TORE February 2016

PHRF-LO Toronto East Winter District Meeting Agenda

 

19:30 Tuesday, February 23rd 2016 Cobourg Yacht Club

 

Host: Rob Lenters - Cobourg Yacht Club (CYC)

 

Attendance:

 

Bluffers Park Yacht Club (BPYC) –David Kernaghan
Cathedral Bluff Yacht Club (CBYC) – Owen Schneider
Cobourg Yacht Club (CYC) – Rob Lenters
Whitby Yacht Club (WYC) – John Scurr, James Dike

 

Summary of Ratings Approved

 

None

 

1. Administration:

 

a. Annual Vote for District Chief – Current DC may maintain position, approved.
b. Other Administrative Matters – No discussion.

 

2. Reports from the District Clubs:

 

a. Roundtable Reporting – Updates from clubs.

 

3. Items to go to Central Council

 

a. Alert Review – Included PDF scan of results.

 

b. Should include MGT (7/8) measurement on main.

 

c. Should consider using mid, not max girth on symmetrical spinnakers.

 

4. New Boat Handicaps

 

NONE

 

5. General Discussion

 

a. Proposal for Experimental Certificate. We need data to allow us to rate new boats in a world of change.

 

Link to Proposal

 

b. Rudder modification handicapping guideline proposal. Will provide copy to central council.

 

Link to Proposal

 

6. Next Meeting Date – To be set for mid-summer. Date to be determined.

 

7. End – Meeting End Called at 22:15.

 

PHRF-LO Toronto East would to thank Rob Lenters and his family for hosting the winter district meeting.

 

PHRF-LO Toronto East Winter District Meeting Agenda

 

19:30 Tuesday, February 23rd 2016 Cobourg Yacht Club

 

Host: Rob Lenters - Cobourg Yacht Club (CYC)

 

Attendance:

 

Bluffers Park Yacht Club (BPYC) –David Kernaghan
Cathedral Bluff Yacht Club (CBYC) – Owen Schneider
Cobourg Yacht Club (CYC) – Rob Lenters
Whitby Yacht Club (WYC) – John Scurr, James Dike

 

Summary of Ratings Approved

 

None

 

1. Administration:

 

a. Annual Vote for District Chief – Current DC may maintain position, approved.
b. Other Administrative Matters – No discussion.

 

2. Reports from the District Clubs:

 

a. Roundtable Reporting – Updates from clubs.

 

3. Items to go to Central Council

 

a. Alert Review – Included PDF scan of results.

 

b. Should include MGT (7/8) measurement on main.

 

c. Should consider using mid, not max girth on symmetrical spinnakers.

 

4. New Boat Handicaps

 

NONE

 

5. General Discussion

 

a. Proposal for Experimental Certificate. We need data to allow us to rate new boats in a world of change.

 

Link to Proposal

 

b. Rudder modification handicapping guideline proposal. Will provide copy to central council.

 

Link to Proposal

 

6. Next Meeting Date – To be set for mid-summer. Date to be determined.

 

7. End – Meeting End Called at 22:15.

 

PHRF-LO Toronto East would to thank Rob Lenters and his family for hosting the winter district meeting.

 

Experimental Cert

 

PHRF-LO Experimental Certificate Proposal

 

Forward

 

Many boats, including rated Ultra Low Displacement Boats (ULDB), are considered difficult to rate and as such are not rated. The most frequent reason cited is that PHRF-LO does not have the data or information to determine a rating.

 

Objective of the Program

 

The purpose of the PHRF-LO Experimental Certificate (EC) is to obtain data and get the information handicappers and Central Council requires to develop methods to rate these boats. The program will be used to rate boats to allow them race where the club or racing authority requires a PHRF-LO certificate to race.

 

Boats Eligibility

 

Any boat that is currently not rated by PHRF-LO that conforms to the types and restrictions below:

 

1. Types:

 

a. Monohulls that exceed 14 feet in length
b. Catamarans or trimarans that exceed 18 feet or longer

 

2. Existing Ratings:

 

a. Boats that are currently rated by other PHRF districts.
b. Boats that are rated by an internationally recognized rating convention such as D-PN, IRC, ORC, RYC PN, etc.\

 

3. Classes:

 

a. Paralympic and Olympic classes
b. ISAF One Design classes
c. International or National One Design Classes

 

4. Restrictions

 

a. Boats must conform to types in item 1

 

Process

 

1. The boat owner or representative will provide boat data as required by the PHRF-LO EC application to a club handicapper who will provide it to the district chief.

