SailNet Community

SailNet Community (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/)
-   Boat Review and Purchase Forum (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/)
-   -   Will the real PHRF please stand up (https://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/329098-will-real-phrf-please-stand-up.html)

davidpm 04-07-2019 02:31 PM

Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
For this boat what do you suspect is the real phrf.

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1990/c-c-34--3518900/


Wikipedia says 144

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%26C_34/36

PHRF NE says: 102

PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps

That is a huge difference, they can't both be right.

sailingfool 04-07-2019 02:49 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
I think the explanation is that the Wikipedia listing has the rating of the older, original C&C 34 there rather than that of the 34+...

PaulinVictoria 04-07-2019 02:56 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Given the standard keel 34+ typically rates around 85-90, I would be very surprised if the WK was 50-60s a mile slower. The 102 is probably about right.

SchockT 04-08-2019 12:15 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Different regions often have slightly different ratings. PHRF-BC lists the base rating for the 34+ as 87.

The 144 number is definitely the outlier.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

JimsCAL 04-08-2019 09:15 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
I agree with sailingfool. The 144 rating is for the older 34.

Minnewaska 04-08-2019 09:16 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by davidpm (Post 2051594308)
For this boat what do you suspect is the real phrf..

The problem, of course, is that no PHRF is actually real. ie upwind vs downwind, vs loaded up, etc, etc, etc.

Jeff_H 04-08-2019 11:08 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by davidpm (Post 2051594308)

The Wiki quote does not appear to come from a PHRF Base rating sheet for the 34/36 WK (which this boat appears to be). It appears to come from someone's website and as others have said, the 144 rating is for the original C&C 34 and not this boat.

102 sounds like a more appropriate base rating for this boat. It should be noted that in general these boats but especially the wing keel versions do not sail well to their ratings. PHRF ratings are based on a specific set of courses sailing in the prevailing breeze for that region. Because many reqions can have a wide ranges of wind conditions throughout the racing season, PHRF awards boats that are good in a broad range of conditions and these boats did not offer a broad enough range of capabilities to be competitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska (Post 2051594450)
The problem, of course, is that no PHRF is actually real. ie upwind vs downwind, vs loaded up, etc, etc, etc.

While the actual ability to sail to a rating may vary with the items that you mentioned, PHRF ratings are supposed to be based on a boat loaded in a specific manner, fully and properly prepped, and sailing a specific course stipulated course in the prevailing conditions. In that regard, there is a real and valid PHRF for that a properly prepared and loaded boat.

What no current scoring rule can do is to adjust the rating for each individual boat in the specific sailing conditions it is racing in on each leg; although SYRF (Sailing Yacht Research Foundation) is trying to come up with a way to do that.

Jeff

pdqaltair 04-08-2019 12:57 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
The only racing I ever enjoyed was either one design or going for line honors on a fast multi. Otherwise, if I won it could just be a rating fluke, and if I lost, same thing. I was even in one series where you had to swap boats, based on a lottery. No cheating the rule or arms race, only sailing.

Minnewaska 04-08-2019 03:45 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_H (Post 2051594474)
...While the actual ability to sail to a rating may vary with the items that you mentioned, PHRF ratings are supposed to be based on a boat loaded in a specific manner, fully and properly prepped, and sailing a specific course stipulated course in the prevailing conditions. In that regard, there is a real and valid PHRF for that a properly prepared and loaded boat.

What no current scoring rule can do is to adjust the rating for each individual boat in the specific sailing conditions it is racing in on each leg; although SYRF (Sailing Yacht Research Foundation) is trying to come up with a way to do that...

As I know you agree, no one is likely to ever replicate the PHRF rating in real life. At best, one might consider them relative measures between boats, which is also suspect, when the difference is in a few seconds over a mile, IMO. As you also know, a boat with a faster PHRF might very well be slower on any given leg than it's closely rated neighbor.

If one was interested in racing the PHRF game, I get why it matters. As to buying a cruising boat, unless one has no clue that an old bullet proof full keeler is going to drag behind a modern light fin keel, I think they're worthless measures.

JimsCAL 04-08-2019 05:39 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska (Post 2051594596)
As to buying a cruising boat, unless one has no clue that an old bullet proof full keeler is going to drag behind a modern light fin keel, I think they're worthless measures.

I couldn't disagree more. The PHRF rating gives you a quick measure of the relative sailing performance of a boat. I absolutely looked at the PHRF ratings of the boats I was considering when I bought my current boat, even though I did not plan on racing her. It is especially useful as you compare boats of about the same size.

chef2sail 04-08-2019 05:45 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimsCAL (Post 2051594650)
I couldn't disagree more. The PHRF rating gives you a quick measure of the relative sailing performance of a boat. I absolutely looked at the PHRF ratings of the boats I was considering when I bought my current boat, even though I did not plan on racing her. It is especially useful as you compare boats of about the same size.

