1. Why ORR and not PHRF?
 
ORR is an comprehensive and objective VPP based measurement rule that can very accurately predict the performance potential of a wide variety of boat types over a range of wind strengths.  PHRF is a simple and subjective one number system that has a difficult time distinguishing the potential of the boat the from ability of the crew, and which cannot account for relative differences in performance with wind strength. ORR data is assembled by trained measurers, and it can assess real world boat weight very accurately.  PHRF depends on owner-supplied information that is often not well informed.  ORR can assess ultimate stability, which can help owners and race organizers make informed decisions about capsize resistance and safety at sea, and can produce 'Performance Packages' that will help crews optimize performance. PHRF can offer no such added benefits. ORR performance predictions are seamlessly transferable from one region to another.  PHRF typically works well for local club level racing where the handicappers know the boats, but it is not well suited to regional events where some boats are unfamiliar to the handicappers.
  
2. Why ORR and not IRC?

ORR is based on rigorous and consistent measurement procedures, while IRC depends on relatively few objective hull measuremnets and a number of subjective judgements made by a remote rating office unfamiliar with many of the boats they rate.  ORR measures stability and models both the entire hull and the appendages, while IRC cannot directly assess stability, waterline beam and wetted area, three of the primary determinants of performance.  ORR can accurately predict performance potential over a range of wind conditions, while IRC is a single number system that depends on averaging scores over an extended period to avoid 'conditions specific' results.  ORR is an unpublished system that accurately assesses a comprehensive array of  characteristics essential to predicting performance, which minimized its sensitivity to type forming and design obsolesence.  IRC is also an unpublished 'black box', but its simplicity leaves it vulnerable to very strong type forming.
 
3.  IMS ultimately failed in the US; Why should ORR be different?

IMS was introduced (as MHS) in the 1970's, with 1970's technolgy.  ORR benefits from the substantial advances made in fluid dynamics and computer technology made during the nearly 30 years since.  Systematic tank and wind tunnel testing with large models have quantified much more accurately the effects that a broad variety of design details have on performance potential .  ORR has learned from, and reacted to, various shortcomings experienced by IMS, especially those related to its implementation.  ORR is developed and administered here in the US, and so can reflect the needs of US owners more quickly and directly.
 
4. Americap was never embraced by US owners.Why should they be attracted
to ORR?

Americap was developed as an alternative to IMS that was hard for many to distinguish from IMS, and that never escaped from the IMS shadow.  ORR does not have to contend with IMS.  ORR is an objective and comprehensive VPP-based system that stands in clear contrast to the subjective simplicity of both PHRF and IRC.  The implementation of ORR has benefitted from the lessons learned by both IMS and Americap with regard to scoring options, presentation, and support.  ORR is a substantial step beyond Americap in terms of its ability to accurately predict performance potential.

Q. Does this system favor little boats?

A. No.
 
Q. Does this system favor big boats?

A. No.
 
Q. Does this system hammer sprit boats?

A. No.
 
Q. Does this system account for the effects of current?

A. No. No handicap system does.
 
Q. Does this system provide for single number ratings? Time on time?
Time on distance?

A. Yes. Single numbers are available either time on time or time on distance for  a given wind and course configuration.
 

Back to Top