yacht racing handicap systems

• How to Apply
• Measurement
• What is IRC?
• Why IRC Endorsement?
• IRC Jargon Translated
• IRC Rule & Policies
• Valid Rating Listings
• Valid Boat Data
• Race Management
• Racing Calendar
• International IRC Congress
• Rating Authority
• IRC Governance
• Contact your Local Rule Authority
• Contact RORC Rating Office
• Contact l’UNCL, Pôle Course du YCF

Made by sailors for sailors

Latest News

40 years of irc rating, irc website resources updated.

• AROUND THE SAILING WORLD
• BOAT OF THE YEAR
• Email Newsletters
• America’s Cup
• St. Petersburg
• Caribbean Championship
• Boating Safety

Handicap Rating Rule Options for 2022

• By Gary Jobson
• February 8, 2022

The day was perfect for ­racing. With the wind out of the south at 15 knots, there was a spirited group of sailors striving to get their yachts to the finish line without leaving a second to spare on the racecourse. The course was a standard windward-leeward configuration, with 1.6-mile legs. After a below-average finish in the first race, our crew refocused and sailed exceptionally well for the next five races, achieving great starts, sailing on every favorable wind shift, and executing our boat handling with deft precision. We were doing everything we possibly could to ensure a corrected-time win.

But then, to our dismay, we watched our rivals round the final weather mark from well behind, set their spinnakers and jump on plane, cruising through our lee and sailing away, ­easily saving their time allowances and beating us on corrected time. Afterward, we analyzed every detail of every race, searching for ways to save even more time. Maybe we could have gained 20 seconds, but it never added up enough to make a difference. Eventually, it became clear to me that the handicap rating rule wasn’t working properly—certainly not for us, nor many other owners and teams that are becoming disheartened with the state of big-boat handicap ­racing.

This is, of course, not a new problem. The quest to assign fair handicap ratings to yachts of different shapes and sizes has been a challenge for more than a century. Looking back, a pattern seems to repeat every 20 years or so: A new rule emerges, designers and owners attempt to exploit every conceivable loophole, and inevitably the fleet dwindles as sailors become dissatisfied with the rule and walk away.

Big-boat handicap racing in North America is at a turning point once again. During my tenure at World Sailing , I was liaison to the Offshore and Oceanic Committee and the Offshore Racing Council. At US Sailing, I pushed the organization to improve its offshore regulatory operations. My perspectives, as a competitor and a board member, have always been aligned. In the United States, there is general dissatisfaction with our handicap rating rules, but what I have learned from current leaders about this situation is that help—and change—is on the way. To be successful, bold steps are in order.

Now, however, is not the time to create a new handicap rating rule. All the experts I’ve spoken to agree the preferred action is to improve the entry-level Performance Handicap Rating Factor system and work with the Offshore Racing Council, which manages ORC, to improve its rule for North American racing sailors. Creating a new handicap rule is an arduous process, and success is not a sure thing. There are many lessons from the past: In 1965, the Cruising Club of America and the Royal Ocean Racing Club collaborated on a new handicap rule for use in the Olympic Games. The Offshore Racing Council was formed to administer the new International Offshore Rule in 1969.

IOR was a vibrant rule because it was universally accepted and used internationally. In time, however, favor in IOR started to fade. Stan Honey, an authority on offshore racing and handicap systems, says American sailors became frustrated with the ORC in the 1980s for not fixing known problems with IOR. “ORC did not have the strength of character to maintain the IOR rule,” Honey says. “The technical committee was comprised of designers that had their own boats in build, so those guys didn’t want to change the rule to fix the problems.”

The IOR’s problem children—yachts with pinched ends—eventually killed the rule.

“The IOR would still be working if the ORC had fixed it,” Honey says, “but they didn’t. The boats got weird, and nobody liked them anymore.”

US yachtsmen then went and funded the development of the H. Irving Pratt Project and created a velocity prediction program (VPP) that became the Measurement Handicap Rule. The Pratt VPP is still the basis for handicapping rules in use today. The ORC used the basics of the MHS rule and created the International Measurement System, and soon enough, the same problems surfaced again.

“The ORC screwed it up again because it did not maintain it even though there was some great racing with the IMS rule,” Honey says. “When the loopholes got figured out, the technical committee did not fix the problems. So, the United States split off again, ­creating the Americap Rule and the Offshore Rating Rule.”

Today, several handicap ­rating rules are used in North America, including ORR, ORC, IRC (which is owned by the Royal Ocean Racing Club) and PHRF. That’s too many, and none are perfect.

Ed Cesare, chairman of New York YC’s Handicap Rating Rule and Measurement Committee, says the club used ORC broadly last summer for the first time and experienced a high level of disappointment from the fleet. “We received complaints about the quality and integrity of the certificates,” he says. “I am not at all comfortable that we are going to get to a good place with the ORC rule. They did a good job on marketing it, which led to unrealistic expectations about what the rule can do.”

Cesare and Larry Fox, representing the Storm Trysail Club, presented seven submissions via US Sailing to the ORC. The submissions asked to expand the wind range down to 4 knots; define the allowable use of unusual headsails (Code Zeros); and improve the way the VPP handles planing boats, adding more wind ranges from three groups to five. They also asked stability calculation questions, including a request to allow multiple standard ORC certificates at once for the same boat, and a request to examine the rated performance of unique boat types.

“All of [the submissions] were remanded to the technical ­committee,” he says.

The ORC’s response was the same when the United States was complaining about IOR and IMS in the 1980s and 1990s, Honey says. “It does not end well when you take that approach with American sailors.”

The ORC, he adds, needs to aggressively work to solve the problems and come up with a better rule, or at least a version of the rule that meets the needs of US sailors. “For 2022, the five wind-band scoring will help,” he says. “We think this will ameliorate the displacement-planing situation. It is in progress, and I hope the ORC will work with us.”

The United States has the third-highest number of ORC International certificates, so Cesare says his group will take action by putting yachts in appropriate classes. “The class breaks are going to be draconian,” he says. “If you have a 40-foot planing boat, you better get some of your friends to come or you are going to be ­racing by yourself.”

Dobbs Davis, chair of the ORC Promotion and Development Committee, has been championing the rule for many years. He is, of course, an enthusiastic supporter of the rule and says it works if the scoring is done properly. “Using ORC tools, we have multiple ways of scoring,” Davis says. “One of them is the wind triple-number system—low, medium and high [wind strength]. There are crossovers, which puts a burden on the race committee because they have to decide what is the low, medium or heavy wind. Basically, below 8 knots is low, 9 to 14 knots is medium, and above 14 knots is high.”

As far as dealing with the concerns of Cesare and Fox, Davis says the scoring works fine with planing boats—again, as long as the scoring is done properly. As to US Sailing’s other submissions, Davis says, race committees do need to establish accurate wind strengths to score boats correctly, but this is not easy. Some race committees will determine the wind strength before the race starts, and scoring with five wind ranges will make it worse. The ORC will not allow boats to have multiple certificates, he adds, “which would make it tough on our administrators. The ORC will not make estimates on stability. This is a safety issue.”

Matt Gallagher, an ORC member, past chair of the Chicago YC’s Race to Mackinac, and chair of US Sailing’s Offshore Racing Committee, says he’s committed to achieving two goals: “We want our members and racers to go offshore and do it with any rating rule our partner clubs choose to use, and then bring some stability to the rating rules and bring some focus back to PHRF. The base of the pyramid has been neglected for a while. We have to start growing that again.”

Gallagher is optimistic about the use of the ORC rule and says it’s one that needs attention and tweaking to make it more appropriate for the United States. “[The ORC is] going to have to pay more attention to us.”

Honey agrees: “PHRF should be cheap, cheerful and simple scoring,” he says. “People should understand that the most effective rating for their boat is in class scoring. Anything that changes a boat out of class scoring is going to be punished [with a higher handicap rating]. If you want to spend more money to perform better, put your money in new sails, coaches, a smooth bottom and stuff like that.”

As for the future, Honey has an interesting prediction: “A new rule will happen. The original VPP that came out of the Pratt Project is still the basis for the ORC. It is long in the tooth and old-fashioned. What is going to happen next is some graduate students are going to come up with some neural network-based rule. The timing will be just right in a year or two because people will be really frustrated with the ORC. It will start another 15- to 20-year cycle until people get tired of that rule.”

Until then, he says, US Sailing must focus on providing high-quality measurement services and supporting PHRF by providing a first-class online database with regional ratings and guidelines to help race committees manage local fleets. “PHRF should be kept at the entry level and use single time-on-time scoring,” Honey says. “Any event that wants to do wind-condition scoring should move on to another rule. Any sailor that wants to optimize their boat for different races should go do some different rule.”

A few venerable American races, such the Newport to Bermuda and the Transpacific Race, continue to use the ORR rule. However, in recent years, the Offshore Racing Association, which controls ORR, has struggled to keep its operation functioning. The ORC rule has a chance to be more broadly adopted domestically, but its managers need to work with American race organizers to improve the rule. PHRF has a promising future, but would be well-served to update its operations to make it easy to use. In our age of supercomputer technology, we have the capability to make improvements to handicap rating rules.

Honey suggests improvements can be made by using direct computational fluid dynamics for both hydrodynamics and aerodynamics, which is likely to be the first major improvement. The CFD would be incorporated in the rating calculator and run for each boat from the lines files and measurements. “The technology exists now and is becoming practical as computers become more powerful,” he says. “This would be a major step forward from the VPP in use now by ORC and ORR. I think ORC and ORR are considering such a development.”

US Sailing has hired veteran handicap rating administrator Jim Teeters to oversee the offshore office, and Alan Ostfield, US Sailing’s new CEO, has committed to hiring additional personnel to help Teeters get the operation running efficiently. To assist owners through the arduous measurement process, Honey is an advocate of using the Universal Measurement System, which allows boats to be measured once, with the measurement data used for any ­handicap rating rule.

Sailors and handicappers clearly don’t agree on what the ideal handicapping rule should be, but every sailor does want a fair chance of winning a race if they sail well. We all need to work together to make improvements so that when the wind is right and we sail a perfect race, we can be rewarded with the win.

• More: America's Cup , print winter 2022 , Sailboat Racing
• More Racing

Meet the First Woman to Foil Across the Atlantic

Sailing Is Cool Right Now

INEOS Britannia’s Hot New AC75 Ready to Launch

Sailing’s Health Starts At Home

Regatta Series Returns to Detroit

Luna Rossa’s New AC75 Marks Its Silver Age

Emirates Team New Zealand Splashes Defense Yacht

• Digital Edition
• Customer Service
• Privacy Policy
• Cruising World
• Sailing World
• Salt Water Sportsman
• Sport Fishing
• Wakeboarding

Offshore Racing Congress

#TheEqualChanceToWin

Access Sailor Services

See active orc certificates, get your orc certificate, latest news, upcoming events, sailor services, get started with the orc system, follow orc on social media, subscribe for news and information about orc.

Do you want to subscribe to ORC Mailing List as well?

This webpage is secured by reCAPTCHA . View the Privacy Policy for more information.

Offshore Racing Congress Partners

Log in to ORC Sailor services using email and password

ORC Sailor Services allows you access to ORC Database of all ORC certificates issued worldwide such as accessing speed guides, target speeds and do test runs on any certificate.

ORC Sailor Services - Password reminder

Please enter the e-mail address registered for the ORC Sailor Services to receive your password

ORC Sailor Services

With an ORC Certificate you are getting more than just a rating. ORC Sailor Services allows you access to the ORC Database of all ORC certificates issued worldwide.

The complete guide to rating systems in sail racing

In one of the previous guides dedicated to yatching, we spoke about the  types of professional regattas that are out there.

In particular, we have learned that every association holds competitions among same-class yachts. However, there are also private regattas where the yachtsmen can command their own yacht or a charter one. To level the playing field for different vessels, the organizers use rating systems.

Let us look into that closely in this new and complete guide to rating systems in sail racing.

The rating systems in sail racing

During a year, federations of yacht / centerboard / catamaran classes hold their own races — national, regional and world championships events. The key rule for those is adhering to a single standard — the hull, sails and rigging should be the same. Yet, the same crews can compete in professional-amateur regattas, too. In this case, they are divided into separate groups (divisions) and have their results scored according to the class rules.

