Handicaps...time to stir things up

[Gumby]

Are you happy with your ASPN handicap? Do you think it is a fair rating?

[brianpickton]

Hi Gumby,

Given the number of replies to your question you would think that either everyone likes there rating or doesn't want to get involved in stirring things up. So what do you think of your handicap?

For those who would like more information on this interesting topic take a look at the NSYA site on their handicapping page at
www.nsya.ns.ca/ . There is a good summary of the history as well as the process of handicapping in pdf. format.

Brian Pickton

[CoolBreeze]

I hope as more people join up and use the board, topics like this will spark some interesting debate and different viewpoints... Bravo on the topic!!

[brianpickton]

The one thing we can be sure of with handicapping is that like all compromises it will ultimately please no one and annoy everyone. Having looked into it a little, while it is an adaptive system, change is none the less incremental and dependent on boat participation in open regattas. This year the C&C 24's, often called a rule beater, got raised a notch. Some would have liked to have seen a greater change than that, but the system itself tends to not allow big steps in rating changes.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, rating systems are not designed to completely level the playing field. Poorly prepared boats and boats sailed badly should not expect to beat boats that are well prepared and well sailed. Winning boats will still win under a handicap system.

Some of the things I hear after a race never cease to amaze me. Like last night at the DYC Wednesday night race. I've heard some grumbling about the "A" class boat Climax' rating previously. Last night, immediately after clearing the committee boat Climax tacked onto port while the rest of the fleet marched off to starboard. It was perfectly clear to us aboard the committee boat before the start that the port side tack was favored by a backing wind shift. It also appeared that there was more pressure to that side of the course, which was later confirmed. So it should have come as no surprise that the boat was first on corrected time and second across the line, and that after sailing into a hole caused by a trough moving in from the northeast and having to wait for the breeze to fill back in from the WSW. the boat that appeared, if not to be sailed the smartest, to at least make the fewest mistakes, finished first.

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned about handicapping is this: the people who have taken on the task of handicapping have a thankless task. No handicapping system can ever be perfect. If you want to know what the results are at the moment you cross the finish line and you don't like waiting for a committee to work its ju-ju on the numbers the only solution is to get out of PHRF ASPN and get into one design.

And on the same topic, if you were going to go to a one design fleet, what kind of a boat would you be looking at? I'm asking this purely out of self interest, since I would like to be involved in one design racing again and have put off purchasing a boat until next year in the hope of seeing some development in that direction.

For me, I would like a reasonably fast racer cruiser that would be a satisfying club sailor while having sufficient creature comforts to allow my wife and I the opportunity to do some local cruising. Probably something in the 28 to 33 foot range. I would like a boat that still has a manufacturer in business to ask questions of.
Any number of Beneteau's in the First series are a possibility, and I am sure there might be advocates for other marques, who I would be interested in hearing from. My question is, is there interest in one design sailing?

Brian Pickton

[Gumby]

Nice thread hijack.

[brianpickton]

Thank you.

[Brian Pickton]

I hear feint rumblings that I have not been able to track down that the British have a new ( at least new to me) rating system. The formula I am told is supposed to be secret. Anybody heard anything about this, or have a site address where I can check it out?

[runninwild]

Hello All;

Figured I would write a reply on Handicaps since there hasn't been much on this topic in a long while. We have just returned from the Bras D'or lakes after competing in the East Bay Regatta as well as Baddeck Race Week.

I'll start with East Bay, Both days we had an awesome race sailing at 111. C class cutoff was us. So we figured being stuck with all the boats hovering around the 100 handicap we would be in trouble. But it turned out it wasn't too bad. After finishing the race the first day and returning to the dock, there was only one boat finishing ahead of us. So I figured I would take a run up to the club to see what his handicap was. Sure enough he was a 108. It is a custom built boat that has been modified in a billion different ways. No life lines. And still they haven't adjusted him. The boat is a Custom 28 sailing out of Chester called "Little One". So they beat us across the line by about 6 minutes the first day. So they did the results and sure enough we got a second.
So we had about half a dozen people approach us and tell us ignore his handicap just go for a second. No one has ever beat that d**n boat from Chester. So sure enough Sundays race came and the exact same thing, no way you could beat him.

