Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team Selection Policy Changes [Archive]

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

September 18th 10, 11:45 AM

The US Team Committee, in cooperation with the Rules
Committee and based on responses received through the on-line
competition survey conducted last year, has decided to recommend to
the SSA Board of Directors at its winter meeting that they approve
amendment to the Selection Policy for US Club Class Teams selected for
WGC participation starting in 2011.

1) We will no longer restrict eligibility to pilots
who have not participated in a previous WGC event, i.e. all
participants in Sports Class Nationals flying eligible gliders will be
eligible

2) We will broaden the list of gliders which may be
flown to generate eligible scores for Club Class selection in our
Sports Class Nationals. It is anticipated that most Standard, 15
Meter, and 18 Meter gliders will be accommodated.

We are currently rewriting our Selection Policy to
reflect these changes and will publish the text in draft form as soon
as possible. A draft Eligible Glider List will be also be produced
incorporating these changes. If approved, our selection next fall for
the year two pilot for the 2012 WGC will be made on this basis.

These proposed changes do not affect selection of the
year one pilot - i.e. selected two years in advance of the 2012 Sports
Class WGC in Argentina, provided as currently required that the pilot
participates in the 2011 pre-World contest there.

Given that these changes are being proposed, we wanted
to disseminate the news as early as possible so that interested
pilots could plan their 2011 competition schedules accordingly

For the Committee
DJ

Mike[_8_]

September 18th 10, 12:37 PM

Ray Jay

September 18th 10, 02:19 PM

> > * * * * * * * * 2) We will broaden the list of gliders which may be
> > flown to generate eligible scores for Club Class selection in our
> > Sports Class Nationals. *It is anticipated that most Standard, 15
> > Meter, and 18 Meter gliders will be accommodated.

So it seems those who resisted the establishment of a bona fide Club
Class here in the U.S. have now *******ized it.

How utterly inane and comically predictable!

Ray Cornay

Tim Taylor

September 18th 10, 05:15 PM

On Sep 18, 4:45*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> * * * * * * * * The US Team Committee, in cooperation with the Rules
> Committee and based on responses received through the on-line
> competition survey conducted last year, has decided to recommend to
> the SSA Board of Directors at its winter meeting that they approve
> amendment to the Selection Policy for US Club Class Teams selected for
> WGC participation starting in 2011.
>
> * * * * * * * * 1) We will no longer restrict eligibility to pilots
> who have not participated in a previous WGC event, i.e. all
> participants in Sports Class Nationals flying eligible gliders will be
> eligible
>
> * * * * * * * * 2) We will broaden the list of gliders which may be
> flown to generate eligible scores for Club Class selection in our
> Sports Class Nationals. *It is anticipated that most Standard, 15
> Meter, and 18 Meter gliders will be accommodated.
>
> * * * * * * * * We are currently rewriting our Selection Policy to
> reflect these changes and will publish the text in draft form as soon
> as possible. A draft Eligible Glider List will be also be produced
> incorporating these changes. If approved, our selection next fall for
> the year two pilot for the 2012 WGC will be made on this basis.
>
> * * * * * * * * These proposed changes do not affect selection of the
> year one pilot - i.e. selected two years in advance of the 2012 Sports
> Class WGC in Argentina, provided as currently required that the pilot
> participates in the 2011 pre-World contest there.
>
> * * * * * * * * Given that these changes are being proposed, we wanted
> to disseminate the news *as early as possible so that interested
> pilots could plan their 2011 competition schedules accordingly
>
> For the Committee
> DJ

1. I would encourage the committee to delay implementing the changes
until 2012 so those that have "played by the rules" are not impacted
two thirds of the way through a three year cycle.

2. If these are truly "proposed" and not already decided will there be
a comment period? Flying a true Club Class glider is very different
from flying a newer glider. I am talking about 38 to 1 Std, Cirrus,
LS-1, ASW 15, Std Jantar, etc. Also, the intent of the Club Class was
to provide an avenue for those that do not have the funds or desire to
spend $80,000 to $300,000 on a glider to be able to complete and
represent their country.

The last two sports class nationals have been won by ASG-29's, do we
all have to spend $150,000 to play the game? The club class was to be
the "common man's" class, the last place that you could not buy your
way on to the team with the latest glider. 2010 was ruled by span and
wing loading (ASG-29, Ventus 2cx, ASW-27's). Day five showed the
difference when the lowest handicapped finisher was a Discus flown
beautifully and persistently by Sarah Kelly, everything with a higher
handicap could not penetrate the winds to cross the desert.

3. When will we see the corrected scores from 2009 and 2010 with the
scoring errors fixed? While those years standings are "official"
those that flew the contest should been informed of how they should
have done and if those scores will count toward team selection. A
fundamental error in the scoring program is a something that almost no
one is going to catch in the midst of a contest.

Tim

Tim Taylor

September 18th 10, 05:22 PM

On Sep 18, 4:45*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> * * * * * * * * The US Team Committee, in cooperation with the Rules
> Committee and based on responses received through the on-line
> competition survey conducted last year, has decided to recommend to
> the SSA Board of Directors at its winter meeting that they approve
> amendment to the Selection Policy for US Club Class Teams selected for
> WGC participation starting in 2011.
>
> * * * * * * * * 1) We will no longer restrict eligibility to pilots
> who have not participated in a previous WGC event, i.e. all
> participants in Sports Class Nationals flying eligible gliders will be
> eligible
>
> * * * * * * * * 2) We will broaden the list of gliders which may be
> flown to generate eligible scores for Club Class selection in our
> Sports Class Nationals. *It is anticipated that most Standard, 15
> Meter, and 18 Meter gliders will be accommodated.
>
> * * * * * * * * We are currently rewriting our Selection Policy to
> reflect these changes and will publish the text in draft form as soon
> as possible. A draft Eligible Glider List will be also be produced
> incorporating these changes. If approved, our selection next fall for
> the year two pilot for the 2012 WGC will be made on this basis.
>
> * * * * * * * * These proposed changes do not affect selection of the
> year one pilot - i.e. selected two years in advance of the 2012 Sports
> Class WGC in Argentina, provided as currently required that the pilot
> participates in the 2011 pre-World contest there.
>
> * * * * * * * * Given that these changes are being proposed, we wanted
> to disseminate the news *as early as possible so that interested
> pilots could plan their 2011 competition schedules accordingly
>
> For the Committee
> DJ

1. I would encourage the committee to delay implementing the changes
until 2012 so those that have "played by the rules" are not impacted
two thirds of the way through a three year cycle.

2. If these are truly "proposed" and not already decided will there
be
a comment period? Flying a true Club Class glider is very different
from flying a newer glider. I am talking about 38 to 1 Std, Cirrus,
LS-1, ASW 15, Std Jantar, etc. Also, the intent of the Club Class
was
to provide an avenue for those that do not have the funds or desire
to
spend $80,000 to $300,000 on a glider to be able to complete and
represent their country.

The last two sports class nationals have been won by ASG-29's, do we
all have to spend $150,000 to play the game? The club class was to
be
the "common man's" class, the last place that you could not buy your
way on to the team with the latest glider. 2010 was ruled by span
and
wing loading (ASG-29, Ventus 2cx, ASW-27's). Day six showed the
difference when the lowest handicapped finisher was a Discus flown
beautifully and persistently by Sarah Kelly, everything with a higher
handicap could not penetrate the winds to cross the desert.

3. When will we see the corrected scores from 2009 and 2010 with the
scoring errors fixed? While those years standings are "official"
those that flew the contest should been informed of how they should
have done and if those scores will count toward team selection. A
fundamental error in the scoring program is a something that almost
no
one is going to catch in the midst of a contest.

Tim

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 18th 10, 05:38 PM

>
> So it seems those who resisted the establishment of a bona fide Club
> Class here in the U.S. have now *******ized it.
>
> How utterly inane and comically predictable!
>
> Ray Cornay

The pilot ranking list shows Ray Cornay flew an LS4 in Region 5 South
in 2008, but has not flown any sports class nationals. (I don't have
"Mike's" last name.) Ray has snarky things to say about people
"resisting the establishment of a bona fide club class", but when we
ran a club class contest in region 5 south 2009, he didn't show up.

And that's the basic problem. Everyone loves the idea of 50 new pilots
duking it out in club class gliders to get on the world team in the
abstract. Alas, it didn't happen in reality. Exactly one eligible
pilot/glider showed up two years in a row at sports nationals. People
with access to better gliders don't borrow a standard cirrus for their
two week gliding vacations just because some rule said so. And people
like Ray, for whom this whole thing was designed, do not show up.

Before spouting off we should all go look at the sports class results
at
http://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/ContestResultsFullDetail.asp?contestId=366&ContestDetailId=4856&ContestName=Sports+Class+Nationals

and at the US team ranking list at
http://soaringweb.org/US_Team/HomePage.html

(I gather the updated versions including this year's results will be
up soon.)

These are the sad facts that the US team committee has to deal
with.Should we really send pilots to the worlds based on these
results? Look hard and think what you would do. The SSA built it, they
don't come. At some point you face reality.

The claim that anyone at the US team or rules committee "resisted"
club class is also not founded. Two club class contests have been
held. Anyone who wants to organize one is welcome to do it. We'll
chalk Ray up as a volunteer to CD the next one.

No, the RC did not destroy the single most successful contest class in
the US (sports class) by passing a rule saying that 2/3 (yes, 2/3) of
the gliders who actually show up can't fly, all based on an unproven
theory. The SSA came close, by saying that 2/3 of those who show up
can't earn team points. We all should learn from this good but
unsuccessful idea and the world class debacle: you need to grow and
show popularity of a contest class before you commit to it. If you
want club class to succeed, put on a club class regional or super
regional, and show up!

Disclaimer: I had no part in the US team decision, nor do I speak for
the rules committee -- my opinions only.

John Cochrane

Mike[_8_]

September 18th 10, 06:19 PM

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 18th 10, 06:33 PM

>
> My name is Mike Carris and I have just purchased, with a partner, an
> old forgotten PIK 20B that will take at least 500 total hours to get
> flying again. I did this for one reason, to fly in the Club Class,
> which is an FAI event, except in the USA. Now, there will be no club
> class, just another opportunity, it seems, *for a very few *people
> that can afford it, to get another chance to be on a world team. *Why
> not allow the Club Class to flourish as it was intened. Soaring in the
> USA takes a step backwards with this decision.
>
> Do something for the sport, you know the one that does not require
> mega bucks to compete in.
>
> Mike Carris "0"

Megabucks are not required to compete in sports class. Dave Stephenson
had a habit of crushing us with KA6 and Fokas; Tim McAllister has won
in a Libelle. Sports class is handicapped. The handicaps not only
work, they favor older gliders. The tasking guidelines also favor the
older gliders. Tasks are supposed to be set for a standard cirrus, and
if that's too short for a nimbus 4, too bad. Ray Gimmey didn't buy his
way from nowhere to sports class dominance with an ASG29, he happens
to be a pretty good pilot too! Read the proposal -- this said nothing
about club class in the US, it said only something about how the US
team will select pilots for the world team. There is and will be a
club class anytime someone wants to organize and go to a club class
event. Which I hope you will do; vibrant club class racing in the US
would be great to see.

John Cochrane

Andy[_10_]

September 18th 10, 06:46 PM

On Sep 18, 9:22*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:

> *A fundamental error in the scoring program is a something that almost
> no one is going to catch in the midst of a contest.
>
> Tim

What error in the scoring program?

Mike[_8_]

September 18th 10, 06:53 PM

On Sep 18, 11:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > My name is Mike Carris and I have just purchased, with a partner, an
> > old forgotten PIK 20B that will take at least 500 total hours to get
> > flying again. I did this for one reason, to fly in the Club Class,
> > which is an FAI event, except in the USA. Now, there will be no club
> > class, just another opportunity, it seems, *for a very few *people
> > that can afford it, to get another chance to be on a world team. *Why
> > not allow the Club Class to flourish as it was intened. Soaring in the
> > USA takes a step backwards with this decision.
>
> > Do something for the sport, you know the one that does not require
> > mega bucks to compete in.
>
> > Mike Carris "0"
>
> Megabucks are not required to compete in sports class. Dave Stephenson
> had a habit of crushing us with KA6 and Fokas; Tim McAllister has won
> in a Libelle. Sports class is handicapped. The handicaps not only
> work, they favor older gliders. *The tasking guidelines also favor the
> older gliders. Tasks are supposed to be set for a standard cirrus, and
> if that's too short for a nimbus 4, too bad. Ray Gimmey didn't buy his
> way from nowhere to sports class dominance with an ASG29, he happens
> to be a pretty good pilot too! *Read the proposal -- this said nothing
> about club class in the US, it said only something about how the US
> team will select pilots for the world team. There is and will be a
> club class anytime someone wants to organize and go to a club class
> event. Which I hope you will do; vibrant club class racing in the US
> would be great to see.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I do not care about the Sports Class as a substitute for the FAI Club
Class in the USA, and with kind regards, although I know you mean
well, I do not find your argument very convincing.

There are excellent pilots that win in their classes. Let them remain
there doing their best, and if they want to fly Club Class, let them
buy a Club Class ship.

Thats it.

Mike

Chuck

September 18th 10, 08:31 PM

On Sep 18, 12:38*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > So it seems those who resisted the establishment of a bona fide Club
> > Class here in the U.S. have now *******ized it.
>
> > How utterly inane and comically predictable!
>
> > Ray Cornay
>
> The pilot ranking list shows Ray Cornay flew an LS4 in Region 5 South
> in 2008, but has not flown any sports class nationals. (I don't have
> "Mike's" last name.) Ray has snarky things to say about people

Dear Mr, Cochrane
With all due respect, only one I see making snarky commentrs seems to
be you.

If you support this proposal, then defend it on the merits, No need
for personal invectives.

Someone please explain if this change is allowed to go through, then
what is the point of club class in the US?

How long is a resonalble period to get a new comp class established?
Is it reasonable to give up after a couple years, especially given the
current economic environment many of us face?

Best regards,
Chuck Patterson
Regaion 5
(Who was looking forward to flying in club class, until now.......)

