The longstanding stranglehold PHRF (Performance Handicap Racing Fleet) holds over PNW handicapping may be waning as ORC (the acronym goes back to Offshore Rating Congress) rises. I’ve thought this, and been wrong, before. This time there appears to be a groundswell of support from owners of smaller boats.
There are a couple of elements at work, the difficulties and frustration with PHRF and the growing international acceptance of ORC as the common measurement rule and handicapping system.
Earlier this year, three custom boats hulls were scanned – a prerequisite for custom boats or those not in the ORC database. It’s part of a big new push to give ORC handicapping a foothold in the smaller boat classes. For years the “big boats” have been racing under ORC while the smaller and slower boats have held fast with PHRF. More boats will be measured in April.
It may help that the Head Measurer for US Sailing is none other than the rigger Chris Tutmark, who has rigged (and measured) many PNW racing boats over the last few decades.
I asked Alex Simanis of Ballard Sails, Nigel Barron of CSR Marine and Chris Tutmark (all instrumental in promoting ORC) to share some thoughts.
Alex Simanis
I think many current PHRF members are seeking a new rating alternative. While I am not an expert in the ORC world, I am becoming more and more educated in the process of obtaining a cert, and the processes for different boats to get them.
My 26-footer Pell Mell has been fully inclined, measured, weighed, and now has been scanned in anticipation of applying for an ORCi (fully measured cert). Most big races on the west coast require a fully measured ORR or ORC cert, and with our level of participation in events outside of Puget sound coming up in the next few years it is a no- brainer.
The fact of the matter is that PHRF is a blunt instrument, and the ratings in the PNW have become very skewed compared to other parts of the country. The current leadership does not seem very interested in looking at actual deltas between boats, or even observed performance.
There are also a number of loopholes in the PHRF NW rule book that they seem reluctant to close.
An ORC rating is actually based in science. The ORC organization spends a lot of money annually getting their VPP programs updated, and they continually revise rules and guidelines for ratings.
One thing that I have felt for years is that there is no way to rate boats on a single number system. Some boats perform very linearly, some do not. I do believe that when boats have been fully measured, and race committees do a good job of administering the system, it should be a more fair system for a wide range of boats, across a wide range of conditions.
It seems like each rating band has an owner or a few owners rara-ing the ORC movement.
The big boats have been racing under ORC club for a few years now. Now, the +/- 18 raters are getting massive interest.
We had Moonshine, Pell Mell, and Scheme (Pyramid 30) hull scanned These super custom boats needed the hull files for ORC to work with.
In the United States, US Sailing is the authority in making ORC Certs, and in charge of administering the rule. After a great chat with Chris Tutmark last week, who is now the US sailing head measurer, he informed me that applying through US sailing is super simple and a one stop shop for ORC/ ORR ratings. You will have to apply, and input data that you have. US Sailing may require more data, depending on the level of rating required.
It is my understanding that most well known production boats already have hull files. So that part will be easy. The weight, inclines and other measurements need to be done by an approved measurer. Chris Tutmark is working with a few local people to get them up to speed on measuring. There will be a big round of measuring/training coming up in April.
For each boat there are multiple ratings, for buoy racing, random leg, and off wind. These are driven by average wind strength chosen by the race committee. There are different ways of coming to this.
As for worldwide acceptance, it seems like ORC is especially taking hold in Europe.
On the east coast, there are a growing number of certificates, and many more events are using this rule, right down to evening beer can races. On the West Coast, St. Francis YC has agreed to adopt the rule for their major events including the Rolex Big Boat series. Van Isle 360 requires ORC. Overall, it seems like this is here to stay.
PHRF will likely always be around. it is good for local beer cans, etc. The reality is that PHRF does not have tools that measurement based rules do.
Nigel Barron
The issue I see with PHRF is that it was a rule designed long before boats could get up on a plane. As Alex says, it’s a single number system so can’t account for how those boats react in different conditions. ORC is gaining momentum. Really the last major races on the West Coast that use anything other than ORC are Transpac, Pacific Cup and Cabo San Lucas. All are California races, hanging on with their last death grip to their rule (ORR – Offshore Racing Rule). Royal Victoria’s Vic-Maui Race uses ORC.
Additionally, PHRF has a habit of adjusting ratings and considering that rating change in vacuum without consideration of what it does to the boats around or in the same relative range.