Scoring the results of the teams performing on different vessels, i.e. having different potential for winning, is a far more difficult task. To find out the real possibilities of a yacht as compared to racers, a special mathematic formula is used which calculates the racing score (rating). After a race, these individual score points are multiplied by the team’s results, and the team with the shortest recalculated time wins. Such a scoring system is called a rating system.

The rules of time recalculation depending on a yacht rating are called the handicap system. Any measurement and rating system is directly connected with the yacht’s technical characteristics, i.e. its handicap.

Frank Holleman C / Unsplash

The main types of rating systems (centificates) in sail racing

To take part in a regatta, a yacht should obtain the rating system certificate. Among the most applicable ones are the following certificates:

• ORC (Offshore Racing Congress International and ORC Club)
• IRC (International Rating Certificate)
• MOCRA (Multihull Offshore Cruising & Racing Association)

Virtually all the large-scale world events combine different divisions (a division unites vessels racing on the same distance). Any of those events may use their own rating.

Offshore Racing Congress (ORC)

The Offshore Racing Congress (ORC) establishes and maintains uniform rating standards in the sailing sport. In 1969 it presented two certificates — ORC International and ORC Club — to unite the two then-dominant standards — CCA (Cruising Club of America) for North and South Americas and RORC (Royal Ocean Racing Club for European countries). The ORC International and the ORC Club are similar certificates. The difference between them is that an official measurer performs measurement for the former one, while in the case of the ORC Club, the boat owner can submit some of the details, unless there is a possibility to conduct the full measurement in one’s own region. To assess boats with different characteristics, the ORC system uses:

• IMS (International Measurement System) computer-based measurement system. The programme measures performance characteristics of a given boat under various wind velocities and angles based on fundamental hydro- and aerodynamics principles;
• VPP (ORC Velocity Prediction Program) , which performs an automated technical analysis of the 7 real wind velocities, 8 real wind angles and 2 VMG (Velocity Made Good) optimum angles for a yacht.

The measurement is performed onshore, hence the boat should be fixed in place as much as possible, with the centerboard (if any) raised and the rigging raked. The features to be measured are the hull in all its dimensions, the helm/rudder, the centerboard/keel, the internal ballast, accumulator batteries, fixed and/or permanent/immovable interior details, hatch covers and floorboards, permanent mechanisms, electric equipment and vessel systems, the outboard motor, the mast, the boom, the spinnaker boom and/or the bowsprit, the standing and running rigging. As a result, you get a boat measurement file, with the ORC certificate containing the current yacht characteristics. If you have altered any parts of the vessel, a new measurement is required.

The typical ORC certificate looks like this

There are two ways to present the measurement results:

• In the metric system showing up to the third digit after the point, except sails for which only two digits after the point are indicated. The weight is presented in kilos with one-digit-after-point precision.
• In the English system where all the measurements are in pounds and are indicated up to two digits, except sails which have it up to one digit. The weight is presented in pounds.

ORC is the sole reputable body recognized by World Sailing to regulate racing rules for any events using the IMS system. To take part in an ORC regatta or division, every competitor should have a certificate from an official measurer. Today, it may be obtained in 45 countries of the world . You can fill out an application on the ORC website to have your boat measured in the One Design or an ORC group, as well as to make yourself familiar with the current set of rules and the rating for other boats in the ORC Sailor Services online catalog. The certificate gives one the opportunity to compete in the sailing events, which are:

• Organized directly by ORC according to their rating system . Among the most important events here are ORC World Championship, ORC European Championship and ORC European Sportboat Championship.
• In a multitude of other national and international regattas in ORC divisions . The key events here are Barcolana, Rolex Giraglia Cup, Rolex Middle Sea Race, Copa del Rey and other ones.

The ORC breaks down the yachts into subgroups (ORC 0, ORC 1, ORC 2). Sometimes several subgroups may compete individually in regattas. One ORC subgroup includes yachts with similar handicap. The regatta’s organizing committee sets the participant rules itself. For instance, to take part in an ORC-division at Copa del Rey, you should comply with the following requirement : Boats with LOA (Lengh Overall) ≥ to 9.30 m., with GPH (General Purpose Handicap) between 505 sec./mile and 660 sec./mile.   Under the criteria of the Organizing Committee, and according to the number of entries, this group may be divided in three classes with the following cuts:

• ORC 1: GPH between 505 and < 575 sec/mile 
• ORC 2: GPH between 575 and < 605 sec/mile
• ORC 3: GPH between 605 and <= 660 sec/mile

Thus, the ORC system allows to identify the technical parameters for each yacht and find the common denominator with the other competitors. After a race, the crew’s elapsed time is multiplied by the coefficient from the measurement table. The yacht with the least score is the winner.

Steffi Pereira / Unsplash

International Rating System (IRC)

Another leading rating system is the International Rating System (IRC) . It now issues certificates in over 60 countries of the world . The owners and curators in the UK and France are the Royal Ocean Racing Club (RORC) and l’Union Nationale de la Course au Large (UNCL) respectively. The distinct feature of this rating is that the organization does not set particular rules so that yacht designers could not adjust the characteristics accordingly. With that said, the measurement may be performed in the authorized IRC centres only. An indicator is calculated for each boat, based on which the resulting time in a race is corrected — TCC (Time Corrector). To that end, the boat’s measurements, such as its length, weight, draft, sail area and other characteristics are used. The higher the TCC is, the higher the potential boat speed is. After the race, the boat’s elapsed time is multiplied by a coefficient. The crew with the least final corrected time is the winner.

The IRC Certificate allows one to take part in the competitions, which are:

• Held according to the IRC measurement only : Rolex Fastnet Race, Rolex China Sea Race and Phuket King’s Cup Regatta.
• Most large-scale regattas which include several IRC divisions (IRC 0, IRC 1, IRC 2, etc.), uniting yachts with a similar TCC. In this case, the winners and prize-holders of each divisions and holders of the best results in the overall standings (IRC Overall) are awarded.

Each organizer is entitled to set their own rules for IRC divisions competitors. For example, the Copa del Rey Notice of Race also has separate rules for the IRC division:

• Boats with a valid 2018 IRC endorsed certificate , shall comply the following requirements: a) boats with TCC ≥1.240 and b) HF (Hull Factor): ≥ 8,5c) Dlr (Displacement-length ratio): ≤185.
• Under the criteria of the Organizing Committee and according to the number of entries, this group may be divided in two classes with an approximate cut at TCC 1.420.

This means that if more applications with different TCC are submitted, the entire group will be divided into two subgroups with the second of them including yachts with TCC higher than 1.420 as per the IRC certificate. Another example is the Rolex Fastnet Race. The regatta uses several ratings: IRC, ORC Club and MOCRA. On the regatta’s website you can separately download IRC rules , along with the regatta’s Notice of Race.

The following list shows the rules of group division based on TCC range:

• IRC Zero: 1.275 and greater
• IRC One: 1.101 — 1.274
• IRC Two: 1.051 — 1.100
• IRC Three: 1.004 — 1.050
• IRC Four: 0.850 — 1.003

The popular British regatta J.P.M. Round the Island Race includes four IRC groups, with each of them being broken down into several more with alphabetical designations. Also, there are many IRC-group participants in the following regattas: Rolex Giraglia Cup, Les Voiles de Saint-Tropez, Rolex Middle Sea Race and Rorc Carribean 600, and others.

Thom Milkovic / Unsplash

Multihull Offshore Cruising & Racing Association (MOCRA)

The Multihull Offshore Cruising & Racing Association (MOCRA) has been specifically created for multihull vessels. It allows to correct the time for catamarans and trimarans of various forms and sizes. Among the regattas using this rating are RORC Fastnet Race, Cowes Week, Plymouth Regatta, JPM Round the Island Race and RORC Carribean 600. This rating is most common for the regattas of the UK, MOCRA’s home country. The certificate includes the following information: measurement based on SI (International System Units) system or any other international certificate; coefficient calculation of TCF (Time Correction Factor). For instance, in the above mentioned Fastnet Race the following characteristics are mentioned for the MOCRA division: Multihull (MOCRA): 1.100 and greater TCF range.

Another example is the J.P.M. Round the Island Race which is also held in the UK. The regatta includes divisions which are assessed according to several ratings (IRC, ISCRS, MOCRA). In 2019 two Multihull Gran Prix and MOCRA divisions were announced with 14 applications in each of them: up to 9,15 metres long and from 9,15 metres and higher. The final results table always includes open information about every participant and the time, so that anyone who so wishes could recalculate the results using the formula: vessel name, its series number, coefficient (TCF), finish time, elapsed time, corrected time and final standing as of end of the day or regatta.

Rating systems have come a long way to get to the present-day models of measurement and time correction. Among today’s most popular rating systems are ORC, IRC for monohull vessels and MOCRA for multihull ones.

To be included in a division whose results are measured based on handicap and rating systems, one should have the vessel measured in advance and obtain a certificate. Based on that document and the rules set by the regatta’s organizers, the vessel will be included in the respective group (IRC, ORC) and subgroup (IRC 0, IRC 1 and so on).

In case any parts of the hull, sails and rigging change, the certificate is to be renewed, too.  

This post was originally published in the Windy.app on July 27, 2019.

Text: Windy.app team

Cover photo: Alina Pkhakadze / Unsplash

You will also find useful

Review of keelboats: types, sizes, history

The guide to types and purposes of yachting boats: dinghies and catamarans

The guide to sailing regattas for experienced yachtsmen and yachtswomen

Validity of yacht licenses in various countries of the world

Latest News

Watch our webinar: fish and boat with windy.app, widgets for apple watch, presenting the sea temperature map.

How Racing Rating Rules Work (and how to maximize yours)

Racing ratings can seem confusing and overwhelming. Our team at Quantum is here to help you understand how ratings work, decipher the various systems, and help you maximize your ratings to ensure your best shot at the podium. Our sail designers have outlined a few key elements about ratings. Understanding them can help you get the most out of your racing rating.

Rating rules are a powerful tool that allows a variety of yachts to compete on a level playing field. If you race a tortoise against a hare (assuming the hare is smart enough not to take a nap in the middle of the race), the hare will always win. Not really a fair match-up. The same goes for non-one design racing. Being the first yacht over the finish line, while impressive, does not necessarily mean you sailed the best race comparatively. Therefore, rating rules come into play. It is important to understand how they work so you can work with your sailmaker and other specialists to optimize your program and level the playing field, so your crew’s talent shines.

There are four main rating rules: Performance Handicap Racing Fleet (PHRF), International Racing Conference (IRC), Offshore Racing Congress (ORC), and Offshore Racing Rule (ORR). We will give a brief overview of how each rating rule assigns a rating, why it is important to your program, and how Quantum can help make sure you have the best rating possible. While there are other rating systems, these are the four we focus on in this article.

The Rating Rules

In general, rating systems assign a value to a yacht or a particular yacht setup. This number is then used to correct finish times after each race. With all four rules, the most common way to score a race is to use a time-on-time (TOT) or a time-on-distance (TOD) correction. TOT corrections consider how long it takes to race; the TOD formula looks at the distance of the race. However, ORC and ORR ratings consider additional factors and have some flexibility for a custom correction formula.

PHRF is a simple handicap system, similar to the system used in golf. Considering the type of yacht, an assumed sail plan, and the team’s performance, a corrected-time handicap factor is assigned to the team. Races under PHRF rules correct times using TOD or TOT.

The other three rating rules are a bit more complicated. These rules use formulas to assign a rating to each yacht based on the yacht’s dimensions, construction, and design features. The formulas for IRC and ORR are closely guarded secrets; however, it is still possible for sailmakers, yacht builders, and other specialists to understand how various factors affect the rating. ORC has two categories of classification, ORC International and ORC Club. In this article and for most applications, we refer mostly to ORC-International rating that requires a measurement performed by an official and certified measurer. ORC has a published formula that gives designers information to analyze and data to work from.

IRC looks at several yacht elements from sail size to weight and beam. It compares yachts as a percentage and then assigns the yacht a rating that is corrected using TOT.

ORC and ORR take their rating system to the next level by using complex formulas to predict the speed of the yacht with a given setup. These formulas are often referred to as Velocity Prediction Programs (VPP). There are a few ways these ratings can be used to score a race, including TOT, TOD, and performance curve scoring.

What Goes Into a Rating?

A large amount of data is plugged into IRC, ORC, and ORR proprietary formulas that generate ratings for various conditions and situations. For example, an ORR certificate has multiple standard and custom ratings for specific events such as the Newport Bermuda Race. Common data used to determine ratings includes hull data, sail measurements and types, crew and yacht weight, waterline, hardware, sailing trim, and other rigging data and measurements.

