New Class for US Nationals

[[email protected]]

The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with Sports.
Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
"Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used.
This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only.
Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process.
Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February.
It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC.
We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan.
If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race.
Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
For the Rules Committee
UH
RC Chair

[wallace berry]

> wrote:
> The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national
> championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with
> Sports.
> Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement,
> Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds
> does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance
> gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to
> let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
> "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap
> limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will
> not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will
> not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used.
> This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like
> 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
> The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and
> Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
> If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to
> traditional Sports only.
> Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal
> rules process.
> Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February.
> It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going
> forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by
> the USTC.
> We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots
> more time to plan.
> If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from
> approval to the race.
> Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the
> Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
> This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective.
> Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would
> be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
> For the Rules Committee
> UH
> RC Chair
>
Excellent! Many thanks to the Rules Committee!

--
wb

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[RW[_2_]]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:21:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with Sports.
>
> Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
>
> "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used.
>
> This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
>
> The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
>
> If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only.
>
> Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process.
>
> Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February.
>
> It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC.
>
> We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan.
>
> If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race.
>
> Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
>
> This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
>
> For the Rules Committee
>
> UH
>
> RC Chair

I'm very disappointed with RC .
Club Class has to have only IGC Club Class gliders : no LS-6 and no Ventus pls.
Weight of the Club Class glider should be like by IGC : gross less water in the wings(tail water for balance OK)
Handicap should not change,like IGC ,if pilot elects to fly with lower weight (no extra points for small pilots)
Our US Club Class has to be like IGC Club Class.
Our primary goal will be winning of WGC

RW ( Ryszard Krolikowski)

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:19:01 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:21:57 PM UTC-5, wrote: > The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with Sports. > > Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used. > > "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used. > > This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter. > > The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class. > > If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only. > > Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process. > > Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February. > > It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC. > > We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan. > > If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race. > > Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12. > > This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work.. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.. > > For the Rules Committee > > UH > > RC Chair I'm very disappointed with RC . Club Class has to have only IGC Club Class gliders : no LS-6 and no Ventus pls. Weight of the Club Class glider should be like by IGC : gross less water in the wings(tail water for balance OK) Handicap should not change,like IGC ,if pilot elects to fly with lower weight (no extra points for small pilots) Our US Club Class has to be like IGC Club Class. Our primary goal will be winning of WGC RW ( Ryszard Krolikowski)

I would have been shocked if you weren't dissapointed.
We expect that weights will be handled as we do now with Sports as this is what we see as most fair to all.
We included LS-6 and Ventus because they are contemporary with the ASW-20 which is on the IGC list.
Our Club class does not have to be exactly like IGC Club class.
Finally- our primary goal is participation, especially among new talented pilots with limited means, with winning of the WGC as a secondary concern.
UH

[[email protected]]

I applaud the Rules Committee for their work and all the thought they must be putting into this matter.

Like Ryszard I wonder out loud why we are creating a class that is "almost" like the FAI class. I suppose it is very likely the National Champion will be a Ventus driver and then will have to borrow a "club class" glider to compete in the Worlds.

Lane
XF

[Tim Taylor]

On Nov 8, 6:47*am, wrote:
> I applaud the Rules Committee for their work and all the thought they must be putting into this matter.
>
> Like Ryszard I wonder out loud why we are creating a class that is "almost" like the FAI class. *I suppose it is very likely the National Champion will be a Ventus driver and then will have to borrow a "club class" glider to compete in the Worlds.
>
> Lane
> XF

Ryszard, I am glad they kept the weight correction, without it many
of would not fly in the Sports/Club class, especially in the west.
Here is an example; last weekend we were doing some flight testing
with three gliders, an ASG-29-15, ASW27 and my Ventus 2a. To get them
to equal wing-loading the ASG-29 flew dry, the ASW-27 added 29 pounds
of water and I had to add 211 pounds.

Lane, Almost no one from the US in Club Class flies their own glider
at the worlds. Club class gliders are much easier to rent than to
transport them from the US. Also, why are ASW-20's in club class but
not Ventus a and b and LS-6? No one has a good answer at this point.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:47:38 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I applaud the Rules Committee for their work and all the thought they must be putting into this matter.
>
>
>
> Like Ryszard I wonder out loud why we are creating a class that is "almost" like the FAI class. I suppose it is very likely the National Champion will be a Ventus driver and then will have to borrow a "club class" glider to compete in the Worlds.
>
>
>
> Lane
>
> XF

The definition of the gliders in the FAI Club class changes more often that you might imagine. It is very literally driven by what gliders are populating the typical club's hangers in a given iteration. It would not be even a little bit of a surprise to me if the Ventus shows up on the list by the time a WGC from the selections made from our new nationals rolls around.

One other consideration in how we manage the list in the USA. In Europe the extent of the capital commitment a pilot must make to the club class is to belong to a club that owns gliders. In the USA the pilot typically buys the glider for him/herself. Thus it is in our interest to not have the list as fluid as it is in Europe.

QT - Rules Committee

[Nick Olson[_3_]]

The contemporary of the ASW20 were the Mini Nimbus and LS3/a not the LS6 or
Ventus! both of the latter which where 2nd generation 15m designs - the
ASW20a was 1st generation 15m -Schleicher just got it right first time. If
i'm correct I believe 20B's cannot fly club class (at least in the UK).
DaeC index is the same though for all three - although other national
handicap systems have the 6 and Ventus as a higher handicap.
Anyway you need something like an old standard class glider to win at
World champs level i.e. Std Cirrus - the higher performance gliders in club
class don't do too well - why G.Dale traded down from an ASW24 to a DG100.

[Mike C]

On Nov 7, 12:21*pm, wrote:
> The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. *The plan is to co locate with Sports.
> Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
> "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. *No water ballast will be used.
> This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
> The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
> If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only.
> Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process.
> Final approval will be at the SSA BOD *winter meeting in February.
> It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC.
> We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan.
> If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race.
> Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
> This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
> For the Rules Committee
> UH
> RC Chair

A GREAT step forward! Club and Modern are two excellent divisions.
I'm sure 12 Club Class pilots will show up. Reverting the entire
contest to "Modern", if 12 Modern pilots do not show up, seems
counter productive though.

Mike

The best pilots will be at the top of the score sheet.

[[email protected]]

>
> > RC Chair
>
>
>
> A GREAT step forward! Club and Modern are two excellent divisions.
> I'm sure 12 Club Class pilots will show up. Reverting the entire
> contest to "Modern", if 12 Modern pilots do not show up, seems
> counter productive though.
>
> Mike
>
If 12 sports and 12 modern do not show up, it reverts to traditional sports, not "modern." The big point: we do not send anybody home! If there is not enough for two classes, we fly in one class. That's why "club" includes lower performance gliders too.
12 pilots was chosen so we know for really sure that 8 will finish with 40% of the winners score.
John Cochrane

[Mike C]

On Nov 8, 5:23*pm, wrote:
> > > RC Chair
>
> > *A GREAT step forward! Club and Modern are two excellent divisions.
> > I'm sure 12 Club Class pilots will show up. Reverting the entire
> > contest to "Modern", *if 12 Modern pilots do not show up, seems
> > counter productive though.
>
> > Mike
>
> If 12 sports and 12 modern do not show up, it reverts to traditional sports, not "modern." The big point: we do not send anybody home! *If there is not enough for two classes, we fly in one class. That's why "club" includes lower performance gliders too.
> 12 pilots was chosen so we know for really sure that 8 will finish with 40% of the winners score.
> John Cochrane

Ooops! Yes,Traditional Sports. Makes perfect sense. Good going guys.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:

>Reverting the entire contest to "Modern", if 12 Modern pilots do not show up, seems
>counter productive though.
>
> Mike

Would you suggest they just go home or some other solution? Seems to me that 12 at a Nationals is a decent threshold for splitting out a separate class.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:31:37 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:
>
>
>
> >Reverting the entire contest to "Modern", if 12 Modern pilots do not show up, seems
>
> >counter productive though.
>
> >
>
> > Mike
>
>
>
> Would you suggest they just go home or some other solution? Seems to me that 12 at a Nationals is a decent threshold for splitting out a separate class.
>
>
>
> 9B

Oops - I take it back.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Nov 7, 2:21*pm, wrote:
> The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. *The plan is to co locate with Sports.
> Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
> "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. *No water ballast will be used.
> This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
> The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
> If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only.
> Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process.
> Final approval will be at the SSA BOD *winter meeting in February.
> It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC.
> We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan.
> If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race.
> Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
> This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
> For the Rules Committee
> UH
> RC Chair

A few years late but still great! :)

[[email protected]]

> Ryszard, I am glad they kept the weight correction, without it many
>
> of would not fly in the Sports/Club class, especially in the west.
>
> Here is an example; last weekend we were doing some flight testing
>
> with three gliders, an ASG-29-15, ASW27 and my Ventus 2a. To get them
>
> to equal wing-loading the ASG-29 flew dry, the ASW-27 added 29 pounds
>
> of water and I had to add 211 pounds.
>
>
OT, but interested to know. What was the result of the flight test?
John Cochrane

[Kevin Christner]

The Ventus and LS-6 should not be included. They would have a significant advantage at sites like Parowan and Mifflin. They are competitive in the Handicapped FAI class and therefore are not being left without a home. Thank you for creating this class, but please reconsider whether including those gliders make sense.