Tim[_2_]

September 18th 10, 09:42 PM

Just another "not invented here" response from the U.S. Soaring
Community and the powers that be. I am saddened, but not surprised.
The more and more I mull this decision over in my head, the more and
more I beleive in my heart that it is "class warfare" - literally. If
you cannot afford at least a $60k-$80k+++ glider, a bright shniy Cobra
trailer, the cost to insure them, the cost of all the latest
instruments - then just stay out of our way and let the rich boys/sons
of rich boys show you how racing is really done.

I'd like to remind erveryone AND the rules/US Team committees of the
purpose of the FAI for developing the "Club Class" (I may not have the
language 100% correct, but the ideas are).
1) To preserve the value of older racing gliders
2) To offer an "affordable" level of racing that includes racing a the
highest level - the World Championships

With this decision to effectively ditch the Club Class concept for
both a US nationals and for US Team pilot selection, the RC and US
Team Committee have rejected these two seemingly good ideas for these
times of economic uncertainty and difficulty in attracting youth/
younger (say under 45 years old) pilots to racing.

Just to be clear, "Club Class" does not aim to take advantage of huge
european glider club's fleets of older gliders as the name and
discussions here may imply. In fact, many euro glider clubs have gone
right past these older ships and filled their fleets with even newer
glass single seat ships. The fact is that to be really competitive in
Club Class, any pilot in the world had to make a $$$ commitment to
these older ships with all their age and flaws. But it is a great deal
less $$$'s than a new ASG-29.

Rather, "Club Class" is simply the name given to the concept by the
IGC, not a name given to what was actually happening. In fact, very
few if any pilots showed up at any Club Class worlds in ships they
just picked-up/borrowed from their club's hangars. People made the
concious choice to focus on this class, and to spend a lot less money
doing it. If people had the choice here, maybe they would have done
the same. We will never know because the concept was an orphan idea
from the get-go here in the U.S. The "powers that be" had gotten out
of these ships long ago and had/have no interest in preserving the
value and racing utitility of these gliders

If there are not 100's if not 1,000's of these type of ships here in
the U.S. then someone please correct me right now. Whether or not US
Clubs fly these ships in their fleets, there is a huge pool of
potential ships out there to be raced and this decision just makes
this all the more unlikely.

I, personally, would like to send a big thank you to these two
committees for thinking about the value of my club class glider, and
the development of lower cost solutions for myself AND those not so
well funded. I feel very catered to now... As do the owners of the
many hundereds, if not thousands of club class gliders here in the
U.S.

In conclusion, the biggest implication and driving idea behind these
changes seems to be that by opeing in up selection to every pilot and
(nearly) every glider, then we will magically get better results in
this class. The further implication being that the pilots we have sent
to the Club Class WGC's have been sub-standard compared to those we
have sent to the "FAI" Classes.

Well I think that we should be aiming for much better results in EVERY
class, every time, rather than ditching a concept because it did not
work out.

I humbly ask the two committees to critically review the results from
this years two WGC's. One of, if not the, highest placing pilot was in
Club Class. He got there flying Club Class ships despite having to fly
against newer ships that have CLEAR advantages in certain conditions
no matter what the handicaps are in the US Sports Nationals.
Congratualtions to a terrific job Sean!

What the h--l happened to everyone in the FAI Classes? Maybe the
conclusion we should be taking away is that to better prepare U.S.
pilots for racing at the WGC-level, we should be having our racing
system conform to how everyone else flies contests, including by
making a commitment to a stand alone club class.

The one good thing about this is that maybe Sports Class, with many
more "hot" ships and "hot" pilots, will get to fly Uvalde someday....
Or PROBABLY NOT....

A Saddened,
Tim EY

P.S. Maybe we should just disregard class specific scoring for U.S.
team selection and go with straight percentage scores and with all
national scores merged - this would allow for an East West uber
Natioanals as well. It would be easy, and then put the best scoring 12
pilots in contention for the 12 WGC slots every WGC-cycle... I am now
putting my asbestos suit on

Bob Faris

September 18th 10, 09:45 PM

On Sep 18, 10:38*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > So it seems those who resisted the establishment of a bona fide Club
> > Class here in the U.S. have now *******ized it.
>
> > How utterly inane and comically predictable!
>
> > Ray Cornay
>
> The pilot ranking list shows Ray Cornay flew an LS4 in Region 5 South
> in 2008, but has not flown any sports class nationals. (I don't have
> "Mike's" last name.) Ray has snarky things to say about people
> "resisting the establishment of a bona fide club class", but when we
> ran a club class contest in region 5 south 2009, he didn't show up.
>
> And that's the basic problem. Everyone loves the idea of 50 new pilots
> duking it out in club class gliders to get on the world team in the
> abstract. Alas, it didn't happen in reality. Exactly one *eligible
> pilot/glider showed up two years in a row at sports nationals. People
> with access to better gliders don't borrow a standard cirrus for their
> two week gliding vacations just because some rule said so. And people
> like Ray, for whom this whole thing was designed, do not show up.
>
> Before spouting off *we should all go look at the sports class results
> athttp://www.ssa.org/members/contestreports/ContestResultsFullDetail.as....
>
> and at the US team ranking list athttp://soaringweb.org/US_Team/HomePage.html
>
> (I gather the updated versions including this year's results will be
> up soon.)
>
> These are the sad facts that the US team committee has to deal
> with.Should we really send pilots to the worlds based on these
> results? Look hard and think what you would do. The SSA built it, they
> don't come. At some point you face reality.
>
> The claim that anyone at the US team or rules committee "resisted"
> club class is also not founded. *Two club class contests have been
> held. Anyone who wants to organize one is welcome to do it. We'll
> chalk Ray up as a volunteer to CD the next one.
>
> No, the RC did not destroy the single most successful contest class in
> the US (sports class) by passing a rule saying that 2/3 (yes, 2/3) of
> the gliders who actually show up can't fly, all based on an unproven
> theory. *The SSA came close, by saying that 2/3 of those who show up
> can't earn team points. We all should learn from this good but
> unsuccessful idea and the world class debacle: you need to grow and
> show popularity of a contest class before you commit to it. If you
> want club class to succeed, put on a club class regional or super
> regional, and show up!
>
> Disclaimer: I had no part in the US team decision, nor do I speak for
> the rules committee -- my opinions only.
>
> John Cochrane

I completely agreee with the points that Tim Taylor makes. To
suddenly change the rules by which members are selected for the world
team in the middle of the process is wrong. There is at least one
pilot, Tim Taylor, that had access to a better glider (his ASW-27) and
borrowed a Standard Jantar for his two week vacation to compete in the
Sports Class nationals in order to try to make the world team because
some rule said so. I think you will find that the top competitors
flying club class gliders in the Sports Class nationals are as
dedicated as any of those in the FAI class nationals. If you look at
the numbers, at the Parowan nationals this summer there were 14
competitors flying gliders that qualify for world team Club Class
ranking. This is 2 more that either the number of competitors in the
Open or Standard Class nationals this year and twice as many as in the
World Class nationals. By John Cochrane's reasoning, based on the
numbers, we should combine the rankings from Open, Standard and World
Class nationals to be used to qualify anyone for postions on the world
team in any of the three classes, regardless of the class they
competed in to get the ranking. This would be no different that what
is being proposed in allowing qualification using a current production
racing glider, but at the World meet being only able to race in an
ASW20 at best, based on the IGC 2010 Club Class list,
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/handicaps.pdf. When the US
club class restrictions were first introduced in 2007, the team
committee drafted a letter explaining the reasoning,
http://www.ssa.org/UsTeam/ustc%20pdf/9-07-07%20Club%20Class%20Rule%20Change..pdf.
Part of this letter is as follows:

"Currently in international competition, the choice of gliders for
Club Class (IGC-CC) contests,
the equivalent of U.S. Sports Class (US-SC) contests, is limited to
those whose performance is
similar to fiberglass, Standard Class and 15 meter sailplanes of the
late 1960’s and 1970’s (e.g.,
LS-1f, Std. Cirrus, PIK-20, and ASW-20). This is in contrast to the
current practice in U.S.
Sports Class competition, where gliders of any performance level may
compete; this range includes
the latest, most efficient Open Class gliders (e.g., Nimbus 4), to
early, post-war generation gliders
(e.g., Schweitzer 1-20 and Schleicher Ka-4). Gliders of significantly
different performance require
significantly different flying techniques, tactics, and strategies in
competition to be successful.
While gliders are handicapped in both IGC-CC and US-SC competition,
there is concern that U.S.
pilots who might qualify in either very high or very low performance
gliders may be at a significant
disadvantage at a World Gliding Championship (WGC) when obliged to
compete in the mid-range
performing gliders used in IGC-CC competition."

I don't think there has been a sudden change in opinion in that
qualifying in one performance class and suddenly moving to a different
performance class at the WGC will not cause problems. If the US teams
are going to do well at the world meets, we need to move more to
adopting the international rules, especially at the Nationals, rather
than moving farther away from them.
Bob Faris

Andy[_10_]

September 18th 10, 10:03 PM

On Sep 18, 10:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > My name is Mike Carris and I have just purchased, with a partner, an
> > old forgotten PIK 20B that will take at least 500 total hours to get
> > flying again. I did this for one reason, to fly in the Club Class,
> > which is an FAI event, except in the USA. Now, there will be no club
> > class, just another opportunity, it seems, *for a very few *people
> > that can afford it, to get another chance to be on a world team. *Why
> > not allow the Club Class to flourish as it was intened. Soaring in the
> > USA takes a step backwards with this decision.
>
> > Do something for the sport, you know the one that does not require
> > mega bucks to compete in.
>
> > Mike Carris "0"
>
> Megabucks are not required to compete in sports class. Dave Stephenson
> had a habit of crushing us with KA6 and Fokas; Tim McAllister has won
> in a Libelle. Sports class is handicapped. The handicaps not only
> work, they favor older gliders. *The tasking guidelines also favor the
> older gliders. Tasks are supposed to be set for a standard cirrus, and
> if that's too short for a nimbus 4, too bad. Ray Gimmey didn't buy his
> way from nowhere to sports class dominance with an ASG29, he happens
> to be a pretty good pilot too! *Read the proposal -- this said nothing
> about club class in the US, it said only something about how the US
> team will select pilots for the world team. There is and will be a
> club class anytime someone wants to organize and go to a club class
> event. Which I hope you will do; vibrant club class racing in the US
> would be great to see.
>
> John Cochrane

Why wasn't there a Club Class Nationals in 2010? It stands to reason
that if there is sufficient interest on the part of pilots of Club
Class equipment to compete for national team spots we'd be able to
sustain at least one contest per year to make it happen.

TIm did a nice job with his borrowed Jantar at the Sports Nationals
this year. I think his point about mixed performance across gliders in
the contest is partly true. On consistent days with streeting and
winds less than 20-25 mph the Jantar was hard to beat. For those of us
flying current generation gliders the difference in performance just
couldn't make up for the handicap. On windy days with limited lift
bands and long glides between good lift lower performance could make
it hard to get that next climb and then all the handicap in the world
couldn't help you. That said, the last day was in the second category
and was won by a very ably flown Libelle.

The challenging thing from my perspective is that we don't have enough
pilots willing to do what Tim did - rent, borrow or buy a Club Class
glider to compete in Sports Class Nationals on a consistent basis.
What it means is we send people to the worlds chosen from a limited
competitive set. It's true that it is different flying Club Class
than current generation FAI class. However, I think the competitive
disadvantage of changing glider types for the worlds (by picking the
team from the full Sports Class) is outweighed by the reduced size of
the pool of pilots competing for spots on the team (when you limit the
team only to pilots flying Club Class gliders).

9B

Ray Jay

September 18th 10, 10:14 PM

And a fine hello to you, too, Mr. Cochrane:

Irrespective of anyone's history of participation, this decision
smells just like yet another justification to the benefit of those
best equipped and consequently knees squarely in the nuts those who
worked so hard to get Club Class going in this country.

It isn't enough that 18m has its own lightly participated class in
which to go on to Worlds?
Expense isn't already enough a barrier to entry for you?
So now it's legit to encroach upon the opportunities of a lesser
performing class?

Hence, the resultant reactions to which both Mike and Chuck allude.

Regards,

Ray Cornay

Ron Gleason

September 18th 10, 11:16 PM

Andy[_1_]

September 18th 10, 11:39 PM

On Sep 18, 10:46*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:22*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>
> > *A fundamental error in the scoring program is a something that almost
> > no one is going to catch in the midst of a contest.
>
> > Tim
>
> What error in the scoring program?

I heard something about this a while ago. I hope the details will
come out now!

Andy (GY)

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

September 18th 10, 11:53 PM

On Sep 18, 5:14*pm, Ray Jay > wrote:
> And a fine hello to you, too, Mr. Cochrane:
>
> Irrespective of anyone's history of participation, this decision
> smells just like yet another justification to the benefit of those
> best equipped and consequently knees squarely in the nuts those who
> worked so hard to get Club Class going in this country.
>
> It isn't enough that 18m has its own lightly participated class in
> which to go on to Worlds?
> Expense isn't already enough a barrier to entry for you?
> So now it's legit to encroach upon the opportunities of a lesser
> performing class?
>
> Hence, the resultant reactions to which both Mike and Chuck allude.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ray Cornay

There are number of good points being made here, but one I just can't
get is "the glider makes the winner" in a handicapped class. This is
the place where that argument carries the least weight

1. At the 2009 Sports Nationals, only 14 of 35 gliders were club class
eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.
2. At the 2010 Sports Nationals, only 15 of 42 gliders were club class
eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.

So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition
simply because of the glider they are flying. Most pilots cannot
afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
their prized 27, 29 or whatever are not likely to sell it to get a
club ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
amounts to financial reasons.

Our most experienced and accomplished team pilots generally agree that
whatever disadvantages exist if you compete in a club class ship after
winning in a say 27 or 29 are far outweighed by the smaller pool of
pilots from which the team can be drawn.

Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
more inclusive.

It is really good that we are getting vigorous engagement on this with
4 months to go before the proposal goes before the SSA board for a
vote. We all want a fair and inclusive competition environment that
attracts increased participation and develops pilots that are
competitive at the worlds.

John Godfrey (QT)
US Rules Committee

Wayne Paul

September 19th 10, 12:33 AM

Hey... I have an idea!! This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!