How Ratings Change

Due to several factors, your ratings can change even though your yacht hasn’t. The most common factor in rating change is sail size. Smaller sails equal a better rating across the board, and, since all modern sails shrink with use, your ratings can change over time. Every time you fold, hoist, or tack your sails, they shrink a bit, not unlike the way a piece of paper shrinks each time you crumple it up and re-flatten it. Some sail constructions, such as those using a lot of Dyneema, tend to shrink more than carbon sails.

General yacht specifications from the yacht manufacturer are often used to compile data points; however, each yacht is unique, so having the correct data for your yacht and rig can go a long way toward improving your rating.

How to Optimize Your Rating

Because IRC, ORC, and ORR ratings consider a number of elements that affect the speed of the yacht, there is a lot of room to tweak your setup to optimize your yacht for a particular racing rule. Sometimes a simple sail re-measurement is all it takes to better your handicap. That can be a real game changer when you are racing the 333-mile Chicago-to-Mackinac, the 475-mile Annapolis-to-Newport, or the 2,225-mile Trans Pac.

PHRF is harder to optimize due to the way ratings are assigned. Since the rating is based on boat type, it assumes these boats all use the same sail inventory. The best way to improve your PHRF rating is to improve your performance by using the sails your handicap is rated for. Quantum can help you review your rating and inventory and ensure the form is accurate. Our team can also explore how your regional PHRF committee measures the impact of switching from a pole and symmetrical spinnaker setup to a fixed-pole asymmetrical setup, as that can also greatly affect your handicap.

Whether you have an existing rating or need to apply for a new one, there are essentially three ways you can get the best, or at least a better, rating.

Option 1: Maximize what you’ve got.

This is the most common, easiest, and cheapest way to improve your rating. Bring your rating certificate and your largest sails to your local Quantum loft. We will start by verifying the sails listed on the certificate and re-measure them. We’ll discuss your yacht and sail plan, regatta schedule, overall program, and where you want to take it. This gives us a better understanding and helps us identify other areas that can improve your rating. Sometimes it is as simple as helping you re-submit your form with updated sail sizes.

Option 2: Deeper Analysis and Inventory

If your team is looking to take things to the next level or has a specific goal in mind, Quantum can help guide you through the second option. It is a bit more expensive than the first option but yields results. After assessing your current rating, goals, and budget, we will help coordinate and guide you through a whole-yacht optimization process using our in-house design team as well as other industry partners.

A Quantum sail designer will look carefully at your existing inventory, identify gaps or areas that could be improved, make recommendations for tweaking current sails, and add new or swap different sails to your inventory. We’ll run various simulations to dial in your rating based on your sail plan and help you create a long-term plan focused on optimizing your rating and sailing objectives.

Then we’ll work with other industry experts and review your yacht for potential changes or upgrades. These experts will run multiple analyses of your setup and identify areas that could benefit from re-evaluating your measurements, such as weighing your yacht to get an accurate weight instead of using the rules default values. 

Option 3: Weather and Location Ratings

The third option builds on the first two options and fine-tunes your rating for specific wind conditions and/or locations. Working within our network of industry experts, we’ll gather historical weather data for a particular event and run multiple simulations for the venue to further optimize your overall plan. This is a common practice with professional and Grand Prix racing teams

WHICH RATING DO I NEED?

This is a rather complex question that ultimately involves weighing and prioritizing factors that answer other questions. Is there an offshore race you’ve always wanted to sail? A destination regatta with a variety of classes to compete in? How much value is placed on the potential outcome, thereby determining which event to sail? Ratings and measurement systems evolve, and your boat, using one rating, may be more favorable in the same race with a different rating in a different class or suited for a different race altogether. While we can’t recommend one system over another, we can walk you through your sailing program plans and goals and help you decide which is the best system and then optimize that rating.

Regardless of where your program stands, we are here to help you understand how rating rules work and guide you to a better rating so that you and your team get the most out of the hard work you put in to cross the finish line. Email our team at  [email protected] to get the process started. _____

Other Resources:

• US Sailing: Rating Rules and Handicapping Systems.
• US Sailng: Offshore Competition
• US Sailing: PHRF Fleet Contact Directory
• International Rating Certificate: Official Website
• Offshore Racing Congress: Official Website
• Offshore Rating Rule: Offical Website

The Discussion

This website uses cookies and collects usage statistics. Privacy Policy

Us, too. We pour that passion into each of our newsletters to help you enjoy sailing even more.

Professional BoatBuilder Magazine

Racing yacht rules: a primer.

By Dan Spurr , Mar 10, 2015

The International Offshore Rule (IOR) was the dominating race handicap system during much of the 1980s. Allegiance, built by Dencho Marine of carbon and epoxy, was first in class and second overall in the 1984 Southern Ocean Racing Conference (SORC).

It is the narrowest of niches, designing sail racing yachts according to the various handicap systems promulgated by governing organizations such as the Offshore Racing Council (ORC). You probably can count on one hand the number of designers who actually support themselves by trying to beat the rules as it were, and one of them is Southern California designer Alan Andrews , 58, profiled in “By the Rules,” Professional BoatBuilder No. 154 .

Since graduating from Stanford University with a degree in mechanical engineering, and a passion for racing sailboats, Andrews has kept the light on in his studio by giving clients very fast boats. “Guys want to win,” he says, “and I can help them.” From the 30′ (9.1m) Details , which won the 1981 Midget Ocean Racing Club (MORC) championship to the canting-keel maxi Magnitude 80 (24.4m) that set numerous first-to-finish records in offshore races, Andrews’s portfolio is packed with winners. An essential element is knowing the rating rules inside out and then exploiting every possible point to gain some slight advantage that translates to victory at sea.

The following summary of major rating rules in use over the past three decades may give you a better understanding of, and appreciation for, Andrews’s uncommon talent.

In the late 1970s and early ’80s, the International Offshore Rule was the dominant rating system for handicapped yacht races; unlike the CCA (Cruising Club of America) rule that actually weighed boats to determine displacement, the IOR estimated displacement based on measurements. To enter a race, a boat had to be measured in a variety of ways, such as girth measurements and the spacing between them, as well as width and depth point measurements plus rig, sails, and flotation. Designers tried to achieve the most favorable rating by distorting areas of the hull, resulting in perceptible “bumps” to increase rated displacement or beam, and “hollows” at key locations to reduce rated sailing length. Complex formulas resulted in a single number rating in feet, and similar sailing length, for a given yacht. Narrow bows and sterns effectively moved the distance between girth measurements closer together; the overall result was relatively short, beamy boats (sometimes with tumblehome at B max and a narrower waterline) with pinched ends.

The Andrews 63 (19.2m) Medicine Man, owned by Bob Lane, won the Unlimited Division for boats with moveable ballast in the 2009 Transpac. That same year, the Andrews 50 (15.2m) It’s OK! also excelled on the race course, finishing first in class in the Newport to Ensenada Race.

The Midget Ocean Racing Club was a club fostering offshore competition between small boats, first under 24′ (7.3m) and expanded to under 30′ (9.1m) by the 1980s. Its rating rule, initially promulgated by the designer Bill Shaw, emerged from the CCA (Cruising Club of America) rule of the 1950s–60s and used a similar concept of corrections from a Base Boat. MORC measured sails, rig dimensions, beam, draft, waterline length, and both the length and transom width at 4% of LWL (length waterline) above WL (waterline) plus weighed the ballast and total boat. Ratings were expressed in feet. MORC favored relatively heavy boats with generous sail plans.

IMS and ORCi

The International Measurement System is a velocity prediction program (VPP) that uses measurements of the entire hull shape as taken electronically by a wand or scanning device combined with flotation, rig, and sail measurements, and fed into a computer, where integrated quantities of displacement, wetted surface, sailing length, etc., are generated as input to the VPP. The program predicts the boat’s speed at a variety of wind speeds and angles from 6 to 24 knots, beating to running. Several ratings were generated for light, medium, and heavy air as well as offshore-style courses, allowing race organizers appropriate choices. Under IMS, overhanging bows began to disappear, and stern sections grew wider. In the late 1990s IMS gave too much credit to some speed-producing and drag items resulting in boats with wood keel tips, lead in the bilge, and distorted hull shapes. This lead to ORCi, a current European-based VPP handicapping system employing similar measurements but improved formula. Both IMS and ORCi programs were available to designers for running trial certificates in their offices.

IRC began as the Channel Handicap System in the U.K. and France when IMS wasn’t working with their fleets. Measurements are with a scale, tape measure, and plumb bobs, similar to MORC, plus arbitrary factors describing keel type, interior fitout, construction materials, etc. The rating is calculated in a nonpublic formula that develops a single Time Correction Coefficient (TCC) for all races so that each boat’s corrected time is elapsed time multiplied by TCC. IRC is seen as type forming with the favored type changing over the size range from the current Maxi-72s, through TP52-style boats to heavier production racer/cruisers with interiors less than about 36′ (11m).

Alan Andrews stands in the California sunshine outside his office on the water in Long Beach. Armed with a degree in mechanical engineering and a love of sailing, he has built a successful career designing boats that consistently win in the handicap racing circuit.

The Offshore Racing Rule is a U.S.-based VPP handicapping system begun when IMS was generating slow boats. The Bermuda Race, Chicago–Mackinac, and Transpac all needed to handicap diverse fleets ranging from 70-year-old classic “woodies” to ULDB 70s and TP52s. ORR uses very similar measurements to IMS and ORCi but calculates speed predictions by a different, nonpublic VPP in an attempt to keep designers from exploiting loopholes. ORR is also used by Acapulco Yacht Club, the St. Francis Yacht Club Big Boat Series, Pacific Cup, and others. Ratings are customized for expected conditions and expressed either in seconds/mile or TCF for time-on-time scoring.

The High Performance Rule was developed as a measurement rule focused on modern planing keelboats. Measurements are by scale, tape measure, and plumb bob. HPR uses a Base Boat concept documented in a publically available spreadsheet encouraging designers to develop the fastest boat rather than lowest rated.

Performance Handicap Racing Fleet is a handicapping system that assigns to each yacht a handicap, in seconds per mile, based on observed performance rather than measurements. PHRF is locally operated so the same design might have different handicaps in light-air or heavy-air regions. Most PHRF authorities record rig, sail, and basic hull data, but few require independent measurement.

Read more Design articles

• Departures: Carl Chamberlin

Passionate, competent, considerate, modest, and thoughtful is how designer and boatbuilder Carl Chamberlin is remembered by those who knew him. He died last November at age of 75 in Port… Read more »

SNAME Powerboat Symposium Is Back

The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Technical and Research Program, in cooperation with the Hampton Roads, Virginia Section of SNAME, will host the Sixth Annual Powerboat Symposium… Read more »

Candela’s Faith in Foiling Ferries

In the rarefied world of fully foiling electric boats with carbon hulls and appendages, sensor-based digital ride control systems, and hefty price tags, Candela grabbed the spotlight by delivering on… Read more »

Recent Posts

• There was Only One Partner I’d Trust for the Refurb Project of my Life: AkzoNobel
• Citimarine Store Expands to a New State of the Art Location in Miami
• Find out how 3D printing can help your boatbuilding with MASSIVIT
• Van der Werff’s Curved Wood
• Companies (85)
• Construction (106)
• Design (161)
• Drawing Board (10)
• Education (25)
• Environment (16)
• Events (21)
• Materials (50)
• Obituary (18)
• People/Profiles (49)
• Products (16)
• Propulsion Systems (32)
• Racing (16)
• Repair (37)
• Rovings (317)
• Short Cuts (3)
• Sponsored Partner News (16)
• Systems (80)
• Task Sheet (1)
• Uncategorized (26)
• Wood to Glass (7)

ProBoat.com Archives

• Performance Handicapping: A Sailor’s-Guide
• TopYacht Desktop
• Handicapping

PHS in this document means “Performance Handicap System”. It relates to a handicap system that adjusts a boat’s handicap after each race based on the “performance” of that boat relative to another boat(s) in that particular fleet.

From the TopYacht point of view, PHS is the mathematics used to calculate the new handicap for each boat after each race. TopYacht provides over 20 parameters that the club can adjust to calculate the next handicap.

“Measured Boat” Handicapping.