2C

[RW[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:45:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:19:01 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:21:57 PM UTC-5, wrote: > The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with Sports. > > Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play.. No water ballast will be used. > > "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used. > > This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter. > > The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class. > > If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only. > > Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process. > > Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February. > > It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC. > > We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan. > > If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race. > > Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12. > > This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in. > > For the Rules Committee > > UH > > RC Chair I'm very disappointed with RC . Club Class has to have only IGC Club Class gliders : no LS-6 and no Ventus pls. Weight of the Club Class glider should be like by IGC : gross less water in the wings(tail water for balance OK) Handicap should not change,like IGC ,if pilot elects to fly with lower weight (no extra points for small pilots) Our US Club Class has to be like IGC Club Class. Our primary goal will be winning of WGC RW ( Ryszard Krolikowski)
>
>
>
> I would have been shocked if you weren't dissapointed.
>
> We expect that weights will be handled as we do now with Sports as this is what we see as most fair to all.
>
> We included LS-6 and Ventus because they are contemporary with the ASW-20 which is on the IGC list.
>
> Our Club class does not have to be exactly like IGC Club class.
>
> Finally- our primary goal is participation, especially among new talented pilots with limited means, with winning of the WGC as a secondary concern.
>
> UH

After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, we had 2 years of waiting period before this could be implemented .
Meantime RC quietly expands list to LS-6 and this year quietly to
Ventus.(without asking anybody,without waiting period)
It is very disappointing that RC member showed up in Parowan Sports Nationals
with Ventus as a big surprise of new extended club class list !
RW

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here

> After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team,

98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results
annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain
blue?"

> It is very disappointing that RC member showed up in Parowan Sports Nationals
> with Ventus as a big surprise of new extended club class list !

I presume you mean Garrett Willat in a Ventus ca. Then, you're only
getting wrong that Garrett isn't a RC member, the rule we're talking
about apply starting this year, not retroactive to last year, the
Ventus ca he flew was already on the US club class list (there is a
big "C" next to the glider on the ssa handicap table) and the fact
that the US team, not the rules committee decides which entrants from
a unified sports class qualify for US team club class points.

Maybe you mean Ken Sorenson (ssa contest committee chairman) in a
Ventus 2. Then you're getting wrong the difference between ventus 1
and ventus 2.

No other RC members competed at Parowan. With great regret, but in
fact we weren't there.

If you're mad that Garret beat you, on a handicapped basis, maybe
trying to engineer a contest where he doesn't get to come isn't the
answer.

A big theme of US team self-analysis right now is that we fly in races
that are too small. Europeans don't just fly in particular classes
with particular rules. They fly in huge contests with many top level
contenders, not just one or two. The case that we get better by
sending half the fleet home, eliminating lower-performance gliders
from nationals altogether, and having a little toy contest with 8.0
gliders seems pretty tenuous. If you want to get pushed to WGC level
performance, you should be offering to pay Garret's entry fee so that
a talented pilot with WGC experience will push up the level of
competition. No matter what glider he is in.

We gave you a contest with no ASW27/ASG29s, no Ventus 2s, no open
class gliders, no duos, and none of the FAI pilots who typically fly
those gliders and aren't about to waste their two weeks of vacation
flying the club standard cirrus at Mifflin.

Your job is to make darn sure 12 pilots in even our expansive
definition of club class show up. If they do not, the whole project is
over. Are you listening? The future of club class depends on getting a
sufficient turn out.

As the stones sang,

No, you can't always get what you want
No, you can't always get what you want
No, you can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime, you just might find
You get what you need


John Cochrane

[Kevin Christner]

And the Ventus and LS6 will have a significant advantage at this years Mifflin Nationals if their are a few ridge days. I also wonder if you will ever get enough "modern" gliders to have two classes if the Ventus and LS6 are considered "club" gliders.

> After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, we had 2 years of waiting period before this could be implemented .
>
> Meantime RC quietly expands list to LS-6 and this year quietly to
>
> Ventus.(without asking anybody,without waiting period)
>
> It is very disappointing that RC member showed up in Parowan Sports Nationals
>
> with Ventus as a big surprise of new extended club class list !
>
> RW

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Nov 8, 7:21*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> The Ventus and LS-6 should not be included. They would have a significant advantage at sites like Parowan and Mifflin. *They are competitive in the Handicapped FAI class and therefore are not being left without a home. *Thank you for creating this class, but please reconsider whether including those gliders make sense.
>
> 2C

There is no national Handicapped FAI class.
Standards may have some limited handicapping next year. 15 meter will
not.
We may have one in the future, but we don't have one yet.

John Cochrane

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Nov 9, 11:43*am, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> And the Ventus and LS6 will have a significant advantage at this years Mifflin Nationals if their are a few ridge days. *I also wonder if you will ever get enough "modern" gliders to have two classes if the Ventus and LS6 are considered "club" gliders.

Given the handicaps, I'll keep my 20, thanks.

A well flown Ka-8 will kill all the glass on a ridge day. Ron
Schwartz in a 1-26 will eat the Ka-8 and spit out the wing pins,
provided he can make the transitions.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

UH After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, we had 2 years of waiting period before this could be implemented . Meantime RC quietly expands list to LS-6 and this year quietly to Ventus.(without asking anybody,without waiting period) It is very disappointing that RC member showed up in Parowan Sports Nationals with Ventus as a big surprise of new extended club class list ! RW

Who is RC member flying the Ventus?
Seems like you are trying to keep competition away.
You should be more worried about the guy in th Ka-6 than the guy in the Ventus.
What poll are you quoting?

[Kevin Christner]

This assumes there is no difficulty in crossing the gaps or getting on course. Personally (having owned a Ka8) I would not want to be attempting to cross the seven sisters with the wind 25kts WNW and a 4k cloud base. Killer ridge day, the low performers might not make it onto the course.

2C

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Nov 9, 12:50*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> This assumes there is no difficulty in crossing the gaps or getting on course. *Personally (having owned a Ka8) I would not want to be attempting to cross the seven sisters with the wind 25kts WNW and a 4k cloud base. *Killer ridge day, the low performers might not make it onto the course.
>
> 2C

Every handicapped class has this problem. Handicaps are fair on
average, but some days the nimbus has to cross a gap the 1-26 does not
have to cross, and on other days the 1-26 simply can't stay up. The
mean is right, the variance is greater.

We made a major improvement by splitting the sports class in two. Now
we're not flying 1-26 vs. Nimbus 4.

If you think that the handicap groups are still too wide, then either

1) bring us lots more gliders, so we can have narrower handicap groups
but more than 3 gliders per "class." RW's pure club class can happen
if 12 gliders below 1.0 start showing up so we can have 3 classes.

2) Go fly FAI classes. The 15 meter class is basically a one-design
class at the moment. 27 and V2.

John Cochrane
John Cochrane

[Ron Gleason]

Any changes/enhancements being made to Winscore to handle the two classes or will the scorer have to manually enter handicaps?