Mike[_8_]

September 19th 10, 12:34 AM

On Sep 18, 4:53*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:14*pm, Ray Jay > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > And a fine hello to you, too, Mr. Cochrane:
>
> > Irrespective of anyone's history of participation, this decision
> > smells just like yet another justification to the benefit of those
> > best equipped and consequently knees squarely in the nuts those who
> > worked so hard to get Club Class going in this country.
>
> > It isn't enough that 18m has its own lightly participated class in
> > which to go on to Worlds?
> > Expense isn't already enough a barrier to entry for you?
> > So now it's legit to encroach upon the opportunities of a lesser
> > performing class?
>
> > Hence, the resultant reactions to which both Mike and Chuck allude.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ray Cornay
>
> There are number of good points being made here, but one I just can't
> get is "the glider makes the winner" in a handicapped class. This is
> the place where that argument carries the least weight
>
> 1. At the 2009 Sports Nationals, only 14 of 35 gliders were club class
> eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.
> 2. At the 2010 Sports Nationals, only 15 of 42 gliders were club class
> eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.
>
> So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition
> simply because of the glider they are flying. *Most pilots cannot
> afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
> their prized 27, 29 or whatever are not likely to sell it to get a
> club ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
> amounts to financial reasons.
>
> Our most experienced and accomplished team pilots generally agree that
> whatever disadvantages exist if you compete in a club class ship after
> winning in a say 27 or 29 are far outweighed by the smaller pool of
> pilots from which the team can be drawn.
>
> Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> more inclusive.
>
> It is really good that we are getting vigorous engagement on this with
> 4 months to go before the proposal goes before the SSA board for a
> vote. *We all want a fair and inclusive competition environment that
> attracts increased participation and develops pilots that are
> competitive at the worlds.
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club
competition
simply because of the glider they are flying. Most pilots cannot
afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
their prized 27, 29 or whatever are not likely to sell it to get a
club ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
amounts to financial reasons. "

Good Grief!

This is the attitude of the Rules Committee, when the folks with the
above mentioned sailplanes can fly in Sports class, as well as their
respective FAI class?

Mind boggle 101

I guess I am not interested in this anymore.

Mike "0"

Andrzej Kobus

September 19th 10, 01:05 AM

On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!

Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
the chances he can get to qualify.

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

September 19th 10, 02:51 AM

On Sep 18, 8:05*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!
>
> Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
> any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
> because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
> the chances he can get to qualify.

Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
QT

Bob Faris

September 19th 10, 03:27 AM

On Sep 18, 4:53*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:14*pm, Ray Jay > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > And a fine hello to you, too, Mr. Cochrane:
>
> > Irrespective of anyone's history of participation, this decision
> > smells just like yet another justification to the benefit of those
> > best equipped and consequently knees squarely in the nuts those who
> > worked so hard to get Club Class going in this country.
>
> > It isn't enough that 18m has its own lightly participated class in
> > which to go on to Worlds?
> > Expense isn't already enough a barrier to entry for you?
> > So now it's legit to encroach upon the opportunities of a lesser
> > performing class?
>
> > Hence, the resultant reactions to which both Mike and Chuck allude.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Ray Cornay
>
> There are number of good points being made here, but one I just can't
> get is "the glider makes the winner" in a handicapped class. This is
> the place where that argument carries the least weight
>
> 1. At the 2009 Sports Nationals, only 14 of 35 gliders were club class
> eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.
> 2. At the 2010 Sports Nationals, only 15 of 42 gliders were club class
> eligible. Only 2 of the top 10 finishers were club class eligible.
>
> So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition
> simply because of the glider they are flying. *Most pilots cannot
> afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
> their prized 27, 29 or whatever are not likely to sell it to get a
> club ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
> amounts to financial reasons.
>
> Our most experienced and accomplished team pilots generally agree that
> whatever disadvantages exist if you compete in a club class ship after
> winning in a say 27 or 29 are far outweighed by the smaller pool of
> pilots from which the team can be drawn.
>
> Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> more inclusive.
>
> It is really good that we are getting vigorous engagement on this with
> 4 months to go before the proposal goes before the SSA board for a
> vote. *We all want a fair and inclusive competition environment that
> attracts increased participation and develops pilots that are
> competitive at the worlds.
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So many very good pilots are being excluded from the FAI competitions
simply because of the glider they are flying. Most pilots cannot
afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
their prized club class glider are not likely to sell it to get an
FAI ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
amounts to financial reasons.

So if its such a great idea to flood the Club Class with non-
conforming gliders simply to generate a bigger pilot pool, then we
should take similar action in the FAI classes. To increase the low
turnout in Open and Standard class at the Nationals this year of only
12 pilots, I propose the Rules Committee employ handicapping in the
FAI classes to make the older gliders competitive and boost the number
of potential competitors. This would allow the team selection to pull
from a group of pilots that were previously excluded from potential
world team slots simply from financial reasons and if its true what
you said, there shouldn't be any problem for a club class pilot to
move to a current generation racing ship in the WGC.
Bob Faris

Andrzej Kobus

September 19th 10, 03:34 AM

On Sep 18, 9:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:05*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!
>
> > Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
> > any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
> > because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
> > the chances he can get to qualify.
>
> Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
> QT

Handicaps work but only in narrow spread. Tim Taylor gave you a good
example above. Another would be the last year's Sports Class Nationals
in Elmira.

This has been discussed here over and over during the past couple of
years. Please review.

Contests are won and lost on weak days. Large span gliders will make
it while club class gliders may end up in a field. No handicap can
help in such a situation.

I am not flying a club class glider anymore because I could not stand
constant tinkering around it.

What are you guys going to tell Sean Franke who sold his Ventus 2 to
buy LS-1F. I guess Sam Giltner saw it coming and sold his glider in
time.

The biggest killer to participation is constant change and inability
to predict what is going to happen next year.

Where does it say that an ASG-29 pilot has a right or should be able
to qualify for Club Class team? Don't you see something is wrong with
this picture.

Please give the Club Class pilots a break and stop tinkering around
it.

Andrzej Kobus

September 19th 10, 03:39 AM

On Sep 18, 9:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:05*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!
>
> > Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
> > any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
> > because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
> > the chances he can get to qualify.
>
> Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
> QT

Handicaps work but only in narrow spread. Tim Taylor gave you a good
example above. Another would be the last year's Sports Class
Nationals
in Elmira.
This has been discussed here over and over during the past couple of
years. Please review.
Contests are won and lost on weak days. Large span gliders will make
it while club class gliders may end up in a field. No handicap can
help in such a situation.
I am not flying a club class glider anymore because I could not stand
constant tinkering with it.
What are you guys going to tell Sean Franke who sold his Ventus 2 to
buy LS-1F. I guess Sam Giltner saw it coming and sold his glider in
time.
The biggest killer to participation is constant change and inability
to predict what is going to happen next year.
Where does it say that an ASG-29 pilot has a right or should be able
to qualify for Club Class team? Don't you see something is wrong with
this picture.
Please give the Club Class pilots a break and stop tinkering with
it.

Andrzej Kobus

September 19th 10, 04:03 AM

By the way majority voted to keep things as they were.

Should the US team continue to restrict selection to the club-class
worlds to
gliders on the US club-class list?
Yes 47%
No 44%

Bob

September 19th 10, 10:10 AM

First, to address Tim’s post, I personally know 2 of the top 7 pilots
in the 2010 WGC and one was the winner! To say these guys spent a lot
of money on their Libelles (Libellie?) is not correct. They do spend a
significant amount of sweat equity in their ships. All three are
immaculate! There instrument cost probably amount to half the
airframes worth. So be it at the world’s level.
All three have been flying their ships for years, and train every
chance they get. The one in my club is often the first to launch in
the morning and almost always the last to return in the evening. He
makes amazing flights on weak days and tells me that practicing on
weak days is the only path to success in comps. By the way, he is also
one of our instructors and spends 10-15 days of the year teaching the
students.
On those same weak days a Ventus, DG800, Nimbus 3 and the Antares (and
other higher performance, newer, costlier gliders) will make the same
distance in much less time. Usually these pilots in the higher
performance gliders finish with nearly identical times. To spread a
handicap across the Libelle to the Antares is may I say it, unfair! I
think the rules committee in the US is going to kill long term
competition by continuing on this path.
And If I read correctly John Godfrey (QT) US Rules Committee states;

1. At the 2009 Sports Nationals, only 14 of 35 gliders were club
class
2. At the 2010 Sports Nationals, only 15 of 42 gliders were club
class

In both cases these numbers, with a little more incentive to increase
pilot participation, means the Club class would equal half the
contestants in the Sports Class. This Sounds to me like the Rules
committee is more worried about the viability of the Sports Class than
supporting fair competitions.

How many on the rules committee fly Club Class gliders? (A dangerous
question, (I know) to ask and I don't mean to upset anyone here but I
am just curious)

Here in Europe the club class comps are oversubscribed and almost all
of the top comp pilots started in Club class before moving up to other
FAI classes. What is different in the US? The number of 18-25 year
olds flying in Club Class comps her in Germany is astounding. What are
the numbers in the US?

Thanks for reading!
Bob McDowell
PS; to address a continuing “urban myth” that seems prevalent in the
US, I don’t know any clubs in Germany (with the exceptions of the
AKA’s) who receive Government funding. As a matter of fact with EASA
our bureaucratic costs continue to rise.
PPS, This is the ramblings of an American currently in Germany who
will return to the US soon and hope to compete in the Club Class so
not entirely altruistic viewpoint!

Jim Beckman[_2_]

September 19th 10, 12:52 PM

At 17:53 18 September 2010, Mike wrote:
>
>There are excellent pilots that win in their classes. Let them remain
>there doing their best, and if they want to fly Club Class, let them
>buy a Club Class ship.

Isn't this a lot like the situation in NASCAR, where there is the premier
series (Sprint Cup, I think it's called) and a secondary series
(Nationwide series). The tendency lately has been for the top drivers in
the Sprint series to show up to race (and win) in the Nationwide. Some
people think this is good, because they get to see the hero drivers win
more races, while others think it's bad because it takes the incentive
out of what was sort of meant to be a feeder series to develop talent for
Sprint Cup. It also takes away the prize money that the Nationwide
drivers really need.

Anyway, I'm not a NASCAR fan myself (but I have friends who are rapid on
the subject) but I think NASCAR has perverted (opinion, others would just
say changed) the meaning of the secondary series.

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman[_2_]

September 19th 10, 01:04 PM

At 22:53 18 September 2010, John Godfrey QT wrote:
>
>So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition
>simply because of the glider they are flying. Most pilots cannot
>afford more than one glider, and once they have saved mightily to get
>their prized 27, 29 or whatever are not likely to sell it to get a
>club ship. So many very good pilots are being excluded for what
>amounts to financial reasons.

Well, they're excluded from the 1-26 Championship, too, aren't they?
That's sort of the point of the 1-26 class, isn't it? Let me admit that
the only competition I've flown is the occasional 1-26 Championship, but I
guess I'm not clear on what the purpose of glider racing is. It begins to
sound like what we all want to do is pick some pilots who can win at the
world competition. I used to have the impression that glider racing was
about getting together with a bunch of like-minded idiots and having fun
flying our gliders. That certainly seems to happen at the 1-26 meets.
Maybe I'm just uninformed.

Jim Beckman

Andy[_1_]

September 19th 10, 01:29 PM

On Sep 18, 6:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:

> Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
> QT

I have no dog in this fight, but *No* handicapping does not work, if
by working you mean that a Standard class glider can compete fairly
with an Open class glider on a weak day over un-landable terrain.

When it was said "there is no substitute for span" handicapping was
included!

Andy (GY)

hotelalpha

September 19th 10, 04:16 PM

Any pilot flying a non-conforming Club Class glider in the Sports
Class should be assumed as not wanting to fly the WGC in the
Club Class. After all, as the rules stand today if you really want
to fly the WGC then buy or borrow a Club Class glider. I sold my
Ventus 2c and bought a Club Class glider.

YOU SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CLASS YOU WANT TO FLY.

Allowing higher performing sailplanes to be Club Class eligible will
put US pilots at a greater disadvantage. Hindsight is 20/20. Had I
been allowed to qualify for the US Team in a Ventus 2c I would have
been unprepared flying the WGC. I would not have placed as well.

If the proposed rules are adopted then strategy will change for those
who want to be on the US Team. Flying a true Club Class glider
in the Sports Class will be too risky. Yes, there are conditions
where
Club Class handicaps are impossible to beat. However, most contests
have days which favor handicaps from better performing gliders. The
best bet will be bringing a modern Standard Class glider. The
handicap isn't horrible but they stand a better chance in conditions
Club Class gliders would end up in a field.

We have enough pilots flying Club Class gliders in the Sports Class.
We NEED a US Club Class Nationals. There is no reason to select
a separate Club Class venue. The best solution is to score the Club
Class within the Sports Class. Have a separate Club Class score
sheet.
Declare a Club Class National Champion. We have enough pilots to
do this now.

I sincerely hope the US Team Committee and Rules Committee will
preserve and leave the Club Class intact.

Sean Franke
2010 US Team - Club Class

Andy[_10_]

September 19th 10, 05:32 PM

On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha > wrote:

I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.

If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
If so they aren't on the IGC list). Moreover, the number of
competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.

The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
with a Standard Cirrus.

One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. This
approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.

9B

rlovinggood

September 19th 10, 05:58 PM

What is the purpose for the suggested rules change?

I would hope the overall plan would be to send a team of American
pilots over to a WGC to fly in Club Class, and bring back trophies.
It's been a long time since that happened.

It seems to me y'all must be thinking our best pilots, the ones that
have a chance to bring back medals from the WGC, fly only the latest
designs out of Germany and South Africa and that great flying ability
will translate over to the Club Class glider.

What is the proof to this?

Seems like if the whole idea is to build an American team that will
win in Club Class, then I would think you need to start with pilots
dedicated to Club Class and build on them. I don't expect it to be
done in a year or two. It would be a long term process.

Or, maybe you're thinking about the financial side of the WGC. It
probably costs a lot of money to go to the WGC and maybe within the
contingent of club class pilots in America, there's none or very few
that have both the flying skills and the money to make it to the U.S.
Team and participate in a WGC and come home a winner.

Are we looking for pilots who: 1) Can afford to go to the WGC; and 2)
Have shown flying skills and the ability to win in the newest types of
gliders?

