Attention US Standard Class Pilots

[[email protected]]

The US competition Rules Committee is considering doing a one time
test of limited handicapping in the Standard Class at the 2012
nationals in Montegue.
This would be done under a waiver.
The objective is to try to improve participation and determine if this
is an effective means of doing so.
All conforming Std gliders may compete as usual. Std class gliders
only.
US handicap list will be used to handicap gliders with a maximum
adjustment of 3 1/2%.
This range is .915 to .950.
Gliders such as Discus, ASW-24, DG300, and LS-4 would get full
adjustment relative to current .915 gliders such as '28, Discus 2,
LS-8.
Gliders with numerical handicaps above .950 get maximum of 3 1/2%
adjustment.
We have done limited informal polling and have good acceptance among
those we have talked to.
We would like input from other Standard class pilots who may be
affected.
Please feel free to comment here and/or directly to me.
UH
US RC Chair

[Peter von Tresckow]

Hmmm is it just me, or does this sound a lot like "Club Class" ???

Peter


> wrote in message
...
> The US competition Rules Committee is considering doing a one time
> test of limited handicapping in the Standard Class at the 2012
> nationals in Montegue.
> This would be done under a waiver.
> The objective is to try to improve participation and determine if this
> is an effective means of doing so.
> All conforming Std gliders may compete as usual. Std class gliders
> only.
> US handicap list will be used to handicap gliders with a maximum
> adjustment of 3 1/2%.
> This range is .915 to .950.
> Gliders such as Discus, ASW-24, DG300, and LS-4 would get full
> adjustment relative to current .915 gliders such as '28, Discus 2,
> LS-8.
> Gliders with numerical handicaps above .950 get maximum of 3 1/2%
> adjustment.
> We have done limited informal polling and have good acceptance among
> those we have talked to.
> We would like input from other Standard class pilots who may be
> affected.
> Please feel free to comment here and/or directly to me.
> UH
> US RC Chair

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 9:20*am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:
> Hmmm is it just me, or does this sound a lot like "Club Class" ???
>
> Peter
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
Important differences to club/sports, just to be clear on the facts:

Water allowed
All tasks (unlike sports which doesn't do assigned tasks)
Counts for standard class US team position, not club class
Only standard class gliders allowed
Handicap adjustment limited to LS4. You're welcome to come in a
Standard Cirrus but will get the LS4 handicap

Why: 3 pilots are now signed up for Standard Nationals Montague. Other
ideas for getting participation up are most welcome. Not sure how
"sounds like club class" helps that goal.

John Cochrane

[Tim Taylor]

On Feb 8, 8:42*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:20*am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:> Hmmm is it just me, or does this sound a lot like "Club Class" ???
>
> > Peter
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> *Important differences to club/sports, just to be clear on the facts:
>
> Water allowed
> All tasks (unlike sports which doesn't do assigned tasks)
> Counts for standard class US team position, not club class
> Only standard class gliders allowed
> Handicap adjustment limited to LS4. You're welcome to come in a
> Standard Cirrus but will get the LS4 handicap
>
> Why: 3 pilots are now signed up for Standard Nationals Montague. Other
> ideas for getting participation up are most welcome. Not sure how
> "sounds like club class" helps that goal.
>
> John Cochrane

Other things that may have helped but likely too late now is move
Sports and Standard so they don't overlap. Three nationals in the west
and they all overlap. Give them a 4% handicap and let them fly with
18m.

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 8, 8:42*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:20*am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:> Hmmm is it just me, or does this sound a lot like "Club Class" ???
>
> > Peter
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> *Important differences to club/sports, just to be clear on the facts:
>
> Water allowed
> All tasks (unlike sports which doesn't do assigned tasks)
> Counts for standard class US team position, not club class
> Only standard class gliders allowed
> Handicap adjustment limited to LS4. You're welcome to come in a
> Standard Cirrus but will get the LS4 handicap
>
> Why: 3 pilots are now signed up for Standard Nationals Montague. Other
> ideas for getting participation up are most welcome. Not sure how
> "sounds like club class" helps that goal.
>
> John Cochrane

Just a reminder and slight correction John.

Club class is not Sports class and Club class does fly assigned tasks.

Good news about slightly handicapping the Standard class this year.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 8, 7:38*am, wrote:
> The US competition Rules Committee is considering doing a one time
> test of limited handicapping in the Standard Class at the 2012
> nationals in Montegue.
> Please feel free to comment here and/or directly to me.
> UH
> US RC Chair

I spent many enjoyable years flying an ASW 19b against standard class
gliders one or two generations newer. Not expecting to win did not
stop me showing up at contests. The days I did well were memorable
and the days I did poorly I had a good excuse.

I think I'd vote against this but if it becomes a general rule I'll
consider trading my 28 for a good ASW 19b - with sustantial cash
adjustment of course.

Andy (GY)

[Chris]

I'm a relatively new pilot to racing and plan on flying at Montague
this summer. Several other young, eager pilots from my club (Evergreen
Soaring / SGC) would like to race standard class nationals as well,
but have been hesitant to sign up because they feel uncompetitive in a
ship like a DG300. I'm in favor of a limited handicap because I'd
rather have them fly at Montague than go to Parowan for sports nats.

For what it's worth, this won't benefit me since I'll be flying a ship
that doesn't get the proposed handicap.

Chris Young
42DJ

PS: I promise I'll get my act together and sign up.

[Chris]

Apologies if this posts twice, iPhone is misbehaving...

As a relatively new pilot to racing, who is planning to fly standard
nats at Montague this June, I'm in favor of the handicap. This won't
benefit me since I'll be flying an LS8, but at least two pilots from
my club (Evergreen Soaring / SGC) would like to fly standard nats, but
have hesitated to sign up because they believe they'll be
uncompetitive in a ship like a DG300. I'd rather see them fly at
Montague than get pushed to Parowan.

Chris Young
42DJ

PS: I promise to get my act together and sign up ASAP.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 1:48*pm, Chris > wrote:
> I'm a relatively new pilot to racing and plan on flying at Montague
> this summer. Several other young, eager pilots from my club (Evergreen
> Soaring / SGC) would like to race standard class nationals as well,
> but have been hesitant to sign up because they feel uncompetitive in a
> ship like a DG300. I'm in favor of a limited handicap because I'd
> rather have them fly at Montague than go to Parowan for sports nats.
>
> For what it's worth, this won't benefit me since I'll be flying a ship
> that doesn't get the proposed handicap.
>
> Chris Young
> 42DJ
>
> PS: I promise I'll get my act together and sign up.

What kind of glider do you fly?
UH

[Chris]

On Feb 8, 12:57*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:48*pm, Chris > wrote:
>
> > I'm a relatively new pilot to racing and plan on flying at Montague
> > this summer. Several other young, eager pilots from my club (Evergreen
> > Soaring / SGC) would like to race standard class nationals as well,
> > but have been hesitant to sign up because they feel uncompetitive in a
> > ship like a DG300. I'm in favor of a limited handicap because I'd
> > rather have them fly at Montague than go to Parowan for sports nats.
>
> > For what it's worth, this won't benefit me since I'll be flying a ship
> > that doesn't get the proposed handicap.
>
> > Chris Young
> > 42DJ
>
> > PS: I promise I'll get my act together and sign up.
>
> What kind of glider do you fly?
> UH

UH:

I fly an LS8.