Then came Baddeck Race week, there is a Sigma 33 from East Bay that's handicap is 115. And the same thing he is beating boats across the line with a handicap of 120, like Tartan 10's, Kirby 30's. Obviously something isn't right. There were a number of other sailors that were around Baddeck that week that wanted to race but said to themselves what's the point, if you can't go out and have a chance to win why even bother.

There becomes a point where there is no fun if you can never get a bullet. So you think these boats that are always getting there d**n name called for a first place finish would just be a man and get there adjustment put up a point to see how they do. If it was me I would be embarrassed to walk up and except the prize time after time.

[brianpickton]

Well I guess it is my turn to feel the pain.

The Rocket 22 has a temporary PHRF rating of 105 out of the PHRF Pacific NW group, which equates to an ASPN rating of 125. The pucker power of the boat is such that when we raced CORK at Kingston last week the handicap committee rejected the T cert, even though the race rules say they should accept it and gave the boat a PHRF rating of 102. They were quite blunt about it: "We have to protect the local fleet" was literally what I was told. How's that for a case of jury rigging? In the result we would have earned 2 more bullets if the rating had been 105 and taken a first in class at the regatta, so the home town heros got to protect their pickle dish.

I thought the 102 rating was bad. I applied for an ASPN rating in anticipation of racing the boat at Chester Race Week. While I was in Quebec I learned that the rating given was PHRF 84.6 which is faster than the Melges 24 by about 13 -14 seconds. that is s20 seconds faster than its T certificate rating. No where in North America has the Rocket been rated faster than a Melges. In fact the M 24 generally rates 6 to 9 seconds faster than the Rocket, and actual race results bare this out. In PHRF NW the M 24 rates 98 to the Rockets 105 for example, and at Whidby Island Race week the the 3 M 24's took first, second and third while the first Rocket finished in 4th followed by 2 J-80's, followed by 2 more Rockets.

In any event I intend to find out how they came up with a PHRF number of 84.6. I have filed for redress with the handicap committee and we will see what the explanation is. BTW a PHRF of 84.6 gives the boat an ASPN rating of 130 compared to the 125 it would rate under the T certificate.

On Runnin' Wild's point about perpetual winners stepping up to do the right thing about their rating, let me put in a word about our own Rear Commodore Nathan Reece. Nathan has been doing well with Climax and last winter stepped up to the DYC race committee and offered to have a golf handicap system implemented that would adjust his rating relative to other boats week to week in order to share the podium with more boats. The RC declined Nathan's generous offer on the basis that the boat is superbly prepared, the crew is well drilled and the skippper sails her very well. Therefore it was felt the the boat's standing was well earned and the results deserved, and that the boat and crew should not be penalized for their success, as well intended as Nathan's offer was. It was also thought that the boat set a standard for the club for others to emulate if they wished to be in serious contention.

It would seem the problem isn't so much with the PHRF/ ASPN system itself as the way it is applied by the various handicap committees. How would you describe what happened in CORK? Protectionism? Dishonesty? Corruption? I am at a loss to say what it was. Which makes the Rocket's ASPN rating all the more baffling. Like you all I want is to be treated fairly and have the occassional shot at the podium if we sail well. I'll write more about this after I have my meeting with the committee to determine what there reasoning is (how did they come up with 84.6?) and to see if a more reasonable handicap can be obtained.

[runninwild]

I think you took my post on Handicaps and people feeling guilty about accepting the reward the wrong way. My opinion is that some guys handicap should be adjusted by NSYA not just by a club. I never mentioned Climax in the issue. The worst of it is there are people not racing because of the issue. It shouldn't be this way. Anyways just wanted to clear that up. Good race by the way.