We need to see that American pilots can win at the WGC in Club Class.
Will these proposed rule changes move us towards that goal?

If so, please explain!

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Bob Faris

September 19th 10, 06:59 PM

On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha > wrote:
>
> I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
> Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
> is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.
>
> If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
> competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
> quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
> If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
> competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
> 5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
> qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.
>
> The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
> expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
> we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
> around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
> you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
> handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
> pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
> with a Standard Cirrus.
>
> One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
> and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
> motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
> approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
> while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.
>
> 9B
Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
class list. These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
list have none. The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
included. The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
C notation on the handicap list:
http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070

Bob Faris

Andy[_10_]

September 19th 10, 08:50 PM

On Sep 19, 10:59*am, Bob Faris > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha > wrote:
>
> > I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
> > Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
> > is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.
>
> > If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
> > competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
> > quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
> > If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
> > competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
> > 5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
> > qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.
>
> > The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
> > expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
> > we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
> > around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
> > you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
> > handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
> > pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
> > with a Standard Cirrus.
>
> > One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
> > and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
> > motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
> > approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
> > while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.
>
> > 9B
>
> Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
> number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
> In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
> Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
> class list. *These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
> list have none. *The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
> included. *The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
> C notation on the handicap list:http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070
>
> Bob Faris

Okay - I thought there was a suggestion that the US should abide by
the IGC definition. In that case you'd get the results I described (10
pilots, 5 with seeding above 90). If you broaden the definition of
Club Class you will get more competitors qualifying, which I believe
is the main issue here.

If we all agree that the US definition should be broader than IGC to
be more inclusive then the only thing to be decided is how much
broader. If the current US Club Class definition includes the
original 15M Ventus and LS-6, those ships have a handicap of .899,
versus .88 for current generation 15M ships. Why you'd include a
Ventus and exclude an LS-8 or D-2 with a handicap of .925 is beyond
me.

So under the proposal we're really talking about not much of a
difference versus the current rule in terms of performance range, but
a big difference in the level of competition in terms of the number of
pilots qualifying - like more than 2 times as many.

I'd support including non-motorized gliders with handicaps down to .
875 as qualifying for Club Class for the WGC team. I don't think you
gain much by including current generation 18M ships and it starts to
stretch the performance range.

9B

hotelalpha

September 19th 10, 09:55 PM

On Sep 19, 12:50*pm, Andy > wrote:

Over the last two years Open and Standard Class have
averaged 12 -13 pilots at the Nationals. World Class
has averaged 7 pilots.

How would 10 Club Class pilots by IGC definition
be any different? Should we start thinking of ways
to bring non-qualifying gliders into the Open, Standard
and World Class so there is a greater pool of pilots?

I believe there is enough support to have an independent
Club Class within the Sports Class. We can't expect
the Club Class to grow in the US until it gets proper
recognition. We have already deviated from IGC standards.
Further deviation may do more harm than good.

Sean Franke

hotelalpha

September 19th 10, 10:01 PM

On Sep 19, 12:50*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:59*am, Bob Faris > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha > wrote:
>
> > > I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
> > > Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
> > > is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.
>
> > > If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
> > > competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
> > > quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
> > > If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
> > > competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
> > > 5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
> > > qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.
>
> > > The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
> > > expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
> > > we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
> > > around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
> > > you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
> > > handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
> > > pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
> > > with a Standard Cirrus.
>
> > > One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
> > > and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
> > > motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
> > > approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
> > > while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.
>
> > > 9B
>
> > Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
> > number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
> > In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
> > Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
> > class list. *These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
> > list have none. *The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
> > included. *The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
> > C notation on the handicap list:http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070
>
> > Bob Faris
>
> Okay - I thought there was a suggestion that the US should abide by
> the IGC definition. In that case you'd get the results I described (10
> pilots, 5 with seeding above 90). If you broaden the definition of
> Club Class you will get more competitors qualifying, which I believe
> is the main issue here.
>
> If we all agree that the US definition should be broader than IGC to
> be more inclusive then the only thing to be decided is how much
> broader. *If the current US Club Class definition includes the
> original 15M Ventus and LS-6, those ships have a handicap of .899,
> versus .88 for current generation 15M ships. Why you'd include a
> Ventus and exclude an LS-8 or D-2 with a handicap of .925 is beyond
> me.
>
> So under the proposal we're really talking about not much of a
> difference versus the current rule in terms of performance range, but
> a big difference in the level of competition in terms of the number of
> pilots qualifying - like more than 2 times as many.
>
> I'd support including non-motorized gliders with handicaps down to .
> 875 as qualifying for Club Class for the WGC team. I don't think you
> gain much by including current generation 18M ships and it starts to
> stretch the performance range.
>
> 9B

Over the last two years Open and Standard Class have
averaged 12 -13 pilots at the Nationals. World Class
has averaged 7 pilots.

How would 10 Club Class pilots by IGC definition
be any different? Should we start thinking of ways
to bring non-qualifying gliders into the Open, Standard
and World Class so there is a greater pool of pilots?

I believe there is enough support to have an independent
Club Class within the Sports Class. We can't expect
the Club Class to grow in the US until it gets proper
recognition. We have already deviated from IGC standards.
Further deviation may do more harm than good.

Sean Franke

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:19 PM

> Why wasn't there a Club Class Nationals in 2010? *It stands to reason
> that if there is sufficient interest on the part of pilots of Club
> Class equipment to compete for national team spots we'd be able to
> sustain at least one contest per year to make it happen.

Andy-

The simple answer is that the "powers that be" do not want to dilute
the perceived stature of "Sports Class", and a Club Class Nationals is/
was not on offer from the Rules Committee in 2010 or any other year
past or present.

I still continue to view Sports Class as class of convenience for the
pilots flying the top ships (i.e. "If the Sports Nats is in my neck of
the woods or it is being held at a great contest site, then I'll go
fly it"). Whereas it is often THE ONLY choice for any decent racing
for anyone flying older glass. Give them/us a class!

This coming from a pilot who took his Libelle to Std Nats in 2001
(thank you Spratt-man for the nudge to do it...). I learned a ton, but
had no real chance to do really well. I took my Libelle to Standard
Nats because I could under the rules, but certainly not to "compete."

Will you begin taking your -27 to Sports Nationals around the country
with this change, or will you pick and choose your nationals based on
eliminating 2-3,000 mile one way haul to a central or east coast
nationals? Maybe this change will attract many more top pilots to
compete for Club Class Team spots by way of Sports Class, but I see no
facts in evidence to prove this.

Until the RC grows a pair and give club class pilots the choice of
flying a sanctioned Club Class Nationals once (or better twice, if
they are feeling very generous), we, as a community, will never have
ANY feeling for the viability of a Club Class Nationals in the U.S!

If the RC is afraid that Sports Class Nationals will die, then just
maybe the sport would be better served by that happening!I continually
see and hear many references to the "FAI Classes" vs. the Sports
Class. Like the 15m/Open/Std are the "real" classes and anything else
falls into the category of "Other."

Well, the facts of the matter is that the FAI Classes include "Club."
In fact supporting Club Class here in the US would expand the ranks of
FAI Racers - or is that the point of this proposed change to the team
selection and the refusal to sanction a US Club Class Nationals?

Just what if a Club Class nationals became a consistently
oversubscribed 60 glider contest likethey are overseas? Would that be
bad? Even if the Sports Nationals began to wither away? It may even
force some pilots of the newest ships to re-join their Nationals on a
consistent basis.

Let's try a Club Class Nationals, Susan and I will even consider
organizing it!

RC/USTC - PLEASE let the Club Class Develop in the US as it has AROUND
THE WORLD with the backing of the SSA and all that implies. Let's try
a US Club Class Nationals, Susan and I will even offer to organize it.

(Not yelling at you Andy, but rather for all to hear)

EY

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:22 PM

On Sep 18, 6:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!

Or choose to "slum it" and find//borrowfly a PW-5 because of how it
looks. At the 2006 WGC's the winner of World class was often as fast
or darn near the Club Class gliders, in cluind the one flown by many
time world champ Sebastian Kawa.

PW-5's are out there and waiting to be flown, come on out "hot shots"

EY

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:26 PM

On Sep 18, 8:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:05*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> > > Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!
>
> > Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
> > any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
> > because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
> > the chances he can get to qualify.
>
> Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
> QT

John:

If sports class handicapping works so well, then why not level the
playing field in all the classes by applying those handicaps in 15m,
Std, Open, and 18m.

I, for one, would ABSOLUTELY show up at the next Std Nationals in my
SZD-55.

Maybe others in last generation ships would as well and we would see
the FAI Classes grow to more sustainable numbers as a result.

EY

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:30 PM

On Sep 19, 4:10*am, Bob > wrote:
> First, to address Tim’s post, I personally know 2 of the top 7 pilots
> in the 2010 WGC and one was the winner! To say these guys spent a lot
> of money on their Libelles (Libellie?) is not correct. They do spend a
> significant amount of sweat equity in their ships. All three are
> immaculate!

<SNIP>

Bob:

I did not mean to imply that the investment in a club class ship is
always in $$$'s to get the absolutely best whiz-bangs into/on it. But
how much is your time worth? I am sure those pilots put a value on all
that sweat equity :-)

Rather, the barrier to entry (i.e. buying the glider/instruments/
trailer) for a Club Class ship in the first place is MUCH less than
with any other class.

Why not encourage that here in the USA!

EY

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:32 PM

THis is an excellent analogy. However, I am sure some onthe rules
committee are thinking _ "these two sports share nothing at alll and
how can you even make this point.

The point is MAXIMIZING FAIR COMPETITION by way of strategic thinking
in the rules process.

EY

On Sep 19, 6:52*am, Jim Beckman > wrote:
> At 17:53 18 September 2010, Mike wrote:
>
>
>
> >There are excellent pilots that win in their classes. Let them remain
> >there doing their best, and if they want to fly Club Class, let them
> >buy a Club Class ship.
>
> Isn't this a lot like the situation in NASCAR, where there is the premier
> series (Sprint Cup, I think it's called) and a secondary series
> (Nationwide series). *The tendency lately has been for the top drivers in
> the Sprint series to show up to race (and win) in the Nationwide. *Some
> people think this is good, because they get to see the hero drivers win
> more races, while others think it's bad because it takes the incentive
> out of what was sort of meant to be a feeder series to develop talent for
> Sprint Cup. *It also takes away the prize money that the Nationwide
> drivers really need.
>
> Anyway, I'm not a NASCAR fan myself (but I have friends who are rapid on
> the subject) but I think NASCAR has perverted (opinion, others would just
> say changed) the meaning of the secondary series.
>
> Jim Beckman

Tim[_2_]

September 21st 10, 05:34 PM

Here, Here!

Thanks for the thoughts Sean.

EY
2004, 2006 US Team - Club Class

On Sep 19, 10:16*am, hotelalpha > wrote:
> Any pilot flying a non-conforming Club Class glider in the Sports
> Class should be assumed as not wanting to fly the WGC in the
> Club Class. *After all, as the rules stand today if you really want
> to fly the WGC then buy or borrow a Club Class glider. *I sold my
> Ventus 2c and bought a Club Class glider.
>
> YOU SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CLASS YOU WANT TO FLY.
>
> Allowing higher performing sailplanes to be Club Class eligible will
> put US pilots at a greater disadvantage. Hindsight is 20/20. *Had I
> been allowed to qualify for the US Team in a Ventus 2c I would have
> been unprepared flying the WGC. *I would not have placed as well.
>
> If the proposed rules are adopted then strategy will change for those
> who want to be on the US Team. *Flying a true Club Class glider
> in the Sports Class will be too risky. *Yes, there are conditions
> where
> Club Class handicaps are impossible to beat. *However, most contests
> have days which favor handicaps from better performing gliders. *The
> best bet will be bringing a modern Standard Class glider. *The
> handicap isn't horrible but they stand a better chance in conditions
> Club Class gliders would end up in a field.
>
> We have enough pilots flying Club Class gliders in the Sports Class.
> We NEED a US Club Class Nationals. There is no reason to select
> a separate Club Class venue. *The best solution is to score the Club
> Class within the Sports Class. Have a separate Club Class score
> sheet.
> Declare a Club Class National Champion. We have enough pilots to
> do this now.
>
> I sincerely hope the US Team Committee and Rules Committee will
> preserve and leave the Club Class intact.
>
> Sean Franke
> 2010 US Team - Club Class

Bruce Hoult

September 22nd 10, 02:43 AM

On Sep 22, 4:22*am, Tim > wrote:
> Or choose to "slum it" and find//borrowfly a PW-5 because of how it
> looks. At the 2006 WGC's the winner of World class was often as fast
> or darn near the Club Class gliders, in cluind the one flown by many
> time world champ Sebastian Kawa.
>
> PW-5's are out there and waiting to be flown, come on out "hot shots"

I recall when one of our NZ hot shots borrowed a PW5 for the PW5
nationals and totally blitzed the rest of the field.

It may not be the world's best glider, but any lack of good flights is
much more the ability of the people usually flying them than the
ability of the glider itself.

Bob

September 22nd 10, 07:45 AM

Tim
Thanks, and your right, the "sweat equity" in these Libelles makes
them priceless!

I hope the US can get "SEPERATE" Club Class comps. Maybe all those
club gliders can start showing up with sub 25 year olds flying.
Hint...make club class contests happen during the summer holidays so
students can attend. We have 3 under 20 somethings planning on
attending their first contest next year! Woohoo!

Bob

Ray Jay

September 23rd 10, 05:07 AM

Dear Mr. Godfrey and other interested persons,

I'd like to address some of your points regarding the proposed U.S.
Club Class team selection process, if I may:

The way I understand the matter at hand is it has been proposed that
someone should be able to gain team points towards being selected to
the U.S. Club Class team by competing in U.S. Sports Class while
flying a non-Club Class glider.

>>You said, "[one point] ...I just can't get is 'the glider makes the winner' in a handicapped class."

A discussion about the merits of handicapping aside, I think the point
you're trying to make is that a good competition pilot is a good
competition pilot no matter the glider. If so, a good jockey is a
good jockey and the horse doesn't mater? C'mon! The capability of
the racing glider is a factor just as is the capability of the race
horse is a factor.

