PHRF Ratings

[jwhj92s]

I have a J92s with a 109 m2 A2 spinnaker.  My rating took a 6 second hit because my spinnaker is larger than the OD rule (which I cannot find anywhere).  Is there a rule for the largest size spinnaker on a J92S?

[Ragtime!]

The J92S raced as a one design only once that I can remember - at Key West Race Week in 2008 or so (a year or two after the design was first produced).  KWRW used its own PHRF committee to establish ratings for the regatta, and at that time it was a committee well-respected by other PHRF regions.  Perhaps with some Googling you can find more info.  Or J/Boats in RI could look up what rating they used and what size spinnaker was assumed.

Out here, NorCal PHRF often had two ratings for class boats - one if they raced under OD class rules and one if they didn't.  When I bought my 92 (not S), the first thing I had to do was get the rating switched to the non-OD rating.  This was easy because there was no OD racing of the 92 out here (or anywhere else).  What the non-OD rating SHOULD be is an "observed performance" rating of your boat with its 109 s/m spinnaker, as compared to other boats you race against.  If you are consistently getting beat by certain boats you should be able to present that data and get your rating adjusted.

Finally, in its own rating analysis, J Boats shows a 85 s/m spinnaker for the J/92S.  Declaring a spinnaker 28% larger would justify a 6 second hit - that seems quite fair to me:

J Boats PHRF Analysis  

[jwhj92s]

Thanks for the info.  I agree about the 6 seconds, if the 85 is correct.  The 92, on J boats site is rated with a 91 spinnaker.  With a shorter hoist you would think the conventional 92 would have a smaller spinnaker.  Maybe the 85 is a typo.  I would like to know the size of other J92S owners spinnakers.  We, and all other PHRF boats are consistently beat by the Melges 24's, rating 93.  We even have a Seascape 27 rating 123.  We carry a PHRF rating of 96.  Hard to beat the conventional 92 with overlapping jib, lighter displacement, and larger spinnaker at 105.

[Ragtime!]

Your ratings for the J/92 and J/92S are the same as in NorCal PHRF but the Melges 24 rates 84 here (it weighs a third of what our boats weigh!).  There are no Seascapes here yet but they will get a harsh rating - anything new gets hammered here (except BeneHunteLinas).  If you're a member of US Sailing you can look at the PHRF Handicaps manual online, which shows ratings around the country.  I'd start gathering the data for an appeal.  Follow your committee's appeal process - and you may have to remind them what it says!

In lighter-air venues the 92 and 92S should rate even (IMO).  My recollection from looking at race results from the UK (where they race each other more) is they rate even over there.  Here in NorCal PHRF we tend to have more wind and the 92S is faster in big breeze, when I can't use my genoa.  Also, I think our local 92S uses a larger spinnaker than 85 s/m.  (Todd O?)

Bob J.

[John Forster]

In the U.K. Most of the J92 sail with non overlapping jibs as IRC penalizes overlapping genoas. I also noticed when I was racing at Scottish Series this year the standard J92 set up appears to have mast head kites. 

John Forster

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "J/92 Owners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to j92owners+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to j92o...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/j92owners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Todd Olsen]

These are the measurements, in feet, for my asymmetric spinnaker, for a J92S. I do not know how to convert this easily to square meters, and I am working w a cell phone only right now.

Luff 48.67
Leech 39.67
Foot 23.25

Mid girth 24

Todd

[jwhj92s]

using luffxfootx.8 = 906 square feet, or 84.xxx square meters.  Could have went bigger.  Ha Ha.
If I calculated that right your spinnaker is as big as J boats allows, but not as big as the conventional J92.

[Ragtime!]

Thanks Todd.  Those dimensions are the same as those on your PHRF certificate and compute to 878 sq feet, or 81.6 sq meters.

Todd and I both race on San Francisco Bay, where the largest possible spinnakers are not necessarily an advantage.  My certificate allows for a kite of 1,019 sq. feet (94.67 sq. meters) but mine are smaller than that.  We came back in the Gate a couple weeks ago with the A4 (54 sq meters) and it was plenty for the conditions!

Anyway, the 94.67 sq meter max area on my certificate is a computed number from our PHRF rules (for all boats) and is actually based on the maximum area allowed for symmetric spinnakers.  So again, ask for a non-OD rating and then study your local rules to see how big a kite they allow.  You might be surprised (as I was.)

