• Class breaks in handicap racing
  4 Comments
  Jonah Zimmerman Today 06:18
• Protest Standard of Proof and Evidence Bars
  8 Comments
  John Quirk Mon 05:40
• Question of terminology when all boats do not race together
  13 Comments
  Gordon Davies 25-Dec-10 14:03
• A keen volunteer with a conflict of interest
  55 Comments
  Benjamin Harding 25-Dec-09 11:09
• Should "Basic Principles" be added to RRS 4 & 5?
  7 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 25-Dec-08 13:40

• Class breaks in handicap racing
  I'm not familiar with PHRF but I think IRC is a similar system, classifying a broad range of cruising and racing ballasted monohull keel boats for competition by providing ratings comprising single figure allowances based on time.  It provides the following guidance to race management.  "With the ever-increasing range of boat types racing under IRC, it is inevitable that courses and conditions will affect race results. Race Committees can minimise these effects by considering carefully the types of courses set. Conditions are beyond the control of a race committee, but even then course location may be significant. ... Noting also that a balance of course types is a fundamental part of fair yacht racing, it is strongly recommended that race committees should set a variety of courses. For IRC regional or national championships this should be stipulated as a requirement."  There  is more detailed comment in Section 5 of IRC Race Management 
  As both a competitor under IRC and race official, I have no issue with conditions in some races favouring one type of boat over another, but in a series running over the course of a year, expect that every boat will have its day, provided the race official follows the guidance of setting a variety of courses. 
  What can be an issue is the safety argument: on a day with marginal conditions, heavy boats could compete safely and do well but the race organisers abandon races because it is perceived to be unsafe for light boats (though some do cope well), and in light conditions, the light boats are favoured.  
  
  
  Kirsteen Donaldson Today 09:17
• A keen volunteer with a conflict of interest
  I must have been referring to the right subparagraph:  Jim understood.
  
  Fixed.
  John Allan Tue 13:39
• Protest Standard of Proof and Evidence Bars
  Thanks John...even then with "...bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation." (seriousness being the operative word), there is an educated [jurisdictional] assesssment of sorts to be made.
  John Quirk Tue 03:37
• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  Rob .. I like it. It captures the "obvious contact" condition and ties it up nicely. 
  Angelo Guarino Sun 20:09
• Question of terminology when all boats do not race together
  Thank you for your reply born of direct experience. Long ago I ran a national championship with 6 races (one scheduled per day – those were the days) and a four race minimum. We got the required four in, but only just, and on the final day; nail-biting stuff in a light-wind week at a normally-windy venue. The concept of event sponsors, let alone personal ones, was pretty alien, limited to whether we could get the club's brewery to subsidise the bar. 
  
  I still say that, to be a series, you need at least two data points, but if the RRS (which does not define a series) allows the minimum number of races to be set to one, that part of the sentence in RRS A1 – 'and the number required to be scored to constitute a series' can be rendered ineffective. The RRS rule-drafters cannot have had this in mind when they made this condition compulsory. Perhaps RRS A1 should be amended to make this requirement optional. Nevertheless, deciding an event, let alone a championship, on the basis of one race would be farcical.
  Nicolas Livingstone Sat 11:36

Forums Leader Board

This Month