>>You held, "So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition simply because of the glider they are flying."

Hell's Bells! Lots of very good pilots are, in essence, excluded from
flying in anything but Sports/Club because of *not* owning, say, a
ASG-29. That's just reality.

The converse reality is that an ASG-29 is not a FAI Club Class
qualified glider; therefore, someone competing in an ASG-29 cannot
earn Club Class points--Ipso Facto!

>>You state, "Our most experienced and accomplished team pilots generally agree that whatever disadvantages exist if you compete in a club class ship after winning in a say 27 or 29 are far outweighed by the smaller pool of pilots from which the team can be drawn."

This contention implies that pilots who are consistently effective
within U.S. Club Class cannot possibly be as capable as those greater
number of accomplished pilots who don't routinely fly Club Class
qualified gliders.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I suspect someone is pushing to
change the rules in order to broaden their own opportunities by
encroaching upon the opportunity of others.

>>You say, "...I believe that the new approach moves us from excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much more inclusive."

Do you realize that within this statement also lies an inferred
presumption that Club Class pilots are not "some of our best pilots"?

How is the financial consideration any different between:

-Your example of someone owning an ASG-29 but can't afford any other
glider and therefore can't compete/can't be competitive in both 18m
and Club Class, and

-Someone who can afford to own and operate a LS-4 but not also an
ASG-29 and therefore can't be competitive/can't compete in both Club
Class and also 18m Class?

In either case owning two gliders is not possible.

I dare offer that the U.S. team selection process should not take such
a dubious concern into consideration

>>You contend, "We all want a fair and inclusive competition environment that attracts increased participation and develops pilots that are competitive at the worlds."

"Fair" and "inclusive" are not necessarily complimentary--like so many
things it depends on one's point of view. Club Class is exclusive by
definition. 18m, on the other hand, is exclusive by reality. How can
one be "fair" and not the other?

And as already been pointed out, if the intent is to truly achieve
inclusivity then similar logic demands we allow Sports Class
participants to gain points towards the U.S. World Class team as
well.

Heck, why have classes at all?

In my opinion, any attempt to make U.S. Club Class more "inclusive" to
the benefit of non-Club Class competitors, regardless of intent or
desire, is nothing more than quibbling the system to the detriment of
bona fide Club Class participants who have just as much expectation to
become U.S. team members as does anyone else competing and earning
team points *within* their respective class.

Thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts on the matter.

Sincerely,

Ray Cornay
U.S. Club Class proponent

Ray Jay

September 23rd 10, 01:00 PM

For further consideration on the matter:

>>You say, "...I believe that the new approach moves us from excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much more inclusive."

WHEREAS the State of Georgia has a residency requirement in order to
qualify for an elected position within the Georgia government,

WHEREAS the State of Alabama has a residency requirement in order to
qualify for an elected position within the Alabama government,

WHEREAS Alabama's residency requirement is not inclusive to the
citizens of Georgia (regardless of the reciprocal reality),

WHEREAS many of Georgia's best politicians cannot afford to own a
house both in Georgia and Alabama,

WHEREAS Georgia politicians contend it isn't fair that they cannot
become an elected official in Alabama simply because they can't afford
to own two homes (despite owning a house in Georgia and thus are able
to run for office in Georgia),

WHEREAS there are more Georgia politicians owning a house in Georgia
than Alabama politicians owning a house in Alabama,

WHEREAS houses in Georgia are better than houses in Alabama, thus
politicians in Georgia are better than politicians in Alabama,

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED by the Georgia legislature that any
vote a Georgia politician receives during an election for a Georgia
office shall simultaneously apply towards being elected to a
commensurate position within the government of the State of Alabama.

Good grief!

jcarlyle

September 23rd 10, 02:24 PM

Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.

-Joh

On Sep 23, 8:00 am, Ray Jay > wrote:
> For further consideration on the matter:
>
> [Lots of blah, blah de blah clipped ]
>
> IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED by the Georgia legislature that any
> vote a Georgia politician receives during an election for a Georgia
> office shall simultaneously apply towards being elected to a
> commensurate position within the government of the State of Alabama.
>
> Good grief!

Ray Jay

September 23rd 10, 02:38 PM

On Sep 23, 9:24*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
> inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.

So you agree the outcome of the U.S. soaring teams would be the same
despite changing the selection process. Thanks for the affirmation!

jcarlyle

September 23rd 10, 08:27 PM

Evidently I must add the term delusional to my list...

-John

On Sep 23, 9:38 am, Ray Jay > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:24 am, jcarlyle > wrote:
>
> > Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
> > inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.
>
> So you agree the outcome of the U.S. soaring teams would be the same
> despite changing the selection process. Thanks for the affirmation!

Ray Jay

September 24th 10, 04:44 PM

> >What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
> > inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.
>
> > Evidently I must add the term delusional to my list...
>
> >John Carlyle

And there I was thinking soaring attracted only the nicest people.
Delusional, indeed!

Ray Cornay

jcarlyle

September 25th 10, 01:50 PM

On Sep 24, 11:44 am, Ray Jay > wrote:
> > >What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
> > > inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.
>
> > > Evidently I must add the term delusional to my list...
>
> > >John Carlyle
>
> And there I was thinking soaring attracted only the nicest people.
> Delusional, indeed!
>
> Ray Cornay

I've done you a favor, then - I've introduced you to reality. You can
thank me later, after you're better adjusted.

-John

Papa3

September 25th 10, 03:22 PM

On Sep 18, 6:53*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
>
> Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> more inclusive.
>
>
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee

John,

I think that statement really gets at the heart of the competitive
issue and is what many of the folks who fly Club Class gliders know -
handicaps don't (and can't) ever work over the range of performance
that we allow in the Sports Class. If we can come to grips with that
one fact, then I think the debate becomes more logical or at least can
be made more constructive. I believe it's a fact that a lot of
Europeans figured out years ago, and they've moved forward from that
point.

There have been multiple efforts in the past to make handicapping
"better" to accomodate a wide range of gliders. Who can forget wind-
capping? But, all this does is make the rules more complicated and
opens up further complications as we dig deeper into the factors
affecting competition (inter-thermal-distance-capping?).

So, the sooner we abandon the idea that it's possible for a 201
Libelle to compete fairly against an ASG-29 across the wide range of
conditions encountered in a typical soaring contest, the sooner we can
have a clear-headed discussion about Club Class.

Respectfully,

Erik Mann

Tim Mara

September 25th 10, 05:07 PM

I'm actually very pleased to see more discussion and hopefully some reality
set in for contest flying that allows the less "affluent" or those who
simply enjoy soaring is some less than "state-of-the art" 100K plus gliders
have a place to compete fairly.
I started years ago with sponsoring at the local regional contest a "sports
class" prize for the highest finishing "club class glider" at the event. The
rule for the prize was simple.....the winner had to be flying a
"non-current" design sailplane...If the model was still in current
production then it didn't qualify for the prize..
The problem as I saw it was there was no way that any handicap would allow a
K6 to compete even with a handicap with an ASW27 or Ventus 2..you can take
all the arguments that put the old or the new glider at an advantage but
they just don't let competitors fly in the same class on an even scale..It
was for this simple reason that all the POST tasks were created and all the
modified versions of POST tasks..before we started putting "golf" handicaps
into soaring.(I've never figured out how golf got to be so popular when
someone who stinks at the game can be given enough advantage to beat a good
player and they still call it "competition".we did this to soaring...so gone
from Sports call were called tasks, it was impossible to call a contest with
fixed turnpoints that a Nimbus 4 and a Cirrus would be able to complete
without an under or over call of the task.
The point is there was never a reason to create a contest task for a 1-26
and a Nimbus to compete in...for the very low performance gliders like the
1-26 and the Pw5's they already had their own class, and for that matter
their own championships...for the guys with the big fancy open class gliders
there already was an open class...those that "choose" to buy the very latest
(($$$$)) 15M or standard class gliders didn't "need" to fly in sports class
either...they "bought" the glider they wanted and in front of them was the
class created for them.nuff said.the only ones that didn't have a class that
was truly their own were those 1,000's of owners of lower cost, past
generation racing class gliders, from Libelle's to ASW20's and the
like.....these were could handicap and still have fixed course called
contest tasks....throw away the past 10-15 years of mathematically trying to
win a contest and let the best pilot win in his chosen machine...
Doesn't anyone miss the good old days of having a CD call out 3-4 turnpoints
all in sequence and see who can do the very best job of getting around the
same course, making their own decisions and letting luck and great math
skills play out in the casino's rather than in a soaring contest? The days
of seeing your competition on his way home after making a left turn over the
IP not miles from it, and knowing he flew the same course that I did but did
it better were encouraging and kept it fun, at leas for me..I think for
others as well.
I have not flown even a regional contest in many years....to be honest,
under the current rules really don't care if I do again, but if given the
opportunity to without all the math and what if's I could see myself jumping
in again.... or we can once again have another years worth of new rules and
changes to the trigonometry to decide who did the best at the contest.
respectfully
Tim Mara

"Papa3" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 6:53 pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
>
> Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> more inclusive.
>
>
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
> US Rules Committee

John,

I think that statement really gets at the heart of the competitive
issue and is what many of the folks who fly Club Class gliders know -
handicaps don't (and can't) ever work over the range of performance
that we allow in the Sports Class. If we can come to grips with that
one fact, then I think the debate becomes more logical or at least can
be made more constructive. I believe it's a fact that a lot of
Europeans figured out years ago, and they've moved forward from that
point.

There have been multiple efforts in the past to make handicapping
"better" to accomodate a wide range of gliders. Who can forget wind-
capping? But, all this does is make the rules more complicated and
opens up further complications as we dig deeper into the factors
affecting competition (inter-thermal-distance-capping?).

So, the sooner we abandon the idea that it's possible for a 201
Libelle to compete fairly against an ASG-29 across the wide range of
conditions encountered in a typical soaring contest, the sooner we can
have a clear-headed discussion about Club Class.

Respectfully,

Erik Mann

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5478 (20100925) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5478 (20100925) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Andy[_10_]

September 25th 10, 05:32 PM

On Sep 25, 7:22*am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:53*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
>
>
>
> > Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> > field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> > excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> > more inclusive.
>
> > John Godfrey (QT)
> > US Rules Committee
>
> John,
>
> I think that statement really gets at the heart of the competitive
> issue and is what many of the folks who fly Club Class gliders know -
> handicaps don't (and can't) ever work over the range of performance
> that we allow in the Sports Class. * If we can come to grips with that
> one fact, then I think the debate becomes more logical or at least can
> be made more constructive. * I believe it's a fact that a lot of
> Europeans figured out years ago, and they've moved forward from that
> point.
>
> There have been multiple efforts in the past to make handicapping
> "better" to accomodate a wide range of gliders. *Who can forget wind-
> capping? *But, all this does is make the rules more complicated and
> opens up further complications as we dig deeper into the factors
> affecting competition (inter-thermal-distance-capping?).
>
> So, the sooner we abandon the idea that it's possible for a 201
> Libelle to compete fairly against an ASG-29 across the wide range of
> conditions encountered in a typical soaring contest, the sooner we can
> have a clear-headed discussion about Club Class.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Erik Mann

It's a matter of degree isn't it? I remember way back when that people
said an ASW-19 (much less a Libelle) couldn't compete with a Discus
when the Discus first came out. Any time you have two gliders that
come from different molds you will find that one is better suited for
certain conditions (or all conditions) than another. Handicaps are
imperfect and not aways 100% fair, but so are weather conditions, task
types, task calls, portions of the rules. If you put a fine enough
point on it we'd all be in our own one-ship class.

The question is do handicaps ensure that the better pilots end up in
roughly the right place on the scoresheet most of the time? If the
answer is 'no' then we should do away with handicapping altogether.
Having competed against a number of pilots flying both Club Class and
non-club class gliders over a significant number of contest days I
believe that the handicap system works well enough to include current
generation Std and 15M gliders in selection for Club Class for the
WGC. I think 18M class is a marginal call if the contest has a lot of
challenging weather. Overall I've seen Twin Astir's beat Duos, ASW-24s
beat Ventus 2's.

I do strongly disagree with your comment Tim that it is a good idea to
try to build the club Class at the expense of Sports Class. My
personal view it that such a path sacrifices significant opportunities
to bring new competition pilots into the sport in order to benefit of
a small number of pilots. The last Sports Class Nationals had 8 two-
seat gliders competing - most with pilots new to competition in at
least one of the seats.

It's a question of numbers. If Club Class can put up solid numbers of
national caliber pilots then it is a legitimate way to pick a team. If
it can also bring significant numbers of new pilots into racing then
it is worth investing in. If it becomes another World Class
benefitting a very small number of pilots then it is not worth
investing in. The experience to-date has been mostly the latter.

The approach to me is simple - put the onus on pilots flying Club
Class gliders to build the class. Open WGC selection up as described
in the selection committee proposal - but only until such time as Club
Class gets their numbers up. Create sub-scoring of Club Class gliders
within Sports Class so it is absolutely transparent how Club Class
pilots are faring within the larger Sports Class. Then the Club Class'
future is totally within the control of Club Class pilots, but we
still have a way of selecting WGC team members from a competitive
process.