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Nov 9, 1:50*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> This assumes there is no difficulty in crossing the gaps or getting on course. *Personally (having owned a Ka8) I would not want to be attempting to cross the seven sisters with the wind 25kts WNW and a 4k cloud base. *Killer ridge day, the low performers might not make it onto the course.
>
> 2C

<Chuckle>

I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

What John said, plus:

1. The CD has advisors. They have a responsibility to call and open
a task that meets the criteria "fair and safe".

2. There are about a thousand other things a CD would think of before
sending a low performance fleet across the 7 mtns on a 4K day, no
matter what the wind.

What happens when the task is up & down Shade, Jacks and Tussey? The
Ka-8 goes about 72 mph and gets scored for 104 mph. I go about 100
mph... and get scored for 90.

My experience is that handicap racing is a blast when the total spread
is about 6% or less. Roughly that's my ASW-20 down to about an LS-4,
or my ASW-20 up to an 18m ship. If the range gets any wider than
that, it gets much more haphazard.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 12:21:57 UTC-7, wrote:
> The US Rules Subcommittee has added Club Class as a national championship class starting in 2013. The plan is to co locate with Sports.
>
> Generally described, subject to usual wordsmithing and refinement, Club will be gliders with a handicap of .898(similar to what Worlds does except letting in LS-6 and Ventus 1) and all lower performance gliders. This means we extend beyond what WGC does on the low end to let everybody be able to play. No water ballast will be used.
>
> "Modern" Sports will allow anybody to be in this class but handicap limit will be .940. Gliders below that performance may enter but will not receive the full handicap benefit and tasking considerations will not reflect their performance. No water ballast will be used.
>
> This concept allows common std ships like Discus etc and ships like 20's to decide which class they would like to enter.
>
> The rules will provide for assigned tasks in both Modern Sports and Club, subject to task setter evaluation of the fleet in the class.
>
> If we do not get 12 in Club and Modern Sports, the contest reverts to traditional Sports only.
>
> Final numbers and rules text will be a few weeks away using the normal rules process.
>
> Final approval will be at the SSA BOD winter meeting in February.
>
> It is expected that the US Team committee will use Club results going forward to select the Club team. This has not yet been confirmed by the USTC.
>
> We are making this announcement in advance to allow affected pilots more time to plan.
>
> If we waited through the full process, it would be only 3 months from approval to the race.
>
> Full details of the proposed rules will be available as part of the Rules Change Summary due to be published on 12/22/12.
>
> This will require re doing entries after the rule becomes effective. Thanks to Karl and Iris for putting up with this extra work. It would be helpful to them if you advise what class you intend to fly in.
>
> For the Rules Committee
>
> UH
>
> RC Chair

Thanks RC! I believe this is a good move and with the priority on participation should increase participation.

Ron Gleason

[Marc]

Here's my 2 cents worth of comments on this subject:

1. IGC Club Class is intended to allow racing between gliders within a
narrow range of handicaps. The reason for the narrow range is to
allow handicapped competition to work across all types of tasks, in
particular, assigned speed tasks. Increasing the range of handicaps
puts the gliders at the low end of the list at a disadvantage (despite
the "better" handicap) when assigned tasks are called on days with
significant wind.

2. Viewing Club Class as an appendage to Sports Class pretty much
guarantees assigned speed tasks will almost never be called, which
sort of defeats the purpose.

Having owned, and occasionally raced, a DG-101, DG-303, Ventus B, and
LAK-17A, I can say the Ventus (15M) was far closer in overall
capability to the LAK-17A (15M) than to the DG-101. An IGC-style Club
Class, with assigned speed tasks, where I could actually feel
competitive in a Std Cirrus or DG-100, would draw me back into
racing. An MAT and TAT laden subset of Sports Class, not so much...

Marc

[Tony[_5_]]

Sounds good, now I can fly the Cherokee onto the US Club Class team! :) Assuming of course that the USTC adopts the winner of this new class for team selection instead of sticking with their current list.

Will the same Modern/Club split apply to regional Sports Class contests, assuming there are enough entries?

I'm looking forward to the full list of Rule changes for next year, including Std. Class Nationals handicapping and if there will be a 13.5 Meter Nationals. Then I'll be able to plan out the rest of my Summer.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:12:53 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Sounds good, now I can fly the Cherokee onto the US Club Class team! :) Assuming of course that the USTC adopts the winner of this new class for team selection instead of sticking with their current list. Will the same Modern/Club split apply to regional Sports Class contests, assuming there are enough entries? I'm looking forward to the full list of Rule changes for next year, including Std. Class Nationals handicapping and if there will be a 13.5 Meter Nationals. Then I'll be able to plan out the rest of my Summer.

Organizers in regionals can split groups in whatever way works best for their entries. That's how we had a 2 seat class in R2N. Yes they could follow Modern/Club.
Don't hold your calendar for 13.5 Nationals. Club is only new class for 2013.
UH

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:42:28 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:12:53 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote: > Sounds good, now I can fly the Cherokee onto the US Club Class team! :) Assuming of course that the USTC adopts the winner of this new class for team selection instead of sticking with their current list. Will the same Modern/Club split apply to regional Sports Class contests, assuming there are enough entries? I'm looking forward to the full list of Rule changes for next year, including Std. Class Nationals handicapping and if there will be a 13.5 Meter Nationals. Then I'll be able to plan out the rest of my Summer. Organizers in regionals can split groups in whatever way works best for their entries. That's how we had a 2 seat class in R2N. Yes they could follow Modern/Club. Don't hold your calendar for 13.5 Nationals. Club is only new class for 2013. UH

oh duh I knew that about splitting up regionals...

Figured as much on 13.5 meter. Maybe I just need to borrow a 1-26 :)

Would consider flying the Cirrus in Std. Class nats if they'll be handicapped, even if i have to fly at .95 instead of 1.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here
>

I apply a very simple test on any rule. If RW's not happy, then it's a good rule.

P3

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 1:39:32 PM UTC-6, Ron Gleason wrote:
> Any changes/enhancements being made to Winscore to handle the two classes or will the scorer have to manually enter handicaps?

It's two separate contests. This should help scorers who previously were producing two scoresheets. Now each glider is in one contest only. Both classes are handicapped per sports rules, including weight adjustments, so no change on that front. Was that the question?
John Cochrane

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 19:15 09 November 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>We made a major improvement by splitting the sports class in two. Now
>we're not flying 1-26 vs. Nimbus 4.
>
>If you think that the handicap groups are still too wide, then either
>
>1) bring us lots more gliders, so we can have narrower handicap groups
>but more than 3 gliders per "class." RW's pure club class can happen
>if 12 gliders below 1.0 start showing up so we can have 3 classes.
>
>2) Go fly FAI classes. The 15 meter class is basically a one-design
>class at the moment. 27 and V2.
>
>John Cochrane

Club Class is an FAI class! - however big bucks differnce between buying a
std cirrus or a v2/27 - why not try running it for a few years as a comp
within the IGC definition - you have no probllem doing that with other FAI
classes, and see what happens rather than basing things on past history -
if you want a sports class have it as a seperate comp - my feeling is you
will find club class will be your most subscribed class after a few years.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 19:15 09 November 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>We made a major improvement by splitting the sports class in two. Now
>we're not flying 1-26 vs. Nimbus 4.
>
>If you think that the handicap groups are still too wide, then either
>
>1) bring us lots more gliders, so we can have narrower handicap groups
>but more than 3 gliders per "class." RW's pure club class can happen
>if 12 gliders below 1.0 start showing up so we can have 3 classes.
>
>2) Go fly FAI classes. The 15 meter class is basically a one-design
>class at the moment. 27 and V2.
>
>John Cochrane

Club Class is an FAI class! - however big bucks differnce between buying a
std cirrus or a v2/27 - why not try running it for a few years as a comp
within the IGC definition - you have no probllem doing that with other FAI
classes, and see what happens rather than basing things on past history -
if you want a sports class have it as a seperate comp - my feeling is you
will find club class will be your most subscribed class after a few years.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 7:15:03 PM UTC-5, Paul T wrote:
moment. 27 and V2. > >John Cochrane Club Class is an FAI class! - however big bucks differnce between buying a std cirrus or a v2/27 - why not try running it for a few years as a comp within the IGC definition - you have no probllem doing that with other FAI classes, and see what happens rather than basing things on past history - if you want a sports class have it as a seperate comp - my feeling is you will find club class will be your most subscribed class after a few years.