 

2. The district chief will determine if the boat is eligible for an EC. If it qualifies, then the boat data will be sent to PHRF-LO Administration for distribution to a subset of Central Council, which will include the Assistant Chief
Handicappers (GTA and Non-GTA), Chief Handicapper, and the representing District Chief.

 

3. The subset of Central Council will consider the application through the existing process to approve ratings. If approved to be rated, then at least two of the subset of Central Council will determine an initial rating.

 

4. Ratings will be developed on the following basis in the order below:

 

a. Using an existing rating form another PHRF district, adjusted linearly to a PHRF-LO rating using known common, similar boat ratings.
b. Use a known conversion formula from another rating system.
c. Other observed data or ratings.
d. A best approximation.

 

5. An initial temporary rating (ITR) will be provided for a one-year period, and subject to change based on data received.

 

6. Any of the items in 1-5 above may be conducted electronically and not be subject to the requirements of official PHRF-LO meetings and minutes, only the issued ITR will be documented as any other new rating.

 

Inter-seasonal Data Requirements

 

1. The club handicapper will provide race information back to the subset of Central Council through the District Chief after six (6) and 12 eligible races (per current PHRF-LO requirements) and the full season of racing as soon as practically possible                                                               using a specific EC data collection form.

 

2. The data will be examined in using a simplified race analysis model to ensure the ITR is reasonable.

 

3. If the ITR is found to be unreasonable, it will be subject to adjustment, without the ability to appeal the change as determined by a subset of Central Council.

 

Post Season Data Collection

 

1. Will follow the normal PHRF-LO process, but will NOT be included in race data published by PHRF-LO in the race analysis, unless a class of similar ITR and/or ULDB boats can be raced together.

 

2. Data will be published separated in a form approved by Central Council, which may or may not be publically available.

 

Fees and Renewals

 

1. The fee will be the same as for a standard PHRF certificate for the initial year.

 

2. The renewal fee will be the standard PHRF certificate fee plus $15 for any subsequent year or until the class is adopted by PHRF-LO.

 

Administration

 

1. PHRF-LO, a super majority of Central Council members, a District Chief or Club Handicapper can reject an application at anytime for any reasons. This may be appealed to the Chief Handicapper or an Assistant Chief Handicapper, who can initiate a review.

 

2. PHRF-LO can discontinue the EC program at any time.

 

3. PHRF-LO does not warrant the rating for any purpose except data collection.

 

4. The rating is intended for club racing, use in regional or other regattas and may be used at the sole discretion of the racing authority and/or race organizing body. Any rejection of an EC rating by a race organizing body will
not be grounds for recourse to PHRF-LO and will be at the sole discretion of the race organizing body.

 

5. Owners, club handicappers and District Chiefs will comply with the requirements imposed by the subset of Central Council.

 

6. The rating may be discontinued as deemed by the subset of Central Council.

 

7. Errors and Omissions will not create liability to PHRF-LO or anyone involved with PHRF-LO.

 

Rudder Modification

 

TORE Handicapper Guidelines for Changes to Rudders.

 

Forward

 

PHRF-LO requires the reporting of modifications to boats that may impact boat speed as per section 4 and specifically 4.5 and 4.6 in the case of rudders.

 

No specific guideline has been developed for the rating impact. It is virtually impossible to determine the exact impact of a different rudder without the aid of a marine design and/engineering professional, thus we will seek generalizations to aid handicappers.                                      This document will attempt to provide such a guideline in determining what level of change will have what impact on the speed potential of a boat.

 

Philosophy

 

The key determinants of the impact of a rudder modification are embodied in a number of variables that include: camber, chord, depth, position, quality and weight. Generally speaking, rudders that are longer and thinner will exhibit improved drag characteristics than                     thicker and shorter rudders. Rudders that are professionally built will have a greater impact than those made at home or in a basement. Rudders that are lighter will have an impact and rudders that are a different shape will have an impact.