9B

Andrzej Kobus

September 25th 10, 06:21 PM

On Sep 25, 12:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:22*am, Papa3 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 6:53*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
>
> > > Now it may be true that handicaps need more work to keep the playing
> > > field level, but I believe that the new approach moves us from
> > > excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much
> > > more inclusive.
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
> > > US Rules Committee
>
> > John,
>
> > I think that statement really gets at the heart of the competitive
> > issue and is what many of the folks who fly Club Class gliders know -
> > handicaps don't (and can't) ever work over the range of performance
> > that we allow in the Sports Class. * If we can come to grips with that
> > one fact, then I think the debate becomes more logical or at least can
> > be made more constructive. * I believe it's a fact that a lot of
> > Europeans figured out years ago, and they've moved forward from that
> > point.
>
> > There have been multiple efforts in the past to make handicapping
> > "better" to accomodate a wide range of gliders. *Who can forget wind-
> > capping? *But, all this does is make the rules more complicated and
> > opens up further complications as we dig deeper into the factors
> > affecting competition (inter-thermal-distance-capping?).
>
> > So, the sooner we abandon the idea that it's possible for a 201
> > Libelle to compete fairly against an ASG-29 across the wide range of
> > conditions encountered in a typical soaring contest, the sooner we can
> > have a clear-headed discussion about Club Class.
>
> > Respectfully,
>
> > Erik Mann
>
> It's a matter of degree isn't it? I remember way back when that people
> said an ASW-19 (much less a Libelle) couldn't compete with a Discus
> when the Discus first came out. *Any time you have two gliders that
> come from different molds you will find that one is better suited for
> certain conditions (or all conditions) than another. Handicaps are
> imperfect and not aways 100% fair, but so are weather conditions, task
> types, task calls, portions of the rules. *If you put a fine enough
> point on it we'd all be in our own one-ship class.
>
> The question is do handicaps ensure that the better pilots end up in
> roughly the right place on the scoresheet most of the time? *If the
> answer is 'no' then we should do away with handicapping altogether.
> Having competed against a number of pilots flying both Club Class and
> non-club class gliders over a significant number of contest days I
> believe that the handicap system works well enough to include current
> generation Std and 15M gliders in selection for Club Class for the
> WGC. I think 18M class is a marginal call if the contest has a lot of
> challenging weather. Overall I've seen Twin Astir's beat Duos, ASW-24s
> beat Ventus 2's.
>
> I do strongly disagree with your comment Tim that it is a good idea to
> try to build the club Class at the expense of Sports Class. My
> personal view it that such a path sacrifices significant opportunities
> to bring new competition pilots into the sport in order to benefit of
> a small number of pilots. *The last Sports Class Nationals had 8 two-
> seat gliders competing - most with pilots new to competition in at
> least one of the seats.
>
> It's a question of numbers. If Club Class can put up solid numbers of
> national caliber pilots then it is a legitimate way to pick a team. If
> it can also bring significant numbers of new pilots into racing then
> it is worth investing in. *If it becomes another World Class
> benefitting a very small number of pilots then it is not worth
> investing in. *The experience to-date has been mostly the latter.
>
> The approach to me is simple - put the onus on pilots flying Club
> Class gliders to build the class. Open WGC selection up as described
> in the selection committee proposal - but only until such time as Club
> Class gets their numbers up. Create sub-scoring of Club Class gliders
> within Sports Class so it is absolutely transparent how Club Class
> pilots are faring within the larger Sports Class. Then the Club Class'
> future is totally within the control of Club Class pilots, but we
> still have a way of selecting WGC team members from a competitive
> process.
>
> 9B

Andy, maybe handicaps work in very strong conditions you have in the
West, but they do not work (for such range of gliders) in the East
where sometimes we fly a task at just over 3000 feet and often no more
than 4500 feet. This is the reality, the handicaps do not work over
such wide range of gliders.

Tim Mara

September 25th 10, 06:36 PM

I do strongly disagree with your comment Tim that it is a good idea to
try to build the club Class at the expense of Sports Class. My
personal view it that such a path sacrifices significant opportunities
to bring new competition pilots into the sport in order to benefit of
a small number of pilots. The last Sports Class Nationals had 8 two-
seat gliders competing - most with pilots new to competition in at
least one of the seats.

I don't think the potential is for a "small number of pilots"
there are certainly far more glider pilots and gliders that do not
participate than there are total number of pilots of all categories that fly
contests. If you are looking only to satisfy those who are already flying
contest then leave it as it is, these guys are apparently happy enough with
status as it is....if you are looking at broading interest in contest flying
then it's apparent that every year changing the rules, tweaking handicaps
and having more of the same discussions isn't working.

It's a question of numbers. If Club Class can put up solid numbers of
national caliber pilots then it is a legitimate way to pick a team. If
it can also bring significant numbers of new pilots into racing then
it is worth investing in. If it becomes another World Class
benefitting a very small number of pilots then it is not worth
investing in. The experience to-date has been mostly the latter.
9B

not everyone is concerned that the end to all contest is to crown the next
world team....I dare to suggest that relatively few of even the current
partisipants have a chance or even care that there is a potential to be on a
world team....we're speaking of the sport of flying gliders and doing
something that actually in the scheme of all things is there to creat an
interest in fun....soaring contest are the social event for all of soaring,
for what it's worth, the "fly-in" for glider pilots
tim

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5479 (20100925) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Andy[_10_]

September 25th 10, 06:43 PM

Andy[_10_]

September 25th 10, 07:32 PM

On Sep 25, 10:36*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> I do strongly disagree with your comment Tim that it is a good idea to
> try to build the club Class at the expense of Sports Class. My
> personal view it that such a path sacrifices significant opportunities
> to bring new competition pilots into the sport in order to benefit of
> a small number of pilots. *The last Sports Class Nationals had 8 two-
> seat gliders competing - most with pilots new to competition in at
> least one of the seats.
>
> I don't think the potential is for a "small number of pilots"
> there are certainly far more glider pilots and gliders that do not
> participate than there are total number of pilots of all categories that fly
> contests. If you are looking only to satisfy those who are already flying
> contest then leave it as it is, these guys are apparently happy enough with
> status as it is....if you are looking at broading interest in contest flying
> then it's apparent that every year changing the rules, tweaking handicaps
> and having more of the same discussions isn't working.
>
> It's a question of numbers. If Club Class can put up solid numbers of
> national caliber pilots then it is a legitimate way to pick a team. If
> it can also bring significant numbers of new pilots into racing then
> it is worth investing in. *If it becomes another World Class
> benefitting a very small number of pilots then it is not worth
> investing in. *The experience to-date has been mostly the latter.
> 9B
>
> not everyone is concerned that the end to all contest is to crown the next
> world team....I dare to suggest that relatively few of even the current
> partisipants have a chance or even care that there is a potential to be on a
> world team....we're speaking of the sport of flying gliders and doing
> something that actually in the scheme of all things is there to creat an
> interest in fun....soaring contest are the social event for all of soaring,
> for what it's worth, the "fly-in" for glider pilots

Agreed. This thread started, however, as a discussion about a proposed
change in WGC team selection criteria for Club Class. If it's all
about fun then the proposed change in WGC team selection should be a
non-issue for most pilots.

I'd be quite happy to score Club Class as a subset of Sports Class
until such time that Club Class has grown enough to stand on its own
(that IS the proposition being put forward after all, that Club Class
will grow significantly). Then it might be worth the tradeoff of
leaving Duos and Arcuses and DG-1000s and Nimbus 2s and 3s and Grob
Twins and ASK-21s and Russias and Ka-8s without a class to fly in at a
number of regionals because there are too few of them.

If you look at the actual numbers at regionals you find that the total
number of Sports/Club Class gliders often number around 5-8, more or
less evenly divided between Club and non-Club Class gliders. Dividing
it in two without generating significant growth would be ill-advised.
So, how do we prove that Club Class will grow without taking the fun
out by forcing large-scalle reshuffling of classes? (e.g. forcing
everyone fly Sports, or Open or 18M to try to get to enough
competitors to make a class). My suggestion, above, would be to score
and recognize the best scoring Club Class glider within Sports Class,
then you can prove the theory rather than just talk about it. No one
is going to make permanent changes to the rules without evidence that
the rationale for the change is valid. The rationale here is if we
separate out Club Class it will grow significantly.

I am not sure what you mean when you say rule changes decrease
interest in flying contests. I'm sure many people resisted
introduction of GPS, new task types that no longer require a ground
crew, end of worm-burner finishes at zero feet, loss of redline starts
and introduction of Sports Class. But I would argue that all these
changes increased, rather than decreased interest in contest flying.
If we took your suggestion to end the tweaking of handicaps by
eliminating them then all those non-FAI or old generation gliders
would have to fly in Std, 15M, 18M or Open. I think that would be
less fun overall. There is no point to handicaps if you have to stick
with them despite evidence that they are off - these days it seems we
only correct handicaps for the occasional glider type that doesn't fly
often in competition.

What we have right now is too few pilots flying across too many
classes - it creates problems for organizers - decreases fun for
competitors (IMO) and makes competitions less competitive. If adding
classes doesn't increase the ranks of competition pilots it weakens
the argument to do it in the first place.

9B

Papa3

September 26th 10, 12:28 AM

On Sep 25, 12:32*pm, Andy >
> It's a matter of degree isn't it? I remember way back when that people
> said an ASW-19 (much less a Libelle) couldn't compete with a Discus
> when the Discus first came out. *Any time you have two gliders that
> come from different molds you will find that one is better suited for
> certain conditions (or all conditions) than another. Handicaps are
> imperfect and not aways 100% fair, but so are weather conditions, task
> types, task calls, portions of the rules. *If you put a fine enough
> point on it we'd all be in our own one-ship class.
>
> The question is do handicaps ensure that the better pilots end up in
> roughly the right place on the scoresheet most of the time? *If the
> answer is 'no' then we should do away with handicapping altogether.
> 9B

Of course it's a matter of degree. But, when you have a 50:1 glider
(40:1 at 80kts) competing against a 35:1 glider (20:1 at 80kts), then
you really aren't flying the same race. It's not about speed at that
point... it's about being able to cross a 20 mile blue hole from 4,000
feet or fight a 20kt headwind. Since the FAI has already created a
pretty reasonable range of performance in the Club Class, why re-
invent that wheel?

As far as the best pilots winning, I think we can point to many cases
where potentially winning pilots flying lower performance ships were
unable to compete tasks on weak days when good pilots flying current
ships were able to get around. I think the Elmira Sports Class
Nationals were a great example. I have nothing but respect and
admiration for John Seymour - I count him as a friend. . But, I know
of at least 2 or 3 pilots in that contest who, if not his equal, are
certainly close enough to be nipping at his heals on any given day.
Those pilots chose to abandon their regular ships and fly lower
performing ships. They could barely get out of the start gate on two
of the days and ended up finishing well down on the scoresheet - far
below their usual placing in the top 5 of competitive regionals or
even nationals.

In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely
spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will
help if you're sitting in a farmer's field.

P3

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 26th 10, 01:13 AM

> In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely
> spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will
> help if you're sitting in a farmer's field.
>
> P3

> P3

Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are
other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these
facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4
crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the
cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On
other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit
that no amount of wingspan can overcome. The handicaps for high
performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and
this is why.

Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on
different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on
weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by
narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that
that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over
a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by
handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's
excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better
gliders.

John Cochrane

Andy[_10_]

September 26th 10, 01:40 AM

On Sep 25, 5:13*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely
> > spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will
> > help if you're sitting in a farmer's field.
>
> > P3
> > P3
>
> Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are
> other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these
> facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4
> crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the
> cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On
> other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit
> that *no amount of wingspan can overcome. *The handicaps for high
> performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and
> this is why.
>
> Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on
> different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on
> weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by
> narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that
> that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over
> a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by
> handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's
> excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better
> gliders.
>
> John Cochrane

One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days
with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the
spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth
even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest
reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to
compensate.

9B

RRK

September 26th 10, 02:02 AM

1. Handicaps don't ever work over the range of performance
that we allow in the Sports Class.
2. Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
Internationally.

rk

Andrzej Kobus

September 26th 10, 02:09 AM

> One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days
> with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the
> spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth
> even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest
> reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to
> compensate.
>
> 9B

How would we ever get this right?

Andrzej Kobus

September 26th 10, 02:22 AM

Papa3

September 26th 10, 03:01 AM

On Sep 25, 8:13*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely
> > spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will
> > help if you're sitting in a farmer's field.
>
> > P3
> > P3
>
> Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are
> other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these
> facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4
> crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the
> cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On
> other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit
> that *no amount of wingspan can overcome. *The handicaps for high
> performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and
> this is why.
>
> Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on
> different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on
> weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by
> narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that
> that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over
> a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by
> handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's
> excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better
> gliders.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

You've pretty much made the point for me. If the race result is
predicated on the type of weather in the contest (i.e. a big-wing
favorable weak weather contest or a consistently strong mid-handicap
favorable contest), then it's not really a race to determine the best
pilot. It's a race to determine which very good pilot happened to
bring the right glider to the race this time around. And, as a man of
numbers, you've certainly observed that the downside penalty of being
one of the few to land out on a weaker day results in a far greater
penalty than the upside of being 5% faster (handicapped) on high
completion days. The penalty for missing a single thermal on the one
or two weaker days of the contest when flying the gliders in the lower
end of the performance range is disproportionately large.

I grew up in a very competitive sports family, so I really do
understand that there are some pilots who will win pretty much
regardless of what equipment they're using. My mom used to say that
"Bjorn Borg could beat you with a broom handle". She was right. I
believe that many of our top pilots would also win a true Club Class
nationals. But, until they're flying in the same airmass using the
same tactics and dealing with the same performance parameters, it's
just a belief.

P3

Andy[_10_]

September 26th 10, 03:30 PM

On Sep 25, 6:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> > One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days
> > with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the
> > spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth
> > even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest
> > reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to
> > compensate.
>
> > 9B
>
> How would we ever get this right?

We have plenty of contest history as input data. There are analytic
techniques to solve for that sort of thing. I expect you could trade
off one factor (handicap multiplier) against the other (devaluation
factor) to minimize the error between relative contest points in
sports class contests and relative seeding points.

I expect something like that is what we do today to establish glider
handicaps, just without the additional factor.

9B

Papa3

September 26th 10, 04:10 PM

On Sep 26, 10:30*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days
> > > with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the
> > > spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth
> > > even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest
> > > reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to
> > > compensate.
>
> > > 9B
>
> > How would we ever get this right?
>
> We have plenty of contest history as input data. There are analytic
> techniques to solve for that sort of thing. I expect you could trade
> off one factor (handicap multiplier) against the other (devaluation
> factor) to minimize the error between relative contest points in
> sports class contests and relative seeding points.
>
> I expect something like that is what we do today to establish glider
> handicaps, just without the additional factor.
>
> 9B

Please no - multi-variable calculus not allowed in the scoring
algorithms! :-)

Seriously though, I think if there's any "flaw" in the US Competition
Rules process, it's that we have too many engineers and mathematicians
looking for a perfect solution to complex problems (I count myself in
that category by the way). As a management consultant, I'm sure
you've counseled clients in the beauty of KISS - Keep It Simple
Stupid. This strikes me as a KISS moment.