One of the biggest things holding back ORC implementation in Seattle is the aversion of certain yacht clubs to do anything to help it or to score it correctly. For many years, Corinthian Yacht Club used the GPH number on the certificate in spite of the fact that it clearly states, do not use this number – it’s only for class breaks. CYC still, even now with the Center Sound Series insists on using only the ToT All-Purpose Medium number. SYC will use the triple number system and uses the appropriate wind range. CYC, by doing this, negates all the advantages of having a multi-number rating system.
Getting a certificate is relatively simple. It gets a little more complicated for a one-off design or boat that has had a lot of modifications. Truly the best part for me is the idea that you can’t have an argument with an inanimate object. You put data in, and a rating comes out. That’s it. No politics, no consideration as to how it fits in a fleet, just a number.
Chris Tutmark
I had been working as a local measurer since 2017 for the measurement rules, both ORC and ORR. In the PNW ORR is not used but races in CA do use ORR. The prior Head Measurer reached out to me when he decided to retire a little over a year ago. I interviewed for the position in Mid-April and my first day was May 1. I split time working in the office and remotely until I could relocate to RI in August.
There are three of us in the Offshore office; Jim Teeters who is head of the office, Sydney Hough and me. We support all handicap systems in use by US boats; ORC, ORR, IRC and PHRF. In regard to numbers, in 2022, we issued close to 1000 ORC certificates, just over 300 ORR certificate and a smaller number of IRC certificates for US boats racing in Europe, the Caribbean and Australia. As 2022 was a Newport-Bermuda year we expect a slight downturn in ORR certificates for 2023 with ORC continuing to expand in North America. Some areas have or are expanding ORC for weeknight and more casual racing. Annapolis added ORC for weeknight racing in 2022, Detroit is planning to do this in 2023 and clubs in San Diego are also looking into this.
A part of my job is to give the local measurers the tools/skills to get boats measured in their areas. In the PNW, my departure created a gap in the coverage so my trip there in April will be to work with some people who have expressed interest in becoming measurers as well as getting boats measured which need to be measured. Most of these are custom or semi-custom boats where sistership data is not available or the boat is different from sisterships. For production boats the process is very quick to get a rating, should a boat want to be directly measured, this can be arranged, and that data will be applied for that boat’s rating.
For those boats who need an ORC certificate, the first step is on the US Sailing ORC page https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/orc/ On the page is large red button to “Start your 2023 ORC Application” https://www.ussailing.org/competition/offshore/orc/#application which takes the sailor to a list of items to have handy for the application. If someone has questions or runs into difficulties with the application, they can always reach out to us in the office offshore@USsailing.org or me directly christutmark@ussailing.org. This offer also applies to YCs/OAs which may have questions on scoring or how to use the variety of ratings that are produced on an ORC certificate. As part of my trip to the PNW we are also looking at doing a presentation- Q&A session in Seattle, details are still being finalized. (Ed. Note: We’ll share those details when they’re available)
With a full staff in the offshore office and our new application form, we are looking forward to 2023 and helping sailors get their certificates.
My Thoughts
The problem with PHRF coincides with its strength, flexibility. PHRF evolved as an inexpensive handicapping system that could rate disparate boats for the predominant conditions in a given area. With enough data, interpreted by experienced handicappers, this would be perfect. And it served its purpose, to a degree, for decades.
Problems with PHRF are well known, but in my opinion, they come down to one simple element – the human factor. Handicappers are human, and humans (whether they know it or not) are susceptible to preconceptions, prejudices and mis-information.
Competitive sailors are also human. When they fail to compete effectively, they seek a reason. In one-design, it all basically comes down to the sailors themselves, how they prepared themselves and the boat and how they sailed. In handicapped racing, it’s much the same – the sailors are responsible for boat preparation and decisions on the race course.
But then there’s the additional element of handicapping. The key here is perception of fairness. Usually a “wrong” handicap doesn’t affect results too much – an unfair rating might mean a place or two. However, the competitive sailor goes directly to the reason why they didn’t win. If the non-winners feel they’ve been unfairly penalized, or that the competition has been given a “gift” rating, it’s hard for them to feel good about the racing. If a winner senses their competitors feel he/she has a gift rating, winning doesn’t feel so good. These feelings abound after racing, especially close racing, and if there’s even a hint of human error in the rating (which in PHRF is all the time) the discussion focuses on that.
Then there’s the chance to protest one’s own or one’s competitor’s rating by presenting to a roomful of handicappers. This “opportunity” has caused untold stress for anyone involved and left countless friendly competitor relationships in tatters.
For some, this whole fairness thing doesn’t matter much to their enjoyment. They’re happy to be on the water in the company of other boats, and if there’s a victory involved it’s a bonus. But for the more competitive sailor, the sense of fairness means a lot.