Measured boat handicapping is where a number of dimensions and criteria such as weight of a boat are measured and these are input into a special computer formula. The formula will then provide a handicap figure that is designed to make this boat as ‘equivalent’ as possible to other measured boats using the same model. To make matters more complex, there are several different models that produce different outcomes. The Measured boat handicap value remains constant for the life of the boat. Boats may require remeasuring if the ‘officials’ elect to change the model, or the owner carries out some alterations to the boat or rig.  Measured boat handicapping is not the topic of this paper.

“Performance” Handicapping (PHS).

Measured performance strives to provide handicaps for all competitors by comparing their performance with the performance of other competitors. Note the deliberately used term “competitor”. Under this system the boat along with its skipper and crew are being compared with other “competitors”. The same boat with a different crew may perform somewhat differently. Measured performance handicapping makes no attempt to distinguish whether the performance is due to the boat or her crew but rather they are consider as a single entity called a ”competitor”.

Continue reading: Click HERE (~ 3 Pages)

New national rating system for cruiser racers unveiled

Since the pandemic there has been a boost in numbers of people getting afloat - mostly sailors relatively new to the sport - and the RYA and the Royal Ocean Racing Club (RORC) are keen to encourage as many keelboat and cruiser-racer sailors as possible to enjoy racing at their clubs or local regattas. Recognising the need for, and current lack of, an entry level rating system, the RYA and RORC have joined forces with the South West Yacht Time Correction Factor (YTC) rating system to develop and roll out a new initiative: the RYA YTC, powered by RORC Rating. 

YTC has been developed over recent years by a group of volunteers, initially based in Falmouth but now more widely spread across the South West, to rate the wide variety of cruiser/racer yachts to be found racing in clubs so that they can race against each other easily, competitively and fairly. YTC is based on the statistical models developed by Linda Wolstenholme of Emsworth Slipper SC, but the system has developed significantly since the early days and, for those clubs who wish to use it, a means to introduce more accurate results-based club handicapping.

Under an innovative tripartite agreement, the existing YTC core team, led by RYA SW Regional Chair Chris Davis, will continue to advise and support both the RYA and RORC in order to achieve both a seamless transfer for existing users and development and alignment of the system with IRC. The RORC Rating office will bring their unrivalled operational knowledge of rating systems to managing the new system and overseeing future development.

“We recognise the existing RYA National Handicap for Cruisers system (NHC) was not fulfilling clubs’ needs and nobody is keener than my team to see more boats out enjoying racing on the water,” said Ian Walker, the RYA’s Director of Racing. “Having a good, proven rating system that is portable between clubs and regattas and available nationally, free of charge to anybody wanting to go racing, must be a good thing.”

For the RORC Rating Office this project is part of their ambition to support the growth of the sport.

Jason Smithwick, Director of the RORC Rating Office, added: “YTC has proven popular in the South West and has been successful in encouraging more boats into the sport. The system provides an excellent, simple entry-level introduction to racing without the need for personal handicapping, and we are enthusiastic that expansion will help many clubs increase their racing fleets. For those keen to progress further it acts as a simple stepping-stone to IRC racing, the gold standard for rating.”

The aim of the new management team is to move systems across and embed the processes in 2022 before really promoting the system and encouraging more clubs to adopt the system in 2023 and beyond.

Chris Davis, SW YTC Chair, added: “This is an exciting time for the YTC system. It is important to us that sailors and clubs that already use this system have a seamless transition to the new management group. All current YTC ratings and certificates for 2022 will remain valid and the process will remain free of charge. I would like to thank all the volunteers that have worked so hard, for over ten years now, to implement YTC in their clubs and regattas, and of course our sponsors here in the South West. We in the core team are delighted that YTC will be developed further, whilst maintaining the current ethos of the system for the good of anyone wishing to go yacht or keelboat racing at club level.”

Any club wishing to adopt the RYA YTC for their club racing, or any boat owners interested in obtaining an RYA YTC rating can find all the details at ytc.rorcrating.com   or www.swytc.org.uk .

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• +44 (0)1590 677030

RORC Rating Services

• Weighing & Measurement
• Class Administration
• Safety & Stability
• Sail Numbers
• MyIRC application portal
• Information for owners
• MyIRC & IRC Application FAQs
• GBR IRC Fees
• IRC weighing & measurement
• IRC Rule & Definitions
• Trial certificate policy
• GBR IRC Championships
• IRC Single Event Rating (SER)
• IRC Advocate Scheme
• How Do I Start Racing?
• IRC GBR Rule Authority Prescriptions
• Race Management
• IRC TCC listing
• Industry IRC services
• Sail lofts & sail measurers
• GBR IRC Committee
• IRCrating.org
• MyIRC.rorcrating.com
• IRCRecords™

RORC Rating Office » RYA YTC

Powered by the RORC Rating Office

National rating system for cruiser racers

RYA YTC Application Form Use this form to apply for an RYA YTC Certificate if your boat has not held one before. This form cannot be used for renewal or amendments, please use the RYA YTC Application Link Request Form below.

RYA YTC Application Link Request Form Use this form to renew an expired RYA YTC certificate, update your application if your certificate has not yet been issued, or make an amendment once the certificate has been issued.

RYA YTC Listings View the current boats rated in RYA YTC and filter by sailing club etc.

RYA YTC Boat Data Use this form to view measurement data for any RYA YTC valid boat.

RYA YTC Club Registration Form Use this form to register your sailing club for RYA YTC.

RYA YTC information and downloads

The RYA YTC powered by the RORC Rating Office is an initiative to promote club level participation in racing by cruising yachts and cruiser-racers. The objective is to provide a simple rating assessment so that skippers of any skill level may feel encouraged to race their boats in club events and port regattas. YTC has a proven ability to provide closely competitive racing for a wide variety of yachts. YTC is supported by the RYA (the UK sport’s governing body) and uses the experience of the RORC Rating Office to administer the system.

• RYA YTC Policy and Procedures (Mar 2024)
• RYA YTC Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
• RYA YTC to IRC Pathway
• RYA YTC Pursuit Race Calculator

Royal Ocean Racing Club Rating Office

Search rorcrating.com.

Published on May 15th, 2024 | by Editor

Is level racing possible with handicaps?

Published on May 15th, 2024 by Editor -->

Yacht designer and past Seahorse magazine editor Julian Everitt shares a complex topic in this Facebook post about rating rules and racing:

Could Ton Cup style level racing provide a resurgence in grand prix top class offshore racing from Minis to Maxis? A top flight offshore competitor asks, “Is IRC or ORC up to the task?”

The ‘almost-level’ handicap inshore One Ton of today, fought out in IRC rule Fast 40s, has not proven to have much growth potential. So here is the question from a long-term offshore racing owner, skipper and RORC member:

“Once again, ORC seem to be creating tools and interest, with its SPEED GUIDES, that our IRC cannot. Love or hate ORC, their marketing and voice is heard above IRC. As Rear Commodore of the RORC 2016-2019, I tried to action change to the way the rule was marketed and communicated to little effect.

“The main step we made was to wrestle control away from the French office but even that was a financial fudge! So, as with the latest bulletin, the ORC have more interesting tools and can therefore potentially engage better with the owner base with much more to offer in regard to comparative performance information.

“I would be interested to know what you think about what the strategy should, or could be, for the future in regard to the use of IRC or ORC. Or are we destined to a future of sailing one designs or classics!?”

ANSWER: I think the ORC model is fundamentally more interesting because it is open. They actually have something they can promote with comparison tools – either boat against boat or as with the so-called speed guide – a way of measuring your ability to sail your own boat against its theoretical performance.

IRC, on the other hand doesn’t have much that it can promote due to its antiquated secrecy rules. The IRC is very good at patting itself on the back saying how successful it is, but at the end of the day, that isn’t actually that interesting.

The ORC rule based, as it is, on supposedly accurate scientific performance data, should be wiping the floor with IRC in terms of popularity as both a club level cruiser racer handicap rule and a full-on grand prix rating system – but it’s not.

So, you have to ask yourself why not? Why wasn’t the established offshore rating rule body able to make a seamless change from IOR to IMS and then to the ORC Rule? Well, it would seem that despite the vastly greater PR value inherent in the scientific solution to offshore sailboat handicapping, the general sailing public still prefer the haphazard linear measurement system enshrined in IRC.

But to add to the problem of which solution is inherently more saleable to the racing boat owners, we have gigantic anomalies in both rules. They both pride themselves, in their sales pitches, that their respective formulas can measure any kind of monohull sailing boat. With the VPP based ORC this would seem, on the face of it, to be an honest and achievable goal and one that is open to scrutiny. However, the reality though is very different.

The rule is intensely type forming which seems to be a contradiction of the very cornerstone of the rule, that is supposed to allow it to accurately measure actual performance differences in hull forms and rig configurations. Why therefore is there a type formed solution? It makes no sense whatsoever.

If the formulas are working properly, then it shouldn’t matter at all what displacement you choose, how much beam, how much sail area, how much keel depth, or even underbody configuration. Anything should be rated with a ‘fair’ handicap based on its performance potential – even a long-keeled boat.

Indeed, if the VPPs worked at all, you could have a hugely disparate fleet racing as close as a bunch of One Designs. But two elements work against the popularity of ORC: 1) The perceived complexity. 2) The total failure to produce a product that actually does what it says on the can.

IRC isn’t much better except the rule helps demonstrate that human nature quite likes the random elements of a linear measurement system together with a big dollop of empirical judgement. The secrecy element is just paranoia. To be frightened by the cost effects of unleashing untold development of new boats by hungry designers – well that horse has already bolted in an undignified rush to obtain ‘optimized’ rating certificates. (Something which, incidentally, is effectively banned by the rules own Rule 2.5 – but who seems to care?)

The owners are simply paying big bucks for the designers to ‘guess’ and then get their interpretation of an optimum ratified by a secret formula. It’s crazy and wholly unnecessary. If IRC was actually braver in using its fudge factors, it could control unseaworthy developments very easily.

But just as with ORC, there is a lie at the core of IRC. It again, like ORC, purports to be able to measure almost anything you throw at it, which kind of implies that a fair rating will be produced for whatever hull form, rig configuration that comes along. But this is clearly not true and for reasons that are mystifying IRC, produces intensely type formed, optimized yachts.

Its real value should be returned to its roots. A rule that is very good at rating a mixed fleet, it undoubtedly is, but as a rule for rating development boats, it is completely useless except to those looking through the narrow prism of fashion.

Neither of these rules are effective at producing level rating classes. The very kind of racing that was so popular under IOR and which just about everybody craves today: top level racing without handicap.

Tags: IRC , Julian Everitt , ORC , rating rule

Related Posts

Fairness questions amid complex scoring →

Learning about the ORC rating system →

To make sailing fair for everyone →

Weather forecasts to aid Transpac 2025 →

Comments are closed.

© 2024 Scuttlebutt Sailing News. Inbox Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. made by VSSL Agency .

• Privacy Statement
• Advertise With Us

Get Your Sailing News Fix!

Your download by email.

• Your Name...
• Your Email... *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Classic Rating Formula

The CRF Rating

The goal of the Classic Rating Formula (CRF) is to provide an objective, accurate and transparent rating system that is uniquely suited to scoring classic yacht races. CYOA's CRF Technical Committee routinely refines the formulae and factors used to calculate ratings annually, based on careful quantitative analysis of race results after each season. Maintaining the competitive balance within groups is a priority, but the ratings for most yachts will often change slightly from one year to the next even if the declared input data remains the same.  

Each year, each vessel needs a new CRF Certificate ($50 per certificate with a $25 rush charge after June 1). Certificates only cover a portion of our operating costs and we rely heavily on volunteers. We encourage owners to also support the CYOA's efforts with a $100 membership each year.

2023 CRF Rating Documents

• CRF Formula 2024
• CRF Data Input Definitions 2024
• CRF Factors 2024

GET YOUR 2024 CRF CERTIFICATE

GET OR RENEW YOUR CYOA MEMBERSHIP

CERTIFICATE DATABASE

Classic Rating Divisions

These general definitions describe the difference in the Racing divisions. Please refer to the official definitions for further detailed explanations between the divisions. All boats are assigned a division on the CRF Certificate for which they will be scored for the overall series. Individual regattas may re-classify or group boats to fit their needs.

Yachts designed before 1950 that have been built, maintained or restored with materials and methods consistent with the original design.