I have to agree with Jim here. To say a PHRF rating is useless is crap.
There are many factors in buying a boat and that's one.

Earlier I Did a lot of racing and most boats PHRF ratings usually are close to acurate so being able to compare the boats can bE useful. As stated the 144 rating is the older model.

Minnewaska 04-08-2019 05:47 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimsCAL (Post 2051594650)
I couldn't disagree more. The PHRF rating gives you a quick measure of the relative sailing performance of a boat. I absolutely looked at the PHRF ratings of the boats I was considering when I bought my current boat, even though I did not plan on racing her. It is especially useful as you compare boats of about the same size.

Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.

Sanduskysailor 04-08-2019 06:45 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Wow, misinformation galore. 102 is an appropriate rating for the 34/36+ WK. The 34/36+ also came in another version with a taller rig called the XL. There was a 3rd version called an R version with the taller rig and stripped interior, open transom, no anchor locker. C&C was going through financial difficulties in those days and would basically build the boat any way you wanted it. It is not unheard for the + versions to have a taller rig.

The original 34 is 33'8", rating 144-147, and a totally different boat. WIKI is a completely unreliable source on these boats.

JimsCAL 04-08-2019 07:19 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska (Post 2051594654)
Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.

I was looking at racer/cruisers in the 32-35 foot range.
As it was going to be daysailed a lot, and with the light LI Sound winds in the summer, performance was important. Boats I looked at had PHRF ratings from about 110 to 160. All were fin keel sloops, some more racer, some more cruiser. The Cal 33-2 I ended up with has a base rating of 132, on the quicker end of the range for her size. I passed on a couple of boats that rated faster, mainly because they were too much racer and more spartan than I wanted.

I certainly agree that a few seconds in rating one way or the other isn't going to drive the decision much at all. But 10 or 20 is enough to notice. And when a boat that is larger, but rates slower, that tells you something meaningful.

GeorgeB 04-08-2019 07:57 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
PHRF is a pretty simplistic formula that only considers displacement, draft, “I”, ”P”, & “E” and sail area. Below is the Northern California version of the formula:

R' = 610-8.36*(SA/Disp^.333)+0.0000511*(SA^2)-55*(P/(J+E)) -30.8*(LWL^.5)-602*(DR^2/SA)

Our formula assumes 15kt winds over the racecourse. When I plug the Southern California boats into “our” formula, I get the same results so I assume that they are using the same weights and constants. I know that the NE PHRF “favors” heavier and smaller rigged boats by giving them a few more seconds but I do not know how the adjust their formula. Perhaps one of you guys can tell me which constant is different in the NE formula. The TransPac and Pacific Cup races have developed a “down wind” rating which our YRA has adopted for local “downwind” races such as the Vallejo, Delta Ditch, Jazz Cup and Westport regattas.

Jeff_H 04-08-2019 09:12 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska (Post 2051594596)
As I know you agree, no one is likely to ever replicate the PHRF rating in real life. At best, one might consider them relative measures between boats, which is also suspect, when the difference is in a few seconds over a mile, IMO. As you also know, a boat with a faster PHRF might very well be slower on any given leg than it's closely rated neighbor.

If one was interested in racing the PHRF game, I get why it matters. As to buying a cruising boat, unless one has no clue that an old bullet proof full keeler is going to drag behind a modern light fin keel, I think they're worthless measures.

At some level I understand your point and agree. From my perspective PHRF isn't all that precise when it comes to saying one boat is genuinely faster. I look at a difference in PHRF rating of less than 12-15 seconds a mile as not sufficiently significant to be a good predictor across a broad range of conditions. One of the short comings of a scoring system with only one single rating for all wind speed and direction is that there are bound to be one trick ponies, that can perhaps only win upwind or perhaps downwind.

To me, in and of itself, any simplified formula is poor provider of useful information whether it is a rating, or motion comfort index, or capsize screen ratio.

In the end it comes down defining the desirable characteristics and then figure out whether a particular purchase candidate is a good design or not based on those characteristics.

Jeff

Minnewaska 04-09-2019 08:10 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimsCAL (Post 2051594694)
I was looking at racer/cruisers in the 32-35 foot range.
As it was going to be daysailed a lot, and with the light LI Sound winds in the summer, performance was important. Boats I looked at had PHRF ratings from about 110 to 160. All were fin keel sloops, some more racer, some more cruiser. The Cal 33-2 I ended up with has a base rating of 132, on the quicker end of the range for her size. I passed on a couple of boats that rated faster, mainly because they were too much racer and more spartan than I wanted.

I certainly agree that a few seconds in rating one way or the other isn't going to drive the decision much at all. But 10 or 20 is enough to notice. And when a boat that is larger, but rates slower, that tells you something meaningful.