Handicaps on gliders are probably good enough to get an indicative
level of comparison. Obviously though, they're only as good as the
model they're based on. While the polar is (more or less) known/
knowable, the full range of conditions in a contest are, if not
infinite, at least pretty complex. While basic models account for
lift strength and height, I don't believe they can incorporate all of
the other things that go into a competition in anything but homogenous
conditions. Wind, unfriendly terrain, ridge flying, thermal
spacing, and a hundred other things affect the outcome of a
contest. While a group of gliders flying in "roughly" the same
performance bucket will be affected equally, ships at the outlier end
of the spectrum will be disproportionately impacted by any contests
where there are larger deviations from the norm in any of these
variables.

To give a simplistic/extreme example. We have a guy in our club who
flies a 1-26. For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. When he owned
the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and
unhandicapped contests. He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals.
Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an
ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if
there is even one weak day. Given that many of our nationals are
decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely
that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26.

While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for
illustrating the point. You have to draw a line somewhere in terms
of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to
eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right
ship for the conditions. For better or worse, the IGC has already
drawn that line, so why reinvent it?

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 26th 10, 04:33 PM

> To give a simplistic/extreme example. * We have a guy in our club who
> flies a 1-26. *For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. * When he owned
> the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and
> unhandicapped contests. *He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals.
> Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an
> ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if
> there is even one weak day. * Given that many of our nationals are
> decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely
> that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26.
>
> While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for
> illustrating the point. * You have to draw a line somewhere in terms
> of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to
> eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right
> ship for the conditions. * For better or worse, the IGC has already
> drawn that line, so why reinvent it?

I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You need to focus on
the whole contest, not just the particular day. The handicaps not only
try to compensate for speed differences on a consistent day, they also
try to compensate for the impossible days, and are pretty succcessful
at it. The high performance gliders have handicaps that are way too
punitive based on their polars. That is to compensate for their
greater chance of making it home, as well as a little bit of
affirmative action.

On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the 1-26 can't cross the blue hole, gap,
etc. and lands out and the asg 29 wins. On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the
1-26 gets to play on the local ridge / stay in the cloudstreet etc.
while the asg29 has to go cross some horrendous blue hole; the asg 29
finishes but with a terrible score. On (say) 3 out of 5 days, both
pilots make it home in consistent weather, but the 1-26 handicap is so
huge that it comes out ahead by 50 points or so. (This is pretty much
the story of the last sports nationals I competed in, substitute "KA6"
for "1-26" and "ASW27" for "ASG29")

Over a long contest, the two gliders even out if piloted equally well.
The issue is variance, not mean (yes, we are techies, are we not) A
contest with more consistent days favors the 1-26; a contest with more
weak days favors the ASG29, a contest with more days/tasks that allow
the 1-26 to stay in small areas of good weather favor it again.

Thus the real problem with a wide handicap range is not that one or
another kind of glider is favored on average, it is that there is even
more weather and task related luck than usual. Dave Stephenson did
great in sports class in Foka, Ka-6 and associated gliders, proving
those can compete. In part this was great piloting, in part it was a
bet on consistent weather.

Splittiing gliders up into narrower handicap ranges will certainly
produce races with less luck. On the other hand, it also produces
smaller contests. I'm dismayed that the average regional seems to have
7 gliders per class, and the average national seems to be struggling
to keep in the two digits.

If we had enough gliders, I'd be all for three classes -- "FAI" for
handicaps above 0.90 or so, "club" for the middle range, and "ex-word-
class" for handicaps below 1.0 or so. Spitting only in two by taking
out the middle -- "club" for 15 gliders in the mid range, and then
"sports" that keeps only the Nimbus 3 and 1-26, is not a good idea.
But we need more gliders....

John Cochrane

Tim Mara

September 26th 10, 05:56 PM

>
> not everyone is concerned that the end to all contest is to crown the next
> world team....I dare to suggest that relatively few of even the current
> partisipants have a chance or even care that there is a potential to be on
> a
> world team....we're speaking of the sport of flying gliders and doing
> something that actually in the scheme of all things is there to creat an
> interest in fun....soaring contest are the social event for all of
> soaring,
> for what it's worth, the "fly-in" for glider pilots

Agreed. This thread started, however, as a discussion about a proposed
change in WGC team selection criteria for Club Class. If it's all
about fun then the proposed change in WGC team selection should be a
non-issue for most pilots.

I'd be quite happy to score Club Class as a subset of Sports Class
until such time that Club Class has grown enough to stand on its own
(that IS the proposition being put forward after all, that Club Class
will grow significantly). Then it might be worth the tradeoff of
leaving Duos and Arcuses and DG-1000s and Nimbus 2s and 3s and Grob
Twins and ASK-21s and Russias and Ka-8s without a class to fly in at a
number of regionals because there are too few of them.

I doubt there are many K8 pilots very seriously going to take these gliders
to regional contest.in fact, FWIW, few K8's in the US that ever leave the
local envoirment...Russia's and L33's could and should be in the World class
competitions since they were designed with this in mind..andit's obvious by
now that not enough PW5 owners are going to make world class contest more
than a handful of gliders without the inclusion of these other "world class
contenders"

Duo's, Arcuses, Nimbus 2's and 3's along with ASK21's are already "open
class" gliders aren't they? technically speaking they already ahve a
class....granted the K-21's aren't real serios contenders in this class but
so be it...neither are Blaniks and 2-33's..they have a specific job as
trainers..we never designed a racing class for Station wagon's in NASCAR
either ...being too broad in the idea of letting everyone play isn't ever
going to be entirely practical.if someone does show up with a 2-33 to a
contest then they can fly...and do what they can in the task but they aren't
goingto win either.and I supect they already knew this.

If you look at the actual numbers at regionals you find that the total
number of Sports/Club Class gliders often number around 5-8, more or
less evenly divided between Club and non-Club Class gliders. Dividing
it in two without generating significant growth would be ill-advised.
So, how do we prove that Club Class will grow without taking the fun
out by forcing large-scalle reshuffling of classes? (e.g. forcing
everyone fly Sports, or Open or 18M to try to get to enough
competitors to make a class). My suggestion, above, would be to score
and recognize the best scoring Club Class glider within Sports Class,
then you can prove the theory rather than just talk about it. No one
is going to make permanent changes to the rules without evidence that
the rationale for the change is valid. The rationale here is if we
separate out Club Class it will grow significantly.

it's more or less "if you build it they will come" .....we've resisted
building it for a long time and tried every type of scoring and cotest lay
out and most agreee it's never going to be perfect or fair as it cannot
be....

I am not sure what you mean when you say rule changes decrease
interest in flying contests. I'm sure many people resisted
introduction of GPS, new task types that no longer require a ground
crew, end of worm-burner finishes at zero feet, loss of redline starts
and introduction of Sports Class. But I would argue that all these
changes increased, rather than decreased interest in contest flying.
If we took your suggestion to end the tweaking of handicaps by
eliminating them then all those non-FAI or old generation gliders
would have to fly in Std, 15M, 18M or Open. I think that would be
less fun overall. There is no point to handicaps if you have to stick
with them despite evidence that they are off - these days it seems we
only correct handicaps for the occasional glider type that doesn't fly
often in competition.

even in the concept of Club Class there are handicaps....but there are
enough similarities in these glider types that a relaistic handicap can
allow all of the competitors to theoretically fly the same "fixed" tasks.

What we have right now is too few pilots flying across too many
classes - it creates problems for organizers - decreases fun for
competitors (IMO) and makes competitions less competitive. If adding
classes doesn't increase the ranks of competition pilots it weakens
the argument to do it in the first place.

absolutely.so why do we need a call (sports class) that involves the current
state of the art 15M, Standard and Open class gliders...they again already
have their competition class..
tim

9B

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5481 (20100926) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5481 (20100926) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Andy[_10_]

September 26th 10, 06:02 PM

On Sep 26, 8:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > To give a simplistic/extreme example. * We have a guy in our club who
> > flies a 1-26. *For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. * When he owned
> > the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and
> > unhandicapped contests. *He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals.
> > Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an
> > ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if
> > there is even one weak day. * Given that many of our nationals are
> > decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely
> > that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26.
>
> > While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for
> > illustrating the point. * You have to draw a line somewhere in terms
> > of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to
> > eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right
> > ship for the conditions. * For better or worse, the IGC has already
> > drawn that line, so why reinvent it?
>
> I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You need to focus on
> the whole contest, not just the particular day. The handicaps not only
> try to compensate for speed differences on a consistent day, they also
> try to compensate for the impossible days, and are pretty succcessful
> at it. The high performance gliders have handicaps that are way too
> punitive based on their polars. That is to compensate for their
> greater chance of making it home, as well as a little bit of
> affirmative action.
>
> On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the 1-26 can't cross the blue hole, gap,
> etc. and lands out and the asg 29 wins. On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the
> 1-26 gets to play on the local ridge / stay in the cloudstreet etc.
> while the asg29 has to go cross some horrendous blue hole; the asg 29
> finishes but with a terrible score. On (say) 3 out of 5 days, both
> pilots make it home in consistent weather, but the 1-26 handicap is so
> huge that it comes out ahead by 50 points or so. (This is pretty much
> the story of the last sports nationals I competed in, substitute "KA6"
> for "1-26" and "ASW27" for "ASG29")
>
> Over a long contest, the two gliders even out if piloted equally well.
> The issue is variance, not mean (yes, we are techies, are we not) A
> contest with more consistent days favors the 1-26; a contest with more
> weak days favors the ASG29, a contest with more days/tasks that allow
> the 1-26 to stay in small areas of good weather favor it again.
>
> Thus the real problem with a wide handicap range is not that one or
> another kind of glider is favored on average, it is that there is even
> more weather and task related luck than usual. Dave Stephenson did
> great in sports class in Foka, Ka-6 and associated gliders, proving
> those can compete. In part this was great piloting, in part it was a
> bet on consistent weather.
>
> Splittiing gliders up into narrower handicap ranges will certainly
> produce races with less luck. On the other hand, it also produces
> smaller contests. I'm dismayed that the average regional seems to have
> 7 gliders per class, and the average national seems to be struggling
> to keep in the two digits.
>
> If we had enough gliders, I'd be all for *three classes -- "FAI" for
> handicaps above 0.90 or so, "club" for the middle range, and "ex-word-
> class" for handicaps below 1.0 or so. Spitting only in two by taking
> out the middle -- "club" for 15 gliders in the mid range, and then
> "sports" that keeps only the Nimbus 3 and 1-26, is not a good idea.
> But we need more gliders....
>
> John Cochrane

Exactly.

Here is a specific, real example.

Pilot A and Pilot B competed in four contests at the same site over
four consecutive years. 18 of the contest days they flew against each
other in an FAI class. For 9 of the days they competed in Sport Class
and Pilot B flew a Club Class glider with a 14% higher handicap.

Over the 18 days of FAI class flying Pilot B's average daily score was
97% of Pilot A's.

Over the 9 days of Sports Class flying Pilot A finished every day and
Pilot B landed out twice. If you count every contest day (including
the two landouts) Pilot B's average daily score was 95% of Pilot A's.

If you drop the scores for both pilots on one of the days that Pilot
B's landed out, Pilot B's average daily score was 99% of Pilot A's.

If you drop the scores for both pilots on both of the days that Pilot
B's landed out, Pilot B's score was 107% of Pilot A's.

This is consistent with John's contention that handicaps are
calculated inclusive of a presumed higher landout rate for gliders
with higher handicaps. I know that two pilots over 27 contest days
doesn't make a statistically significant sample, but it gives you a
sense for the scoring effects at work. As John said, any contest with
landouts increases the variance of outcomes, even without handicaps.

It makes me realize that the Drop-a-Day provision that has been
suggested would tend to favor higher handicap gliders.

9B

Andy[_10_]

September 26th 10, 06:17 PM

On Sep 26, 9:56*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> Duo's, Arcuses, Nimbus 2's and 3's along with ASK21's are already "open
> class" gliders aren't they? technically speaking they already ahve a
> class....granted the K-21's aren't real serios contenders in this class but
> so be it...neither are Blaniks and 2-33's..they have a specific job as
> trainers..we never designed a racing class for Station wagon's in NASCAR
> either ...being too broad in the idea of letting everyone play isn't ever
> going to be entirely practical.if someone does show up with a 2-33 to a
> contest then they can fly...and do what they can in the task but they aren't
> goingto win either.and I supect they already knew this.
>

You could make the exact same argument about Club class gliders
needing to fly in the classes they were originally designed for (15M
and Standard), sure they'd be at a disadvantage, but, as you say, so
be it. Keep in mind that when you strip out the Club Class gliders
from the Sports Class at many regionals you may not have enough glider
to make a class, especially once you split the remainder into World
and Open as you suggest, so those guys get to go home. In some cases
you won't have enough to make a Club Class either.

9B

Andy[_10_]

September 26th 10, 06:23 PM

On Sep 26, 8:10*am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:30*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 6:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days
> > > > with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the
> > > > spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth
> > > > even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest
> > > > reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to
> > > > compensate.
>
> > > > 9B
>
> > > How would we ever get this right?
>
> > We have plenty of contest history as input data. There are analytic
> > techniques to solve for that sort of thing. I expect you could trade
> > off one factor (handicap multiplier) against the other (devaluation
> > factor) to minimize the error between relative contest points in
> > sports class contests and relative seeding points.
>
> > I expect something like that is what we do today to establish glider
> > handicaps, just without the additional factor.
>
> > 9B
>
> Please no - *multi-variable calculus not allowed in the scoring
> algorithms! * :-)
>
> Seriously though, *I think if there's any "flaw" in the US Competition
> Rules process, it's that we have too many engineers and mathematicians
> looking for a perfect solution to complex problems (I count myself in
> that category by the way). * As a management consultant, I'm sure
> you've counseled clients in the beauty of KISS - Keep It Simple
> Stupid. *This strikes me as a KISS moment.
>
> Handicaps on gliders are probably good enough to get an indicative
> level *of comparison. * Obviously though, they're only as good as the
> model they're based on. *While the polar is (more or less) known/
> knowable, *the full range of conditions in a contest are, if not
> infinite, at least pretty complex. * While basic models account for
> lift strength and height, *I don't believe they can incorporate all of
> the other things that go into a competition in anything but homogenous
> conditions. * *Wind, unfriendly terrain, ridge flying, *thermal
> spacing, *and a hundred other things affect the outcome of a
> contest. * While a group of gliders flying in "roughly" the same
> performance bucket will be affected equally, ships at the outlier end
> of the spectrum will be disproportionately impacted by any contests
> where there are larger deviations from the norm in any of these
> variables.
>
> To give a simplistic/extreme example. * We have a guy in our club who
> flies a 1-26. *For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. * When he owned
> the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and
> unhandicapped contests. *He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals.
> Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an
> ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if
> there is even one weak day. * Given that many of our nationals are
> decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely
> that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26.
>
> While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for
> illustrating the point. * You have to draw a line somewhere in terms
> of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to
> eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right
> ship for the conditions. * For better or worse, the IGC has already
> drawn that line, so why reinvent it?

