This Forum is supported by C&C 27 owners like you whose membership in the C&C 27 Association makes possible this Forum and the accompanying site. Thank you, members, for your continuing commitment.
You are not logged in.
just curious what is a fair PHRF rating for a C&C 27 MK3
Do a search for '27' on this LORC page: <A href="http://www.lorc.org/whois.htm">http://www.lorc.org/whois.htm</A> . It will give you a good idea of the spread (around Toronto, anyway). The ratings in the 180's are for spinnaker, the ratings closer to 200 are white sail. Points are added and subtracted for a number of modifications including sail area, furling jib, folding prop, etc... Most of the boats here are Mark III. Mark V's will be closer to 173 for spinnaker.
Last edited by (2005-04-29 08:45:03)
Offline
Hi Guest,
I have a Mk 111. The PHRF-LO (Lake Ontario) rating is 198 for NFS and 186 with spinnaker. This assumes the max. L/P of the Genoa used is 153%. (I once used a 163% genoa but if I recall correctly, it cost me 3 seconds per mile.)
PHRF make no allowance in ratings for a non-folding prop.
Clare Jordan
<U>SAIL FOR SALE </U>_
#2 Genoa for 27' Mk.111 by North Sails . Tri-radial cut, Norlam fabric, built 1998-- good shape . Window, tell-tales and draught stripe. Stitching etc. checked ;2001/2002 . #6 Luff tape .
Replacement Genoa is on order for 2004 racing season but there's some cruising years left in this one -$ 550 asking price. phone 613 498-2029 or e-mail <A href="mailto:bosco@ripnet.com">bosco@ripnet.com</A> <img src="emoticons/icon_frown.gif">Brockville)
;
;
Offline
Sorry, Clare, your statement about non-folding props is not correct. You get a +6 sec/mile adjustment for a 2-blade fixed pitch prop. For everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask about PHRF, see the PHRF-LO Handicapper's Manual, available at http://www.phrf-lo.org/Manual.htm. Propulsion is covered in section 7.5, page 45.
Hugh Morrin
NSC PHRF Handicapper
Blue Zulu
MK III, #894
Nepean Sailing Club
Hugh Morrin
Blue Zulu, C&C 27 Mk III, #894
Nepean Sailing Club, www.nsc.ca/cc27
President and back-up webmaster, C&C 27 Association
Offline
Sorry, Hugh and Guest for providing some mis-information re folding props. Hugh, was it always thus??
The other thing we both should have mentioned to Guest is that PHRF-LO is increasing the max L/P of the Genoa from 153% to 155% next year.
Clare Jordan
<U>SAIL FOR SALE </U>_
#2 Genoa for 27' Mk.111 by North Sails . Tri-radial cut, Norlam fabric, built 1998-- good shape . Window, tell-tales and draught stripe. Stitching etc. checked ;2001/2002 . #6 Luff tape .
Replacement Genoa is on order for 2004 racing season but there's some cruising years left in this one -$ 550 asking price. phone 613 498-2029 or e-mail <A href="mailto:bosco@ripnet.com">bosco@ripnet.com</A> <img src="emoticons/icon_frown.gif">Brockville)
;
;
Offline
I can't say if it's always been so (ref adjustment for fixed prop). Correct about the change to 150% LP.
Hugh Morrin
Oops ... that should have read 155%. Hugh
Hugh Morrin
Blue Zulu, C&C 27 Mk III, #894
Nepean Sailing Club, www.nsc.ca/cc27
President and back-up webmaster, C&C 27 Association
Offline
"Always" is a long time, but around 1980, a couple of comedians in Oakville equipped their boats with fixed props that had been ground down to blade widths of about 3/4 of an inch, so as to get the fixed-prop credit while incurring minimal drag. The props were completely useless, of course.
I could never figure out why the measurement guidelines didn't have some clause whereby a measurer could disallow any feature that was obviously intended to circumvent the rules.
David Weatherston
Towser, Toronto
C&C 27 Mk IV
David Weatherston
Towser, Toronto
C&C 27 Mk IV
Offline
Re: The Oakville "Beanie" Props....I didn't think anyone knew of that bit of History. I had heard of them as well and in truth I have never seen one of these Beanie props. It may just be an suburban legend.