Measurement rules are not panaceas. Problems always arise and ratings often seem unfair. But at least the system gets blamed and not Joe Handicapper or that skipper who wrote a 200-page legal brief to get their rating changed. A measurement system makes it much easier to toast one’s competitors back at the club.
Kurt grew up racing and cruising in the Midwest, and has raced Lasers since the late 1970s. Currently he is a broker at Swiftsure Yachts. He has been Assistant Editor at Sailing Magazine and a short stint as Editor of Northwest Yachting. Through Meadow Point Publishing he handles various marketing duties for smaller local companies. He currently is partners on a C&C 36 which he cruises throughout the Northwest. He’s married to the amazing Abby and is father to Ian and Gabe.
Hopefully ORC will have laser measuring devices going forward when measuring freeboards etc. It is a complete joke, given todays technology available, that boats being measured to the mm using a measuring tape leaning over the dock.
Hi Holm, that’s probably a good thing to chat about with Chris. I know he’d welcome it.
I think it interesting, and a little sad, that the article (which points out some very valid aspects of PHRF that could be improved) is rather one sided. While it contains comments from proponents of ORC there is, sadly, no effort to include comments by PHRF-NW to address recent efforts to improve its objectivity and accuracy in handicapping sailboats in the Northwest. In summary, a good article that raises several valid points, but sadly it doesn’t really rise to the level of objective journalism and could have done a better job in promoting positive change in a widely used, albeit imperfect, handicapping system in the Pacific Northwest.
David – Eric Nelson is writing a piece and I’ll be happy to publish. This piece wasn’t intended as “objective” journalism, and it is one-sided. I’ve put a lot of work into understanding the handicapping systems and conveying information. I believe that the PNW needs a healthy alternative to PHRF for the more serious racers, and I’m trying to help that process. I’ve stated clearly why I think that. As racers, we should all be looking to improve the sport. Elsewhere in the world, ORC is becoming more and more the standard.
That all said, I’m happy to print information on how PHRF is looking to improve.
ORC is always looking at new methods and technologies to improve the system. These are discussed during the year end international meetings. Determining displacement from freeboard measurements is a proven and validated method that is highly accurate. Something like a travelift is not adequately accurate nor does it account for how a boat is trimm1ed which is a substantial influence on boat performance. Should a boat need to be weighed this must be done with a single point lift and a certified and calibrated load cell.
One note about CYC RC- that criticism is inaccurate. They are using the wind band course numbers this season. The the fleet captain calls the wind strength to the RC prior to the race after consulting the fleet. The call has been medium, considering at the start of the last race it was 12 kts.
Our mistake – that was from years past. Glad it has changed for this year’s events. Thanks for letting us know.
There is always One-Design. Racing dis-similar boats using any rule will always favor someone. Handicapping is just difficult regardless of the method. Everyone who races should volunteer on RC, it isn’t easy.
Hi Chuck, Of course you’re right. It’s a different game with a handicap system, but one that some people really like to play. And there are so many casual sailors who would use their boats more with a more active racing scene. I’d be happy racing my own Piglet 30 if everyone else had one, but then again if someone wanted to invite me aboard their Mark Mills 40-foot IRC gold plater to race at Cowes, I’d be all over it.
A little something I don’t understand about ORC. If nothing significant changes on a boat from year to year, wouldn’t you expect the rating to remain essentially the same from year to year? Take the case of the J160 “Jam.” The GPH values in 2017, 2021 and 2023 were/are 540.3, 533.3 and 522.1, respectively. But the sail areas, displacement, draft, etc. are all identical. So what has changed to make the boat 18spm faster? Age?? A quick look at the VPPs in 2021 and 2023 show some significant changes, too. The boat sails upwind higher and faster in 2023 than in 2021. Can someone tell me how that works?
I’ll chime in – I don’t know the answer to your observation, Dave, but there probably is one. I’ll ask someone with that specific knowledge to chime in. I know that VPPs are not static, as I’m pretty sure that technology continues to be refined.
For David Lynch et. al. I contacted the US Sailing Offshore Office about the Jam rating question, and following is their response. There’s a lot of valuable information here and, as expected, there are solid bases for the change that have nothing to do with perceived performance or opinion. KH
From US Sailing:
In general, a boats rating under ORC has been getting a bit faster every year, typically this is in the 1% range. That said the deltas between boats, especially those of similar type, stay pretty constant. An example would be comparing numbers between a J160 and a J130.