[brianpickton]

To clarify, I think understood you and believe we are on the same page. Sorry if I did not make that clear in my initial comments. I agree that the initiative should be taken by the handicap commitee and done so in a proactive way. I seems what adjustments are made are minute from year to year. I raised Climax as simply an example of a guy volunteering to do the right thing rather than waiting for the handicap committee to do it for him. Rats, I just had a bad idea: those of us who complain most bitterly should put our hands up to be on the committee and try to put things right. Therefore, just let me say that I support the committee whole heartily in every decision that it makes and hope they continue to volunteer to do the long, hard work involved. I intend to send them a small gift of jewellery before their next meeting. :-)

On a more sereious note, it is a great shame if people are not racing because of this issue, and I agree that it should not be this way. It would be helpful if they would step forward and voice there concerns. The committee should not be expected to act in a vacuum and I know that they do review race results to set handicaps on at least an annual basis. I am sure more input would be useful. Of course, all handicap systems will have similar issues. The only satisfactory answer is racing in a one design fleet. Then we get to complain about bunch of other stuff.

Thanks for the comment on the race, btw. We were able to hang with Climax up wind by sailing a shorter distance and Valour had legs on us at the windward mark, but down wind because there was not enough wind to get the boat up on a plane Alan sailed her low and concentrated on keeping boat speed up in light air. The big boats were all trying to sail hotter angles, but then couldn't make up for the extra distance sailed. The highlight of our evening was being able to catchup to J-Rouette before the finish line, something we did not expect to see happen, and would not have, if we had not had a five minute head start and they had not sailed into a hole.

We need about 14 + knots of breeze to plane and he'll start to pop up at a boat speed of about 7.3 knots. Theoretical hull speed using a factor of 1.34 is about 6.2 knots, which we will see closehauled if the wind speed is over 12 knots. Reaching under plain sail it does about 7.1-7.2.

Credit has to go to Alan Barnes, helm, and Marc Langlois, trimmer, who really worked at getting the best out of the boat. You can rest assured with me at the helm that won't happen again anytime soon!

[brianpickton]

So I sent this to the NSYA. The content is self explanatory.

Gerry Giffin, President NSYA
Nova Scotia Yachting Association
5516 Spring Garden Road, 4th floor
Halifax, NS B3J 1G6

Dear Sir,

I recently applied to have my boat, a Rocket 22, assigned an ASPN handicap number by the NSYA handicap committee. The result is inexplicable. The handicap given to the boat was a PHRF rating of 84.6, which results in an ASPN rating of 130. Nowhere in North America is the Rocket 22 assigned a handicap lower than PHRF 105, as indicated by the US-PHRF list of handicaps for the boat, which ranges from a low of 105 to a high of 158 with a median rating of 132. These numbers would result in ASPN ratings of 125(high) and 113(low) with a median of 118, respectively.

The NSYA handicap manual states that US-PHRF handicap listing is “...undoubtedly the most comprehensive data base for keel-boat handicapping available.”

The NSYA manual also states that it follows the principles described by US PHRF:

4.0 NSYA’s ASPN – PHRF SYSTEM
4.1 Introduction
The Nova Scotia Yachting Association operates a Performance Handicap Racing Fleet; with a difference. The Fleet predates the PHRF concept, and while it is now a member Fleet of US-PHRF, and follows the principles prescribed by US PHRF, the NSYA Fleet uses time-on-time handicapping. The system that has evolved produces ATLANTIC SPEED POTENTIAL NUMBERS, or ASPNs, which are directly proportional to potential speed. (emphasis added)

With respect to alignment of ASPN with PHRF, the handicap manual goes on to state:

“4.3 Alignment with PHRF
In 1993, the NSYA Handicap Committee published the first edition of this NSYA Performance Handicapping Manual. That publication dedicated an entire chapter to comparing the NSYA ASPN system with other rating systems then in use. The results of that analysis can be summarized by the following extract:
“We can conclude that the ASPN system follows PHRF, not only in principles but in practice, and that a reliable conversion from PHRF time allowances to time correction factors is provided by…TCF = 630/(TA + 400) with TA in Sec/Mile” ” (emphasis added)