Chris
42DJ

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 5:38*pm, Chris > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:57*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 1:48*pm, Chris > wrote:
>
> > > I'm a relatively new pilot to racing and plan on flying at Montague
> > > this summer. Several other young, eager pilots from my club (Evergreen
> > > Soaring / SGC) would like to race standard class nationals as well,
> > > but have been hesitant to sign up because they feel uncompetitive in a
> > > ship like a DG300. I'm in favor of a limited handicap because I'd
> > > rather have them fly at Montague than go to Parowan for sports nats.
>
> > > For what it's worth, this won't benefit me since I'll be flying a ship
> > > that doesn't get the proposed handicap.
>
> > > Chris Young
> > > 42DJ
>
> > > PS: I promise I'll get my act together and sign up.
>
> > What kind of glider do you fly?
> > UH
>
> UH:
>
> I fly an LS8.
>
> Chris
> 42DJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you'll be going to Montegue anyway.
Now I recognize the number- it is a VERY good glider.
Have fun and sign up soon so they know you're coming.
UH

[Tim[_2_]]

On Feb 8, 8:38*am, wrote:
> The US competition Rules Committee is considering doing a one time
> test of limited handicapping in the Standard Class at the 2012
> nationals in Montegue.
> This would be done under a waiver.
> The objective is to try to improve participation and determine if this
> is an effective means of doing so.
> All conforming Std gliders may compete as usual. Std class gliders
> only.
> US handicap list will be used to handicap gliders with a maximum
> adjustment of 3 1/2%.
> This range is .915 to .950.
> Gliders such as Discus, ASW-24, DG300, and LS-4 would get full
> adjustment relative to current .915 gliders such as '28, Discus 2,
> LS-8.
> Gliders with numerical *handicaps above .950 get maximum of 3 1/2%
> adjustment.
> We have done limited informal polling and have good acceptance among
> those we have talked to.
> We would like input from other Standard class pilots who may be
> affected.
> Please feel free to comment here and/or directly to me.
> UH
> US RC Chair

Wow!!! Haven't I asked for this possibility in the past :-)

The odds have just gone to nearly 100% that I will now take my SZD-55
to this contest and NOT Parowan.

I always said that I would take my "last generation" ship to Standard
Nationals if I got a true handicap according to SSA handicaps.

Please confirm if I get this correct: My SZD-55 with an SSA handicap
of .941, should get a 2.84% bump on those with a .915? I'll take that
and get raceey in Std Class!

Sincerely,
Tim McAllister EY

[hretting]

Respectfully....
Has the competition committee identified the problem? Could it be that
Montegue ( I actually wish I lived there) is next door to China. With
10 in 09' and three this year, and 16 last year in Cordele...I believe
the problem is site location and the inablility of working people to
get to those sites. Couple that with the technical challenge of the
area, a low turnout in a dying class is expected.
I race Standard and my limit is NM or east of and willing to give up
the Eastern 1/4. I believe , if possible, a more centralize US site is
a must , even to the point of using the same site consecutively if
necessary.
It the Nationals ......You cancel the contest and let the few race
with the 18m. If the class dies , it dies. You don't *******ize it
with voodoo formulaes and hopes that never prove to be a plan.
I understand that there may not be choices in selecting the contest
site and Montegue may have been the only site willing. I seriously
doubt if I would race in a handicap Standard National. I would change
over to 18m and kick their ass......as they leave me in the dust.
R

[Chris]

A couple of thoughts as I read through this thread:

(1) If adding a handicap to standard class nationals will help sustain
this class by making relatively modern ships competitive, then I'm all
for this. It's all well and good to say, let this class die if it
isn't viable, but then the value of all current standard class gliders
will take a hit. I'd be very happy to see standard class keep Discus,
ASW24, DG300, and similar ships competitive, and thus more valuable,
since it keeps the value of my ship (an LS8) from dropping.

Knowing that my LS8 isn't going to be worth $10k less as standard
class dies will make me feel a lot better about Tim McAllister kicking
my ass in his handicapped SZD-55. And frankly, I'm fairly certain he'd
still beat me even without the handicap, so the better pilot wins
anyway.

(2) While I recognize Montague is a long haul for a lot of pilots
coming from the East, Midwest, and Southwest, the converse is true for
those of that live in the Northwest and Central/Northern California
and need to go in the other direction. I think it's worth pointing out
that over 15% of the US population live on the West Coast and can
easily access Montague in less than a day's drive. It's all well and
good to say that we should just choose a site in the geographic center
of the United States that's no more than 2 days for anyone, but (a) I
suspect that this is just far enough that some folks from the East
Coast will say its too far, and some folks form the West Coast will
say it's too far, and you'll end up with mediocre turnout anyway. And
(b) I personally look forward to the challenge of a technical site--
whether it's Montague, Logan, or a place like Perry on the East Coast.
If I'm going to take nearly 2 weeks off from work, family, etc to
indulge in this chronic disease known as gliding, then at least I'd
like to fly in some interesting places.

Just my two cents.

Chris
42DJ

[WaltWX[_2_]]

I agree with UH's suggestion of a handicap at Montague. May not be
able to fly myself at the Nats in my Discus 2a, but will make sure
someone can fly the ship there.

Walt Rogers, WX

[Sean Fidler]

Good idea. What a shame standard class dying. I think handicapping is logical and attractive. Why not widen below LS4 too? What's to lose? So what if it sounds like club? Club is killing it. Club is growing. Standard is dying.

[noel.wade]

So I've been flying gliders since early 2007 and competing in
Regionals, in the Sports Class, around the western US since 2009.
I've placed well enough in 2010 and 2011 competitions to garner a good
pilot-ranking and am looking to compete in my first Nationals. Since
I'll admit that I was one of the first people UH approached about this
idea during the Reno Convention, I'll toss in my $0.02 here.

1) I would appreciate the handicap (since I own a DG-300) and I won't
turn it down if offered. I really like the idea of flying somewhere
technical like Montague, and its an easier drive for me than Parowan
(I can only take so much vacation time in a single chunk). I am sure
that with or without a handicap, I'm likely to get my ass kicked in my
first Nats. So this isn't about some grand illusion that I can win or
that this handicap suddenly levels the playing-field between myself
and the more-experienced pilots. But it does lessen the sense that I
can't *possibly* win, given that my ship just won't run with a Discus
2 or an ASW-28. On any day where we're cruising at ~75 to 80 knots,
I'm going to lose ground - its written into the polar curves of these
gliders. Its not as much fun to go to a contest to know that you're
at a physical disadvantage and that you have to _rely_ on the mistakes
of others, in order to do as well as them.

Here's what I mean, using some rough back-of-the-envelope calcs: Look
at the difference between my DG-300 polar and a D2 polar. I'm going
to ignore the magnifying effects of water-ballast and stick with dry
polars for simplicity. MacCready settings in the 3-4 range roughly
correspond to the 70-80 knot cruise speed range for both ships. But
now look at the sink-rate difference at those speeds. The D2 has a
30-45 fpm advantage in these speed ranges. Now imagine a 3-hour
thermal task, which will roughly have about 25% of the time spent
thermalling and roughly 75% in cruise. That works out to 135 minutes
cruising, and if we apply a 20+% fudge-factor for time spent
accelerating or horsing around we wind up with about 105 minutes in
cruise with the D2 taking advantage of its lesser sink-rate. 105mins
* 30fpm = 3150 feet! So over a 3 hour thermal task in my DG-300 I
have to basically find an extra 3000+ feet of extra climb, while
taking 0 extra minutes to do so. That's no small feat, considering
that normally a 3000 foot climb would take more than 7 minutes in a 4
knot thermal!

....And let's remember that the people who are most likely to have
built up their finances to the point where they can afford a latest-
generation ship are the same people who are older and more experienced
in the sport - so its not like you have a lot of people in hot glass
that don't know how to use it.

One of the upsides of the Sports Class is that it allows people (like
me) to buy our first glider with an eye on basic XC performance and
then go race whatever it is we bought. If we decide we like racing,
we don't *have* to sell our first glider and buy a different one in
order to be moderately competitive. But of course the "downside" is
that we may not consider the racing pedigree of our early aircraft
purchases because it doesn't matter a whole lot at the Regional/Sports-
Class level and that can box us into a corner when it comes time to
move up (for example, I bought my DG-300 because it had excellent
ergonomics and the safety-factor of automatic hookups, while being a
40:1 ship - its high speed performance was never considered). Now
when the price-gap between ships isn't big, its no great hassle. But
when you look at having to _double_ your equipment costs in order to
make any meaningful upward move in performance, this becomes a bigger
deal.

