. Ben Mumford (my driver) paid Ron Jewula for a 2005 PHRF-NW rating certificate Friday July 29th, and Ron immediately told Ben our rating would be "negative 15". When Ben asked why, Ron said he was going to give us

-40, but could live with -12. When I tried to talk to Ron Jewula

Saturday, July 29th during registration the morning of the race, he was rude and curt saying "it is not open for discussion, talk to me tonight". I offered my PHRF-SC certificate with an offset rating of 45, and he brushed me off. My final rating was +15, and I do not think this was a "performance" handicap after reviewing the 2003 Cow Bay results on the M243 "Dalliance". You can check your records, but I am told this is the largest rating adjustment ever for PHRF in North America for a boat without modifications, and makes "Rattle & Hum" the fastest 24' boat in the world, according to PHRF-NW.

So here it is; If PHRF-NW is not willing to apply the accepted rating formula to my boat, or accept the "adjusted performance" ratings from the other North American PHRF districts (such as Northern California, Southern California, Florida, New York, Atlantic Canada, Ontario or BC), then I do not think PHRF-NW should ask me to pay for this rating. I could have just as easily accepted Ron's temporary rating without fear of an official rating that may devalue my boat, or others like it. I would like to be refunded this money please. As an alternative, I would be happy to forward my M243 rating certificate from PHRF-SC with the 3 ratings (windward/leeward, offset, & downwind) in the hope of PHRF-NW adopting the same numbers. Of course I would be willing to overlook my corrected results for the 2005 Cow Bay. This would be fair, in my opinion, and we could adjust the rating further based future results.

In closing, I appreciate the difficulty in rating a boat like to M243, particularly with off set marks with a lot of reaching. I think areas like Southern California and Key West, Florida have had more experience than the Pacific North West in dealing with this problem. We have had trouble winning with a 60 PHRF-BC rating in Vancouver. In Widbey Island 2002, 4 M243's had an average of 7th place (1st, 5th, 6th and 12th?) with a 75 PHRF-NW. I went to Cow Bay with my wife and 1 year old child to visit my Uncle, who is dying of cancer. I did not race due to a recent sports injury. My crew had fun ripping around the bay and spending their money in town, despite our +15 rating and last place finish. I keep "Rattle & Hum" in San Diego over the winter, and race in fleets of 200 boats including 90' maxi's, 60 multi-hulls, old sloops, high performance one-designs, Fying Dutchmans and 49rs; all with valid PHRF ratings. The San Diego race committees do not mind and the competitors do not complain; the more the merrier seems to be their theme.

The Response:

Yes, other than a few details it basically is correct, however, there is one very important background fact being ignored in the material from Randy.

When the regatta Committee were initially contacted by the M243 (Randy I believe) some 3 to 4 weeks before the regatta, the CowBay regatta Committee indicated that the M243 would not be accepted as an entry as a monohull. Participation within the Multihull fleet was discussed, however as I understand it, since it a major gathering of Multihulls (17 turned out), the Multihull fleet did not want the M243 with them. The CowBay regatta then did reluctantly agree to accept the M243 as a monohull entry, but only if the rating was adjusted significantly downward to reflect the CowBay conditions. Although a number was not agreed to, it was agreed to in principle. It was indicated to me that "...we'll sail with whatever number you give us, we just want to race there..."

At the Friday night registration I find out about this agreement and am asked to determine a fair number. Obviously not the best thing to do, however I did so. I did express concern that I was not happy with doing this on the fly and not being able to verify various statements about previous performances that were provided to me.

I asked a variety of people including other handicappers for input, amongst other points, some key points I heard were:

1. That Whidbey Island had not allowed them to sail as monohulls, they raced with the Multihull fleet.

2. In previous CowBay regattas the boats had finished ahead of the SantaCruz 50/52's

3. Initially this lead to the -15 conclusion, however I asked Chris Rennie the regatta chairman if he had access to any of the previous regatta results

- I didn't want to rely on anecdotal material. Overnight he did find one

sheet of results (their record keeping isn't the best) - the results indicated the two M243's correcting to 1, 2 in every race. The participants in that particular year did not include any SantaCruz 50/52's. This lead to move the answer up to +15.