One of the principles applied in US-PHRF is that a new boat to a fleet will be assigned the median value for that boat, with no deviation greater than +/- 3 sec/mile being applied without a very good reason being documented. In this case the median PHRF rating for

Brian Pickton B.A., LI.B. page 2

the Rocket 22 is PHRF 132, giving ASPN 118. Notwithstanding that fact, in giving the Rocket a PHRF rating of 84.6 this committee has chosen to deviate from the median PHRF rating by more than 33 sec/mile. That is more than 20 sec/mile faster than
the lowest and fastest US-PHRF rating of PHRF 105. No reason was given to me for this huge variation.

It is to be noted that the NSYA handicap manual states a procedure for accessing new classes and one of a kind yachts. The Rocket 22 is not a one of a kind yacht. Mine is hull number 11, and they have been racing this particular design in open regattas for the past three years. There is an abundance of race results that can be referred to if one chooses to look. Therefore it is unnecessary for the Handicap committee to go through the procedure set out in the NSYA manual for dealing with new classes:

“2.5 Initial Ratings

A new boat in an established class is given the rating for the class. Adjustment may be made for any deviation from the class. If adjustments are made, a note is made in the handicap record that the yacht is non-standard.

For new classes and one-of-a-kind yachts, the rating is set initially on the basis of comparison with similar yachts with established ratings. Comparison is made considering type of design and principle dimensions. The rating is assigned conservatively, designated as “Provisional”, and is adjusted as performance data become available.”

If the handicap committee was following this procedure the Melges 24 is the boat that I would expect the Rocket to be compared to. In Nova Scotia the Melges 24 is given a PHRF rating of 92.4. This is to be compared to the 84.6 rating given the Rocket. A review of the US-PHRF rating for the Melges 24 shows a low of PHRF 81, a high of 138 and a median of 96. Based on my research I can find nowhere in North America where the Rocket is rated faster than a Melges 24.

Notwithstanding this fact, the NSYA handicap committee has chosen to rate the Rocket no less than 8 seconds a mile faster than the Melges. I cannot find a single regatta where they competed together that a Rocket has beaten the Melges 24. The US-PHRF rating complies with this finding. Rating the Rocket faster than a Melges 24 simply has no basis in reality. Therefore I have to conclude that the NSYA handicap committee did not follow the procedure for assigning handicaps to new classes as stated in the manual.

That being the case, and given that they did not follow the US-PHRF procedures that they claim to follow either, what did the do to assign a handicap to this boat? I am completely mystified.

I would like to appeal the handicap rating given to the Rocket 22. I have compiled the documentation for that purpose. However I am extremely reluctant to do so. The handicap committee, as far as I can ascertain, has followed none of the procedures prescribed in the NSYA handicap manual.


Brian Pickton B.A., LI.B. page 3

Having failed to apply its own procedures in the first instance I have virtually no reason to believe that it would follow proper procedures on an appeal. I have completely lost faith in this committee’s ability to deal with the matter in a proper, fair and impartial manner.

Ironically I would note that one of the observations made in the handicap manual is:

“ 2.7 Fleet Handicap Committees
Clearly the heart of a performance handicap racing Fleet is the Fleet Handicap Committee. The system depends crucially on the skill, dedication and integrity of the handicappers in analyzing race results, as well as assessing speed potential from other available information. The Committee is important both in its actions and in its image. So long as the sailors perceive that the Committee is operating without bias, allowances will be made for differences in opinion. If it is perceived that the Committee is not even-handed, unrest can grow and handicaps may assume undue prominence. This can detract from the main objects of yacht racing, which should be to improve boat speed and tactical skills.”

I understand that handicapping is not an exact science and that not everyone will always be pleased with their handicapped rating. Frankly, if the boat had been given a PHRF handicap as low as the lowest US-PHRF rating of 105 I would have been unhappy with it, but would have perhaps given it a trial for a couple of seasons without an appeal to see how close I could come to it.