Yachts designed between 1950 and 1980 that are built primarily of wood, aluminum or steel, that have been built, maintained or restored with materials and methods consistent with their original design.

Modern Classic

Yachts designed between 1950 and 1980 with different keel and rudders or restored with modern materials that differ from their original design.

Spirit of Tradition

Yachts designed after 1980 that embody recognizable connections to classic yacht or traditional workboat elements in hull shape and deck and superstructure shape, style and features. 

Contemporary

Yachts designed after 1980, whose hulls are built of wood, with modern keels, and whose designs do not fit the SoT Division definition.

Keel Types and Descriptions

Rig Types and Descriptions

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Which scoring approach is preferable, Time on Distance (ToD) or Time on Time (ToT)? 

A: The debate about whether ToD or ToT scoring is preferable can be endless.  The reality is that ToD is simpler, it makes it much easier to monitor time allowances while on the race course, and it is more directly connected with the actual science of yacht performance predictions.   At the same time, CRF is a single number rating system, and ToT scoring can give better results when the course content and/or wind conditions are well outside the rule targets, or when the conditions are unusually unsteady.  When it comes to ToD vs ToT scoring, there is no one answer that best suits all circumstances.   With that in mind, adding TCF’s for ToT scoring to the CRF certificate gives race organizers another tool for them to use in making informed choices that suit their own courses and conditions, as well as the preferences of their participants.  For most races, ToD and ToT scoring give very similar finish positions, despite the fact that the corrected times calculated by the two systems are not directly comparable. 

Q: How is the Time Correction Factor (TCF) shown on the CRF 2024 certificate calculated?

A: CRF converts its ratings used for Time on Distance scoring (expressed in seconds/mile) to the Time Correction Factors (TCF’s) used for Time on Time scoring via the following formula:  TCF=600/(CRF+535), OR TCF=600/(CRF GPH) .  For example, a boat with a CRF rating of 72 (or a CRF GPH=72+535=607) would have a TCF=600/(72+535)=600/607=0.988

Q: What is the difference between Time on Distance (ToD) and Time on Time (ToT) scoring?

A: The ratings used in the familiar ToD approach to scoring follow directly from the science of sailing yacht performance prediction, in that ToD ratings  reflect the time that it takes for rated boats to sail a given distance in certain conditions. These days, ToD ratings are typically expressed in seconds per mile, and corrected times (CT’s) are calculated by subtracting a time allowance (TA) for each boat relative to an arbitrary scratch boat (TA=delta rating x course length) from their elapsed time (ET).  Calculated this way, CT’s for each boat are lower than their ET’s, and the boat with the lowest CT is the winner.

ToT scoring is quite different, in that instead of handicaps targeting the distance sailed as in ToD, the ToT handicaps target the time taken to complete the course.   To do this, a Time Correction Factor (TCF) is established for each boat based on a conversion from her ToD handicap.  TCF’s are typically targeted to have a value of 1.000 for a mythical boat that represents a fleet ‘median’.  Boats that are faster than the median have TCF’s greater than 1.000, and slower boats have TCF’s less than 1.000.  A boat’s corrected time is calculated by multiplying her elapsed time by her TCF, so fast boats have CT’s that are greater than their ET’s.  The boat with the lowest CT is the winner, just as in ToD scoring.

Q: Why is a ‘CRF GPH’ rating shown on the CRF 2024 certificate? What is the value added?

A: A CRF GPH rating is a prediction of how fast a boat should sail around a 1 mile course whose content consists of 1/3 VMG upwind, 1/3 VMG downwind, and 1/3 reaching, in a wind range of 8-12 kts.   This suggests that a boat with a CRF GPH handicap of 600sec/mi should get around a 10nm course (whose content and weather conditions are near the rule targets) in 600sec/mi*10nm=6000sec, or 6000/60=100min, or 1 hr 40 min.  This prediction can be a huge help to race organizers and officers in deciding on appropriate class breaks and course lengths.  For the sailor, it can be helpful in estimating when his boat may finish a race, and thus when the crew should get home for dinner (or to the bar).   The CRF GPH can also be very useful in post-race analysis, by dividing a boat’s elapsed time for a race by the course length, and comparing that to the boat’s CRF GPH.  If a boat sails a course slower than her rating, (eg the boat with the CRF GPH of 600 actually took 1hr 41 min 17 sec to sail that 10 mile race, so she did it in 1*3600+41*60+17=6077sec, or 607.7 sec/mi), the wind might have been light, the current adverse, or the boat had two bad tacks, or some combination thereof.  If, on the other hand, the boat sailed the course faster than her rating, there likely was a lot of breeze, and/or the course content included a lot of reaching.  (NB that in CYOA Technical Committee uses this same comparison between rated and ‘as sailed’performance every year in its analysis of how well CRF predictions match up with on the water realty over a full season of racing).

 Q: What is the difference between the CRF GPH and the CRF ratings shown previously on CRF certificates?

A: The short answer is that the CRF GPH is greater by a constant 535 sec/mi for all CRF ratings, so they can be used in either form to score a race.  That is, a boat that is used to ‘owing’ a competitor 23 sec/mi with the CRF ratings published previously will ‘owe’ that same boat the same 23 sec/mi if their new ‘CRF GPH’ ratings are used, as the latter is simply 535 sec/mi  greater than the former for both boats. A more complete answer is that CRF ratings are actually first generated in terms of linear feet, (to reflect effective sailing length and thus speed potential), and they are converted internally to ‘GPH’ ratings in seconds/mile.  When the ‘MkII’ version of CRF was introduced in 2017, it was decided to subtract an arbitrary constant of 535 sec/mi from the calculated numbers to generate handicaps with values that are comparable to those produced by PHRF, and that are thus familiar to many sailors. This means that the CRF GPH rating for a boat is equal to her familiar ‘PHRF-like’ CRF rating plus the 535 sec/mi constant .  For example, for a boat with a CRF rating of 65, her CRF GPH=65+535=600.

Q:  I see ratings under a ‘CRF GPH’ heading on the CRF 2024 certificate.  What is a GPH rating?

A: ‘ GPH’ is an abbreviation for ‘ General Purpose Handicap’ .  The ‘CRF’ prefix is added to distinguish the CRF GPH from the GPH handicaps that are produced by the ORCi and ORR VPP based rating rules.  The CRF GPH rating for a boat predicts how much time she should take (in seconds) to sail around a 1 mile course consisting of 1/3 VMG upwind, 1/3 VMG downwind, and 1/3 reaching, in a wind range of 8-12 kts.  In most cases, GPH ratings generated for fully measured boats by the ORCi and/or ORR VPPs are similar and comparable to CRF GPH ratings.

Q. What is new for 2023 CRF?

A. Following a careful analysis of the 2022 CYOA racing season, a few refinements to the formulae and factors used to calculate ratings have been made for CRF 2023:

• In CRF 2022, mainsail and spinnaker girths were used for the first time in calculating ratings for boats that declared them.  For 2023, the sail areas calculated with via those girths (widths) are used at full value.  As a result, the ratings for a few boats with aggressive mainsail roach profiles and/or unusually broad spinnakers will be sped up slightly.  
• The ratings for boats whose Rated Draft (RD) is greater than their Base Draft (BD) are slowed up, typically by 1 sec/mi or less.  The ratings of a handful of centerboard boats with unusually deep board down draft are slowed up by considerably more.  
• Boats with high stability (e.g. 12m’s) were observed to be advantaged in 2022, so the Stability Correction (StabC) for boats with high ballast/displacement ratios has been increased, speeding up the ratings of a few of these boats by as much as 6 sec/mi. Most vintage and Classic boats are unaffected.
• Boats that are either heavy for their length, or that have low sail area for their displacement (or both!) were seen as disadvantaged in 2022.  As a result, the Displacement Length Factor (DLF) has been decreased for heavy boats, and the Sail Area Displacement Factor (SaDF) has been decreased for boats that a\re low on sail area. Taken together, these changes slow the ratings of typical Vintage and Classic boats by 2-3 sec/mi.  The ratings for a few especially heavy CCA and Universal Rule boats are slowed by slightly more.
• The rating gap between sloops with wooden vs aluminum masts has been closed by about 2 sec/mi.
• Taken together, the changes in rating resulting from all of the above refinements are on the order of 3 sec/mi slower for most Vintage and Classic boats, with some heavy CCA and Universal Rule ratings slowed by a bit more.  Boats with unusually high stability will rated faster by 2-3 sec/mi. 

Q. What additional information is needed for a renewal application?

A. In most years, the data declarations made for one year will be the same as those for the next year, and that data will auto-load with your renewal application. Declarations for mainsail and spinnaker widths are required for all sails built since 2021, and are optional for older sails.  NB that most Vintage and Classic boats have mains whose girths (widths) are smaller than the ‘no girth declaration’ default, so declaring mainsail girths will slow rating slightly (typically by 1-2 sec/mi).

Q. My new rating is different from my previous one, and my data declarations are the same. Why? What caused the change?

A. The CRF formulae and factors are routinely refined annually to reflect biases that were identified via an objective, in-depth analysis of the previous year's race results. Typically most ratings change only slightly, and those that see a significant change will find that other yachts of the same size and type will have changed by a similar amount. Maintaining the competitive balance within groups having similar characteristics is always a primary objective.

Q. I’ve noticed that on my certificate I have a CYOA Division listed, but that division is not always the one that I compete under. Sometimes, I compete against a group of yachts, but at another regatta, I’m in a different division. Why is that?

A. Sailboat racing is at its best when participating boats are divided into groups of similar size, age, and type.   Toward this end, all boats racing under CRF are assigned to a Division before their CRF Certificate is issued.  All Division assignments are made at the discretion of the CYOA Technical Committee.  The Division assignments are provided as guidelines to Organizing Authorities; each regatta may, based on their individual traditions or numbers of entries, place competitors from  different divisions in the same class, so you may not compete against the same yachts in the same class in all events.  The CYOA Challenge season awards are scored within assigned Divisions, however.

Q. I have had a valid CRF certificate in the past, and wish to renew for this year. Is there additional information that will be required?

A. No new data declarations are required for 2023 compared to 2022.

Q. How do I compare my yacht’s measurements and ratings with other yachts?

A.  Certificates of all currently registered classic yachts may be viewed by going to the  CERTIFICATES CRF Database.

Q. I believe the rating on a competitor’s yacht is wrong. How can I confirm if the rating is accurate?

A . A first step should be to check the declared data on which the rating is based.  CRF is committed to full transparency, and all valid CRF certificates are available for inspection online.  If you still have questions, you can file a rating inquiry.

On receipt of your inquiry, the CRF Technical Committee will review the certificate, and if they determine that there is a error, they will notify the yacht owner of the error and of any resulting change in rating.  If the measurement in question needs verification from an independent outside source, a measurer will be hired at the expense of the appealing party.

Q. I believe the rating on my yacht is wrong. How can I confirm if the rating is accurate?

A.  First, while it is possible that an input error has been made, be aware that the formulae and factors used to calculate ratings are routinely refined each year, so ratings often change from one year to the next. For example, beginning in 2020, a Standing Rigging factor effected ratings compared to 2019, as did an improved Stability Correction.  Similarly, beginning in 2020 ratings reflect an adjustment to the effective sailing length of canoe stern (double ended) hulls.

Of course, it is possible that an error in data input has been made.  If you feel that this is the case,  file an inquiry .  On receipt of your inquiry, the CRF Technical Committee will review the data to see if there is an error.  If so they will notify you, correct the rating, and issue you a new certificate.

Q. I’ve made a mistake on measurements on my application, and my certificate has been issued. What do I do?

A.  File an inquiry and see our process here. Your request will be reviewed by CRF, and if there is an error, they will notify you, make the change in the data, and issue you a new certificate with the corrected measurements.

Q. Can I have more than one CRF certificate with different data declarations (e.g. different sail configurations) that are valid for racing at the same time?

A. No. A boat can have just one valid certificate and one pair of spinnaker/no spinnaker ratings at any one time. A boat will be allowed one configuration change (e.g from a big genoa to a small jib) during any one racing season. A new CRF certificate reflecting that one change must be issued at least 10 days before the next race in which the boat competes, and the boat may not revert back to her original configuration later in the same season. This ‘one change’ limitation does not preclude correcting errors or making minor updates to declarations, which may be accepted and a new certificate issued, at the discretion of CRF administration.

Q. How often to I need to renew my rating?

A. A CRF certificate is valid for the calendar year in which it is issued, and must be renewed each year in order to be valid for racing.