Here are the changes for 2023 https://orc.org/AGM/2022/AGM%202022%20-%20Changes%20to%20the%20Rules.pdf
In the case of Jam there were some small but meaningful changes/corrections to their data over the years. In 2017 the boat was rated with an aluminum mast not the carbon one it has. In 2017 it was rated with a 2 bladed feathering propellor and now is rated with a 3 bladed folding propellor. Previously it was rated as having a furler as well. Under ORC the furler credit ONLY applies if a boat carries only one headsail AND that headsail is furled. The credit accounts for the compromised sail shape of using a partially furled headsail in windier conditions. If a boat has their mast weighed and the CG noted this will account for the weight of the furler along with the mast and standing rigging. Without those measurements, the rule must assume the boat is equipped with something both lighter and lower CG.
For 2023 there were also some changes in the calculation of LSM0 for the area around the rudder of a boat. This resulted in some small displacement changes (which is calculated ) as well as changes in Displacement-Length Ratio.
There was also a change in crew weight from 907kg to 850kg for 2023. On boats with a lot of form stability and moderate sail plans it is not uncommon to see a crew weight reduction make the boat faster in both light and medium air since reduced crew weight makes the sailing displacement less. In windier conditions the boat may be a little slower than if they had more crew weight and the ratings will also reflect this.
One very important part of this discussion is also what is being used to score a race. Single number ratings (AP and W/L) are a bell curve of all the wind speeds ORC (6 knots to 20 knots) uses for scoring. In the case of the wind angles used for All-Purpose it’s best envisioned as if a boat races a course going around an island and the wind direction does not vary so the boat sails all the possible wind angles it can sail. Windward Leeward is just that, a course where a boat must tack and jibe to get upwind and downwind to the marks.
Re posting…
Interesting, and thanks for the sleuthing through USSailing and the ORC peeps. There were a couple of items I hadn’t noticed, and it’s helpful. Interestingly, the responses actually seem to bring up some issues that seem to clou the situation. Here are my thoughts:
Regarding the difference in 2-blade or 3-blade feathering props. Jam had a 2-blade feathering prop in 2017, but a 3-blade feathering prop in 2021. One would think that a 3-blade feathering prop would cause more drag than a 2-blade. In contrast the change was coincident with the change in rating from 540 in 2017 to 533 in 2021.
Similarly, one would think a roller furling headsail would be less efficient, and thus slower…that change also happened coincident with the faster rating in 2021 (533) compared to 2017 (2040).
The issue of crew weight is a bit hard to evaluate. Given the size of the boat and the need for the boat to be sailed well it’s pretty reasonable to assume the boat is fully crewed for most races. In both 2017 and 2021 the maximum crew weight was 907kg, while in 2023 it was 850kg. Assuming weight of an average crew is 185lbs (84.1kgs) that 57kg (a single smaller crewperson) doesn’t seem like much…especially on a boat that displaces 36,000 lbs.
Changes in D/L ration: from 111 (2017 w/ the aluminum rig) to 106.6 (2023 w/ the carbon rig). Not much of a change. Even less of a difference from 2021 (107.7).
Considering how small the changes are from year to year, and even considering the potential of additive effects, I’m still finding it hard to understand how they can add up to an 18spm change in performance.
From US Sailing:
A 2 bladed feathering and a 3 bladed folding prop are very differently treated. In absolutes the changes are small but lots of small changes do lead to large changes. If I mis-typed it as 3 bladed feathering that is my mistake, the current prop is listed as 3 bladed FOLDING.
Yes, furling will be slower than changing jibs, Jam is now rated as changing jibs having previously been rated with furling jibs. They probably should have been rated this way all along.
None of the noted items aside from possibly the rig composition which in default values mean a carbon rig will have a lighter weight and lower CG had a large individual impact on the rating.
The list was more to point out that the inputs for the boat actually were not the same so it’s a little bit of an apples to pears comparison but not as bad a comparing apples to chickens.
There are always efforts to improve the science and the VPP. This is ongoing work by a group of very smart people. Here is the list of those involved with the ITC (International Technical Committee) being those who work directly on the VPP https://orc.org/index.asp?id=62. This is done proactively versus sailors having to protest ratings as is the policy in other rating systems. As the pool of boats being rated has grown so has the work by the ITC to be sure the rule is fairly rating all boats. There are some types of boats which are rare outside of North America (ULDBs) and there has been a directed effort to make sure these boats are accurately and fairly rated by ORC as their numbers have grown in the database and more performance data has become available. Same for relatively wide boats for their length such as Class 40s.