Got it, 50 seconds is a big spread. However, as you pointed out, you could already tell which ones were more racer and which were more cruiser, without really seeing the numbers. I'd be curious if you could tell the 110 from the 160, without knowing. I'm sure the difference between the 132 you bought and say a 125 is not as obvious, but I also don't think such a narrow theoretical performance difference would ever be noticed or possibly ever realized. The decision to buy, between those two narrow ratings, would ultimately have nothing to do with the rating, IMO. I'm glad you ultimately found what you wanted. That's all that matters.

chef2sail 04-09-2019 09:27 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
As Jim said, it was a determining factor but not the only one. It is one comparative point. A rating though not super exact , is more of an apple to apple comparative of speed ability.

Like Jim I used it to weed out some of the boats when I first bought Haleakula many years ago. I have a feeling Jim and I were looking for similar type boats since he bought a Cal.

Builders put all sorts of names on the 35 ft range of boats . Some call themselves racer cruisers, others cruisers racers, others just racers or cruisers,
There are plenty of racer cruisers which are very spartan for accommodations as Jim mentioned.
There are plenty who really are cruisers but use the racing term as the don’t want to be seen as slow pigs, but really are no where near the racing category. PHRF is one way to differentiate with tru competitive numbers. We all know you can’t look at a boat and say....9oh she’s fast or better yet not slow.

Haleakulas range nationally is between 117-127 depending on the keel and also the set up. One of the other boats at the time I looked at was a Tartan 37, a nice boat. Comparing the ratings average 20 seconds higher rating. Both had great living accommodations, both had great safety attributes,
And many other criteria. The C&C 35 MKIII with CB was a turn quicker and could point higher. That’s what convinced me however I’d have been very happy with the Tartan . The C&C was in better condition . The closest comparative boat was a Sabre 36. Another racer cruiser.

We have had friends with both. All good technical sailors. My thoughts are the PHRF ratings of these 3 comparatively are pretty much what we find when ACTUALlLY sailing them.

To say that the ratings are meaningless is just uninformed but also reflects that racing. Speed may not be a determining factor for the person saying it

BarryL 04-09-2019 10:59 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Hey,

Back in 2012-3 I was looking for a newer 35' ish cruiser / racer. My boat was an O'day 35 with shoal draft and fixed 3 blade prop. Very comfortable and great amenities, but not the best sailing boat. It sailed great on a reach (what boat doesn't?) but would not point at all and was very slow in light air. I had been racing for a few years on a number of different boats and I now knew that I wanted a boat that sailed very well.

PHRF ratings on some boats I was interested in (from PHRF NE region) O'day 35 SD - My Boat - rated around 155

BENETEAU 36.7 78
BENETEAU 36s7 117
C+C 110, 6.0 Draft 84
C+C 99 AL DK 99
HUNTER LEGEND 37 96
J 105 (89sm/150 Lp) 84/90
J 110 96
JEANNEAU 35 SUN ODSY SD 123
SABRE 36-2 105
SABRE 36-2 CB 114
SABRE 36-2 WK 117
TARTAN 3500 117
TARTAN 3500 WK 126

After looking at the numbers I eliminated the Tartan 3500 with wing keel, and the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey. Basically any boat higher than 120 phrf.

In case anyone is still reading, I eliminated the J105 for lack of standing headroom, the C&C 99 for being too small, the Sabers because they were too expensive, the J110 because they're impossible to find, the Bene 36.7 because of the boarding platform and small staterooms.

Eventually I found a nice C&C 110 and there you go.

Lastly, if you are a real cruiser then you should ignore PHRF. IMHO PHRF is really only important for upwind performance. And real cruisers don't sail upwind. If you have a destination that is 20/30/40/50 miles upwind you will be motoring or motorsailing right at your destination. This makes great sense because your VMG will be 6 kts. If you had to sail, even on a fast boat, your VMG would be more like 3.5 kts.

Barry


Quote:

Originally Posted by Minnewaska (Post 2051594654)
Differing opinions are all good. I'm curious how that worked for you. How did you actually use the information to make a decision and how disparate was the PHRF between your choices? Were you only going to buy the fastest PHRF, for example?

In my way of thinking, a few seconds difference is mythical and I would never choose one cruising boat over another for such small margins. Large speed disparities are obvious, without knowing the numbers. I'm genuinely curious how you used it to make a decision.


Hudsonian 04-09-2019 11:18 AM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
I crewed aboard a sister ship and raced against her. Based upon those observations, it seemed that the boat could not sail to her ratings when equipped with a symetrical spinnaker but was very competitve when sailing with with an asym.