2) While I am hesitant about opening the Std Class up to handicapping
(yes, it could prove to be a can of worms and I too wonder about
multiple handicapped classes), let's look at the Standard Class
aircraft and participation for a minute -
First, don't cherry-pick two years and try to make some claim about
geography. If you look at the last 4-5 years of Std Class Nationals
(as I did), there have consistently been about 12 - 14 ships no matter
where the contest was held. This is lower than the numbers in the
Sports, 15m, and 18m classes (well, except perhaps the World Class -
ugh). Now let's examine why that might be. The performance
difference between latest-generation 15m ships and Std ships is not
that big; but the 15m ships definitely offer a lot more versatility.
With a 15m ship you can use the flaps to make slight gains in climb
AND cruise, as well as adjusting your performance to the conditions a
bit better. You can also use a 15m ship to be reasonably competitive
in 15m, Sports, AND 18m classes (if the 18m contest is held at a site
with moderate-to-strong conditions). Given the way that Nationals are
scheduled to happen on one coast or another (which is a totally
separate topic I'd love to debate some day), being able to compete in
3 classes is VERY nice for those of us with 8-to-5 jobs and/or
families that we cannot leave for 3+ weeks at a time to travel across
the country. Being able to always attend _some_ kind of National
contest in your local region is a boon. But what about the cost
difference? How much more do you pay for that 15m ship performance
and versatility (versus a Std class ship)? Almost Nothing. On W&W at
the time of this posting, there are ASW-27s and ASW-28s going for
almost the exact same price.

That's why I've been looking at selling my DG-300 and buying an
ASW-27. This would be a serious stretch for me, but if I'm going to
stretch why the hell WOULDN'T I get something that gives me more class
flexibility? A '27 isn't the ideal ship in all 3 classes, but its a
heck of a lot closer in all 3 than my DG is in any one of those
classes (much less all 3).

3) Since I mentioned Handicapping... Someone brought up the Club/
Sports class. I may be one of the less-experienced folks in the room
here, but IMHO if you think that the Sports/Club class is the
"beginner" class (at the National level), you're dead wrong. Go look
at the experienced accomplished pilots who are running in the Sports
Class Nats every year, trying to get selected for the WGC teams. See
them hunting the optimal handicap and buying a SECOND AIRCRAFT (or
third aircraft, in some cases) to optimize their chances? This class
may be great at the Regional level for encouraging participation and
newbies (something I have very much appreciated) - but its a whole
different animal at the National level. If we're worried about new
pilots being able to afford one competitive glider, how on earth can
more than a small handful of guys afford two or three gliders, and/or
change every few years as handicaps change? Its not like the current
Std Class ships are renowned for having the optimal handicaps for
Sports/Club class, either - so its not like new folks can run out to
buy a single latest-generation ship and be at the top of the pile in
both classes. And let there be no confusion: The people doing this
are not "evil" in any way. They're perfectly within the rules and
their rights to do so. You simply have the conflation of two goals
wrapped up into a single contest: US Team Selection and crowning a
National Champion. Each has their own set of incentives and side-
issues, and they don't necessarily overlap at all points; but it is
what it is.

4) There are some fuzzy gray areas in all of this, which you're going
to have to delineate by drawing lines in the sand. As John Cochrane
has pointed out in some of his writing, people adjust their behavior
based on how you measure their performance and what incentives you
provide them. For example: Do you handicap in order to try to allow
people to be competitive in less-than-ideal gear? Or do you refuse
handicapping and effectively make the statement that this is a
National Championship and a "serious deal", and just like other high-
order sports (whether its downhill skiing or open-wheel race-cars) you
have a really hard time winning without the absolute top equipment and
a budget to match? (A key difference with those other sports is that
they pay athletes and have TV deals; but perhaps you think that
shouldn't factor into the equation). It mostly comes down to personal
opinions and judgement in this area. The same tradeoff/judgements have
to be made about what the role of the Standard Class Nationals is.
There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer; but collectively the
soaring pilots have to come to a consensus about these topics and then
pick the course of action that supports or encourages the behavior an
the type of event they want to see.

--Noel

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 5:08*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> So I've been flying gliders since early 2007 and competing in
> Regionals, in the Sports Class, around the western US since 2009.
> I've placed well enough in 2010 and 2011 competitions to garner a good
> pilot-ranking and am looking to compete in my first Nationals. *Since
> I'll admit that I was one of the first people UH approached about this
> idea during the Reno Convention, I'll toss in my $0.02 here.
>
> 1) I would appreciate the handicap (since I own a DG-300) and I won't
> turn it down if offered. *I really like the idea of flying somewhere
> technical like Montague, and its an easier drive for me than Parowan
> (I can only take so much vacation time in a single chunk). *I am sure
> that with or without a handicap, I'm likely to get my ass kicked in my
> first Nats. *So this isn't about some grand illusion that I can win or
> that this handicap suddenly levels the playing-field between myself
> and the more-experienced pilots. *But it does lessen the sense that I
> can't *possibly* win, given that my ship just won't run with a Discus
> 2 or an ASW-28. *On any day where we're cruising at ~75 to 80 knots,
> I'm going to lose ground - its written into the polar curves of these
> gliders. *Its not as much fun to go to a contest to know that you're
> at a physical disadvantage and that you have to _rely_ on the mistakes
> of others, in order to do as well as them.
>
> Here's what I mean, using some rough back-of-the-envelope calcs: *Look
> at the difference between my DG-300 polar and a D2 polar. *I'm going
> to ignore the magnifying effects of water-ballast and stick with dry
> polars for simplicity. *MacCready settings in the 3-4 range roughly
> correspond to the 70-80 knot cruise speed range for both ships. *But
> now look at the sink-rate difference at those speeds. *The D2 has a
> 30-45 fpm advantage in these speed ranges. *Now imagine a 3-hour
> thermal task, which will roughly have about 25% of the time spent
> thermalling and roughly 75% in cruise. *That works out to 135 minutes
> cruising, and if we apply a 20+% fudge-factor for time spent
> accelerating or horsing around we wind up with about 105 minutes in
> cruise with the D2 taking advantage of its lesser sink-rate. *105mins
> * 30fpm = 3150 feet! *So over a 3 hour thermal task in my DG-300 I
> have to basically find an extra 3000+ feet of extra climb, while
> taking 0 extra minutes to do so. *That's no small feat, considering
> that normally a 3000 foot climb would take more than 7 minutes in a 4
> knot thermal!
>
> ...And let's remember that the people who are most likely to have
> built up their finances to the point where they can afford a latest-
> generation ship are the same people who are older and more experienced
> in the sport - so its not like you have a lot of people in hot glass
> that don't know how to use it.
>
> One of the upsides of the Sports Class is that it allows people (like
> me) to buy our first glider with an eye on basic XC performance and
> then go race whatever it is we bought. *If we decide we like racing,
> we don't *have* to sell our first glider and buy a different one in
> order to be moderately competitive. *But of course the "downside" is
> that we may not consider the racing pedigree of our early aircraft
> purchases because it doesn't matter a whole lot at the Regional/Sports-
> Class level and that can box us into a corner when it comes time to
> move up (for example, I bought my DG-300 because it had excellent
> ergonomics and the safety-factor of automatic hookups, while being a
> 40:1 ship - its high speed performance was never considered). *Now
> when the price-gap between ships isn't big, its no great hassle. *But
> when you look at having to _double_ your equipment costs in order to
> make any meaningful upward move in performance, this becomes a bigger
> deal.
>
> 2) While I am hesitant about opening the Std Class up to handicapping
> (yes, it could prove to be a can of worms and I too wonder about
> multiple handicapped classes), let's look at the Standard Class
> aircraft and participation for a minute -
> First, don't cherry-pick two years and try to make some claim about
> geography. *If you look at the last 4-5 years of Std Class Nationals
> (as I did), there have consistently been about 12 - 14 ships no matter
> where the contest was held. *This is lower than the numbers in the
> Sports, 15m, and 18m classes (well, except perhaps the World Class -
> ugh). *Now let's examine why that might be. *The performance
> difference between latest-generation 15m ships and Std ships is not
> that big; but the 15m ships definitely offer a lot more versatility.
> With a 15m ship you can use the flaps to make slight gains in climb
> AND cruise, as well as adjusting your performance to the conditions a
> bit better. *You can also use a 15m ship to be reasonably competitive
> in 15m, Sports, AND 18m classes (if the 18m contest is held at a site
> with moderate-to-strong conditions). *Given the way that Nationals are
> scheduled to happen on one coast or another (which is a totally
> separate topic I'd love to debate some day), being able to compete in
> 3 classes is VERY nice for those of us with 8-to-5 jobs and/or
> families that we cannot leave for 3+ weeks at a time to travel across
> the country. *Being able to always attend _some_ kind of National
> contest in your local region is a boon. *But what about the cost
> difference? *How much more do you pay for that 15m ship performance
> and versatility (versus a Std class ship)? *Almost Nothing. *On W&W at
> the time of this posting, there are ASW-27s and ASW-28s going for
> almost the exact same price.
>
> That's why I've been looking at selling my DG-300 and buying an
> ASW-27. *This would be a serious stretch for me, but if I'm going to
> stretch why the hell WOULDN'T I get something that gives me more class
> flexibility? *A '27 isn't the ideal ship in all 3 classes, but its a
> heck of a lot closer in all 3 than my DG is in any one of those
> classes (much less all 3).
>
> 3) Since I mentioned Handicapping... Someone brought up the Club/
> Sports class. *I may be one of the less-experienced folks in the room
> here, but IMHO if you think that the Sports/Club class is the
> "beginner" class (at the National level), you're dead wrong. * Go look
> at the experienced accomplished pilots who are running in the Sports
> Class Nats every year, trying to get selected for the WGC teams. *See
> them hunting the optimal handicap and buying a SECOND AIRCRAFT (or
> third aircraft, in some cases) to optimize their chances? *This class
> may be great at the Regional level for encouraging participation and
> newbies (something I have very much appreciated) - but its a whole
> different animal at the National level. *If we're worried about new
> pilots being able to afford one competitive glider, how on earth can
> more than a small handful of guys afford two or three gliders, and/or
> change every few years as handicaps change? *Its not like the current
> Std Class ships are renowned for having the optimal handicaps for
> Sports/Club class, either - so its not like new folks can run out to
> buy a single latest-generation ship and be at the top of the pile in
> both classes. *And let there be no confusion: The people doing this
> are not "evil" in any way. They're perfectly within the rules and
> their rights to do so. *You simply have the conflation of two goals
> wrapped up into a single contest: US Team Selection and crowning a
> National Champion. *Each has their own set of incentives and side-
> issues, and they don't necessarily overlap at all points; but it is
> what it is.
>
> 4) There are some fuzzy gray areas in all of this, which you're going
> to have to delineate by drawing lines in the sand. *As John Cochrane
> has pointed out in some of his writing, people adjust their behavior
> based on how you measure their performance and what incentives you
> provide them. *For example: Do you handicap in order to try to allow
> people to be competitive in less-than-ideal gear? *Or do you refuse
> handicapping and effectively make the statement that this is a
> National Championship and a "serious deal", and just like other high-
> order sports (whether its downhill skiing or open-wheel race-cars) you
> have a really hard time winning without the absolute top equipment and
> a budget to match? *(A key difference with those other sports is that
> they pay athletes and have TV deals; but perhaps you think that
> shouldn't factor into the equation). *It mostly comes down to personal
> opinions and judgement in this area. The same tradeoff/judgements have
> to be made about what the role of the Standard Class Nationals is.
> There's not necessarily a right or wrong answer; but collectively the
> soaring pilots have to come to a consensus about these topics and then
> pick the course of action that supports or encourages the behavior an
> the type of event they want to see.
>
> --Noel

All,
This is very valuable input to the RC in working the participation
challange.
Keep going.
QT

[Papa3[_2_]]

As I wrote privately:

1) I think a reasonable handicap range as proposed makes a ton of sense. As an owner of a current generation standard class ship (LS8), I can only see upside to having more guys participate. I manage to lose by 7-8% to the big guns in the class pretty routinely, so I don't see somebody coming out of the woodwork and winning the nats thanks to a 2% bump. If a guy/gal in a DG-300 can get 98% of Chip Garner's or Mark Keene's score, he/she won the contest in my book.

2) More importantly, I think we HAVE to come to grips with the fact that the combination of a very large country (long way to drive), proliferation of classes, decrease in gliding population, and change in the lifestyle for all but the very rich or retired means that the traditional idea of a single nationals may be due for a review. As much as I enjoy the stories of Dick Schreder packing the family into the Winnebago and rushing from Ohio to Dry Gulch California on a Thursday night, it ain't happening for this 40-something with 2 kids, 2 cats, a dog, and a very understanding wife. Using Montague as an example, it's 4 days of hard driving each way. Realistically, that means 3 full weeks off from work at a bare minimum, assuming I get there and have to hope for the two practice days to get a handle on the "lay of the land." To have any shot at being there with enough time to relax and regroup and get in a few flights ahead of time (what I need to do well at a "technical" site), it means 4 weeks. Last time I checked, I have 4 weeks of vacation plus 2 personal days. Sorry honey, you and the kids have fun at the beach, I can't make it...

Since contest sites and people willing to host a nationals are in short supply, I don't think we can try to "mandate" central locations. We have to take what we can get. But, maybe we need to look at "national ranking contests" as opposed to a single nationals. Perhaps offer the option for a West, Central, and East "national ranking contest" which can be run in conjunction with regionals (shooting for 2 out of three - e.g. West/East, West/Central, East/Central). Most nationals already are either doubling up or running along with a regionals to get the volume, so that's not a big change in terms of logistics. The big challenge is to figure out the critera for this. There has to be "qualilty competition", but I expect that something like "a minimum of X pilots with a ranking above Y" could be handled without too much fuss.

Something to think about...

P3

[jcarlyle]

I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!

What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.

Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
US contest?

-John

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 1:13*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
>
> What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
>
> Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> US contest?
>
> -John

Hi John,
The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
See page 3 of http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4.pdf
QT

[jcarlyle]

John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> > handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> > attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
> >
> > What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> > proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> > being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> > D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> > handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> > 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> > just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
> >
> > Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> > US contest?
> >
> > -John
>
> Hi John,
> The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
> See page 3 of http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4.pdf
> QT

Thanks, QT, I obviously didn't see that document! I'll be sure to
download the 2012 US contest rules when they're released.

-John

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 2:19*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> > > handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> > > attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
>
> > > What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> > > proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> > > being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> > > D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> > > handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> > > 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> > > just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
>
> > > Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> > > US contest?
>
> > > -John
>
> > Hi John,
> > The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
> > See page 3 ofhttp://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4...
> > QT
>
> Thanks, QT, I obviously didn't see that document! I'll be sure to
> download the 2012 US contest rules when they're released.
>
> -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They are approved as of last Saturday
UH

[Tim Hanke]

Hank,

I think there is a need to attrack more pilots to fly Std. Class
Nationals. Ideas to include others are a great step forward.

Tim Hanke
Discus 2ax



On Feb 8, 9:38*am, wrote:
> The US competition Rules Committee is considering doing a one time
> test of limited handicapping in the Standard Class at the 2012
> nationals in Montegue.
> This would be done under a waiver.
> The objective is to try to improve participation and determine if this
> is an effective means of doing so.
> All conforming Std gliders may compete as usual. Std class gliders
> only.
> US handicap list will be used to handicap gliders with a maximum
> adjustment of 3 1/2%.
> This range is .915 to .950.
> Gliders such as Discus, ASW-24, DG300, and LS-4 would get full
> adjustment relative to current .915 gliders such as '28, Discus 2,
> LS-8.
> Gliders with numerical *handicaps above .950 get maximum of 3 1/2%
> adjustment.
> We have done limited informal polling and have good acceptance among
> those we have talked to.
> We would like input from other Standard class pilots who may be
> affected.
> Please feel free to comment here and/or directly to me.
> UH
> US RC Chair

[jcarlyle]

wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:19 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > > I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> > > > handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> > > > attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
> >
> > > > What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> > > > proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> > > > being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> > > > D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> > > > handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> > > > 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> > > > just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
> >
> > > > Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> > > > US contest?
> >
> > > > -John
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > > The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
> > > See page 3 ofhttp://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4...
> > > QT
> >
> > Thanks, QT, I obviously didn't see that document! I'll be sure to
> > download the 2012 US contest rules when they're released.
> >
> > -John- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> They are approved as of last Saturday
> UH

OK, but one cannot download them at the SSA site. SSA says Mar 1.
Perhaps QT will give us a heads-up again this year when we can
retrieve them?

-John

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 9, 3:34*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2:19 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > > > I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> > > > > handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> > > > > attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
>
> > > > > What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> > > > > proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> > > > > being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> > > > > D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> > > > > handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> > > > > 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> > > > > just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
>
> > > > > Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> > > > > US contest?
>
> > > > > -John
>
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
> > > > See page 3 ofhttp://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4...
> > > > QT
>
> > > Thanks, QT, I obviously didn't see that document! I'll be sure to
> > > download the 2012 US contest rules when they're released.
>
> > > -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > They are approved as of last Saturday
> > UH
>
> OK, but one cannot download them at the SSA site. SSA says Mar 1.
> Perhaps QT will give us a heads-up again this year when we can
> retrieve them?
>
> -John

I'll do my best to get them finished and posted before then.
QT

[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 3:34*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2:19 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > > > On Feb 9, 1:13 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > > > > I’m still learning to be a contest pilot, so the proposed use of
> > > > > handicaps in Standard Class is OK by me. And if pure handicapping
> > > > > attracts more people to participate in Standard Class, great!
>
> > > > > What puzzles me, though, is the use of pure handicapping being
> > > > > proposed for Standard Class itself, but a fixed 2% distance bonus
> > > > > being used when a Standard Class ship flies in 15m Class. The LS8,
> > > > > D2b, and ASW-28 have a 0.915 handicap, while an ASW-27 has a 0.880
> > > > > handicap and a V2c and a LS10 have a 0.885 handicap. This is a 3% to
> > > > > 3.5% difference, not 2%. And I think that a LS4 and a SZD55 would also
> > > > > just get 2%, just like the top of the line Standard Class ships do.
>
> > > > > Why not use the correct handicap when fielding a mixed FAI class at a
> > > > > US contest?
>
> > > > > -John
>
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > The 2% adjustments have been dropped.
> > > > See page 3 ofhttp://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012%20Rules%20Changes%20Summary%20v4...
> > > > QT
>
> > > Thanks, QT, I obviously didn't see that document! I'll be sure to
> > > download the 2012 US contest rules when they're released.
>
> > > -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > They are approved as of last Saturday
> > UH
>
> OK, but one cannot download them at the SSA site. SSA says Mar 1.
> Perhaps QT will give us a heads-up again this year when we can
> retrieve them?
>
> -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Read proposed rules doc. for information. It was approved as proposed
and has explanations.
UH

[Tom[_12_]]

The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
the highest wing loading.

The Seniors contest proves it can be done. It is over-subscribed and
everyone (over 55) is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
anyone to be able to win.

The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.

Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
chance to win.

Tom Knauff

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom > wrote:
> The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
> product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
> uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
> and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
> the highest wing loading.
>
> The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> anyone to be able to win.
>
> The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
>
> Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
> attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
> chance to win.
>
> Tom Knauff

Sports class contests (at the Regional level this year) can have
multiple sports rules classes organized by handicap, pilot experience
and other ideas. From the2012 rule changes document on the SSA web
site:

5.7 Competition Classes
5.7.1 The gliders eligible to compete are described in Rule 6.12.
5.7.2 A competition can include more than one handicapped class
5.7.2.1 Entries to a competition class can be restricted based on
criteria specified by the contest organizers on the application for
sanction form. Possible criteria include (but are not limited to)
maximum wingspan or a handicap range (or a combination).
5.7.2.2 The handicap ranges of competition classes may overlap.
5.7.2.3 Competition classes can be labeled, promoted and tasked to
appeal to pilots by skill level rather than or in addition to
limitation on gliders.

QT

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> Sports class contests (at the Regional level this year) can have
> multiple sports rules classes organized by handicap, pilot experience
> and other ideas. From the2012 rule changes document on the SSA web
> site:
>
> 5.7 Competition Classes
> 5.7.1 The gliders eligible to compete are described in Rule 6.12.
> 5.7.2 A competition can include more than one handicapped class
> 5.7.2.1 Entries to a competition class can be restricted based on
> criteria specified by the contest organizers on the application for
> sanction form. Possible criteria include (but are not limited to)
> maximum wingspan or a handicap range (or a combination).
> 5.7.2.2 The handicap ranges of competition classes may overlap.
> 5.7.2.3 Competition classes can be labeled, promoted and tasked to
> appeal to pilots by skill level rather than or in addition to
> limitation on gliders.
>
> QT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As a technical qualification, these handicapped classes can be "FAI"
classes, run under the FAI regional rules, not just "sports" classes
run under sports rules. That means tasking, minimum time, water, and
general philosophy of FAI class races. Think of them as FAI classes
mixed with handicaps, or reaching out to older FAI gliders with
handicaps, not necessarily as "sports" classes. This also replaces the
idea of mixing two FAI classes with 2% handicaps. The standard
nationals proposal essentially implements the same idea at nationals.

You can also have mulitple "sports" classes, for example splitting by
glider performance or by pilot skill, and using the sports class
regional rules in each case.

John Cochrane

[Rick Walters[_2_]]

Tom,

Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?

Richard Walters

>
> The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> anyone to be able to win.
>
> The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
..
> Tom Knauff

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> Richard Walters
>
Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
John Cochrane

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 9:53*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:> Tom,
>
> > Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> > Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> > field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> > Richard Walters
>
> Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
> and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
> Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
> overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
> wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
> John Cochrane

"Won by span and wingloading" is Tom Knauff's statement. It is true
that in very weak weather span plays a big role (e.g. Elmira a few
years ago). The Seniors seems to have more consistent conditions.
QT

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom > wrote:
> The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
> product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
> uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
> and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
> the highest wing loading.
>
> The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> anyone to be able to win.
>
> The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
>
> Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
> attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
> chance to win.
>
> Tom Knauff

The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
any handicapping system can provide.
This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 10, 8:53*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:> Tom,
>
> > Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> > Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> > field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> > Richard Walters
>
> Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
> and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
> Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
> overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
> wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
> John Cochrane

LOL Dollar Loading, you owe me a new keyboard John!

[Rick Walters[_2_]]

John,

I was addressing Tom Knauff's comments. My horses have been in the
barn for years. The sports nationals have been won by a Nimbus 3, a
1-34, and everything in between. It is not what you fly but how you
fly it. Our honorable sport seems to be under threat from pilots that
reason away entering competition. Unless you are losing the 15m
nationals by 3% in your LS6, your glider is not your real handicap,
you are. Racing is fun and educational no matter your final placing.

Rick Walters

On Feb 10, 6:53*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:> Tom,
>
> > Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> > Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> > field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> > Richard Walters
>
> Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
> and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
> Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
> overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
> wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
> John Cochrane

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 10, 8:20*am, Rick Walters > wrote:
> John,
>
> I was addressing Tom Knauff's comments. My horses have been in the
> barn for years. The sports nationals have been won by a Nimbus 3, a
> 1-34, and everything in between. It is not what you fly but how you
> fly it. Our honorable sport seems to be under threat from pilots that
> reason away entering competition. Unless you are losing the 15m
> nationals by 3% in your LS6, your glider is not your real handicap,
> you are. Racing is fun and educational no matter your final placing.
>
> Rick Walters
>
> On Feb 10, 6:53*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:> Tom,
>
> > > Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> > > Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> > > field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> > > Richard Walters
>
> > Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
> > and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
> > Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
> > overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
> > wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
> > John Cochrane

For once I agree with John Cochrane - differences in pilot skills are
likely to outweigh any small differences in sailplane handicap. I
have a very fine sailplane, but consistently fly 5% to 10% slower than
my better colleagues. The only effect the proposed rule might have is
to encourage participants who might have been discouraged by a
perceived handicap disadvantage.

My suggestion to handicap pilots (like we do horses in races) has been
universally laughed at!

Mike

[Tim Taylor]

On Feb 10, 8:20*am, Rick Walters > wrote:
> John,
>
> I was addressing Tom Knauff's comments. My horses have been in the
> barn for years. The sports nationals have been won by a Nimbus 3, a
> 1-34, and everything in between. It is not what you fly but how you
> fly it. Our honorable sport seems to be under threat from pilots that
> reason away entering competition. Unless you are losing the 15m
> nationals by 3% in your LS6, your glider is not your real handicap,
> you are. Racing is fun and educational no matter your final placing.
>
> Rick Walters
>
> On Feb 10, 6:53*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 8:46*am, Rick Walters > wrote:> Tom,
>
> > > Unless I am unaware of different handicaps used at the Senior
> > > Championships, how can the Seniors be considered a level playing
> > > field, yet the Sports class is won by span and wingloading?
>
> > > Richard Walters
>
> > Hold your horses there a moment, Rick! "Sports class is won by span
> > and wingloading??" That's how Tim Mcalester won in a Libelle, and Dave
> > Stephenson won in a Foka? And the poor Nimbuses never can seem to
> > overcome their huge handicaps? Open class is won by span and
> > wingloading and dollar-loading maybe. Sports class is won by pilots.
> > John Cochrane

Tom was referring to Elmira in 2009 and Parowan in 2010. At Parowan
none of the true "Club Class" gliders got home when the task put us
across nearly unlandable terrain into the wind. Those with span, l/d
or wingloading could make the jump. In theory the handicaps work as
long as everyone can get around. Throw in the need to make a big
crossing of a gap or hole and the light ships with lower wingloading
have a higher risk of not getting home.

Tim

[Papa3[_2_]]

Growing up in a family of competitive tennis players, I always loved this zinger from my mom:

- Me: XYZ beat me because he has a new Wilson T2000
- Mom: XYZ beat you 6-2, 6-1. He'd beat you with broom handle. Go out and hit another 1,000 balls.

[jcarlyle]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> My suggestion to handicap pilots (like we do horses in races) has been
> universally laughed at!

Mike, that's a good idea, IMO. You don't see golf clubs handicapped,
but rather the golfer, even at the highest level of the game.

-John

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
> > product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
> > uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
> > and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
> > the highest wing loading.
>
> > The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> > everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> > ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> > anyone to be able to win.
>
> > The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
>
> > Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
> > attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
> > chance to win.
>
> > Tom Knauff
>
> The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
> addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
> negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
> back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
> any handicapping system can provide.
> This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
> So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try.
> UH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 10, 1:59*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom > wrote:
>
> > > The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
> > > product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
> > > uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
> > > and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
> > > the highest wing loading.
>
> > > The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> > > everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> > > ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> > > anyone to be able to win.
>
> > > The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
>
> > > Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
> > > attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
> > > chance to win.
>
> > > Tom Knauff
>
> > The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
> > addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
> > negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
> > back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
> > any handicapping system can provide.
> > This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
> > So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try.
> > UH- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry hit the wrong key. No response intended,

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 4:01*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:59*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom > wrote:
>
> > > > The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
> > > > product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
> > > > uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
> > > > and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
> > > > the highest wing loading.
>
> > > > The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
> > > > everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
> > > > ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
> > > > anyone to be able to win.
>
> > > > The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.
>
> > > > Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
> > > > attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
> > > > chance to win.
>
> > > > Tom Knauff
>
> > > The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
> > > addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
> > > negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
> > > back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
> > > any handicapping system can provide.
> > > This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
> > > So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try..
> > > UH- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry hit the wrong key. *No response intended,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We missed your insight!
UH

[Tim[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 9:58*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> For once I agree with John Cochrane - differences in pilot skills are
> likely to outweigh any small differences in sailplane handicap. *I
> have a very fine sailplane, but consistently fly 5% to 10% slower than
> my better colleagues. *The only effect the proposed rule might have is
> to encourage participants who might have been discouraged by a
> perceived handicap disadvantage.
>
> My suggestion to handicap pilots (like we do horses in races) has been
> universally laughed at!
>
> Mike

I am very encouraged by the civility and thoughtfulness of this
conversation.

Mike:
I just do not see how handicapping the pilot would ever work out in
our sport, especially with handicapped (gliders, as exists now)
classes. Maybe I just don't see the light.

If we handicapped pilots instead of gliders, then even the "best"
pilots, in any older glider, MUST to fly very well/brilliantly EVERY
DAY to make up for any lack of performance in handicapped racing (i.e.
Sports, Club, etc.). Do Gary Ittner, Ran Tabery, Karl Streideck, Bill
Reuhle, etc. always read the weather, the terrain, the "air" correctly
100% of the time? So then if they make a mistake or two, they then
have to come up with perfection beyond what is even their typical
greatness delivers to make up for what the glider will not give them.
Or is the implication that the "best" pilots would never be caught
competing in anything less than the most current generation equipment?
Or is the implication that a Karl Streideck, for example, in a ASW-27
would tie a Karl Streideck in an ASW-20 and Karl Streideck in an
ASW-15 each and everyday of competition? everywhere in the US?

Don't they reasonably handicap golfers because the course, the clubs,
and pretty much everything except gusts of wind and are the same for
everyone, each and every day. The difference is inthe golders stregth,
fitness, "eye", etc. Is flying different models of gliders in a very
dynamic environment in any way analogous to golfing? Can I make my
older glider better than it is in reality by anything I do other than
possibly my decisionmaking?

As an aside, does anyone know how or if auto racing numerically
handicaps either cars or drivers in auto racing? I believe they only
handicap by weight and power output (all things to do with the car -
not the driver)

Maybe we should be looking at making the current glider handicapping
regime better. Especially in this age of data loggers and computer
scoring, isn't it just a matter of writing code to crunch the abundant
data we have at hand each day? (Flame shield on - I am NOT a computer
guy). Why for example do we not adjust glider handicaps for the
achieved average climb rate on each particular contest day like they
do in S Africa (and other places - I believe)? Throw in windicapping
and I would think that we would have a VERY refined handicap system
that sought to eliminate the most dynamic part of our sport (the
weather) from the performance equalization equation. Then let the
pilots go at it and actually see whop the better pilot is in real word
flying, rather than assiging a pilot a handicap.

Handicapping the tools of the trade seems like a more realistic way to
promote handicap competition.

AND...

.... to other "Haters" of giving a handicapped Standard Class at US
Nationals:

If the current handicap system is "perfectly fine" for purposes of
equalizing (not necessarily perfectly) competition performance in
Sports Class, as I have often heard. Where is the harm in extending it
to Standard Class in an attempt to get participation up and make for
better racing? And if the idea of letting the Std guys to fly in 18m
Class with a completely random 4% bump will make for "fair" and
"equalized" racing, then why the heck would the idea of handicapping
gliders of like span, like wing-geometry, and restricted to adjoining
generations of said gliders, be such an abomination???

Standard class, while very much like, but not exactly like 15m Class,
is a class worth keeping good racing going in if the itnerest is
there. It is dynamic at the international level, and there sure are a
lot of new AND last generation standard class ships here in the US.

We need to be looking very carefully at promoting "equal opportunity
racing", within defined performance ranges, for everyone who wants to
particpate, rather than arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand and
axing classes that do not suit our personal competitive values.

Thank you RC for taking this step to see if close range/generation
handicapping can revitalize Standard Class here in the US!

Tim McAllister EY

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

Let's not start the old sports class and 1-26 vs. nimbus 4 debate.

The proposal is to allow a small range of handicaps within standard
class.

Most of the "club class didn't get home on day x" stories, or the
similar "nimbus 4 couldn't get through the big blue hole that ka6
didn't have to cross" stories involve gliders of very different
performance range flying together, in the very rough-and-ready system
of sports class.

That is largely addressed in club class, in the mixed FAI regional
classes, and in the standard class proposal, by having races in which
gliders of very similar performance fly together with handicaps.

That does not mean this is an easy decision. Handicaps add noise, even
if just a little noise and a 3% handicap range. Some pilots might try
the strategy of sticking with the gaggle and winning on handicap.
Pilots who made a big investment in a new glider find that investment
doesn't pay off. Balancing the pilots who want to fly given the new
handicap for their older gliders are pilots who may not fly because
they don't like the whole handicap thing. There is a chance that a guy
in an LS4 can win the standard nationals and get sent to the worlds.

I like the handicap proposal, because I don't see a way out of our
participation decline. The alternative may be canceling nationals hwen
not enough pilots show up. And this has been a great discussion.

