handicaps for one-offs?

[Berry[_2_]]

Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?

"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
could have been his new '29.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 21, 9:27*am, Berry > wrote:
> Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
> club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
> handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
> ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?
>
> *"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
> restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
> could have been his new '29.

You may have noticed the "Neidrauer NG-1" has been added to the US
handicap list. This is a one off modified BG-12 that i bought last
year and hope to get flying this season. I asked David Stephenson the
same question and his response was that since it was BG-12 based he
would give it the BG-12 handicap for the first year and then modify it
as needed after that I suppose.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 21, 10:27*am, Berry > wrote:
> Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
> club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
> handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
> ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?
>
> *"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
> restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
> could have been his new '29.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year. It
is quite useful to NOT wait till the last minute.
UH

[Ian Cant[_2_]]

At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
>.
>
>A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair with "some useful" information
>about the glider get's the ball rolling.
>We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
>thing a couple times a year.


Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.

Ian

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant > wrote:
> At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
>
> >.
>
> >A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
> >about the glider get's the ball rolling.
> >We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
> >thing a couple times a year.
>
> Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
> determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
> identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
> partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
> update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
> would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.
>
> Ian

Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. The description used
to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".

That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
performance.

The end result seems to work something like this:

A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
both likes and has a favorable handicap
Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
years
Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
repeat until done.


Andy

[vontresc]

On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
>
> > >.
>
> > >A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
> > >about the glider get's the ball rolling.
> > >We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
> > >thing a couple times a year.
>
> > Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
> > determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
> > identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
> > partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
> > update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
> > would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection..
>
> > Ian
>
> Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
> to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".
>
> That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
> normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
> derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
> performance.
>
> The end result seems to work something like this:
>
> A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
> The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
> both likes and has a favorable handicap
> Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
> years
> Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
> Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
> repeat until done.
>
> Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
Foka??

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 11:53*am, vontresc > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant > wrote:
>
> > > At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
>
> > > >.
>
> > > >A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
> > > >about the glider get's the ball rolling.
> > > >We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
> > > >thing a couple times a year.
>
> > > Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
> > > determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
> > > identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
> > > partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
> > > update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
> > > would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.
>
> > > Ian
>
> > Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
> > to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".
>
> > That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
> > normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
> > derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
> > performance.
>
> > The end result seems to work something like this:
>
> > A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
> > The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
> > both likes and has a favorable handicap
> > Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
> > years
> > Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
> > Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
> > repeat until done.
>
> > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
> Foka??
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep- The guy that is the head of the handicap subcommittee. We put the
fox in charge of the hen house.
Seriously, Dave has a great understanding of the factors that affect
the relative performance of the gliders we fly.
And- he has no dog in the fight.
UH

[mike]

On Feb 22, 10:18*am, wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:53*am, vontresc > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant > wrote:
>
> > > > At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
>
> > > > >.
>
> > > > >A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
> > > > >about the glider get's the ball rolling.
> > > > >We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
> > > > >thing a couple times a year.
>
> > > > Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
> > > > determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
> > > > identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
> > > > partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
> > > > update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
> > > > would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.
>
> > > > Ian
>
> > > Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
> > > to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results"..
>
> > > That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
> > > normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
> > > derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
> > > performance.
>
> > > The end result seems to work something like this:
>
> > > A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
> > > The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
> > > both likes and has a favorable handicap
> > > Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
> > > years
> > > Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
> > > Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
> > > repeat until done.
>
> > > Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
> > Foka??
>
> > Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep- The guy that is the head of the handicap subcommittee. We put the
> fox in charge of the hen house.
> Seriously, Dave has a great understanding of the factors that affect
> the relative performance of the gliders we fly.
> And- he has no dog in the fight.
> UH

Didn't someone once win the Sports Class Nationals in a Schweizer 1-34?

[hretting]

The formula is as followed:

Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
Give or take a .010.
Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
formulae above.
A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
confuse.
R

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 1:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
> The formula is as followed:
>
> Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
> what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> Give or take a .010.
> Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> formulae above.
> A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> confuse.
> R

Key is the Tennesee virgins factor.
LOL
UH

[kirk.stant]

On Feb 22, 12:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
> The formula is as followed:
>
> Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
> what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> Give or take a .010.
> Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> formulae above.
> A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> confuse.
> R

Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?

66

[toad]

On Feb 22, 4:23*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
>
> > The formula is as followed:
>
> > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
> > what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> > Give or take a .010.
> > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> > automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> > formulae above.
> > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> > It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> > confuse.
> > R
>
> Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?
>
> 66

Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?

[Craig[_2_]]

On Feb 22, 2:09*pm, toad > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 4:23*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 12:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
>
> > > The formula is as followed:
>
> > > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> > > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
> > > what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> > > Give or take a .010.
> > > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> > > automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> > > formulae above.
> > > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> > > It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> > > confuse.
> > > R
>
> > Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?
>
> > 66
>
> Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?