The owner races out of the Hudson but cruises for several weeks each season on LIS, Narraganset Bay and Block Island Sound. He reports very satisfactory performance when cruising with the asym

Jeff_H 04-09-2019 01:51 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hudsonian (Post 2051594836)
I crewed aboard a sister ship and raced against her. Based upon those observations, it seemed that the boat could not sail to her ratings when equipped with a symetrical spinnaker but was very competitve when sailing with with an asym.

The owner races out of the Hudson but cruises for several weeks each season on LIS, Narraganset Bay and Block Island Sound. He reports very satisfactory performance when cruising with the asym

That is interesting. I would never have expected that. Normally, the C&C 34+ would seem like a poor candidate for an assym chute. Assyms usually work best on light weight fractional rigged that can have big speed gains by sailing hotter reaching angles. Those are usually boats with an L/D around 150 or less.

The C&C 34+ wk is up in the 180's range and masthead rigged. Normally masthead rigs have larger sym chutes than fracs and once a boat is much over L/D=180, it is less likely to achieve semi-displacement mode. The net result is that a boat like this can get its best VMG at a deeper angle than a lighter frac and so does not have achieve big gains (or any gains) from an assym since the speed increase is too small to offset having to sail the hotter angles.

Jeff

BarryL 04-09-2019 05:15 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
Hi Jeff,

The main boat I race on is a 1988 C+C 35 mark 3. We raced for years with sym chutes, poles, guys, uphauls, downhauls, the works.

Two years ago the owner converted to asym chutes. He installed a removeable bowsprit (selden) and bought two new spinnakers - a VERY large one primarily for reaching and a smaller one for running.

For DISTANCE races the performance of the boat was really improved by the asym chutes. For windward / leewards races the performance is better, but less so. Setting, gybing and dousing are much easier. For distance races the reaching chute is super effective. The ease of sailing with asym has improved overall performance for windward leeward racing although I think that pure downwind speed probably was higher with the sym chute and spin pole. Our weekday races are fairly short and put more a premium on sail handling than on overall boat speed. IE when the downwind leg is only a mile or two you can't afford to make any mistakes in the set, gybe or douse. With the sym chutes we rarely got all those perfect. With the Asym we rarely make mistakes.

Barry


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_H (Post 2051594860)
That is interesting. I would never have expected that. Normally, the C&C 34+ would seem like a poor candidate for an assym chute. Assyms usually work best on light weight fractional rigged that can have big speed gains by sailing hotter reaching angles. Those are usually boats with an L/D around 150 or less.

The C&C 34+ wk is up in the 180's range and masthead rigged. Normally masthead rigs have larger sym chutes than fracs and once a boat is much over L/D=180, it is less likely to achieve semi-displacement mode. The net result is that a boat like this can get its best VMG at a deeper angle than a lighter frac and so does not have achieve big gains (or any gains) from an assym since the speed increase is too small to offset having to sail the hotter angles.

Jeff


SchockT 04-10-2019 03:56 PM

Re: Will the real PHRF please stand up
 
I certainly looked at PHRF ratings when choosing my last 2 boats, but they are just one of many data points to consider.

Before we bought Azura, we looked at lots of other boats, and I did scratch a few off the list because I knew they would be too slow for my liking, and their phrf number confirmed what I already suspected from looking at their sail plan, displacement, hull form etc. Others, on the faster end of the phrf spectrum we found lacking in interior amenities and storage space. Also, I knew that for a relatively heavy boat to rate down in the phrf 60 range it would have to have a very powerful sail plan, which is great when you have a crew of apes on the rail, but not so great when it's just the wife and I out cruising.

One thing that must be kept in mind about PHRF ratings is that they are much more accurate on models that are popular for racing. On those boats the rating evolves over the years as the true performance of the boat becomes known. If a particular boat design dominates on the race course the rating gets appealed, and adjusted to more accurately reflect the design's performance. On the other hand, a base rating calculated on a boat that seldom gets raced, that rating IS purely a number generated by a formula. Of course many of those boats are on the slower end of the spectrum to begin with which is precisely why nobody races them, but rating inaccuracy can also afflict limited production or custom made boats. The more rare the boat is the less likely it will have an accurate rating.

Regarding Asymetric sails on displacement boats for racing, it is true that they don't give the same benefit they do on planing sport boats that can push their apparent wind forward with raw speed. On the other hand, the simplicity gained from an asym setup should not be under estimated. Certainly they will be at a disadvantage if you are trying to sail deep against symetric boats, but you just need to play the angles better. These days asymetric designs have improved so that you can sail much deeper than you used to. On my old Santana, which was a classic IOR "broach coach", running deep was not very enjoyable, and required a skilled hand on the helm and good crew in order to tame the dreaded "death roll". Reaching, on the other hand, was one of the boat's strong points, so the asym allowed me to take advantage of that strength.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome