Ripped off by PHRF ?????

[Tom Elsen]

I'll be as good-natured as I can here: Mr Collins is playing a somewhat 'dicey' game here.

As I stated, any local PHRF committee can do just about anything they want. 'All PHRF is local' is how the saying goes. So Mr. Collins is correct in saying that it is 'up to the local' COMMITTEE (not the club). They can force you to sail with the board down, they can force you to sail backwards if they wish. You have to appeal. That's PHRF.

As far as claiming that 'it has been in the rules for ten years-safety issue', simply ask him to point it out for everyone in the meeting....because it isn't there.

Watch carefully all wording in anything he quotes. Remember that you have a daggerboard NOT a swing keel. Also there are various prohibitions against moving ballast, but that is not what's happening on your boat.

Above and beyond that, the MORC test proves that the 7.9 has a better limit of positive stability WITH THE BOARD UP than does the J24 in normal configuration. So, unless Mr. Collins believes that it'd be a good idea to ban spinnakers on the J24s, maybe he should re-think things a bit.

[absolut]

No formal hearing to date. Not a safety issue, seems they just want to slow us down.

[LarryE-old]

Here we go again!
I knew with all the Bull Shit on SA about the board, that I would hear from PHRF soon. Got an email today saying I need to keep the board down. TIRED of this issue, this is the second time I have had to deal with this. Racing PHRF not worth the hassle!!

[Tom Elsen]

Larry, would you please post more information about this case? Where do you sail? Which PHRF authority issued this ruling. How did this occur? Was there a hearing / notification. As much detail as possible.

[LarryE-old]

I am happy to advise that the East Coast Sailing Ass. PHRF handicapper has spoken, in favor of the fleet. They feel if the class allows the board to be raised and the boat meets OCS then thats the way it will be.
Good job Jim and Hasty.



Great job Larry
And congrats to this PHRF board for recognizing the proposal for what it was - a smarmy attempt to penalize the 7.9 without going through a rating hearing!! Cheap, and lousy sportsmanship. Good for them for doing the right thing.
Tom.

[LarryE-old]

Thats ODR not OCS. Four days of working on the RC for the Sunfish Masters last weekend and I have been saying OCS in my sleep. Love the Black Flag!

[absolut]

LarryE-Good news for you and your club. Not so good for us, my local club has not dropped the "no board adjustment while racing". Worse yet, I have not been able to get them to hear my side, no hearing just the edict. Where is the 'Eastern Sailing Assoc. located? I have been trying to get a data base with board restrictions and handicaps for the 7.9 together. I would use this if they ever give me a hearing. slpenny44@msn.com
Thanks for any help.
absolut

[absolut]

larryE
Sorry "East Coast Sailing Assoc."
absolut

[LarryE-old]

ECSA is centeral Fl. on the Atlantic side.

[Tom Line]

Larry, I can understand why you didn't want this brought up in public, like Sailing Anarchy. But, if we don't demand decisions now from the various authorities, we'll get them later in various "under the table" methods that likely will be confused and contradictory. I.E., you can raise your board in North Star Sail Club races, but not in Port Huron Yacht Club races, etc etc.

A universal ruling one way or the other by the larger authories will help everyone see where they stand. Until then we'll deal with fragmented rules, and even worse, protests and whining about illegal board use. That would damage the 7.9 fleet's reputation.

[absolut]

Here is the latest from my Handicap Committee:
Subject: Re: Hearing request


How many times do we have to state the same thing, as I've already stated this 2 plus times.

There is no formal hearing protocol and your info has been presented and read by our comm. and the reason is simple - the PHRF booklet states clearly that many fleets require the board to be down for a 168 HCP, and in our reviewing ALL handicaps and their relationship to the this booklet of base handicaps around the country we feel that it is an unfair advantage to be able to raise the board and have a 168 handicap. As stated we will review this over the year but remember in this case that all 3 members of the comm. have raced the S.2 7.9 and are more then aware of the advantages. Nothing is thought of as in safety issue which dispells 1/2 of the web site.

[Tom Elsen]

Re the above post:

"The PHRF booklet states clearly that many fleets require the board to be down for a 168 HCP"
Where does the PHRF book state such a thing? Not in my reading.

"Nothing is thought of as in safety issue..." This is good, since the 'safety issue' is a ruse.

"...in our reviewing ALL handicaps and their relationship to the this booklet of base handicaps around the country we feel that it is an unfair advantage to be able to raise the board and have a 168 handicap."
SO this is a re-rating of the boat by this board.

Where then is the evidence required by SBCC's own PHRF Regulations? The regs are as follows (emphasis mine):

"Performance handicaps are arrived at through an empirical process based upon observation and analysis of race results."
Also...
"PHRF® base handicaps are made on the assumption that:
.........
8. the hull and appendages are unmodified."....
which they were. Then the committee changed the (downwind) underwater profile.

Where is the "observed performance" evidence? I would like to see it. Sadly, instead of of evidence you have the following indication of the true nature of the proceedings as follows:
"...we feel that it is an unfair advantage to be able to raise the board and have a 168 handicap."
Feelings aren't evidence. Stick to the rules.

Here is the link to the SBBC PHRF regs
http://www.sbccsail.org/SBCC%20PHRF%20Regs.htm

[absolut]

Tom
I received your e-mail and thanks for the help with this issue. I have to clarify where I sail and the PHRF group rating the 7.9. I sail on the South Shore of Long Island and the club is the South Bay Cruising Club. The YRA/LIS is located on the North Shore of LI.
The fact that the 3 members of the SBCC Handicap Comm. sailed on 7.9's, they sailed the same boat until they got a Melges 24. This may have a bearing on their decision, but the lawyer in their group denies it.
Absolut

Steve (and all) Please note that I have modified my post above. I thought you were LIS PHRF. Now I know better.. The post now reflects the SBBC PHRF regs.
Somebody's been hard at work there. I note that it states in two different places in different language that you can't move the board. Deft handiwork. Mildly suspicious? You bet.

[fleck]

Perhaps you should tell them that you will be raising your centerboard instead of your keel. Are they prohibiting boats that have partial keels with centerboards from raising them? I noticed you have some boats like the tartan 34c. Are they requiring him to not use lift his 8ft board to the 4ft keel?

I think this is bogus. And people wonder why this sport is in trouble.

[absolut]

The South Bay Cruising Club, my local sailing club and the area PHRF Handicapper, has reversed itself and ruled to allow my S2 7.9 to sail with the CB adjustable while racing. I would like to thank all for sharing their insights and ideas as I used many in my quest to have this issue reversed.
Attached below is the ruling from my club. Thanks again.

Steve,
In a recent discussion with the SBCC Handicap Committee, the SBCC Regatta Captain, and myself all agreed that a decision on your case could be reached without requiring a formal hearing. The case you outlined at the last Board Meeting was very compelling and logical.
The most important thing is the precedent already set by the SBCC during your 18 year ownership of ABSOLUT. Because of that precedent, we all agree that keel lifting restrictions will not apply to ABSOLUT and your handicap rating will remain at 168. This is the official decision of the SBCC on this case.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We look forward to seeing you on ABSOLUT often this year.
John Davis,
Commodore