 

The philosophy of the impacts below are outlined and generally consider what the intent is of a replacement is. The most rational objective for a replacement is to ensure the safety of the vessel, as with most elements of a sailboat, they face wear and tear over time                        and rudders are not exempt from this as they are underwater all year and typically overlooked. Water intrusion and then freezing damage will likely constitute a significant amount of repairs in the future.

 

The desire to improve while repairing or replacing is also evident. Modifications generally flow from this and are sought to improve initial designs or are suggested as possible cures to flaws that can be corrected with new shapes or construction methods. A good example                      of this is the Tanzer 22 rudder. The original design is a scimitar shape that was extremely difficult to sail in higher winds. It was first substituted for the short lived the Tanzer Quarter Tonner (TQT) in 1974 by using the rudder from the Tanzer 26. The class adopted a new              rudder in 1985 with a more modern design, deeper draft and new manufacturing methods. All three rudders are legal under class rules and PHRF-LO has no reporting requirements between the variants. It is assumed that if you are racing you will likely have the newest                 one that exists, and suggestions from the class has stated there is no material speed difference, just more control from the helm.

 

As with all things boat related there are a number of schools of thought around what the cost of modifications should be. In many cases rudder failures are repaired in a least cost fashion and in others no expense is spared be it in the original manufacture or in the                         subsequent repair or replacement. Quality plays a large role in this and what the impact of a change may be.

 

Rudder Change Impact Guidelines Questions

 

Here are sample of questions to ask:

 

1) How was the rudder repaired?
2) Did it use the same shell without materially removing or adding to the existing rudder?
3) Was fibreglass cloth used to wrap the rudder?
4) Who did the rudder modification?
5) Was it a professional foil manufacturer or similar customer boatyard foil specialist?
6) Who made it? What it done at home?
7) Was a CNC machined used in the shaping or creation of the mould?
8) Were templates used?
9) What the rudderstock replaced? If yes with what? Same material or something lighter like Aluminum or Carbon?
10) What it made deeper?
11) What it made longer?
12) Was the profile changed to a NACA foil?
13) Has the class adopted this rudder? Does the class have rules around the rudder?
14) Was it made by the original manufacturer and/or supplier as an improvement / replacement?
15) Is it lighter than the original? Does it float?
16) Did the position on the boat change?
17) Does it sit closer to the bow or stern?
18) Does it feel any different sailing it or is it the same as another sister ship?
19) Did the wetted area change?
20) Did it require a change in mounting hardware, bearings or similar.

 

By answering many of these questions it should become very clear what the intent of the rudder change was.

 

Assumptions:

 

As per the handicapper manual any change within 2% does not require reporting.
For the table below values will be extended to 5%. Like for like replacements assume that the original shape and approximate construction methods are applied and some reasonable level of skill was used. Only quality credits will be issued against changes elsewhere                            in the table, no combined change will result in a credit (increase in handicap). Mod ratings should be used sparingly, but when in doubt notes should be taken and a mod requested.

 

Table of Suggested Handicap Changes

 

Examples:

 

ONE

 

Owner of a boat hires a professional marine engineering / foil maker to create a new foil that is 15% larger with a carbon shaft and foam core, that increase weight by 10%.

 

Change is reportable to PHRF-LO as a MOD, and would get a penalty of -6 for the change in size/foil shape and -3 for the material and carbon shaft for a total penalty of -9.

 

TWO

 

An owner breaks their rudder while out sailing and decides to “fix” it in their garage. They graft on a new lower portion they read would be faster, weight increases by 5 percent, length by 12%. Finished product has bumps and not very straight. People in the                                     club call it the “Franken” rudder.

 

Change is reportable to PHRF-LO as a MOD. It would attract a penalty of -6 for the added length, but would receive a credit of +6 for the poor quality of the foil, thus a zero change to rating.

 

THREE

 

A surveyor recommends a repair to a water-logged rudder. The owner contacts the local dealer and they say there are two options, option one, they can cut open a hole in the rudder carve out the filler foam and replace the filler and put a wrap of fibreglass                                   around it or option two, they can get a replacement from the company that bought the moulds, but the need the original rudder to reuse the existing post.

 

Either option does not result in a reportable change to PHRF-LO. There would be no rating impact in either case.

 

For further clarifications, please contact your district chief handicapper.

END OF DOCUMENT