last updated: 16 April 2012
Subject: Dave Hansman has cooked up a Wayfarer PHRF rating
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hansman  W282
To: 'Al Schonborn' ; 'A. G. Douma'
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:42 PM
Subject: Wayfarer PHRF number

Hello Al:
 
Racing a W against keelboats was not, for good reasons I am sure, considered by the guys who came up with PHRF, so to alleviate that little error and to put some “heat” on those keel boat sailors who look down upon dinghies (figuratively and literally), I did some research on Portsmouth ratings, compared those to the Lake Ontario PHRF numbers for similar keel boats, created a graph using Excel and then extrapolated a “pseudo-PHRF” number for a Wayfarer.  That number is 0.9350 .  Perhaps this is not being overly scientific, but I think it is okay for what we do.
 
I have used the number to do comparisons with keelboats at our club (mostly for my own gratification, including the Canada Day Races) and it appears to be a pretty fair number in light and medium breezes.  However, when the winds really come up (say over 15 knots with gusts), it is a different world and, assuming the Ws are racing, the PHRF number I suggest would not be applicable (unless, of course, it is a +20 knot downwind, kite up, planing screamer like we had a couple years ago at the Canada Day race – what a blast that was!).
 
Dave Hansman
(W282 Banshee)  
a more official approach to a Wayfarer PHRF rating provided by Colin Junkin (CL1820)
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Junkin
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:08 AM
Subject: Wayfarer PHRF rating

hi al  was reading you eduucational notes and saw this http://www.wayfarer-international.org/WIT/race.related/Wayfarer_PHRF_number.html
 
here is the actual number as US sailing states
to find your D-PN
 
so wayfarer D-PN = 91.6
and the wayfarer phrf = 219
 
and this is at the bottom
 
These conversion factors should not be regarded as absolute, and Race Committees should make adjustments based on their local experience.

Subject: Wayfarer PHRF rating revisited
From: Nick Seraphinoff W10864
To: Heffernan, Jim
Cc: Schonborn, Al ; Rahn, Peter ; Johnson, Richard
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 3:48 PM
Subject: Racing
 
Hi Guys
 
It looks like I will be racing my Wayfarer on Wedensdays here in Traverse. I will have to race handicap and wonder what a Wayfarer is rated at. Will it be PHRF?

From: Al Schonborn [mailto:uncle-al3854@cogeco.ca]
Sent: April-14-12 4:28 PM

Somebody else asked me that some time back and I thought I posted the response on the WIT. Will check now before I finally start my nap!!

Where would you be without me??!! 

Best regards,

Uncle Al (W3854)
From: Peter E. Rahn
To: 'Al Schonborn' ; nseraphinoff@comcast.net ; 'Heffernan, Jim'
Cc: 'Johnson, Richard'
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 5:27 PM
Subject: PHRF rating

Hi all

0.9350 WOW

My Shark is rated at 0.936 and a Tanzer 22 is at 0.939.  There is no way that a Wayfarer is close to being as fast as these two other boats!

Our rating for the Wayfarer is 0.911

Just my 2¢

Peter Rahn W286
To: 'Heffernan, Jim' ; nseraphinoff@comcast.net ; Peter E. Rahn
Cc: Dave & Carol Hansman W10865 ; Colin Junkin (CL1820) ; 'Johnson, Richard'
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:48 AM
Subject: Wayfarer PHRF revisited

Great input, Peter! Have added it to our PHRF page and am copying Colin and Dave who made the earlier contributions. Take care! See you at Bayview!!
 
Best regards,
 
Uncle Al (W3854)


From: Colin Junkin CL1820
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 5:15 PM

I have raced PHRF with my boat. This is where PHRF has issues vs others that take into account wind speed:  in 6 knots or less, I usually have no problem keeping pace but as the winds increase above I'm all but done as their weight is used to advantage.

Al: Makes sense that once we hit hull speed winds, the longer boats have the built in advantage in their very length which gives them greater hull speed - unless we can plane, of course.


From: David & Carol Hansman
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:59 PM

Hello, All:
 
Seems like forever since we did the rough study trying to figure out something that works but it was only 3 years ago.  I can remember that Andrew Haill had injected an opinion as well that we might be on the aggressive side.
 
I think that my experience using the 0.935 was similar to what Colin has found – in light and medium winds up to about 10 knots it seemed fair but as the winds got stronger it was definitely favoured on the side of the “big” boats.  In all, I would not disagree with what Peter is using – 0.911
 
Where was Peter when we were trying to figure that out a few years ago? 
 
Best regards from Chile.
 
Dave