But let's keep it on point and not go back and revisit sports class.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 9:25*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Let's not start the old sports class and 1-26 vs. nimbus 4 debate.
>
> The proposal is to allow a small range of handicaps within standard
> class.
>
> Most of the "club class didn't get home on day x" stories, or the
> similar "nimbus 4 couldn't get through the big blue hole that ka6
> didn't have to cross" stories involve gliders of very different
> performance range flying together, in the very rough-and-ready system
> of sports class.
>
> That is largely addressed in club class, in the mixed FAI regional
> classes, and in the standard class proposal, by having races in which
> gliders of very similar performance fly together with handicaps.
>
> That does not mean this is an easy decision. Handicaps add noise, even
> if just a little noise and a 3% handicap range. Some pilots might try
> the strategy of sticking with the gaggle and winning on handicap.
> Pilots who made a big investment in a new glider find that investment
> doesn't pay off. Balancing the pilots who want to fly given the new
> handicap for their older gliders are pilots who may not fly because
> they don't like the whole handicap thing. There is a chance that a guy
> in an LS4 can win the standard nationals and get sent to the worlds.
>
> I like the handicap proposal, because I don't see a way out of our
> participation decline. The alternative may be canceling nationals hwen
> not enough pilots show up. And this has been a great discussion.
>
> But let's keep it on point and not go back and revisit sports class.

I was wondering if the following has been considered?: Allow any
Standard Class glider to enter the Standard Class Nationals. Use a
Handicap system to level the playing field so that that Nationals
would be a true test of the skill of the pilot. Then used the non-
handicapped results to select the Team Members for the World
Championships. This approach would allow many more pilots and many
more sailplanes to participate and have a chance at becoming the U.S.
National Champion AND still ensure that the U.S. Team would consist of
the best Pilot/Sailplane that would allow the Team to be competitive
on the World stage. Just a thought from a dummy that doesn't even have
an A Badge.

[noel.wade]

On Feb 10, 6:04*pm, Tim > wrote:
>
> As an aside, does anyone know how or if auto racing numerically
> handicaps either cars or drivers in auto racing? I believe they only
> handicap by weight and power output (all things to do with the car -
> not the driver)
>

Tim -

Allow me to chime in, as a former auto-racer (NASCAR, SCCA Solo II,
SCCA Solo I, SCCA Club Racing, SCCA Club Rally, International
Conference of Sports Car Clubs, brief manager of a racecar-building
shop in Memphis, TN). :-)

The most common/abundant use of Handicapping that I know of is in
Autocrossing (SCCA Solo II).
In autocrossing, cars are grouped into classes according to their
performance or common characteristics. These are not set-in-stone;
some are derived by finding a bunch of cars with similar HP and
weight, other classes are defined by common characteristics (economy
grocery-getters get lumped into a class, low-HP 2-seat convertibles
tend to get lumped into one or two classes, etc). These classes are
regularly reviewed and if one model of car is consistently beating all
the others by a large margin, the classes may get re-shuffled or that
particular car may get bumped into a class that turns in faster lap-
times, on average.

On top of that, a series of "advanced" classes have arisen around the
PAX handicap. Each year this handicap is derived from examining an
abundance of race results from the past few years. The best lap-time
for a couple of top finishers in each racing class are compared to the
fastest car (regardless of class) that ran the same course on the same
day. Results are filtered for weather changes (wet pavement) and
other anomalies. This data is assumed to be statistically significant
and relatively driver-agnostic over a large sample (around 500 events
with 100-200 competitors at each event, plus about 1200 competitors at
the National Championships each year). The average % difference in
finishing times between each class is then used to come up with an
index factor to apply to each class. This - theoretically - lets any
two cars compete and the vast majority of the difference in their
handicapped lap-time will be due to differences in driver skill.

But they have the same "issues" we have with the Sports Class:
First, not all cars in a class are considered equal; so each year
people "head-hunt" for the best car to buy in a particular class, to
give them an advantage regardless of any handicap (the difference is
that cars are generally much more-affordable and more readily-
available than gliders; even though they depreciate faster).
Second, you compound the issue by handicapping the class and not the
individual cars - people try to find a "hot" car in a class with a
"soft" index (so they maximize their handicapping advantage).
Finally, autocross courses - like glider tasks - change every day.
The rules behind course-layout are pretty flexible and are often
constrained by the racing site. So sometimes you get a course that
has long straightaways and big sweeping turns (favoring "muscle-y"
cars). Other times you get tight courses with lots of slaloms and
hairpins (favoring the 90's Mazda Miatas, which are among the most-
maneuverable, best-balanced, and best-handling cars of all time).
This is roughly analogous to those "weak weather days" that favor the
18M or Open Class ships...

IMHO, some things about glider tasks and weather may forever elude a
handicapping system (or, at least one that humans can comprehend) - I
mean, how can you have a system that handicaps a 1-34 and a Discus-2
equally well on a day with closely-spaced thermals; yet still works
when you're jumping 20+ miles between isolated sections of wave on a
day with NO thermals? On the first day, the difference between your
Max L/D isn't the issue - its the high-speed section of your polar.
On the second day, the difference *is* your Max L/D and the 1-34 just
might not be able to make the jumps! Do you declare a whole separate
course/task for the 1-34 and judge him/her completely separately from
the rest of the pack?

The bottom line is that the current handicapping for gliders isn't
perfect; but its pretty darn good. On an average day with an average
course, it corrects a good portion of the imbalances. For those few
days with outlying conditions, I think you just have to shrug your
shoulders and sigh. Baseball has rain-delays, and we have our issues
with mother nature as well! :-P

--Noel

[noel.wade]

I certainly don't have a problem with what's proposed below. As I
said in my earlier post - a lot of the questions about Nationals
revolves around the intended _goal_ of the contest. What's more
important: Trying to find the best pilot? The pilot who can fly top
equipment the best? The pilot most likely to win in a WGC (and
therefore should be selected to the US team)? There's not necessarily
a wrong answer; but consensus is needed in order to adjust the contest
appropriately.

So far, the consensus appears to be that increased participation and
an attempt to compare pilot skill (regardless of equipment, to a
limited degree) are a higher priority than some of these other factors
I've mentioned. As the potential beneficiary of any handicapping, I'm
totally happy with that. ;-D

--Noel
P.S. Sorry John, you posted your admonishment while I was typing up
my novel - if I'd seen your post I would've skipped that huge
explanation and left well enough alone!


On Feb 10, 6:36*pm, wrote:

> I was wondering if the following has been considered?: Allow any
> Standard Class glider to enter the Standard Class Nationals. Use a
> Handicap system to level the playing field so that that Nationals
> would be a true test of the skill of the pilot. Then used the non-
> handicapped results to select the Team Members for the World
> Championships.

[[email protected]]

I think we are caught between a rock and hard place regarding participation in the Standard Class Nationals. I personally don’t want to open it up with a handicap system, but practicality needs to be addressed. I am modestly in favor of it because I don’t want to see the STD Class Nats disappear..

The competition pilot pool is relatively stagnate (and aging). Prior comments on traveling to competition sites, vacation limitations, family situations have already been addressed. Younger people just don’t have the same interest in aviation that we did. They are involved in other fun things to do. Fewer are becoming glider pilots and only a small percentage will become competition pilots.

The reality is, competition pilots in the US have moved to higher performance ships. Not withstanding a handful of top US pilots who remained in STD, the bulk of the elite and upper tier competition pilots have migrated to 15 M years ago. Now, we see these pilots moving to 18 meter. Many are equipped with the ASG 29, which can allow huge flexibility on which contest to enter (Sports, 15M, 18M, and Open). A quick FAA inquiry shows a 2 to 1 ratio of Ventus 2's and ASW 27/ASG29's to LS8's and Discus 2's. New Discus 2's or LS8's entering this country are almost at a standstill. With most of the competition pilots favoring 15M or higher performance gliders, the pilot pool for STD class is dwindling fast. Then, to exacerbate the problem, we have overlapping competitions dates that eliminate some potential STD entries.

What is the long term answer? I really don’t know. I suspect anything will be a band-aid. Perhaps handicap the Standard Class. Have more contests in the middle of the US for easier access to pilots. How about specific sites for competitions? No overlapping dates. For example, Sports Class at Parowan, STD at Hobbs, Open at Uvalde, etc. Easier said than done. This may, I say may, increase participation, but it has a host of inherent problems. I fear this downward spiral won’t end anytime soon.