One of the problems to be solved was how to implement the Club class without gutting Sports and leaving the people running it with tasking the low performance gliders and the very high performance gliders with nothing in the middle. This approach solves that problem as well as giving a group innthe middle a choice of which class to fly.
It is likely that there will not be a large number of low performance gliders(those below IGC Club performance), but they still need a place to compete. This will allow Club to develop itself.
The principle that nobody gets sent home is a cornerstone our our philosophy.
If the class is a bit less "Clubby" so be it.
UH

[RW[_2_]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here
>
>
>
> > After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team,
>
>
>
> 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results
>
> annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain
>
> blue?"
I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool !
After majority of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is soo important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered for US Team.
John, you are just angry.
RC asked this question and in following years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish.
If this was your decision, I would like you to step down.
I'm sick of your reinventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience racing pilots as kids.
RW

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:30:59 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote: > RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here > > > > > After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, > > > > 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results > > annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain > > blue?" I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool ! After majority of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is soo important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered for US Team. John, you are just angry. RC asked this question and in following years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish. If this was your decision, I would like you to step down. I'm sick of your reinventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience racing pilots as kids. RW

The question in 2006 Poll was "Should the Club class team be selected only from pilots flying Club class gliders?" The response was 65% yes and 35% no.. The USTC used this guidance to put that requirement in place.
Before quoting statistics RW, maybe you should look them up.
I would note that you seem to be the angry guy, not John.
UH

[Gregg Leslie[_2_]]

Can't please everyone! Lol


At 00:11 11 November 2012, wrote:
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:30:59 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>RW:=
> you're setting new standards of incoherence here > > > > > After 98% of
>ra=
>cing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US
>Te=
>am, > > > > 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the
>r=
>esults > > annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the
sky
>=
>remain > > blue?" I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool ! After
>majority=
> of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is
>soo=
> important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered
>for=
> US Team. John, you are just angry. RC asked this question and in
>following=
> years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish.
>If=
> this was your decision, I would like you to step down. I'm sick of your
>re=
>inventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience
>rac=
>ing pilots as kids. RW
>
>The question in 2006 Poll was "Should the Club class team be selected
only
>=
>from pilots flying Club class gliders?" The response was 65% yes and 35%
>no=
>.. The USTC used this guidance to put that requirement in place.
>Before quoting statistics RW, maybe you should look them up.
>I would note that you seem to be the angry guy, not John.
>UH
>

[RW[_2_]]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:30:59 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote: > RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here > > > > > After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, > > > > 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results > > annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain > > blue?" I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool ! After majority of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is soo important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered for US Team. John, you are just angry. RC asked this question and in following years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish. If this was your decision, I would like you to step down. I'm sick of your reinventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience racing pilots as kids. RW
>
>
>
> The question in 2006 Poll was "Should the Club class team be selected only from pilots flying Club class gliders?" The response was 65% yes and 35% no. The USTC used this guidance to put that requirement in place.
>
> Before quoting statistics RW, maybe you should look them up.
>
> I would note that you seem to be the angry guy, not John.
>
> UH

Your job was not to violate wish of 65% racing pilots.
This pool was asking all pilots (PW5, 1-26,Open and 18M ect.)
Use your imagination.
Or if its hard, lets ask all pilots : should we quit Open Class Nationals if we get less than 10 real open class entrants?
How many of pilots fly Sports, how many Club ?
Is this number releasing you of your violation ?
I told you before publicly at 2007 Sports Class Nationals in Cesar Creek RC meeting :
Don't ask question if you not gonna like the answer!
If you don't want to serve 65% of all racing pilots , who do you represent ?

RW

[gliderstud]

Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.

Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.

By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time ;)

....see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:43 AM UTC-6, gliderstud wrote:
> Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.
>
>
>
> Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.
>
>
>
> By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time ;)
>
>
>
> ...see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

Stud, you are so awesome! If I had a daughter, I wanted her to have your kids. I particularly like your shy modesty, never bragging about accomplishments or the superhuman difficulties you have overcome.
You must be much beloved by your peers and even your adversaries.

[RW[_2_]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:35:54 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:30:59 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote: > RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here > > > > > After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, > > > > 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results > > annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain > > blue?" I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool ! After majority of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is soo important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered for US Team. John, you are just angry. RC asked this question and in following years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish.. If this was your decision, I would like you to step down. I'm sick of your reinventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience racing pilots as kids. RW
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The question in 2006 Poll was "Should the Club class team be selected only from pilots flying Club class gliders?" The response was 65% yes and 35% no. The USTC used this guidance to put that requirement in place.
>
> >
>
> > Before quoting statistics RW, maybe you should look them up.
>
> >
>
> > I would note that you seem to be the angry guy, not John.
>
> >
>
> > UH
>
>
>
> Your job was not to violate wish of 65% racing pilots.
>
> This pool was asking all pilots (PW5, 1-26,Open and 18M ect.)
>
> Use your imagination.
>
> Or if its hard, lets ask all pilots : should we quit Open Class Nationals if we get less than 10 real open class entrants?
>
> How many of pilots fly Sports, how many Club ?
>
> Is this number releasing you of your violation ?
>
> I told you before publicly at 2007 Sports Class Nationals in Cesar Creek RC meeting :
>
> Don't ask question if you not gonna like the answer!
>
> If you don't want to serve 65% of all racing pilots , who do you represent ?
>
>
>
> RW
Hank and John,
I regret I followed you to the level of personal attacks.
I'm taking everything back.
We clearly sidetracked of the main point:
RC would not dare to modify, let say IGC 18 M Class definition,
please respect IGC definition of the Club Class !
RW

[Paul T[_4_]]

>RC would not dare to modify, let say IGC 18 M Class definition,
>please respect IGC definition of the Club Class !
>RW =20

Exactly there is an FAI/IGC Club class - it has defined parameters - so why
go reinventing it? LS6/Ventus is not in this definition - maybe at some
point they will be? but for now let them fly your non-FAI sports class. Why
is this so difficult for you to do - when the rest of the world is
reasonably happy with it. I don't see you trying to redifine other FAI
classes.

[[email protected]]

Congratulations to the Rules Committee. Two classes with enough participation will improve the Sports Class make it more enjoyable. This change is certainly better than the current format.

My concern is that once we start another hybrid US racing class there will be little hope of establishing a pure FAI racing class. I have heard of US pilots choosing not to participate in US contests because of current rules..

I would like to see establishment of the only US FAI racing class - The US FAI Club Class.

There are many domestic choices for those who disagree with FAI rules and tasking philosophy. The new class would possible attract racing pilots who are "left at home" because they disagree with US contest rules and format. It would also be a fantastic way to prepare US pilots for international competition.

I believe there is significant demand for a pure FAI Club Class here in the US. I urge the RC to consider this option before moving forward to a two class Sports Class.

Sean Franke

[[email protected]]

Thank you to the US RC for giving consideration to and now moving forward to adopt Club Class for rightful inclusion among the competitive classes that may compete for their own U.S. National Championship. This is a step in the right direction from the "powers that be". However, as UH implies, the devil will be in the details.

As we enter into this age of handicapped racing taking over the competitive landscape I have a couple points I wish the RC to consider as the creation of a US Club Class moves forward:

1) Can we please, please, please stop using the term "FAI Class" vs. Club Class, World Class (I know it is now dead), 13.5m Class, etc. All racing classes, as defined by the FAI, are FAI Classes. This continual distinction continues to emphasize that there is a divide (real or perceived) between those that are and those that are not. Any "class" recognized by the FAI IS a legitimate racing class.

2) If we are experimenting with handicapping Standard Class to improve its attendance and competitive landscape, then why is our Club Class being opened up to the current Std Class gliders (D2, LS8, ASW-28)? It would seem to me that an emphasis should be put on saving existing classes where possible.. Or is this decision in recognition that Std Class is about to be dissolved? If you are giving the D2, LS8, and ASW28 drivers this new opportunity (in addition to their own class), then please expand the handicapping of Standard Class to let even older std class gliders fly the Std Class Nationals!

3) Further, if the effort is being made to find a competitive place for everyone, then why not open 15m Class to handicapping so that the current generation std class ships have a competitive home?

I continue to believe that as we consider the fundamental re-organization of racing classes, we should be aggressively looking to condense the number of classes, while affording everyone Maximized opportunities to pursue their racing goals. Handicapped racing offers us this hope.