Q. How do I send my certificate to regattas?

A.  Once processed, your will receive a link to your certificate. You may send that link to regatta organizers so they have a copy of your certificate.

Q. How long will it take to get my rating certificate?

A.  Although the application is processed automatically for a rating, to ensure accuracy each certificate will be manually reviewed before it is issued. CRF typically starts issuing new certificates in April. After that start up, plan on at least 5-7 business days early in the season. If applying during July and August, it may take longer due to a larger number of certificates being issued.

Q. How much will it cost?

A. A certificate costs $50.00.  The fee contributes to the expenses of rating rule administration and development. 

Hull and Underbody Questions

Q. i have a yacht with a centerboard, and none of the keel profile sketches displayed in the rating application show a centerboard. what keel type should i declare.

A: Centerboard profiles are now shown in the underbody sketches for Keel Types 4, 5 and 6 here.

Q. Where/How do I find the weight of my keel so I can complete the ballast weight portion of the certificate?

A.  Designer data, builder specifications and brochures, etc. are typically the best source.  If necessary, the CRF Technical Committee can help with researching ballast data or even calculating it from measurements.

To request help in calculating your ballast weight, complete as much of your CRF Application as you can, use our Data Inquiry Form to request help and specifically request assistance in determining your ballast weight.  

A. Check the box corresponding to the underbody profile that most closely resembles the fixed portion of your keel and your rudder type. CRF accounts for the effect of the centerboard via the declared value for ‘Draft Centerboard Down’.

Q. Why is the “Underbody Type’ declaration included in the CRF rating?

A.  Stability and wetted area are critically important performance parameters, but it is not reasonable or practical to ask yacht owners to declare appropriate values for them. The 6 underbody types displayed on the CRF rating application work indirectly as surrogates for stability (via related keel volume, VCB and VCG), and more directly for wetted area. In addition, the various underbody type options help account for the advantages of a high aspect ratio fin keel with a separated spade rudder over a lower aspect ratio configurations, including a full keel with an attached rudder.

Q. I have determined that the displacement of my yacht is heavier than that shown in the designer/builder specifications. How does this affect the other CRF data declarations that I need to make?

A. If you are declaring a displacement that is heavier than the designer/builder specification, it follows that your declaration for the LWL that corresponds to that heavier displacement should be longer, and that your declaration for Draft should be deeper, than the designer/builder specified values. One way to quantify the differences in LWL and Draft (DM) would be to estimate the sinkage resulting from the difference between the designer/builder spec and the declared displacement (DSPS). The ‘Pounds per Inch Immersion’ (sink) for most boats can be approximated by: Lbs/in Immer = 1.1*LWL^2. It follows that actual sinkage (in inches) = delta DSPS/Lbs per In Immer. This estimated sinkage would equal to the amount added to the designer/builder specified Draft (DM) in inches , and for most boats multiplying this sinkage by 6 approximates the amount added to the designer/builder specified LWL, also in inches.

For example: Suppose that the designer/builder spec for the displacement of a boat is 40,000 lbs, but the actual displacement has been determined to be 46,000 lbs. If the published value for LWL = 38.0 at the lighter floatation, an estimate for 'pounds per inch immersion' would be 1.1 * LWL^2, or 1588 lbs. This implies that the boat would float deeper than the original spec by (46,000 - 40,000) / 1588 = 3.8 inches, or 3.8 / 12 = 0.31 ft. This, in turn, would imply that the actual LWL would be 38.0 +6 * 0.31 = 39.9 ft. Similarly, if the published draft were 5.33 ft, the implied actual draft would be 5.33 + 0.31 = 5.61 ft.

Q. The only information that I have on displacement for my yacht comes from original design specification. How can I update that to a current ‘as raced’ weight?

A.  Designers and builders typically provide displacement data referenced to the ‘design waterline’ that most often resembles a ‘light ship’ condition, with empty tanks and minimal food and gear. The weight added in equipping and provisioning for coastal cruising can increase that displacement by 10% or more. The boat hauling equipment in some yards can provide a boat weight, but these weights are typically not especially accurate, and should be used as a rough reality check only. If a displacement is declared that is significantly heavier than the original designer/builder spec, the declarations for LWL and draft (DM) need be longer and deeper, respectively, by appropriate amounts.

New for 2024

Q. i understand that a ‘tweener’ sail whose luff is not attached to a stay (termed a ‘headsail set flying’, or hsf) that is kept in place throughout an event is not allowed under crf 2024.  since these sails are becoming more user-friendly and popular for both racing and cruising, will crf be changed to account for a hsf in the future.

A. Yes, it is likely that ‘headsails set flying’ (HSF) will be addressed by CRF in the future. Discussions on how best to do this are now underway. One option under consideration is for the rated sail area for a boat that declares a HSF will be increased by a modest multiplier, in the same way that CRF accounts for differences in standing rigging type.

Q:  I have a ‘tweener’ type code sail whose girths are smaller than those of an asymmetrical spinnaker or a ‘Code 0’.  Can I fly this sail in races scored under CRF?

A:  To avoid confusing owners, CRF strives to keep its sail definitions in synch with those laid out in the Equipment Rules of Sailing (ref page 30, https://d7qh6ksdplczd.cloudfront.net/sailing/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/05151946/Equipment-Rules-of-Sailing-2021-2024.pdf ).  These can be summarized as saying that a spinnaker is a sail set forward of the mast whose mid width is equal to or greater than 75% its foot width, while a headsail is a sail set forward of the mast whose mid with is less than 75% of is foot length.  The ERS also say that a sail ‘set flying’ is one that does not have an edge attached to a stay.  A ‘tweener’ is then a headsail (mid with less than 75% of its foot length), and may be a  ‘headsail  set flying’ (HSF) because its luff flies free, and is not attached to a stay.  The Classic Yacht Racing Guidelines https://www.classicyachts.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Classic-Yacht-Racing-Guidelines-2023.pdf that govern most CYOA events currently state under ‘Setting and Sheeting of Sails’ that all headsails need to be flown while ‘fully attached’ to a stay.  Since ‘tweeners’ are headsails and most have luffs that are built to be free flying (not attached to a stay) they cannot be used in events governed by the CYOA Guidelines.  At the same time, a big overlapping (often masthead) headsail whose luff IS FULLY ATTACHED to a stay can be used, as long as its hoist and tack location (often equal to ‘ISP’ and ‘TPS’) and its overlap are accounted for on the CRF certificate as ‘IG’ ,‘J’, and ‘LP’, and  as long as the stay (or l=uff rope) that supports this sail is kept in place and taut throughout the event.  The configuration cannot be changed from race to race or from day to day depending on the conditions, and NB that only one CRF rating configuration change is allowed in any one calendar year.

Q: I sail a schooner and intend to fly a ‘Gollywobbler’ type sail between her two masts.  What data to I have to declare in order to be rated for that sail?

A. Yes, it is likely that ‘headsails set flying’ (HSF) will be addressed by CRF in the future.  Discussions on how best to do this are now underway.  One option under consideration is for the rated sail area for a boat that declares a HSF will be increased by a modest multiplier, in the same way that CRF accounts for differences in standing rigging type.

Rig and Sail Questions

Q. what is the difference between a spinnaker and a headsail.

A. A spinnaker is any sail set forward of the foremost mast whose width, measured between the midpoints of its luff and leech, is equal to or greater than 75% of its foot length. A headsail is a sail set forward of the foremost mast whose width, measured between the midpoint of its luff and leech, is equal to or less than 75% of its foot length. (See RRS 55.4 and Equipment Rules of Sailing G.1.3 d&f).

Q. Explain the requests for sail girths (widths) for mainsails and spinnakers.

A. Requests for sail girths (widths) for mainsails and spinnakers were new for 2020. They were intended then to be for newly built sails only, as the data for those would be readily available to owners from the sailmaker. These sail girths were used for data gathering only and not for ratings in 2020.

Now after two years of collecting data, CRF 2022 has included declared mainsail girths and spinnaker widths in rating calculations.  Boats declaring mainsails girths greater than the previously assumed defaults (unusually big roach profiles) will see their ratings get slightly faster.  Those declaring girths below those defaults will see slightly slower ratings, so it can be to the advantage of boats with minimal roach mains to declare those girths.  Except in extreme cases, the effect on the rating is +/-1 or 2 sec/mi.  The same approach has been taken with spinnaker widths, with declared widths greater than a previously assumed default rating slightly faster under CRF 2022. 

Q. Explain the 2020 sail material changes for Vintage and Classic yachts.

A. Sail material guidelines are intended to encourage the use of sails that are cost efficient and that are aesthetically appropriate for Classic racing.  Classic Yacht Racing Guidelines first published in 2020 remove the prior requirement for paneled construction and allow for ‘molded’ sails.  This change also removes the requirement for ‘woven fabric.’   In the Vintage and Classic divisions, carbon is prohibited (since low stretch sails risk damaging older hulls hardware, and rigs), and only classic, light colored sails are allowed. In the Spirit of Tradition and Modern Classic Divisions, sail materials and colors not restricted.

Q. Why is standing rigging material required in the CRF application?

A. The rigs of some older boats have been upgraded by replacing the original wire standing rigging with stainless steel rod, which implies a rating advantage.  Also, some boats are fitted with composite (typically carbon) standing rigging, that results in a substantial performance advantage. A Standing Rigging Factor that was new for CRF 2020 addresses this advantage via a rating adjustment.

Q. Can I use a spinnaker pole in flying my asymmetrical spinnaker?

A.  Yes, as long as you declare a spinnaker pole length ‘SPL’. Note that a whisker pole can only be used to wing out a headsail, and not to trim a spinnaker. Also, be aware that if you do declare an ‘SPL’, your calculated spinnaker area will be larger, and your rating will be faster, than it would be if you declare just a centerline a-sail tack point ‘TPS’ with a length equal to that ‘SPL’. This higher rating is due to the fact that being able to square back a spinnaker pole increases projected spinnaker area and in some conditions it allows a boat to sail at deeper true wind angles off the wind, resulting in potentially higher downwind VMG.

Q. Can I include both symmetrical and asymmetrical spinnakers in my inventory?

A. Yes, as long as you declare a spinnaker pole length ‘SPL’. If you declare both a pole length ‘SPL’ and a spinnaker tack point ‘TPS’, CRF will calculate a spinnaker area for both an s-sail via SPL, and an a-sail via TPS, and it will calculate rating on whichever area is larger.

Q. Please explain the difference between a spinnaker pole and a whisker pole.

A.  Any pole used in trimming a spinnaker is a spinnaker pole, and it is rated as such with its overall length declared as ‘SPL’. A whisker pole is a pole used to wing out headsails only, and its length is limited to not more than 1.1 * ’J’. A spinnaker pole with a declared length not longer than 1.1 * ’J’ can be used as a whisker pole to trim headsails. A boat can use a spinnaker pole with either symmetrical or asymmetrical spinnakers, but if a spinnaker pole is declared, the boat will be rated for an s-sail spinnaker area, whether or not she actually carries any s-sails.

Q. Please explain the definition and use of the declaration for the tack point of an asymmetrical spinnaker (TPS).

A.  ‘TPS’ is the distance from the forward face of the mast to the attachment point for an a-sail tack to the deck, to an anchor roller, to a bowsprit, or to a similar fixture. If an a-sail is tacked to the stem near the headstay tang, ‘TPS’ is nearly equal to ‘J’, the length of the foretriangle base. If an a-sail is tacked further forward to the end of an overhanging stem or to a bowsprit, ‘TPS’ will be significantly larger than ‘J’, the rated area of that a-sail will be bigger, and the rating will be faster. Under CRF the change in rating for increasing ‘TPS’ is generally in line with that of other handicapping systems.

Q. In light air, I plan to fly a headsail whose mid girth is less than 50% of its foot length, but it is too big to fit inside the nominal foretriangle. What should my declarations be for foretriangle height (IG), foretriangle base (J), and longest perpendicular, LP?