[Mike[_37_]]

On Feb 11, 6:41*pm, wrote:
> I think we are caught between a rock and hard place regarding participation in the Standard Class Nationals. I personally don’t want to open it up with a handicap system, but practicality needs to be addressed. I am modestly in favor of it because I don’t want to see the STD Class Nats disappear.
>
> The competition pilot pool is relatively stagnate (and aging). Prior comments on traveling to competition sites, vacation limitations, family situations have already been addressed. Younger people just don’t have the same interest in aviation that we did. They are involved in other fun things to do. Fewer are becoming glider pilots and only a small percentage will become competition pilots.
>
> The reality is, competition pilots in the US have moved to higher performance ships. Not withstanding a handful of top US pilots who remained in STD, the bulk of the elite and upper tier competition pilots have migrated to 15 M years ago. Now, we see these pilots moving to 18 meter. Many are equipped with the ASG 29, which can allow huge flexibility on which contest to enter (Sports, 15M, 18M, and Open). A quick FAA inquiry shows a 2 to 1 ratio of Ventus 2's and ASW 27/ASG29's to LS8's and Discus 2's. New Discus 2's or LS8's entering this country are almost at a standstill. With most of the competition pilots favoring 15M or higher performance gliders, the pilot pool for STD class is dwindling fast. Then, to exacerbate the problem, we have overlapping competitions dates that eliminate some potential STD entries.
>
> What is the long term answer? I really don’t know. I suspect anything will be a band-aid. Perhaps handicap the Standard Class. Have more contests in the middle of the US for easier access to pilots. How about specific sites for competitions? No overlapping dates. For example, Sports Class at Parowan, STD at Hobbs, Open at Uvalde, etc. Easier said than done. This may, I say may, increase participation, but it has a host of inherent problems. I fear this downward spiral won’t end anytime soon.

I think another reason for declining participation in sailplane racing
is OLC. It does fulfill the competition demon somewhat-cheaply at
home.

[Chip Bearden[_2_]]

As the owner of an ASW 24, I support the proposed handicapping system
for Std. Class and I applaud the Rules Committee for pursuing this
idea. I don't think my ASW 24 needs it, but I'll take it whatever help
I can get. :)

Lots of good thoughts already posted. I share concern over the future
of Std. Class. The reason a handful of top pilots still fly there is
because they can qualify to go to the World Championships. The day the
FAI Standard Class disappears is the day those guys (and Sarah) stop
showing up. It's the same reason many of them started showing up at
the Sports Class Nationals. I'm OK with that. Contrary to some of the
complaints about the top pilots "spoiling" the Sports Class for less-
experienced pilots, I WANT to fly against the top talent in our sport.
I learn more. I evaluate myself against the best. And, as a result, I
enjoy competition flying more, though I know any success I enjoy will
be uneven. I'm not trying to spark another discussion about Sport
Class but I do see some parallels here regarding viability and appeal.

Beyond my admitted self interest in insuring viable FAI classes where
I can fly (e.g., Montague and Parowan--my most likely venues--are both
out of reach this summer, being 4 days away), I'm glad to see this
proposal for what it says about recognizing the "real world" problems
facing competitive soaring, which have to do with money, time, and
life style. It's easy to get caught up in the quest for ever-
increasing performance--whether it's a new sailplane or a new vario-
flight computer--and in the "purity" of top-level competition. We can
forget that ours is a tiny sport that is difficult to learn and even
more difficult to afford. Soaring will never have mass appeal, but
this proposal will help make at least the Standard Class--of which
there are many great sailplanes in this country--a little more
attractive.

I do concede that this proposal opens the door for the Std. Class
being subsumed into the 15M class. I wouldn't have a big philosophical
problem with that. The performance differences are relatively small
and I like big contests with lots of good pilots. I think the
proliferation of classes over time has been marked by incremental
improvements for small numbers of pilots (often most able to afford a
new sailplane) but a gradually deteriorating economic outlook for the
sport overall: i.e., less stability, higher cost to compete in any
given class, smaller fields (read: less attractive to host a contest),
and lower attractiveness of contests to sponsors (see below).
Advocates of free enterprise would observe that contest organizers
have, for some years now, being doing commercially what we will likely
end up doing "officially" anyway: i.e., merging multiple classes of
national and regional contests to cover the substantial fixed costs
and achieve the necessary economies of scale.

On that subject, I'll throw in something no one else has mentioned. I
flew my first contest in 1968. I realize we live in a different world
now (duh!). When I was a kid, my family accompanied my father to his
contests--and had fun. There were always other kids and entertaining
stuff to do. The contests were big and well organized. My twin girls
benefited from some of the same things when they came along later
although in recent years the number of young people at a national
contest has dropped even more precipitously than the number of crews,
which in turn has shrunk even faster than the number of pilots. Going
to a nationals or big regionals just doesn't strike me as something
most pilots can pitch to their families as a vacation anymore. And
that's not a good thing. It just makes it more difficult for even a
dedicated contest pilot to justify taking off for several weeks for
the boondocks of America to indulge his desire to fly. I've done it
three ways: with my entire family (great fun when done right), solo
(fun but different), and the last time with one of my daughters (she
and I both had a great time despite miserable weather and some of my
worst flying ever). So I will say strongly that anything we can do to
make our sport appealing and accessible to any of the parties
involved, whether it's owners of not-quite-latest-technology
sailplanes or family members or contest sponsors, is a good thing.
Thanks, UH/QT/BB and the rest of the Committee for floating this idea.
It's an example of the kind of thinking we need.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[noel.wade]

Chip - This is _slightly_ off-topic; but I'd also like to point out
that Contests themselves have changed since 1968, too! Tasking is
different, rest days are different, and site selection is different
(from what this young pup can tell - it seems we've skewed more and
more towards holding contests only at sites that maximize strong
weather and the most flyable days). These all have an effect on the
contest experience, both for the pilot _and_ for the family. Fewer
rest-days and fewer sites (with hotter weather and/or less-convenient
locations) could explain some of the decrease in appeal for a family
vacation. And, as you pointed out, the world is a different place.
While there are still some families and organizations that promote
camping and travel-by-car, the bottom-line is that there are more
distractions and more items competing for our attention (at all age
levels).

Mike - This is also a bit off-topic; but I have to disagree. I think
some people who've never flown in a contest *think* that the OLC is a
good substitute; but anyone who's done both knows that there is vastly
different strategy involved and a totally different approach. The
key, IMHO, is to find a good way to showcase those differences to the
general SSA membership (or at least the XC pilots out there). It will
always be a niche-thing; but there are plenty of pilots who'd enjoy
the closer camaraderie and more-intense (or at least more-tense)
challenging flying that contest tasks provide, in a concentrated form
(i.e. flying tasks several days in a row and letting that be the focus
of your consciousness for that time). Finding ways to "pitch" this
stuff is the tough part - communicating the excitement and adventure
and challenge to the uninitiated is the trick. In the Northwest we've
started an event called the "Dust Up" that runs over Memorial Day
weekend every year. Its a 3-day unsanctioned Sports-Class contest
oriented around first-timers. We hold seminars in the months leading
up to it, to get people prepared, and we promote it to all the clubs
in a 4-state area. We focus on making it informative and building
people's confidence in completing tasks and getting the basics of
contest-flying down. That hopefully builds their interest in a full
contest and/or satisfies their curiosity about what contests are
really like. In the first 3 years its met with good success, the only
downside being that a short event is susceptible to weather issues.
This year we have a big crop of up-and-coming new pilots so we're
making it an XC/Badge event; with the goal of getting them flying XC
this year and trying contests next year. Gotta turn the wheel and
support pilots through the full development cycle, if we want them to
stay with the sport!

....OK, back to talking about the Std Class Nats! :-)

Take care,

--Noel


On Feb 12, 11:54*am, Chip Bearden > wrote:

> On that subject, I'll throw in something no one else has mentioned. I
> flew my first contest in 1968. I realize we live in a different world
> now (duh!). When I was a kid, my family accompanied my father to his