I would propose that the following be carefully considered in the longer term: Long-Wing Class (Open/18m/20-m), Short-Wing Class (15m/Standard), Club Class (Vintage/Classic Short-Wing Racers), Sports (Everybody like we encourage now - for fun and learning).

This assumes that 13.5m class will not go anywhere... but maybe it will.

I fervently want to see the new US Club Class be defined by the handicap range (with negotiations around the edges) of the IGC Club Class. Restricted Handicap racing is a terrific feature of Club Class around the world. IMHO, this proposal opens the class up to too broad a handicap range and dilutes the racing it encourages around the world.

The proposal, as presently defined in UH's email, runs the risk of giving the appearance of offering Club Class backers what we want, without really doing so. I would like to be provided with a clear, stated rational for why the definition of Club Class is NOT made according to the IGC definition - and not just the old one that "sports class is our only successful class, and therefore it should be sacrosanct".

RC, if we are beginning a fundamental reorganization of sailplane racing in this country, let us begin by adopting a class (Club Class) that IS defined and successful around the world, and then start to craft other changes based on this model of restricted handicap racing.

Sincerely,
Tim McAllister EY

[Ventus_a]

Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.

Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.

By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time ;)

....see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.


Have you thought about a career as a comedian? Best laugh I've had for a while. Agree about the empty Ventus. I fly a Nimbus3D as well as my little Ventus a and it's easy to be beaten by better pilots despite having higher performance gear. Keep up the good work Garret

Colin

[Sean F (F2)]

Bravo guys!

Now you club class guys need to show up and make it a success!

I am looking for a club class glider now. Thanks!

Sean - F2

[Kevin Christner]

Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not?

2C

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:14:37 PM UTC+1, Kevin Christner wrote:
> Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C

Cuz we LS6a/b drivers don't got no fancy draglets - uh - winglets?

How more classic can you get?

Gonna need to bring a lot of cheese to the contests to go with all the whine...

66

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:14:37 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C

Read again the text of the description and note that it describes a handicap range.
All sailplanes withing that range would be permitted to fly in Club class. This includes the LS-8.
Yes it appears you are confused, but not sure where confusion came from.
Cheers
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Nov 12, 6:07*pm, wrote:
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:14:37 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> > Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C
>
> Read again the text of the description and note that it describes a handicap range.
> All sailplanes withing that range would be permitted to fly in Club class.. This includes the LS-8.
> Yes it appears you are confused, but not sure where confusion came from.
> Cheers
> UH

To clarify, the "club" class competition will include all sailplanes
below 0.899 (Ls6 / ventus abc) on the US handicap list. (Subject to
SSA BOD approval) as Hank said. This includes LS8/D2, V1 and all
ASW20s. It also extends arbitrarily to lower performance, so a KA6 is
welcome to come fly the "club" class.

The US team is still deciding what to do about team selection, which
is a separate issue. For the moment, they have made no change to the
rule that sailplanes must be on the US team club class list to qualify
for team selection points. This includes V1 and all ASW20s, but not
LS8/D2. It also has a lower limit, the KA6 is not on it. (see ssa,
racing, other resources, handicaps. Look for the "C" for club).The
team will announce a formal decision on this issue when they have made
it. Until they announce a change, the current rules are in effect, see
the ssa list.

The IGC maintains a separate list of what "club" means. This changes
from championship to championship. The current version does not
include the V1 or ASW20 b and c. This list has no bearing on US
contests at the moment.

In sum, there may be three definitions of "club" to watch: 1) who is
allowed to fly in the "club" portion of US sports/club class nationals
2) what gliders, flying in that contest, earn US team points 3) the
IGC "club" list for the upcoming world championships. They are all
different!

John Cochrane

[5 ugly]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:40:16 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:07*pm, wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:14:37 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
>
> > > Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C
>
> >
>
> > Read again the text of the description and note that it describes a handicap range.
>
> > All sailplanes withing that range would be permitted to fly in Club class. This includes the LS-8.
>
> > Yes it appears you are confused, but not sure where confusion came from..
>
> > Cheers
>
> > UH
>
>
>
> To clarify, the "club" class competition will include all sailplanes
>
> below 0.899 (Ls6 / ventus abc) on the US handicap list. (Subject to
>
> SSA BOD approval) as Hank said. This includes LS8/D2, V1 and all
>
> ASW20s. It also extends arbitrarily to lower performance, so a KA6 is
>
> welcome to come fly the "club" class.
>
>
>
> The US team is still deciding what to do about team selection, which
>
> is a separate issue. For the moment, they have made no change to the
>
> rule that sailplanes must be on the US team club class list to qualify
>
> for team selection points. This includes V1 and all ASW20s, but not
>
> LS8/D2. It also has a lower limit, the KA6 is not on it. (see ssa,
>
> racing, other resources, handicaps. Look for the "C" for club).The
>
> team will announce a formal decision on this issue when they have made
>
> it. Until they announce a change, the current rules are in effect, see
>
> the ssa list.
>
>
>
> The IGC maintains a separate list of what "club" means. This changes
>
> from championship to championship. The current version does not
>
> include the V1 or ASW20 b and c. This list has no bearing on US
>
> contests at the moment.
>
>
>
> In sum, there may be three definitions of "club" to watch: 1) who is
>
> allowed to fly in the "club" portion of US sports/club class nationals
>
> 2) what gliders, flying in that contest, earn US team points 3) the
>
> IGC "club" list for the upcoming world championships. They are all
>
> different!
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I have been reading with interest the discussion concerning the club class.
I have no "vested" interest in the club class just "great" interest.

I don't understand allowing gliders to be a part of the club class in this country that are not allowed by the IGC. The V1 and the LS-6 seem to be the big question. The notion that the V1 and the LS-6 are of the same vintage as the early ASW-20 is just not so. I was lucky enough to be around when the first ASW-20 came into this country. It was accompanied by the mini nimbus, PIK and mosquito and later the LS-3. Only after several refinements of the ASW-20 did the V1 and LS-6 appear on the scene.

GUTTING the sports class and spreading the handicaps to extreme seems to be of concern. Doesn't leaving the V1 and the LS-6 in sports class help with both problems.

Participation seems to be a factor in the RC decisions. I personally think that if the RC would listen to the pilots who have interest in the club class rather than dictating to them you may find that interest will grow. Do you really expect pilots to be enthusiastic and jump in with both feet when their thoughts and ideas are continuously falling on deaf ears.

Rules Committee. Listen to the movers and shakers of the club class in the country. They have have been bold enough to step up and purchase a club glider and are ready to move forward. There are some really smart people in this group who have put a great deal of time and effort into this movement just as you have.

Club Class glider pilots. If you don't feel that you are being properly represented on the rules committee be willing to step up and run for a seat on the committee. If you feel that the rules committee need new members and a new way of thinking put you name on the ballot. 5U