At the time the boats were racing under the LOR (Lake Ontario Rule) and a fixed prop was given a 2% bonus on their ratings. I was the LOR measurer for the west end of the lake at the time. The measurers role as to measure the boats "as found" however the application form included a section were the Skipper attested the the boat was found in a specific condition. Before I started any measurement I would read that section out loud to the skippers so they could not latter claim they were unaware of the requirements. Anyway...LOR was not very complicated and no one anticpated the skippers would get that creative. (and there were other "creative" things done to get around the LOR) Luckily none that I saw actually worked.
If a fellow competitor suspected that a skipper had intentionaly altered his boat or that the "as found" conditions were different than what the skipper has attested then his recourse was to challenge the rating as an official protest. Although that never happened to any boat I measured, the practice would have been to have the boat remeasured with independent witnesses attesting to the "as found" condition. The results would then be compared etc and the protest determined. One reason I suspect that I never remasured a boat was that the practice also was to asign my fees to whomever lost. So frugality ruled over indignation.
I saw them, they existed.
One of the boats came down to Toronto for a regatta that turned out to be monumentally windless. At the end of the day, when everyone had finally struggled across the line, the Oakville/Bronte contingent simply scattered as fast as they could, obviously anticipating a request for a tow. The genius with the beanie prop (nice name, btw) was left to struggle home at two knots, possibly reflecting on the old adage that the evil that men do often comes back to haunt them.
Something similar was also done on a quarter-tonner, a Luna 24, I saw a few years later. The owner had not only had the prop milled down, he'd had about 3/4 of the thickness of his prop shaft machined away to reduce its impact. I don't know if he ever dared put the engine in gear.
David Weatherston
Towser, Toronto
C&C 27 Mk IV
David Weatherston
Towser, Toronto
C&C 27 Mk IV
Offline
Wow - was a hot button pushed or what. Lot's of good reading here. Never heard of the "beanie" prop.
One thing that interested me out here on the "wet" coast is the reference to "seconds per mile" an anomally we also use. For the unitiated, seconds per mile doesn't really mean what it says. At a rating of around 200, each rating point, called a second, refers to about 4 seconds. So a rating hit of 3 points or seconds really means 12 seconds per hour. At a rating of around 75, each point or second means about 6 seconds.
The PHRF rating on LARK is 214 according to B C Sailing, including a 3 second bonus for old sails (five years old I think) and we get an 18 second (points) allowance for no spinnaker. B C Sailing marches to its own drummer and runs all the sailing in the province except Vancouver Island. That means any boat from Vancouver wishing to join a regatta in Victoria or in Seattle must apply for a rating from North West PHRF, adding to the cost. The crew at B C Sailing is retiring this year so we may see things amalgamating. I know the rater at our club thinks its a good thing these guys are going.
Our VARC (Vancouver Area Racing Council) has been moving steadily towards a new rating system, the ORC, that makes allowances for wind speeds. It is working very well so far (we have detractors but they are mostly the ones whose results suffered). It hasn't filtered down to club racing yet but I hope it does. LARK for example, doesn't do well against a C&C 26 in heavy airs, say above 15 kn. but in lighter winds, we do a horizon job on him, literally.
Fred Butler LARK
RE: Rating systems: There will always be problems with rating systems and unless we race one design we can expect rating systems will come into and go out of fashion on some frequency. We raced PHRF in Key West Race Week last January and the Americans are switching to "IRC" in droves and we were told that 2005 could be the last year for any PHRF divisions at Key West Race Week. Check out http://www.ussailing.org/offshore/irc/ or google US-IRC. There has been less uptake so far in Canada. So if you are thinking of switching to a new system you may want to check it out.
The reason seems to be that PRHF is too subjective and the objective rating systems IOR, IMS and AMERICAP are too expensive and more importantly produce boats that are usless except for racing in one rule. The Americans want to have a rule that produces fair rating and boats designs that can be both cruised and raced and have a high residual value after their racing life. (This sounds like a 1978 C&C ad doesn't it?)
This is not a recomendation of endorsation so if you are a PHRF keener ...please don't yell at me. It is just for information.
Murray (CASSIA)