8/4/05

:: Hi Everyone:
::
:: I've sailed Ditch with 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . and have come to
:: the conslusion that 3 is optimum for team Desperado.
:: Actually very similar to racing with 4 because we take
:: camping gear on the boat. Plus our 5 hp delivery motor.
::
:: Now, I could transport all this equipment by land; and
:: may this year. Or may not as that extra effort is, well,
:: extra effort.
::
:: Now I don't care personally how many people crew on a
:: boat for Ditch. . . preserving my ability to race with 2
:: and optimize by carting the extra gear up by land in the
:: future.
::
:: What I do want to suggest where e27s race at the minimum
:: limits is that the 1st and 2nd place boats be subject to
:: an after race inspection at the SSC dock. Assuring all
:: required equipment; motor, ice box, etc.
::
:: The reason is when bosts get accustom to racing near a
:: minimum limit . . . they test them. And that's just
:: grand prix racing.
::
:: mb
::
:: :: Thread circulated among e27, O30, M24 reported audit of
:: :: PHRF committee members, Sailing Anarchy NC PHRF threads,
:: :: other sources by this analyst.
:: ::
:: :: Down wind PHRF committee rating discussion based on
:: :: fringe boats in Pac Cup, Ditch and Coastal only.
:: ::
:: :: These are the bad guy Hobbie 33, Henderson 33, Melgas 24
:: :: and Wabbitt on light side. West Sail 32 and Crealock 40
:: :: on heavy side.
:: ::
:: :: One PHRF committee member notes 8 years of data capable
:: :: of anlaysis; but that has not happened. Where down wind
:: :: penalty is now imposed on everyone to support a minority
:: :: of the fleet. I'll address this in summary.
:: ::
:: :: Committee did mention it is up to each YC RC to
:: :: implement or not. I vote not to implement in Northern
:: :: California.
:: ::
:: :: Decision to impose dw ratings across the entire fleet is
:: :: on fringe boats only. Boats for which I do not have
:: :: rating concerns having beaten Hobbie 33 Sleeping Dragon
:: :: boat for boat on Spin Cup .
:: ::
:: :: Then there are those peskie Wabbits on Ditch Run; win
:: :: some lose some.
:: ::
:: :: And the Melgas 24 . . . leave it to Don Jesberg he's
:: :: good.
:: ::
:: :: Committee genuinely desires to innovate and offer equity
:: :: for down wind.
::
:: :: Noted Pac Cup has long time adopted downwind rating (in
:: :: trades).
:: ::
:: :: Noted LA where they have buoy, point to point and random
:: :: course ratings. How confusing. I'm for simple.
:: ::
:: :: Is the next complexity imposing a wind speed allowance?
:: :: Fortunately all committee members thought that was a bad
:: :: idea.
:: ::
:: :: Personally, I'm happy with my current e27 all around
:: :: rating of 129 and believe the majority of all other
:: :: boats happy with their all around proven 'peer reviewed'
:: :: NC PHRF ratings.
:: ::
:: :: I disagree with emulating what is thought to be leading
:: :: edge for Pac Cup and LA PHRF . . . except for Pac Cup
:: :: and LA PHRF which is not racing around here.
:: ::
:: :: Further, I oppose dw penalty for all inland bay that can
:: :: be anything from downwind and rarely planinng down wind.
:: ::
:: :: Like Jazz in fall.
:: ::
:: :: And oppose on Ditch which is all around points of sail
:: :: despite a fetch . . . mostly in light wind . . . except
:: :: sometimes from Susun Bay to New York Cut. And between
:: :: Antioch and Santra Clara Slough.
:: ::
:: :: Overall Ditch is a displacement course.
:: ::
:: :: Committee definitely disliked the idea of dw being
:: :: applied to Vallejo
:: ::
:: :: For local ocean; Spin and Wind Jammers can be slow
:: :: going, including at end of course. Windjammers in fall
:: :: can be upwind.
:: ::
:: :: Coastal can also be slow going in the end.
:: ::
:: :: Plus there are heavy and light boat divisons and that
:: :: works fine by me.
:: ::
:: :: I suggest some of the goodwill value of our light old
:: :: fiberglass boats is based on 30 years of Northern
:: :: California 'peer reviewed' rating evolution. And want to
:: :: keep it that way. Regardless of the anolog or fuzzy
:: :: logic inherent in our current 'buoy' all around ratings.
:: :: They are peer reviewed from all conditions.
:: ::
:: :: Also suggesting this down wind penalty detracts from
:: :: some of our light old fiberglass boats goodwill value.
:: :: Detracting from what makes e27 a class where there is
:: :: always a surplus of potential new owners. e27 is great
:: :: buy regardless. But why lose the PHRF 129 incentive.
:: :: Especially when you own one.
:: ::
:: :: Believe the same for O30, SC 27, M24.
:: ::
:: :: Yes, yes, yes we race in class and O30, SC 27 dw deltas