I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
thing.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:40 -0800, Craig wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2:09Â*pm, toad > wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 4:23Â*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 22, 12:28Â*pm, hretting > wrote:
>>
>> > > The formula is as followed:
>>
>> > > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
>> > > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power
>> > > of what ever number is hit on the dart board that day. Give or take
>> > > a .010.
>> > > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
>> > > automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
>> > > formulae above.
>> > > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll. It's not an exact
>> > > science, but it goes far in keeping the masses confuse.
>> > > R
>>
>> > Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?
>>
>> > 66
>>
>> Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?
>
> I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
> thing.
>
How common are Texas virgins anyway?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[mike]

On Feb 22, 5:28*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:40 -0800, Craig wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2:09*pm, toad > wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 4:23*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 22, 12:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
>
> >> > > The formula is as followed:
>
> >> > > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> >> > > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power
> >> > > of what ever number is hit on the dart board that day. Give or take
> >> > > a .010.
> >> > > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> >> > > automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> >> > > formulae above.
> >> > > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll. It's not an exact
> >> > > science, but it goes far in keeping the masses confuse.
> >> > > R
>
> >> > Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?
>
> >> > 66
>
> >> Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?
>
> > I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
> > thing.
>
> How common are Texas virgins anyway?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Probably Texas is similar to Essex in this regard, it depends to whom
you speak, boyfriends or fathers.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 22, 11:41*am, wrote:
> On Feb 22, 1:28*pm, hretting > wrote:
>
> > The formula is as followed:
>
> > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
> > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
> > what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> > Give or take a .010.
> > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
> > automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> > formulae above.
> > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> > It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> > confuse.
> > R
>
> Key is the Tennesee virgins factor.
> LOL
> UH

I had a pinch of that added to the epoxy I used to make the HP-24.
that and the winglets will make for a devastating handicap.

Brad

[Tony[_5_]]

> I had a pinch of that added to the epoxy I used to make the HP-24.
> that and the winglets will make for a devastating handicap.
>
> Brad

northern Alabama pig poop or Tennessee virgins?

[Jon Marshall]

At 18:28 22 February 2011, hretting wrote:
>The formula is as followed:
>
>Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times
#
>Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power
of
>what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
>Give or take a .010.
>Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider
that
>automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
>formulae above.
>A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
>It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
>confuse.
>R
>
>
>
As the number of Tennessee virgins will, allegedly , tend to zero then
the whole expression will also tend to zero. This will result in a
handicap factor of approx zero which would be devastating, with or
without clothes.

Waiting for spring
jon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 23, 3:53*am, Jon Marshall >
wrote:
> At 18:28 22 February 2011, hretting wrote:
>
>
>
> >The formula is as followed:
>
> >Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times
> #
> >Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power
> of
> >what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
> >Give or take a .010.
> >Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider
> that
> >automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
> >formulae above.
> >A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
> >It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
> >confuse.
> >R
>
> As the number of Tennessee virgins will, allegedly , tend to zero then
> the whole expression will also tend to zero. *This will result in a
> handicap factor of approx zero which would be devastating, with or
> without clothes. *
>
> Waiting for spring
> jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You missed the non linear unitary adjustment factor that kicks in as
the expression approaches zero.
UH

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:16:19 -0800, mike wrote:

> On Feb 22, 5:28Â*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:40 -0800, Craig wrote:
>> > On Feb 22, 2:09Â*pm, toad > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 22, 4:23Â*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 22, 12:28Â*pm, hretting > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > The formula is as followed:
>>
>> >> > > Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
>> >> > > Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the
>> >> > > power of what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
>> >> > > Give or take a .010.
>> >> > > Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider
>> >> > > that automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with
>> >> > > the formulae above.
>> >> > > A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll. It's not an exact
>> >> > > science, but it goes far in keeping the masses confuse. R
>>
>> >> > Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?
>>
>> >> > 66
>>
>> >> Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?
>>
>> > I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
>> > thing.
>>
>> How common are Texas virgins anyway?
>>
>> --
>> martin@ Â* | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org Â* Â* Â* |
>
> Probably Texas is similar to Essex in this regard, it depends to whom
> you speak, boyfriends or fathers.
>
Good answer!

Actually, I'm originally from NZ, where we used to have a saying that J
Christ could never have been born there because nobody could find three
wise men or a virgin.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[hretting]

Great! I start being serious instead of my usual inflammatory self and
y'all make fun. The hell with my medication, besides it make my crotch
itch.
R

Sorry Wally, I was only trying to help.

[Berry[_2_]]

> > I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
> > thing.
> >
> How common are Texas virgins anyway?

Har, this thread has gone all pear-shaped (but fun).


I have found that virgins are plentiful at gliderports everywhere!
Problem is, they aren't female.

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
hretting > wrote:

> Great! I start being serious instead of my usual inflammatory self and
> y'all make fun. The hell with my medication, besides it make my crotch
> itch.
> R
>
> Sorry Wally, I was only trying to help.

Nothin to 'pologize for. Always a pleasure to hear from you, Henry.

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
hretting > wrote:

> Great! I start being serious instead of my usual inflammatory self and
> y'all make fun. The hell with my medication, besides it make my crotch
> itch.
> R
>
> Sorry Wally, I was only trying to help.

Nothin to 'pologize for. Always a pleasure to hear from you, Henry.

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
Tony > wrote:
\
>
> You may have noticed the "Neidrauer NG-1" has been added to the US
> handicap list. This is a one off modified BG-12 that i bought last
> year and hope to get flying this season. I asked David Stephenson the
> same question and his response was that since it was BG-12 based he
> would give it the BG-12 handicap for the first year and then modify it
> as needed after that I suppose.


The NG-1? Isn't that the BG-12 fitted with Ventus-2 wings, fuselage, and
tail?

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 23, 1:49*pm, Berry > wrote:
> In article
> >,*Tony > wrote:
>
> \
>
>
>
> > You may have noticed the "Neidrauer NG-1" has been added to the US
> > handicap list. *This is a one off modified BG-12 that i bought last
> > year and hope to get flying this season. *I asked David Stephenson the
> > same question and his response was that since it was BG-12 based he
> > would give it the BG-12 handicap for the first year and then modify it
> > as needed after that I suppose.
>
> The NG-1? Isn't that the BG-12 fitted with Ventus-2 wings, fuselage, and
> tail?

SHHHHH don't tell them! :D