A. This sail is by definition a headsail and not a spinnaker (See RRS 55.4), and CRF will rate it as a headsail. For such a sail, ‘IG’ would be declared as the vertical distance from the sheerline to the top of the sheave supporting its halyard, and not to the upper end of the nominal foretriangle headstay. Similarly, for such a sail, ‘J’ would be declared as the horizontal distance from the forward face of the mast to the attachment point for its tack on the deck or bowsprit, and not to the nominal forestay headstay tang at the deck. And finally, the LP of this sail would be the distance from its clew to its luff, measured perpendicular to the luff, and not the LP of a smaller sail set in the nominal foretriangle. Note that CRF will rate the speed potential of the boat with this sail in its best condition, and that the rating with such a sail will be ‘faster’ than it would be with a smaller headsail set in the nominal foretriangle, even when only that smaller sail is flown. Note further that the CYOA Classic Yacht Racing Guidelines require that such a headsail must have its luff attached to a stay, and that it cannot be set free flying

Q. Some previously ‘square head’ mainsails in the Spirit of Tradition (SOT) class were converted to gaff headed sails and were rated as such in 2016. How will such conversions be dealt with under CRF?

A.  Under CRF, gaff headed mainsails in the SOT class will be rated as ‘square headed’. Exceptions to this approach are possible in cases where the sail configuration is very intentionally designed to have an entirely traditional appearance, with the gaff length on the order of 2/3 that of the boom length. However, any such exceptions shall only be made after special consideration by, and at the discretion of, the rating authority.

Q. Can you clarify the difference between the declared heights of jib headed and gaff headed mainsails?

A. The height of a jib headed mainsail is declared as ‘P’, which is essentially the luff length of the sail. The height of a gaff headed mainsail is declared as ‘PG’, which is the height from the mainsail tack to either the peak halyard block, or to head of a topsail (if carried), whichever is higher.

The Classic Yacht Owners Association is an exempt organization as described in Section 501(C) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations and membership fees are charitable contributions and tax-deductible. Employer Identification Number: 81-285925

© Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved. Website by risingT, LLC.

Table of Contents

• points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races in the series except the race in question;
• points equal to the average, to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 to be rounded upward), of her points in all the races before the race in question; or
• points based on the position of the boat in the race at the time of the incident that justified redress. 

Previous Versions

Last updated.

Follow Puck Worlds online:

• Follow Puck Worlds on Twitter

Site search

Filed under:

• Kontinental Hockey League

Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Gagarin Cup Preview: Atlant vs. Salavat Yulaev

Gagarin cup (khl) finals:  atlant moscow oblast vs. salavat yulaev ufa.

Much like the Elitserien Finals, we have a bit of an offense vs. defense match-up in this league Final.  While Ufa let their star top line of Alexander Radulov, Patrick Thoresen and Igor Grigorenko loose on the KHL's Western Conference, Mytischi played a more conservative style, relying on veterans such as former NHLers Jan Bulis, Oleg Petrov, and Jaroslav Obsut.  Just reaching the Finals is a testament to Atlant's disciplined style of play, as they had to knock off much more high profile teams from Yaroslavl and St. Petersburg to do so.  But while they did finish 8th in the league in points, they haven't seen the likes of Ufa, who finished 2nd. 

This series will be a challenge for the underdog, because unlike some of the other KHL teams, Ufa's top players are generally younger and in their prime.  Only Proshkin amongst regular blueliners is over 30, with the work being shared by Kirill Koltsov (28), Andrei Kuteikin (26), Miroslav Blatak (28), Maxim Kondratiev (28) and Dmitri Kalinin (30).  Oleg Tverdovsky hasn't played a lot in the playoffs to date.  Up front, while led by a fairly young top line (24-27), Ufa does have a lot of veterans in support roles:  Vyacheslav Kozlov , Viktor Kozlov , Vladimir Antipov, Sergei Zinovyev and Petr Schastlivy are all over 30.  In fact, the names of all their forwards are familiar to international and NHL fans:  Robert Nilsson , Alexander Svitov, Oleg Saprykin and Jakub Klepis round out the group, all former NHL players.

For Atlant, their veteran roster, with only one of their top six D under the age of 30 (and no top forwards under 30, either), this might be their one shot at a championship.  The team has never won either a Russian Superleague title or the Gagarin Cup, and for players like former NHLer Oleg Petrov, this is probably the last shot at the KHL's top prize.  The team got three extra days rest by winning their Conference Final in six games, and they probably needed to use it.  Atlant does have younger regulars on their roster, but they generally only play a few shifts per game, if that. 

The low event style of game for Atlant probably suits them well, but I don't know how they can manage to keep up against Ufa's speed, skill, and depth.  There is no advantage to be seen in goal, with Erik Ersberg and Konstantin Barulin posting almost identical numbers, and even in terms of recent playoff experience Ufa has them beat.  Luckily for Atlant, Ufa isn't that far away from the Moscow region, so travel shouldn't play a major role. 

I'm predicting that Ufa, winners of the last Superleague title back in 2008, will become the second team to win the Gagarin Cup, and will prevail in five games.  They have a seriously well built team that would honestly compete in the NHL.  They represent the potential of the league, while Atlant represents closer to the reality, as a team full of players who played themselves out of the NHL. 

• Atlant @ Ufa, Friday Apr 8 (3:00 PM CET/10:00 PM EST)
• Atlant @ Ufa, Sunday Apr 10 (1:00 PM CET/8:00 AM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Tuesday Apr 12 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)
• Ufa @ Atlant, Thursday Apr 14 (5:30 PM CET/12:30 PM EST)

Games 5-7 are as yet unscheduled, but every second day is the KHL standard, so expect Game 5 to be on Saturday, like an early start. 

Loading comments...

• UIM E1 World Championship
• Electric Boat Racing

Big Willy style! Will Smith is the latest team owner to join the E1 electric boat racing series

Young electric boat racing series E1 continues to garner star power as it continues its inaugural UIM World Championship season. Actor, producer, and musician Will Smith and his team, Westbrook Racing, have joined E1 to compete against several other big names in sports and entertainment.

The UIM E1 World Championship is a new electric racing boat series first announced back in 2022 that kicked off its inaugural season this past February with the Jeddah GP in Saudi Arabia. Since its inception, E1 co-founders Rodi Basso and Alejandro Agag have put together an impressive roster of team owners.

In the past year, we’ve seen E1 add teams owned by sports legends  Rafael Nadal ,  Didier Drogba , and  the NFL’s Tom Brady to the race card, as well as Formula 1 veteran Sergio Perez, superstar DJ  Steve Aoki , and cricket star Virat Kohli who is responsible for Team Blue Rising.

In December 2023, the league announced musician Mark Anthony had joined as the owner of Team Miami , setting the playing field at eight teams. They would end up placing second in Jeddah behind Team Brady, with Team Rafa taking the podium in third.

Today, the E1 Series has announced another famous entertainer joining as a team owner – Will Smith.

Will Smith’s Westbrook Racing to compete in UIM E1 Series

Per a release from E1 earlier today, Oscar-winning actor Will Smith has joined the league as owner of Westbrook Racing, named after the Fresh Prince’s global entertainment company, Westbrook Inc. E1 states that the formation of the Westbrook Racing team aligns with Smith’s “affinity for electric and competitive sports with E1’s mission to accelerate sustainability in marine mobility.”

Despite the featured image above, we won’t see Will Smith competing on the water in an E1 Racebird, but his new team has already recruited its two drivers. Five-time Les Mans racer Lucas Ordoñez joins the squad alongside experience in SuperGT and Formula 3.

Ordoñez will compete alongside Sara Price – a professional racer and stuntwoman with 17 national motocross championships and racing experience in Extreme E and the Dakar Rally. Smith spoke about the opportunity to own a team in E1 and compete:

As a fan of racing, the opportunity to be part of the E1 fleet and play a role in realizing its broader vision got me very inspired. The entire Westbrook team is truly excited to bring Westbrook Racing to the water and join such an amazing group for this race.

This news comes at a perfect time as Will Smith’s team is scheduled to compete in E1’s second race, the Venice GP , which will take place this weekend, May 11 and 12. We will follow the nine-team GP and post a recap to see how Westbrook Racing fares in its first E1 electric boat event.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Scooter Doll is a writer, designer and tech enthusiast born in Chicago and based on the West Coast. When he’s not offering the latest tech how tos or insights, he’s probably watching Chicago sports. Please send any tips or suggestions, or dog photos to him at [email protected]

Manage push notifications

Advertisement

Supported by

Trump Leads in 5 Key States, as Young and Nonwhite Voters Express Discontent With Biden

A new set of Times/Siena polls, including one with The Philadelphia Inquirer, reveal an erosion of support for the president among young and nonwhite voters upset about the economy and Gaza.

• Share full article

THE NEW YORK TIMES

THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

SIENA COLLEGE POLL

April 28 to May 9

If the 2024 presidential election

were held today , who would you

vote for if the candidates were

Joe Biden and Donald Trump ?

Pennsylvania

Margin of error

If the 2024 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were Joe Biden and Donald Trump ?

By Nate Cohn

Donald J. Trump leads President Biden in five crucial battleground states, a new set of polls shows , as a yearning for change and discontent over the economy and the war in Gaza among young, Black and Hispanic voters threaten to unravel the president’s Democratic coalition.

The surveys by The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer found that Mr. Trump was ahead among registered voters in a head-to-head matchup against Mr. Biden in five of six key states: Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Mr. Biden led among registered voters in only one battleground state, Wisconsin.

[You can find the full results of the polls, including the exact questions that were asked, here . You can see answers to common questions about our polling process here .]

The race was closer among likely voters. Mr. Trump led in five states as well, but Mr. Biden edged ahead in Michigan while trailing only narrowly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While Mr. Biden won all six of those states in 2020, victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin would be enough for him to win re-election, provided he won everywhere else he did four years ago.

The results were similar in a hypothetical matchup that included minor-party candidates and the independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who won an average of 10 percent of the vote across the six states and drew roughly equally from the two major-party candidates.

The findings are mostly unchanged since the last series of Times/Siena polls in battleground states in November. Since then, the stock market has gained 25 percent, Mr. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan has started, and the Biden campaign has unleashed tens of millions of dollars in advertisements across the battleground states.

The polls offer little indication that any of these developments have helped Mr. Biden, hurt Mr. Trump or quelled the electorate’s discontent. Instead, the surveys show that the cost of living, immigration, Israel’s war in Gaza and a desire for change continue to be a drag on the president’s standing. While Mr. Biden benefited from a burst of momentum in the wake of his State of the Union address in March, he continues to trail in the average of national and battleground state polls.

How support for the candidates differ

between registered and likely voters

The findings reveal widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the country and serious doubts about Mr. Biden’s ability to deliver major improvements to American life. A majority of voters still desire the return to normalcy promised by Mr. Biden in the last campaign, but voters in battleground states remain particularly anxious, unsettled and itching for change. Nearly 70 percent of voters say that the country’s political and economic systems need major changes — or even to be torn down entirely.

Only a sliver of Mr. Biden’s supporters — just 13 percent — believe that the president would bring major changes in his second term, while even many of those who dislike Mr. Trump grudgingly acknowledge that he would shake up an unsatisfying status quo.

The sense that Mr. Biden would do little to improve the nation’s fortunes has helped erode his standing among young, Black and Hispanic voters, who usually represent the foundation of any Democratic path to the presidency. The Times/Siena polls found that the three groups wanted fundamental changes to American society, not just a return to normalcy, and few believed that Mr. Biden would make even minor changes that would be good for the country.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden are essentially tied among 18-to-29-year-olds and Hispanic voters, even though each group gave Mr. Biden more than 60 percent of their vote in 2020. Mr. Trump also wins more than 20 percent of Black voters — a tally that would be the highest level of Black support for any Republican presidential candidate since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The polls suggest that Mr. Trump’s strength among young and nonwhite voters has at least temporarily upended the electoral map, with Mr. Trump surging to a significant lead in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada — relatively diverse Sun Belt states where Black and Hispanic voters propelled Mr. Biden to signature victories in the 2020 election.

Mr. Biden nonetheless remains within striking distance. He has maintained most of his support among older and white voters, who are much less likely to demand fundamental changes to the system and far likelier to say that democracy is the most important issue for their vote. As a result, Mr. Biden is more competitive in the three relatively white Northern swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The economy and the cost of living, however, remain the most important issues for one-quarter of voters — and a significant drag on Mr. Biden’s prospects. More than half of voters still believe that the economy is “poor,” down merely a single percentage point since November despite cooling inflation, an end to rate hikes and significant stock market gains.

Nearly 40 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters said that the economy or the cost of living was the most important issue in the election, among them Jennifer Wright, a registered nurse in Sterling Heights, Mich. She supported Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020, and to her the election comes down to one question: “Who is the best candidate who is going to help me be in a financial situation to retire?”