:: :: are same. And M24 similar depsite our giviing them a few
:: :: seconds Moore now under dw penalty.
:: ::
:: :: And what's that all about where Moore 24 sail to weight
:: :: is more powerful then e27? I heard this annomaly under
:: :: review similar to e37.
:: ::
:: :: Understand e37 downwind rating annomally of slower now
:: :: addressed on honorable concerns; now differing from the
:: :: exact dw rating formula itself.
:: ::
:: :: So don't be fooled. Boats currently racing in class
:: :: formats are being manipulated into submission within
:: :: their box. Feel the pain and don't be fooled by the
:: :: immediate lack of it.
:: ::
:: :: Noteworthy the light old fiberglass boats this dw
:: :: penalty hurts most are boats that no longer have a class
:: :: assoication. I recommend joining into a coalition to
:: :: keep our all around condition NC PHRF ratings as is.
:: ::
:: :: So here's the core issue.
:: ::
:: :: Some heavy boats want to win overall. Because that's
:: :: what you do with certain IRC boats in these target
:: :: races; Spin, Vallejo, Ditch, Coastal, Jazz, Wind Jam,
:: :: Jazz, Spin.
:: ::
:: :: The key issue is with dw adjustments on heavy boats is
:: :: that their dw rating is now masked within everyone
:: :: else's down wind penalty change.
:: ::
:: :: By imposing this new down wind rating on everyone, PHRF
:: :: Committee has effectively masked a forumalc change
:: :: across majority to support miniorty based on a handful
:: :: of fringe boats.
:: ::
:: :: Now I do symapathize with all heavy boats. And I'm not
:: :: opposed to displacement boats getting some sort of
:: :: slower downwind rating allowance.
:: ::
:: :: In turn, committee has option to modify some light boat
:: :: ratings and hear challenges.
:: ::
:: :: My reasoning for keeping what we have is this is the way
:: :: NC PHRF has always been; peer reviewed rating
:: :: adjustments by individual boat; for transparency.
:: ::
:: :: On a boat by boat basis everyone knows if the adustment
:: :: works and can easily challenge it. But not when a
:: :: minority change is now masked over by a majority; over
:: :: favorable dw ratings are now tougher to see.
:: ::
:: :: I vote to oppose dw rating penalty given all around 129
:: :: rating; race proven, 30 years, peer reviewed, all kinds
:: :: of boats, all kinds of courses, all kinds of conditions
:: :: no formula can emulate.
:: ::
:: :: I vote for heavy boats concerned with their downwind
:: :: ratings to pay the $40 and challenge them.
:: ::
:: :: Keep e27 at 129.
:: ::
:: :: mb
:: ::
:: ::
:: :: :: I Won't go with more than 3. I think the new downwind
:: :: :: ratings are a good idea but are in need of development
:: :: :: before implementation
:: ::
:: :: :: Will
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :: From a recent email, regarding Delta Ditch and the new
:: :: :: :: down wind race ratings, SSC and RYC has discussed, but
:: :: :: :: no decision has been reached to date.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: I agree with the message below, that we focus on
:: :: :: :: building our class.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: We are planning on racing with 3 or 4 for the Ditch this
:: :: :: :: year.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Regards,
:: :: ::
:: :: :: :: Peggy.
:: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: I like doing the Ditch with 3 or 4 in the boat. Relief
:: :: :: :: :: helm and trim to rotate out of the sun. Any word if the
:: :: :: :: :: Ditch Run will use the downwind ratings? Steve Katzman
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: I would like to float the idea of setting a minimum
:: :: :: :: :: :: headcount for the Ditch Run. I think this is great,
:: :: :: :: :: :: unique race that should be shared with as many people as
:: :: :: :: :: :: possible and seeing the boats with 2 people on board
:: :: :: :: :: :: while fun and challenging, is unfortunate for all of
:: :: :: :: :: :: those left behind.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: I am not sure how the Express will stack up to an
:: :: :: :: :: :: overall win using the new downwind PHRF rating so we
:: :: :: :: :: :: should probably focus on building our class profile
:: :: :: :: :: :: instead of fighting the Moore and Melges for an overall
:: :: :: :: :: :: spot.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: I think this would help build the class reputation as a
:: :: :: :: :: :: fun and inclusive group of sailors.
:: :: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: Nick Gibbens - Shenanigans #67
:: :: :: :: ::
:: :: :: :: :: :: SFYC