[jwhj92s]

I calculated FORETRIANGLE AREA for several boats, including 92 and 92S, then took (from Jboats website), max spinnaker sizes of 91 and 85 respectively and got the percentage of FORETRIANGLE.  The 92, with a 91sq meter spin is at 300% of the FORETRIANGLE, the 92S with an 85sq meter chute is at 244% of the FORETRIANGLE.  I did this calculation for about 15 of the boats I race against; at 85sq meters, the 92S spinnaker is, by far the smallest allowable area.  Why would the 92 be allowed 300% and the 92S only 244%?  I think its a misprint on J Boats PHRF page, but my governing body is using it to make our boat uncompetetive.  :-(  Also from J Boats site; the 92 has a base rating of 108, the S 102.  Locally, the 92 base rating is 111 and the S 102.  We're getting hit at both ends.  With a 155% genoa, the 92 carries 600 ft2 upwind where the S carries 539; and the 92S is heavier.  At JBoats recommended spin size the 92 carries 1250 ft2 downwind while the S 1186.  Currently we are rated 102 with a -6 for a 1243 ft2 spinnaker for a net of 96.  The 92 is at 111 with -6 for 155%, net 105.  We are competitive with the 92, but the Melges 24s at 93 are killing everybody.  The Seascape 27 at 126 should be cleaning up.

When the 92 moves it's hoist to the mashead the foretriangle area will go up, and the largest allowable spinnaker will be around 1200-1300 ft2.  At that point we will buy a Melges 24!!

Sorry, nobody wants to hear my PHRF issues, but thanks for reading.  I love my boat and just want be treated fair compared to my competition.

[Ragtime!]

Most of your comparisons are with the 92 but you say you are competitive with it, so it appears you should focus your efforts on appealing the rating of the Melges 24.  As I wrote earlier, M24 rates 84 here.  If there's enough wind for the M24 to plane (it doesn't take much) they are gone.  Another factor is dry-sailing.  If you keep your boat in the water and the Melges is dry-sailed it stays light/dry, bottom is always perfect, etc.

Our YRA tries to keep the planing boats in a separate "Sportboat" division because they're usually apples vs. oranges in performance.

Good luck!

[jwhj92s]

The Melges 24 rating is not going to change, hence my efforts to change mine.  We used to have a 6 second penalty for dry-sailed boats, but that went away.  Now there is no penalty for dry-sailing.  Two identical boats, one with antifouling, living in the water the other high and dry till 1 hour before the race rate the same.  Hmmmm.

I fell like my best bet is using the 92 for comparison, to get some seconds back.

[Rob Ferguson]

Olson 30 vs J/92.   Interested in finding out what those who race a J/92 rating is vs an Olson 30.   Currently I am a J/92 rated 108 (shoal draft) vs a Olson 30 who rates 102.   Currently it beats us on all points of sail.  It does have a perfectly white bottom that has no white antifouling on it.    

 I am using the Olson 30 since it is most popular competitor of the J/92.  

[Joe Cooper]

sq. ft. to sqm=

sq. ft. X 10.762

Joe Cooper

c: 401 965 6006

e: bushra...@gmail.com

WWW.joecoopersailing.com

FB: Joe Cooper Sailing

[Ragtime!]

Hi Rob,

The J/92's (standard keel) rate 105 and the Olson 30's rate 99 here.  These are well-established ratings (lots of boats over lots of years).  Downwind the Olson 30's usually beat me because they're lighter and can sail deeper.  We're closer upwind but my 92 has a standard (deep) keel, so you're at a disadvantage there too.  Your boat would rate at least 111 here - at least 12 sec/mile slower than an Olson 30.

When you feel like you've sailed a good race, see how many seconds/mile you'd need to finish even with them.  If it's much more than 12, fixing the ratings won't help.

I sympathize - there's an Olson up in the river that wins virtually every beer can race at his local club.  The club (not PHRF) has lowered his rating a couple of times and he still wins.

My club (down in the Bay) is loaded with great sailors but they take a different approach.  For beer can races they don't keep score and instead they hand out prizes for other stuff - number of juniors aboard, best performance in street clothes, whatever.  It seems to work better that way.

Bob J.

[aelle...@gmail.com]

Annapolis area sailor here for 40 years.  My take is that PHRF was created over 40 years ago and has not evolved with new boat designs. We have a similar issue with an Antrim 27 - has cleaned up for 10 years running.  Even when they are OCS and have to restart.  One of the things you may suggest is to switch to Time-on-Time scoring.   The base figure used in the calculation is 550, and can be moved up or down to allow for wind conditions.     You may also want to look into ORR and ORC rating systems.  They make a better attempt to figure out performance differences with more variables.  Lots of J92 data on the ORC website and you can create a temporary user ID to log on and search for J92 ratings.  Completely transparent system.

J Aellen

[Joe Cooper]

ORR has an EZ version

Suggest you review.

Joe Cooper

c: 401 965 6006

e: bushra...@gmail.com

WWW.joecoopersailing.com

FB: Joe Cooper Sailing