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 15:44 13 November 2012, 5 ugly wrote:
>On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:40:16 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 6:07=A0pm, wrote:
>>=20
>> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:14:37 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
>>=20
>> > > Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why
>a=
> higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the
>the=
>oretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> > Read again the text of the description and note that it describes a
>han=
>dicap range.
>>=20
>> > All sailplanes withing that range would be permitted to fly in Club
>cla=
>ss. This includes the LS-8.
>>=20
>> > Yes it appears you are confused, but not sure where confusion came
>from=
>..
>>=20
>> > Cheers
>>=20
>> > UH
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> To clarify, the "club" class competition will include all sailplanes
>>=20
>> below 0.899 (Ls6 / ventus abc) on the US handicap list. (Subject to
>>=20
>> SSA BOD approval) as Hank said. This includes LS8/D2, V1 and all
>>=20
>> ASW20s. It also extends arbitrarily to lower performance, so a KA6 is
>>=20
>> welcome to come fly the "club" class.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The US team is still deciding what to do about team selection, which
>>=20
>> is a separate issue. For the moment, they have made no change to the
>>=20
>> rule that sailplanes must be on the US team club class list to qualify
>>=20
>> for team selection points. This includes V1 and all ASW20s, but not
>>=20
>> LS8/D2. It also has a lower limit, the KA6 is not on it. (see ssa,
>>=20
>> racing, other resources, handicaps. Look for the "C" for club).The
>>=20
>> team will announce a formal decision on this issue when they have made
>>=20
>> it. Until they announce a change, the current rules are in effect, see
>>=20
>> the ssa list.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The IGC maintains a separate list of what "club" means. This changes
>>=20
>> from championship to championship. The current version does not
>>=20
>> include the V1 or ASW20 b and c. This list has no bearing on US
>>=20
>> contests at the moment.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> In sum, there may be three definitions of "club" to watch: 1) who is
>>=20
>> allowed to fly in the "club" portion of US sports/club class nationals
>>=20
>> 2) what gliders, flying in that contest, earn US team points 3) the
>>=20
>> IGC "club" list for the upcoming world championships. They are all
>>=20
>> different!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> John Cochrane
>
>I have been reading with interest the discussion concerning the club
>class.=
>=20
>I have no "vested" interest in the club class just "great" interest.
>
>I don't understand allowing gliders to be a part of the club class in
this
>=
>country that are not allowed by the IGC. The V1 and the LS-6 seem to be
>the=
> big question. The notion that the V1 and the LS-6 are of the same
vintage
>=
>as the early ASW-20 is just not so. I was lucky enough to be around when
>th=
>e first ASW-20 came into this country. It was accompanied by the mini
>nimbu=
>s, PIK and mosquito and later the LS-3. Only after several refinements of
>t=
>he ASW-20 did the V1 and LS-6 appear on the scene.=20
>
>GUTTING the sports class and spreading the handicaps to extreme seems to
>be=
> of concern. Doesn't leaving the V1 and the LS-6 in sports class help
with
>=
>both problems.=20
>
>Participation seems to be a factor in the RC decisions. I personally
think
>=
>that if the RC would listen to the pilots who have interest in the club
>cla=
>ss rather than dictating to them you may find that interest will grow. Do
>y=
>ou really expect pilots to be enthusiastic and jump in with both feet
when
>=
>their thoughts and ideas are continuously falling on deaf ears.
>
>Rules Committee. Listen to the movers and shakers of the club class in
the
>=
>country. They have have been bold enough to step up and purchase a club
>gli=
>der and are ready to move forward. There are some really smart people in
>th=
>is group who have put a great deal of time and effort into this movement
>ju=
>st as you have.
>
>Club Class glider pilots. If you don't feel that you are being properly
>rep=
>resented on the rules committee be willing to step up and run for a seat
>on=
> the committee. If you feel that the rules committee need new members and
>a=
> new way of thinking put you name on the ballot. 5U


Here here - there is a definition of IGC club class- IT IS AN FAI/IGC
CLASS. why does the USA have to different to the rest of the world?, in
just this one competition class? What's the reasoning? or are you going to
find a way for 301 Libelles to be competetive in 15m or a Diamant 18 to be
competitive in 18m or an old Skylark 4 to be competetive in Open?

Contary to Johns's statement the 'club class' has been pretty well defined
for a number of years now - it DOES NOT change every championship.

Try running a proper IGC defined club class - as a separte comp to sports
class or 2 sports classes - high and low handicaps (could be same
venue/time though) see how it goes -i f insufficent takers then rethink -
instead of creating the basterdised child you are now attempting to create
in a misguided attempt to please everyone. or V1/LS6 drivers -who if
successful would have to change planes to compete at World level anyway.

[[email protected]]

>"The IGC maintains a separate list of what "club" means. This changes
>from championship to championship. The current version does not
>include the V1 or ASW20 b and c. This list has no bearing on US
>contests at the moment."

ASW 20 15m are IGC "Club", even b and c.

Sean Franke
HA

[Marc]

On Nov 13, 4:02*pm, wrote:
> ASW 20 15m are IGC "Club", even b and c.

I'm looking at the October 1st, 2012 OGC Club Class list:

1,08 ASW 20 (15m) (not B,C)

No other entries for ASW 20...

Marc

[kirk.stant]

Wow, who would have thought that LS6s and V1s would become the ugly ducklings of the glider racing community!

If I race in 15M, I go head to head against ASG-29s, ASW-27s, V2s, Dianas. Sure, it's fun and builds character, and I'll do it again in a heartbeat, but is it serious? Not really, it's just fun racing - and I've got a good whine already prepared for when I don't win every day ("wow, it's tough without winglets and disk brakes!").

Sports? Really? No ASTs? No thanks. When I go to a race I like to actually race, not just fly around the countryside with a variety of gliders in a variety of directions. That's a fun meet, not a contest. Fun, but not the same.

I like the format of classic and modern club class, with the split around the ASW-19 or 20 range. I want faster gliders in my class - let them go ahead and mark thermals, and I can tag along and nip them on the finish line (well, in my dreams, at least). Being the fast ship in a handicap class is not really a benefit - think about it and do the math!

You club class elitists who are all bent about including LS6s and V1s are being shortsighted - but hey - it's cool, right? Because Club Class is cool. And your gliders are cool, so make sure the rules are cool too...

What a joke.

Kirk
66

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Nov 13, 6:02*pm, wrote:
> >"The IGC maintains a separate list of what "club" means. This changes
> >from championship to championship. The current version does not
> >include the V1 or ASW20 b and c. This list has no bearing on US
> >contests at the moment."
>
> ASW 20 15m are IGC "Club", even b and c.
>
> Sean Franke
> HA

The link is here
http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
and here
http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_ClubClassList_V1
or just google "IGC club class list"

This is for Argentina. The ASW20 BC are specifically excluded. I
cannot find a handicap list for Finland 2014.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Good bless you RC...what a cowpile responsibility. Your dedication is deep and thank you for your service.

Your proposal may be the best way to go. Who can say for sure? But after all this discussion, it's still not clear to me why the US should go outside the existing FAI rules.

As a Club Class competitor, I'd really be chapped to know the pilot who beat me and made the World Team was flying a sailplane not qualified to fly in the Worlds.

SSA, please give this a good hard look.

Ben

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:26:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Good bless you RC...what a cowpile responsibility. Your dedication is deep and thank you for your service. Your proposal may be the best way to go. Who can say for sure? But after all this discussion, it's still not clear to me why the US should go outside the existing FAI rules. As a Club Class competitor, I'd really be chapped to know the pilot who beat me and made the World Team was flying a sailplane not qualified to fly in the Worlds. SSA, please give this a good hard look. Ben

National competition and team selection do not have to be perfectly aligned..
We have been selecting the members of the US team from those pilots flying in the Sports class that were flying gliders on a list that very closely emulates the list used at recent WGC events.
The USTC is considering what to do in light of ihe introduction of Club. One option is to continue the existing team selection policy. Another is to expand the list in various ways. Personally, I think retaining the limitation that has been in place since 2006 is the thing to do. I speak only as a participant.
With respect to the US national class, it is worth noting that many other countries do not use the IGC list literally, but adjust the list to suit their situation. We are doing the same thing.
A very short and simple study of what gliders flew in US contests in 2012 indicated that by defining the Club class list as the RC has proposed, the population of gliders possibly participating is increased by something around 60%. This would bode well for the possibility of establishing a class with a solid participation base.
Some in the higher performance range may also stay is Sports. We'll see.
This has gotten a lot of thought over quite a number of years.
Cheers
UH

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Nov 13, 10:26*pm, wrote:

> Your proposal may be the best way to go. Who can say for sure? But after all this discussion, it's still not clear to me why the US should go outside the existing FAI rules.
>
> As a Club Class competitor, I'd really be chapped to know the pilot who beat me and made the World Team was flying a sailplane not qualified to fly in the Worlds.
>

How will you feel when you drive all the way across country to the
sports class contest, and then get sent home because 8 people with
just the right gliders didn't show up? Ask the PW5 guys how this
feels.

How would you feel, if you were a new pilot, flew a regionals, found
this great ship to buy, went to club nationals, but they sent you home
because your ASW20B, Schweitzer 1-35, HP 18 or American-made
sparrowhawk isn't on a list maintained by a commission of
international volunteers that meets once a year in Switzerland?

How would you feel if 10 gliders showed up, but 3 of them were like
that, so everybody got sent home?

How would you feel if you got sent home, but then they release the
club class list for Finland, and your ASW20 B is now on it?

The FAI rules are designed to run club class world contests, in
Europe, based on gliders available at European clubs. There is no
reason to expect those rules to work for the US.