“Even me, as a registered nurse, I’m buying Kroger brand or store brand. I’m not buying Jif. We’ve all had to cut back,” she said.

The Biden administration’s insistence that the economy is faring well has fallen flat for many voters, including Jacob Sprague, 32, who works as a systems engineer in Reno, Nev. He says that he voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 but will not be doing so this time.

“It is concerning to me when I keep seeing press come out of the White House where they keep saying the economy is good,” Mr. Sprague said. “That’s really weird because I’m paying more on taxes and more on groceries and more on housing and more on fuel. So that doesn’t feel good.”

With less than six months to go until the election, there is still time for an improving economy to lift Mr. Biden’s standing. Historically, polls at this early stage have not been necessarily indicative of the outcome, and Mr. Trump’s breakthrough among traditionally Democratic young, Black and Hispanic voters may not rest on a solid foundation. His strength is concentrated among irregular, disengaged voters who do not pay close attention to politics and may not yet be tuned into the race. They may be prone to shift their views as the race gets underway.

In a finding that will frustrate Democrats, even as it presents opportunity for Mr. Biden, nearly 20 percent of voters blame him more than they do Mr. Trump for the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade. They may be the kind of voters that the Biden campaign hopes to persuade as the campaign heats up.

The polls showed that abortion loomed as one of Mr. Trump’s biggest vulnerabilities. On average, 64 percent of voters in battleground states said that abortion should be always or mostly legal, including 44 percent of Mr. Trump’s own supporters.

In recent weeks, the Biden campaign has sought to emphasize Mr. Trump’s support for the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. For now, though, voters preferred Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump to handle the issue of abortion by 11 points, 49 to 38 percent.

A bigger challenge for Mr. Biden than disengaged voters may ultimately be the disaffected and the disillusioned — those who desire fundamental changes to American society, or who believe that the political and economic systems need to be torn down altogether. Not long ago, these anti-system voters might have been reliably Democratic, but Mr. Trump’s anti-establishment populist brand of conservatism has flipped the usual political dynamic.

Seventy percent of voters believe that Mr. Trump will either bring major changes to the political or economic system or tear down the systems altogether, compared with 24 percent who expect the same from Mr. Biden. And while many voters express deep reservations about Mr. Trump personally, 43 percent of voters believe that he will bring good changes to the country, compared with 35 percent who think the changes will be bad.

Most Americans think the system

needs to change …

Which comes closest to your view about

the political and economic system in America,

even if none are exactly right?

The system needs ...

... no changes 2%

Don’t know/

declined to say 2%

… and they think that Donald Trump

would bring more change …

If [this candidate] won the election, do you think

nothing would change, there would be minor

changes to how things work, there would be

major changes to how things work, or he would

tear down the system completely?

would change

Minor changes

declined to say 4%

… but they are split on whether that

change would be good or bad.

Do you think the changes that [this candidate]

would make would be good for the country

or bad for the country, or neither good nor bad?

or very good

or very bad

declined to say 5%

Most Americans think the system needs to change …

Which comes closest to your view about the political and economic

system in America, even if none are exactly right?

... major changes

... minor changes

… and they think that Donald Trump would bring more change …

If [this candidate] won the election, do you think nothing would change,

there would be minor changes to how things work, there would be major

changes to how things work, or he would tear down the system completely?

… but they are split on whether that change would be good or bad.

Do you think the changes that [this candidate] would make would be good

for the country or bad for the country, or neither good nor bad?

Mr. Trump fares especially well among those who believe that the political and economic systems ought to be torn down, a group that represents about 15 percent of registered voters. He leads among these anti-system voters by 32 points, and the tear-it-down voters are especially likely to have defected from the president. In contrast, Mr. Biden retains nearly all of his 2020 supporters who believe only minor changes are necessary.

These change voters are not necessarily demanding a more ideologically progressive agenda. In the last Times/Siena poll of the same states, 11 percent of registered voters thought that Mr. Biden was not progressive or liberal enough. And while many liberal or progressive voters want major changes, relatively few of those voters are defecting from Mr. Biden.

Instead, Mr. Biden’s losses are concentrated among moderate and conservative Democratic-leaning voters, who nonetheless think that the system needs major changes or to be torn down altogether. Mr. Trump wins just 2 percent of Mr. Biden’s “very liberal” 2020 voters who think the system at least needs major changes, compared with 16 percent of those who are moderate or conservative.

One exception is Israel’s war in Gaza, an issue on which most of Mr. Biden’s challenge appears to come from his left. Around 13 percent of the voters who say they voted for Mr. Biden last time, but do not plan to do so again, said that his foreign policy or the war in Gaza was the most important issue to their vote. Just 17 percent of those voters reported sympathizing with Israel over the Palestinians.

Gerard Willingham, 30, works as a web administrator and lives in Riverdale, Ga. He voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, but he plans to vote for a third-party candidate in November because of the president’s response to the conflict in Gaza, the issue about which he cares most right now.

“I think it’s made quite a bit of difference in that it made me more heavily than in the past push toward voting for a third party, even if I feel that the candidates almost 100 percent won’t win,” Mr. Willingham said. “It’s starting to reach into my moral conscience, I guess.”

Mr. Trump’s trial in Manhattan, on charges that he falsified business records related to a hush-money payment to cover up an affair with the adult film star Stormy Daniels, was already underway when the polls began in late April. However, the survey offered little indication that the trial had damaged the former president’s political fortunes, at least so far. Just 29 percent of voters in battleground states said that they were paying “a lot” of attention to Mr. Trump’s legal woes, and 35 percent thought that the trial was likely to end in a conviction.

Alyce McFadden contributed reporting.

Here are the key things to know about how these polls were conducted:

We spoke with 4,097 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from April 28 to May 9, 2024.

Our polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. Nearly 95 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for this poll. You can see the exact questions that were asked and the order in which they were asked here .

Voters are selected for the survey from a list of registered voters. The list contains information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter, allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region. For this set of polls, we placed nearly 500,000 calls to about 410,000 voters.

To further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample on the methodology page , under “Composition of the Sample.”

When the states are joined together, the margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Each state poll has a margin of error ranging from plus or minus 3.6 points in Pennsylvania to plus or minus 4.6 points in Georgia. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error. When computing the difference between two values — such as a candidate’s lead in a race — the margin of error is twice as large.

You can see full results and a detailed methodology here . If you want to read more about how and why we conduct our polls, you can see answers to frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here .

The New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College poll of Pennsylvania was funded by a grant from The Lenfest Institute for Journalism. The poll was designed and conducted independently from the institute.

Nate Cohn is The Times’s chief political analyst. He covers elections, public opinion, demographics and polling. More about Nate Cohn

ocean yachts 32 for sale

• Yekaterinburg
• Novosibirsk
• Vladivostok

• Tours to Russia
• Practicalities
• Russia in Lists

Rusmania • Deep into Russia

Out of the Centre

Savvino-storozhevsky monastery and museum.

Zvenigorod's most famous sight is the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was founded in 1398 by the monk Savva from the Troitse-Sergieva Lavra, at the invitation and with the support of Prince Yury Dmitrievich of Zvenigorod. Savva was later canonised as St Sabbas (Savva) of Storozhev. The monastery late flourished under the reign of Tsar Alexis, who chose the monastery as his family church and often went on pilgrimage there and made lots of donations to it. Most of the monastery’s buildings date from this time. The monastery is heavily fortified with thick walls and six towers, the most impressive of which is the Krasny Tower which also serves as the eastern entrance. The monastery was closed in 1918 and only reopened in 1995. In 1998 Patriarch Alexius II took part in a service to return the relics of St Sabbas to the monastery. Today the monastery has the status of a stauropegic monastery, which is second in status to a lavra. In addition to being a working monastery, it also holds the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum.

Belfry and Neighbouring Churches

Located near the main entrance is the monastery's belfry which is perhaps the calling card of the monastery due to its uniqueness. It was built in the 1650s and the St Sergius of Radonezh’s Church was opened on the middle tier in the mid-17th century, although it was originally dedicated to the Trinity. The belfry's 35-tonne Great Bladgovestny Bell fell in 1941 and was only restored and returned in 2003. Attached to the belfry is a large refectory and the Transfiguration Church, both of which were built on the orders of Tsar Alexis in the 1650s.  

To the left of the belfry is another, smaller, refectory which is attached to the Trinity Gate-Church, which was also constructed in the 1650s on the orders of Tsar Alexis who made it his own family church. The church is elaborately decorated with colourful trims and underneath the archway is a beautiful 19th century fresco.

Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is the oldest building in the monastery and among the oldest buildings in the Moscow Region. It was built between 1404 and 1405 during the lifetime of St Sabbas and using the funds of Prince Yury of Zvenigorod. The white-stone cathedral is a standard four-pillar design with a single golden dome. After the death of St Sabbas he was interred in the cathedral and a new altar dedicated to him was added.

Under the reign of Tsar Alexis the cathedral was decorated with frescoes by Stepan Ryazanets, some of which remain today. Tsar Alexis also presented the cathedral with a five-tier iconostasis, the top row of icons have been preserved.

Tsaritsa's Chambers

The Nativity of Virgin Mary Cathedral is located between the Tsaritsa's Chambers of the left and the Palace of Tsar Alexis on the right. The Tsaritsa's Chambers were built in the mid-17th century for the wife of Tsar Alexey - Tsaritsa Maria Ilinichna Miloskavskaya. The design of the building is influenced by the ancient Russian architectural style. Is prettier than the Tsar's chambers opposite, being red in colour with elaborately decorated window frames and entrance.

At present the Tsaritsa's Chambers houses the Zvenigorod Historical, Architectural and Art Museum. Among its displays is an accurate recreation of the interior of a noble lady's chambers including furniture, decorations and a decorated tiled oven, and an exhibition on the history of Zvenigorod and the monastery.

Palace of Tsar Alexis

The Palace of Tsar Alexis was built in the 1650s and is now one of the best surviving examples of non-religious architecture of that era. It was built especially for Tsar Alexis who often visited the monastery on religious pilgrimages. Its most striking feature is its pretty row of nine chimney spouts which resemble towers.

Plan your next trip to Russia

Ready-to-book tours.

Your holiday in Russia starts here. Choose and book your tour to Russia.

REQUEST A CUSTOMISED TRIP

Looking for something unique? Create the trip of your dreams with the help of our experts.

• About company
• GENERAL CONTRACTOR

+7 (495) 526-30-40 +7 (49657) 0-30-99

THE HISTORY OF THE COMPANY CREATION

1993 how the construction company remstroy was created   the year 1993 was a period when a lot of construction companies, which had been working successfully during the soviet times and had rich staff capacity, were forced to cease their activity for various reasons. a lot of capable specialists either had to look for another job or change their field. but there were also those who were willing to realise their potential in the field of construction in accordance with the received degree and the experience they had accumulated. thus, in 1993 in elektrostal (moscow oblast) a group of specialists and people sharing each other’s ideas, who had enormous educational background and the highest degree in architecture, organized and registered ooo firm erg which began its rapid development and successful work, offering its service both on the construction market and other areas. 2000 industrial construction is the main area   seven years of successful work have shown that combining different types of activities in the same company is not always convenient. and in the year 2000 the founders of ooo firm erg decided to create and register a monoprofile construction company ooo remstroy construction company. industrial construction was chosen as the priority area. it was in this area that the directors of ooo sk remstroy began their working life and grew as specialists. in order to achieve the set goal, they selected a mobile team of professionals in the field of industrial construction, which allows us to cope with the tasks assigned to ooo sk remstroy throughout russia and the near abroad. 2010 manufacturing of metal structures   we possess modern equipment that allows us to carry out the entire cycle of works on the manufacture of metal structures of any complexity without assistance. designing – production – installation of metal structures. a staff of professionals and well-coordinated interaction of the departments let us carry out the work as soon as possible and in accordance with all customer’s requirements.” extract from the list of members of self-regulatory organizations, construction.

LICENSE OF MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Certificates, system of managing quality.

SYSTEM OF ECOLOGIAL MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT

LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION

THE GEOGRAPHY OF CONSTRUCTION SITES

YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITES OF OOO REMSTROY ON THE PAGE OF THE SITE

OUR CLIENTS

http://remstroi.pro/yandex-promyshlennoe-stroitelstvo