As long as you don't have to do differential equations in the
cockpit. :-)

I was suggesting that the handicaps be based off of actual contest
performance rather than trying to model actual glider performance in
the real world - which is too complex a task. Better to take an
empirical approach. No one really needs to have to understand the
methodology, just the result - their handicap.

9B

Jim Beckman[_2_]

September 26th 10, 08:18 PM

At 16:56 26 September 2010, Tim Mara wrote:
>
>..we never designed a racing class for Station wagon's in NASCAR
>either

But NASCAR *did* design a racing class for pickup trucks. Always seemed
pretty strange to me, though.

Jim Beckman

[email protected]

September 27th 10, 02:26 PM

On Sep 25, 9:02*pm, RRK > wrote:
> 1. * * Handicaps don't *ever work over the range of performance
> * * * * that we allow in the Sports Class.
> 2. * * Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
> Internationally.
>
> rk

RE 2
You are not entirely correct in your statement. The MAT can be set
with enough fixed turnpoints to keep the high performance gliders or
the same course until Mintime runes out, while allowing the slower
gliders to drop off and come home when they time out. This does
exactly what is needed with a spread of glider performance. Everybody
flies the same air and everybody gets to come home for beer.
CD's and task advisers need to use this option more.
UH

Andrzej Kobus

September 27th 10, 03:53 PM

On Sep 27, 9:26*am, wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:02*pm, RRK > wrote:
>
> > 1. * * Handicaps don't *ever work over the range of performance
> > * * * * that we allow in the Sports Class.
> > 2. * * Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
> > Internationally.
>
> > rk
>
> RE 2
> You are not entirely correct in your statement. The MAT can be set
> with enough fixed turnpoints to keep the high performance gliders or
> the same course until Mintime runes out, while allowing the slower
> gliders to drop off and come home when they time out. This does
> exactly what is needed with a spread of glider performance. Everybody
> flies the same air and everybody gets to come home for beer.
> CD's and task advisers need to use this option more.
> UH

Yes, Hank that works well and it should be used more, except on a
thermal/ridge day with limited number of turn points in the task. The
18 m gliders in the Sports Class fly the task and after that go on the
ridge for bonus turn points to get their speed up. The club class
pilot is lucky if he can make most of the turn points, but since he is
not able to fly them all he can not go for the bonus points to get his
points up. This situation can be a real problem.

Andy[_10_]

September 27th 10, 04:37 PM

On Sep 27, 7:53*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:26*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 9:02*pm, RRK > wrote:
>
> > > 1. * * Handicaps don't *ever work over the range of performance
> > > * * * * that we allow in the Sports Class.
> > > 2. * * Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
> > > Internationally.
>
> > > rk
>
> > RE 2
> > You are not entirely correct in your statement. The MAT can be set
> > with enough fixed turnpoints to keep the high performance gliders or
> > the same course until Mintime runes out, while allowing the slower
> > gliders to drop off and come home when they time out. This does
> > exactly what is needed with a spread of glider performance. Everybody
> > flies the same air and everybody gets to come home for beer.
> > CD's and task advisers need to use this option more.
> > UH
>
> Yes, Hank that works well and it should be used more, except on a
> thermal/ridge day with limited number of turn points in the task. The
> 18 m gliders in the Sports Class fly the task and after that go on the
> ridge for bonus turn points to get their speed up. The club class
> pilot is lucky if he can make most of the turn points, but since he is
> not able to fly them all he can not go for the bonus points to get his
> points up. This situation can be a real problem.

On a ridge day I'd think it would be incumbent on the CD to call TPs
along the ridge so everyone get the option during the main task.

9B

Tim Mara

September 27th 10, 04:42 PM

and it too has been a bust for NASCAR....
ever since NASCAR started re-inventing late model race cars, started
allowing FWD cars to suddenly become RWD and allowing big V8's in Toyota's
that never existed in the real world NASCAR with all it's mathematical
handicapping has been in a tailspin....
tim

"Jim Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> At 16:56 26 September 2010, Tim Mara wrote:
>>
>>..we never designed a racing class for Station wagon's in NASCAR
>>either
>
> But NASCAR *did* design a racing class for pickup trucks. Always seemed
> pretty strange to me, though.
>
> Jim Beckman
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5483 (20100927) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5483 (20100927) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Tony[_5_]

September 27th 10, 06:23 PM

On Sep 27, 10:42*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> and it too has been a bust for NASCAR....
> ever since NASCAR started re-inventing late model race cars, started
> allowing FWD cars to suddenly become RWD and allowing big V8's in Toyota's
> that never existed in the real world NASCAR with all it's mathematical
> handicapping has been in a tailspin....
> tim

"There is nothing stock about a stock car"

HL Falbaum[_2_]

September 27th 10, 06:37 PM

"Tony" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 10:42 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> and it too has been a bust for NASCAR....
> ever since NASCAR started re-inventing late model race cars, started
> allowing FWD cars to suddenly become RWD and allowing big V8's in Toyota's
> that never existed in the real world NASCAR with all it's mathematical
> handicapping has been in a tailspin....
> tim

"There is nothing stock about a stock car"

Proves the old racing adage--
"You can't make a racehorse out of a pig, but with enough time, effort, and
money, you can make a very fast pig".

Hartley Falbaum

Tony[_5_]

September 27th 10, 06:50 PM

On Sep 27, 12:37*pm, "HL Falbaum" > wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Sep 27, 10:42 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> > and it too has been a bust for NASCAR....
> > ever since NASCAR started re-inventing late model race cars, started
> > allowing FWD cars to suddenly become RWD and allowing big V8's in Toyota's
> > that never existed in the real world NASCAR with all it's mathematical
> > handicapping has been in a tailspin....
> > tim
>
> "There is nothing stock about a stock car"
>
> Proves the old racing adage--
> "You can't make a racehorse out of a pig, but with enough time, effort, and
> money, you can make a very fast pig".
>
> Hartley Falbaum

Ha, although NASCAR is as close to a one design competition as ever
with the new body style. everyone running the same body eliminates
issues with different manufacturers varying aerodynamics. still
plenty of variation between the engine shops though. so the
manufacturer really doesn't matter, they're just another team sponsor
who gets their sticker on the hood, IMO.

Andy[_10_]

September 27th 10, 06:54 PM

On Sep 27, 10:23*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 10:42*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> > and it too has been a bust for NASCAR....
> > ever since NASCAR started re-inventing late model race cars, started
> > allowing FWD cars to suddenly become RWD and allowing big V8's in Toyota's
> > that never existed in the real world NASCAR with all it's mathematical
> > handicapping has been in a tailspin....
> > tim
>
> "There is nothing stock about a stock car"

I heard there is a move to allow unmodified stock cars to compete in
NASCAR events under a handicap system, but concerns with the large
disparity in performance have prompted a move to create a separate
racing class and restrict participation to handicaps within a narrow
range. Permitted cars will be original 70's era Chevy Chevettes, Ford
Pintos and AMC Pacers. A request to allow Gremlins was turned down
because drivers of the other cars were concerned they wouldn't be able
to keep up with the Gremlin despite the handicap.

Negotiations over scheduling and use of the Talladega SuperSpeedway
are ongoing. Members of the new class are insisting that unless they
get the use of the Speedway on the very popular Memorial Day weekend
that they won't get enough competitor participation and will get a
disproportionately small share of TV rights revenues.

;-)

Andrzej Kobus

September 27th 10, 07:38 PM

On Sep 27, 11:37*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 7:53*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:26*am, wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 9:02*pm, RRK > wrote:
>
> > > > 1. * * Handicaps don't *ever work over the range of performance
> > > > * * * * that we allow in the Sports Class.
> > > > 2. * * Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
> > > > Internationally.
>
> > > > rk
>
> > > RE 2
> > > You are not entirely correct in your statement. The MAT can be set
> > > with enough fixed turnpoints to keep the high performance gliders or
> > > the same course until Mintime runes out, while allowing the slower
> > > gliders to drop off and come home when they time out. This does
> > > exactly what is needed with a spread of glider performance. Everybody
> > > flies the same air and everybody gets to come home for beer.
> > > CD's and task advisers need to use this option more.
> > > UH
>
> > Yes, Hank that works well and it should be used more, except on a
> > thermal/ridge day with limited number of turn points in the task. The
> > 18 m gliders in the Sports Class fly the task and after that go on the
> > ridge for bonus turn points to get their speed up. The club class
> > pilot is lucky if he can make most of the turn points, but since he is
> > not able to fly them all he can not go for the bonus points to get his
> > points up. This situation can be a real problem.
>
> On a ridge day I'd think it would be incumbent on the CD to call TPs
> along the ridge so everyone get the option during the main task.
>
> 9B

All depends on the CD and weather forecast accuracy. If part of a task
can't be flown on a ridge and weather turns out to be worse than
predicted then you may have a situation where a Club Class glider will
not be able to round all the defined points but 18 m glider will. The
can happen. The point is you can handicap all you want you can create
very complex task setting rules but none of it may work to equalize
glider inequalities if you fly 3-5 days. Here in the east this year
has been terrible. We sometimes go weeks without reasonable weather.

I think a system is needed in the U.S. where everyone finds a decent
place to compete. Club class pilots should have their own class to
compete, and perhaps the best place to start with is Nationals since
this kind of start would have the list impact on Sports Class
participation at the regional level. We also need to be mindful of the
excellent service to the community and US Team that Karl and others
provide in Duos. We can't destroy that. I am sure the Club Class
pilots can organize another contest themselves.

Andrzej Kobus

September 27th 10, 07:53 PM

On Sep 27, 2:38*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:37*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:53*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 9:26*am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 9:02*pm, RRK > wrote:
>
> > > > > 1. * * Handicaps don't *ever work over the range of performance
> > > > > * * * * that we allow in the Sports Class.
> > > > > 2. * * Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown
> > > > > Internationally.
>
> > > > > rk
>
> > > > RE 2
> > > > You are not entirely correct in your statement. The MAT can be set
> > > > with enough fixed turnpoints to keep the high performance gliders or
> > > > the same course until Mintime runes out, while allowing the slower
> > > > gliders to drop off and come home when they time out. This does
> > > > exactly what is needed with a spread of glider performance. Everybody
> > > > flies the same air and everybody gets to come home for beer.
> > > > CD's and task advisers need to use this option more.
> > > > UH
>
> > > Yes, Hank that works well and it should be used more, except on a
> > > thermal/ridge day with limited number of turn points in the task. The
> > > 18 m gliders in the Sports Class fly the task and after that go on the
> > > ridge for bonus turn points to get their speed up. The club class
> > > pilot is lucky if he can make most of the turn points, but since he is
> > > not able to fly them all he can not go for the bonus points to get his
> > > points up. This situation can be a real problem.
>
> > On a ridge day I'd think it would be incumbent on the CD to call TPs
> > along the ridge so everyone get the option during the main task.
>
> > 9B
>
> All depends on the CD and weather forecast accuracy. If part of a task
> can't be flown on a ridge and weather turns out to be worse than
> predicted then you may have a situation where a Club Class glider will
> not be able to round all the defined points but 18 m glider will. The
> can happen. The point is you can handicap all you want you can create
> very complex task setting rules but none of it may work to equalize
> glider inequalities if you fly 3-5 days. Here in the east this year
> has been terrible. We sometimes go weeks without reasonable weather.
>
> I think a system is needed in the U.S. where everyone finds a decent
> place to compete. Club class pilots should have their own class to
> compete, and perhaps the best place to start with is Nationals since
> this kind of start would have the list impact on Sports Class
> participation at the regional level. We also need to be mindful of the
> excellent service to the community and US Team that Karl and others
> provide in Duos. We can't destroy that. I am sure the Club Class
> pilots can organize another contest themselves.

Yet another way to look at this problem is to have handicapped classes
only at regional level. Three classes could be defined. Say Club,
Standard, Performance. The standard could include 15 m gliders (most
of regional comps are without water so differences are minimal more or
less this already happens), the performance class could include 18 m
and up. Duo would also have its place according to Sports Class
handicap and we would only have 3 classes to deal with.

I bet this would never fly.

Andy[_10_]

September 27th 10, 08:03 PM

On Sep 27, 11:38*am, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:

> All depends on the CD and weather forecast accuracy. If part of a task
> can't be flown on a ridge and weather turns out to be worse than
> predicted then you may have a situation where a Club Class glider will
> not be able to round all the defined points but 18 m glider will. The
> can happen. The point is you can handicap all you want you can create
> very complex task setting rules but none of it may work to equalize
> glider inequalities if you fly 3-5 days. Here in the east this year
> has been terrible. We sometimes go weeks without reasonable weather.

Yeah, you can't win if you can't fly. I think it is always incumbent
of the CD to task such that all competitors have a fair opportunity to
compete on as level a playing field as possible. You can't really
write many rules for that - maybe guidelines or shared wisdom. On a
short contest weather and tasking can skew either for or against any
particular type of glider.

> I think a system is needed in the U.S. where everyone finds a decent
> place to compete. Club class pilots should have their own class to
> compete, and perhaps the best place to start with is Nationals since
> this kind of start would have the list impact on Sports Class
> participation at the regional level. We also need to be mindful of the
> excellent service to the community and US Team that Karl and others
> provide in Duos. We can't destroy that. I am sure the Club Class
> pilots can organize another contest themselves.

Agreed. Trying to divide up a bunch of dissimilar gliders into
groupings that are big enough that you get real competition and
similar enough that you get "fair" competition with all the fagaries
of global class definitions and US ownership patterns - it's just hard.