> SSA, please give this a good hard look.

I can assure you, days and days have been spent looking at this,
looking through all the angles, reviewing the turnout data from all
the club class regionals, thinking through all the ways that bright
ideas can blow up.

John Cochrane

>
> Ben

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 15:02 14 November 2012, John Cochrane wrote:
>On Nov 13, 10:26=A0pm, wrote:
>
>> Your proposal may be the best way to go. Who can say for sure? But
after
>=
>all this discussion, it's still not clear to me why the US should go
>outsid=
>e the existing FAI rules.
>>
>> As a Club Class competitor, I'd really be chapped to know the pilot who
>b=
>eat me and made the World Team was flying a sailplane not qualified to
fly
>=
>in the Worlds.
>>
>
>How will you feel when you drive all the way across country to the
>sports class contest, and then get sent home because 8 people with
>just the right gliders didn't show up? Ask the PW5 guys how this
>feels.
>
>How would you feel, if you were a new pilot, flew a regionals, found
>this great ship to buy, went to club nationals, but they sent you home
>because your ASW20B, Schweitzer 1-35, HP 18 or American-made
>sparrowhawk isn't on a list maintained by a commission of
>international volunteers that meets once a year in Switzerland?
>
>How would you feel if 10 gliders showed up, but 3 of them were like
>that, so everybody got sent home?
>
>How would you feel if you got sent home, but then they release the
>club class list for Finland, and your ASW20 B is now on it?
>
>The FAI rules are designed to run club class world contests, in
>Europe, based on gliders available at European clubs. There is no
>reason to expect those rules to work for the US.
>
>> SSA, please give this a good hard look.
>
>I can assure you, days and days have been spent looking at this,
>looking through all the angles, reviewing the turnout data from all
>the club class regionals, thinking through all the ways that bright
>ideas can blow up.
>
>John Cochrane
>

John your lack of understanding confounds me- IGC Club class is defined by
a handicap/performance range (which the 20b, ventus and LS6 are not in) -
not a list of gliders - the IGC list can be added to if the glider falls
within that handicap / performance range and is competing in a championship
i.e. a Slingsby Vega is not on the IGC list but could be added to it as it
falls within the handicap range used. That range of handicaps has been
fairly static for a number of years and has not changed at every
championship as you seem to state. Thus a 1-35 and HP18 would probably fall
within that range -a Sparrowhawk I doubt.
Your analogy with PW5 Class is entirely bogus as there are vastly superior
numbers of potential club class ships out there, even in the US.
Does lack of numbers stop you running an Open class comp?

[Markus Graeber]

Just to clear up some misconceptions with regards to the IGC Club class definition. From the current FAI sporting code (http://www.fai.org/igc-documents):

START QUOTE

FAI Sporting Code
Section 3 – Gliding
CLASS D (gliders)
including Class DM (motorgliders)
....
Chapter 6
GLIDER CLASSES and
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
....
6.2 HANDICAPPING
The purpose of handicapping shall be to equalise the performance of competing gliders as far as possible. The handicap values used shall be directly proportional to the expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions for the competition concerned.

If handicapping is to be used, it shall be applied directly to the speed or distance achieved: for finishers, to the speed only, for non-finishers, to the distance only. Competitors completing the task shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not completing the task shall not
be given more than full distance points. Any list of handicaps proposed for a competition must be approved by the IGC.
....
6.5.8 Club Class
The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest levels.
a. ENTRY The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the agreed range of handicap factors for the competition.
b. BALLAST Disposable ballast is not permitted.
c. SCORING Championship scoring formulas shall include handicap factors.
d. WING LOADING Wing loading shall not exceed 38 kg/m2.
....
FAI Sporting Code
Annex A to Section 3 – Gliding
RULES FOR WORLD AND CONTINENTAL
SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS
CLASS D (gliders)
Including Class DM (motorgliders)
....
1.3 CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSES
1.3.1 The Championships shall consist of the one or more classes as described in the main body of Section 3 of the Sporting Code, Chapter 6, and as listed in the Local Procedures.
....
4.2 MAXIMUM TAKE OFF MASS
4.2.1 The following Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) shall be enforced:
....
d. Club Class – No ballast permitted and MTOM limited to the lowest of:
1. Maximum wing loading 38 Kg/m2
2. Maximum certified Take Off Mass without water according to Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS).
....
8.2 COMMON RULES
....
8.2.4 Handicaps
Handicapping shall be used in the Club Class and may be used in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class in Continental Championships only. Organisers shall state in the Local Procedures if Handicapping is to be used in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class.
a. Handicaps shall be taken from the valid IGC Handicap list or any other list approved by the IGC Bureau for the specific Championships.
b. The Organisers shall publish a list of all competitors with their handicaps before the beginning of the Championships.
c. Handicaps shall be applied according to 8.3.2.
....
Appendix 3
IGC Handicap Lists
The IGC Handicap Committee is responsible for the evaluation, review and publication of glider handicaps. The IGC Handicap lists consists of:

IGC Club Class Handicap List
IGC 20 metre Multi-seat Class Handicap list

The handicaps for each class are published on the FAI website.
http://www.fai.org/fai-documents

Effective date for changes to the handicap list is April 1st each year.

General rules for the IGC Club Class:
Only Single Seat Gliders with a handicap index of 1,09 or lower are eligible.
Retrofitting a glider with retractable landing gear increases the Handicap by 0.02.
Retrofitting a glider with winglets increases the Handicap by 0.01.
The pilot is responsible for providing documentation to prove that his glider will be operated within the legal weight limits.
The handicap is based on the performance at a stated glider reference weight, which is based on a typical empty weight plus 110 kg. Where a glider is flown at a higher weight by necessity, the handicap will be increased by 0.005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider exceeds the base handicap weight.

General rules for the IGC 20 metre Multi-seat Class Handicap list:
To be determined.

END QUOTE

The current official handicap range used by the IGC is 0.96 to 1.09 (see http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_ClubClassList_V1). The last handicap range change was in 2006/2007, when the top limit was moved up from 1,07 to 1,09. This led to the addition of ASW 20 WL (15m), Discus 1, ASW 24 WL/24B WL, DG 400 (15m), SZD 55 and ASW 20 (15m) to the official IGC Club class handicap list.

Now the not so obvious actual implementation of the Club class: Have a look at

Section 3 - 6.5.8 Club Class - a. ENTRY The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the agreed range of handicap factors for the competition.

and then at

Annex A to Section 3 - 8.2.4 Handicaps
Handicapping shall be used in the Club Class ...

a. Handicaps shall be taken from the valid IGC Handicap list or any other list approved by the IGC Bureau for the specific Championships.
b. The Organisers shall publish a list of all competitors with their handicaps before the beginning of the Championships.

So yes, the official IGC Club Class handicap range is 0.96 to 1.09 but if the glider of your choice is ostensibly within that range but not on the official IGC Handicap list you are out of luck for a Category 1 event (Worlds/Continentals)... Unless the IGC has approved a different list for the particular you want to fly in...

This is the case for the 2012 Club Class WGC in Argentina this January, see http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_list_ARG_V2. They did not change the handicap range but did add the Std. Astir G102 & SZD-51 Junior to allow these gliders types to participate (even decent Club Class gliders are of limited supply in Argentina).

This illustrates the point that unless the glider of your choice is by name on an approved IGC Club Class handicap list (general or event specific) it won't matter if it falls within the predefined range, it won't be allowed to participate in an FAI/IGC Category 1 event.

The IGC maintains a very short handicap list that only includes the most common glider types in that handicap range, 51 total but in reality only some 15 or so truly different glider types. The current list is, as mentioned, Eurocentric with not a single non-European type on it.

At the 3 previous South American Continental Championships in Argentina 8.2..4 a. was used to approve the Argentine Handicap system to run 3 handicapped classes of distinct handicap ranges, have a look at the results from the last one this past January:

Standard Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1436
15m Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1437
Open Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1438

As you can see the glider list for Std/15m looked more like a Club Class list, this was a fully sanctioned FAI/IGC Continental Championship (Category 1) to which the full FAI/IGC sporting code (competition rules) applied.