However, while it is the prerogative of intelligent people to disagree intelligently, the actions of this committee defy reason. They have on the face of it, failed to follow their own well established procedures. That being the case, taking an appeal before this committee appears to be an exercise in futility. In my view, you have a rogue handicap committee, either unwilling or unable to apply its own rules. The only hope I have of getting the boat properly handicapped, and the only way the NSYA has of regaining credibility with respect to handicapping, is to ask for the resignations of the existing committee members and to replace them with other, more responsible individuals.

I did not reach this conclusion lightly, in anger, or without reflection. Being a volunteer myself I understand how difficult recruiting volunteers can be, especially for those involved in highly technical work. However, in a case such as this, where all that is required is to follow a well established procedure, there can be no excuse for this misfeasance. Therefore it is with the greatest of reluctance that I put before you the conclusion that if faith in the committee is to be regained and the correct procedure to be applied, then it must be replaced.

I look forward to hearing from you with respect to what action you intend to take.

Respectfully yours,

Brian Pickton.

[brianpickton]

I got this reply:

I go this reply:

Brian Pickton
17 Sinclair St.
Dartmouth, NS
B2Y 1R7

Dear Mr. Pickton,

Thank you fro your letter concerning the rating assign (sic) to your Rocket 22 which I received on September 25, 2007.

Last week I discussed your letter with our Handicapping Chair who stated that the rating was Provisional and when the Committee has more race data from the boat the Committee will review the rating.

I have since learned that at its October 2nd meeting the Committee lowered the rating by 2 points to 128 so that it is (in) line with the Melges 24 after reviewing new information.

The NSYA Handicapping Committee is a team of dedicated volunteers made up of club handicappers from our member clubs. If you are interested in seeing how this process works, I would encourage you to arrange through your club’s handicapper to attend one of their meetings.

If you still have questions about the rating, you’re encouraged to discuss them with your Club Handicapper and provide him with any further information or data that would be relevant to calculations.

Sincerely,

Gerry Giffin
President

I am given to believe that they are not very happy with me. Remind me to ask what the "new information" was. Not much point in talking to our club handicapper. I am lead to believe he did not attend either the original meeting of the subsequent meeting where the rating was changed. Fat chance explaining what went on. It is frustrating that they make these decisions without input from the owner, manufacturer or apparantly any of the current race results extant in North America. Proceedings are not published, and the basis of their decision, being unknown, is almost impossible to challenge. Interestingly, our club handicapper had tendered his resignation from the committee at the time I sent my original letter, something I would expect the President was aware of at the time of his reply.

[brianpickton]

Good handicapping if it is to be trusted needs to be transparant. As a result of information I have received I sent the following email and look forward to the reply.

Dear Mr. Bloodworth,

It has recently been brought to my attention that the Handicap Committee in calculating handicaps allegdly makes an allowance that increases handicaps because of the idea that the wind apparently blows harder in Nova Scotia then any where else in North America where PHRF handicapping is done, with the result that some of the boats here in Nova Scotia have purportedly the highest handicaps on the continent, and must therefore be the fastest boats. I would like to know what the source of this meteorological data is in order that I can examine it for myself, so would please provide me with the information that is the basis of this assumption, assuming that the information I received is correct. I am particularly interested in this since nowhere in the handicap manual is there mention of using such information, if it exists, and if it does exist I would like to know exactly how the calculations using it are made. You might want to consider an amendment to the handicap manual to explain how this is done for the benefit of the rest of us.

I look forward to hearing from you about this and with respect to my earlier correspondence.

Respectfully yours,

Brian Pickton

[robertd]

Brian:

As anyone who knows me already knows that I'm a simple sailor and am retired from racing. Though attempts have been made to bring me back.
As for the wind issue. I do recall hearing the Lethbridge, Alberta is the windiest place in Canada and NOT Atlantic Canada. If Atlantic Canada held the honour of being the windiest, why on earth do so many sailboats have to fire-up the iron jib?