Markus Graeber
IGC Delegate - Colombia

[Markus Graeber]

Link to South American Continental Championship Standard Class results got chewed up:

Standard Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1436

[Markus Graeber]

To put the handicaps into perspective, the IGC list is generally based on the German handicap list which includes pretty much anything flying incl. ETA, EB-29 etc. If the rest of the ASW 20s and the Ventus 1 were to be included in the IGC list they would likely get a 1.10, the LS-6 a 1.11, not an earth shattering extension of the current IGC handicap top of 1.09... Latest generation 15m ships would likely be in the 1.14 range...

Markus

[[email protected]]

Again I want to emphasize my personal Thank You to the rules committee for officially sanctioning the Club Class concept here in the U.S.A. This is a complicated issue and I am certain that much thought and discussion has been spent addressing this issue.

I, for one, do not have a problem making limited additions and subtractions from a club class list of gliders. OR, conceptually, to/from a range of handicaps. Lest it escape anyone's notice, it was our conception of "Club" Class/"Modern" Class split of US Sports Class that was named as such and proven out in Moriarty, NM back in 2010. Yes, we cut off particpation of the upper end of the handicap range. But we did so to make for better racing.

My, and I think other's, big problem is with the opening of the RANGE of handicaps allowed. It is too broad to really offer the benefits of Club Class as seen around the world.

What has proven so popular around the world, and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not work as well here in the US, is the idea of "limited handicap racing". This is, in fact, what you're trying to do with Std Class by limiting the benefits of handicapping to .95.

Defining the US Club class as something roughly around the Range of the IGC concept WILL bring older, less costly ships into the competition scene - many of them in the hands of good, dedicated pilots.

The currently proposed conception of Club Class has not been tailored to aim at getting these ships into the competition scene. Sure is it easy to parrot the "run what ya'brung" line to promote the "racing fairness" of US Sports Class as a vibrant competition class, but it is not enough to entice many into the game. A fairer, more tailored racing experience for a limited range of older ships can do that.

It is the the Limited Handicap Range that makes Club Class work so well. By opening up the range you dilute the benefits you are hopefully trying to capture - good, fairer handicapped racing.

Thank you again for your work on this contentious issue.

Tim McAllister EY

[RRK]

If I show up with my 1-26 on regional Club Class competition, and accept that my glider is handicapped at 1.09, will they let me fly ?

[BruceGreeff]

Master Tim has the point.

Following all the rules of the IGC the South African club class recently
was extended to include the Ventus 1 and similar performance ships. FAI
approved list and handicaps and all. The motivation being that the
Standard Class was dying with too few entries to make a race, and a
significant portion of the fleet not competitive in any class.

So - the news is that we now have no standard class racing at all.
(there are only a couple of ASW27s and 24s) Everyone is either in 18m
(Lots of JS1 and Ventus 2, one ASG29 and a couple of LAK17b)
Club class is now an ASW20, Ventus 1, ASW28 class. All the older ships -
including my Std Cirrus are out of contention. The tasks that suit the
higher performance ships make it pointless being there in a 1970s
Standard class ship.

Handicapped racing needs all the competitors to be of reasonably similar
performance - otherwise the "race" becomes so spread out and fractious
that the fun and fairness goes missing.

Set tasks that the Libelle and Cirrus and Pheobus are suited to - and
the Ventus/ASW20 drivers complain it is too short and does not afford
them a chance to race. Set it to suit them and you get situations where
the next thermal is out of range of the first generation, and they
complain that despite the handicap they are excluded from the results by
physics.

So - in our case we still have a limited range of handicaps competing,
but entries are now clustered around the new hot ships.

The first generation ships have retired from racing. But there is
slightly more participation. Does not help when it comes to flying in
Club Class worlds.


On 2012/11/15 5:33 AM, wrote:
> Again I want to emphasize my personal Thank You to the rules committee for officially sanctioning the Club Class concept here in the U.S.A. This is a complicated issue and I am certain that much thought and discussion has been spent addressing this issue.
>
> I, for one, do not have a problem making limited additions and subtractions from a club class list of gliders. OR, conceptually, to/from a range of handicaps. Lest it escape anyone's notice, it was our conception of "Club" Class/"Modern" Class split of US Sports Class that was named as such and proven out in Moriarty, NM back in 2010. Yes, we cut off particpation of the upper end of the handicap range. But we did so to make for better racing.
>
> My, and I think other's, big problem is with the opening of the RANGE of handicaps allowed. It is too broad to really offer the benefits of Club Class as seen around the world.
>
> What has proven so popular around the world, and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not work as well here in the US, is the idea of "limited handicap racing". This is, in fact, what you're trying to do with Std Class by limiting the benefits of handicapping to .95.
>
> Defining the US Club class as something roughly around the Range of the IGC concept WILL bring older, less costly ships into the competition scene - many of them in the hands of good, dedicated pilots.
>
> The currently proposed conception of Club Class has not been tailored to aim at getting these ships into the competition scene. Sure is it easy to parrot the "run what ya'brung" line to promote the "racing fairness" of US Sports Class as a vibrant competition class, but it is not enough to entice many into the game. A fairer, more tailored racing experience for a limited range of older ships can do that.
>
> It is the the Limited Handicap Range that makes Club Class work so well. By opening up the range you dilute the benefits you are hopefully trying to capture - good, fairer handicapped racing.
>
> Thank you again for your work on this contentious issue.
>
> Tim McAllister EY
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[Markus Graeber]

In the last 4 Club Class World/European Champs there has never been a glider in the top 5 that had a base handicap above 1.01 (1.01 is e.g. a Jantar Std. 3/LS 1F/ASW 19 - 1.02 with WL)

The best placing of a glider with a handicap near the top of the permited range (1.07+) has been 6th & 10th (ASW 24 in 2010/2008 - same pilot, he's now flying a DG 100). Best placing for an ASW 20 (1.08/1.09 with WL) has been 19th (2011), for a Discus (1.07/1.08 with WL) 18th (2008).

The sites have been your typical run of the mill European flat land/mixed terrain sites with Rieti as a true mountain site in 2008. It should be safe to assume that they had anything from strong to weak thermal conditions with typical mountain flying in Rieti. National results for Club Class e.g. in Germany will show similar results.

So statistically speaking you do not want to be at the high performance end of the Club class, the ideal performance range seems to be bottom to middle, let's say 0.98 to 1.02 with WL.

I can't see how that would change with a Ventus or LS-6 (or the remaining ASW 20s). How much more performance will a Ventus or LS-6 give you over a first generation ASW-20 to make it a game changer in your normal and statistically relevant range of conditions taking the increased handicap into account?

The question might be how much people initially migrate to higher performance ships when they become allowed because they perceive an advantage even though that might only be the case in extreme conditions that are statistically irrelevant and get absorbed by the handicap disadvantage during your "normal" days.

Here the numbers:

Europeans Club Class 2011
Nitra, Slovak Republic

1 - Std. Cirrus 1.00
2 - LS 1F 1.01
3 - Jantar Std. 3 1.01
4 - Libelle 0.98
5 - ASW 15 0.98
6 - Std. Cirrus 1.00
7 - 18 see above 0.98 - 1.01
19 - ASW 20 1.08
20 - Discus B 1.07

Worlds Club Class 2010
Prievidza, Slovakia

1 - Libelle 0.98
2 - Libelle 0.98
3 - ASW 15 0.98
4 - Hornet WL 1.01
5 - Jantar Std. 3M (Brawo) 1.01
6 - ASW 24 1.07
7 - 20 Libelle/Cirrus/Jantar/LS 1F 0.98 - 1.01
except
14 - LS 4 1.04
18 - ASW 19B WL 1.02

Europeans Club Class 2009
Pociunai, Lithuania

1 - LS 1F 1.01
2 - ASW 19 WL 1.02
3 - LS 1F 1.01
4 - Jantar Std. 3M (Brawo) 1.01
5 - Jantar Std. 1.00
6 - ASW 19 1.01
7 - LS 4a 1.04
8 - Jantar Std. 3 1.01
9 - LS 4 1.04
10 - LS 7 WL 1.07
11 - 20 Cirrus/Jantar/ASW 19/LS 1D/F 0.98 - 1.01
21 - Discus B WL 1.08

Worlds Club Class 2008
Rieti, Italy
1 - Hornet 1.00
2 - Std. Cirrus 1.00
3 - Std. Cirrus 1.00
4 - Std. Cirrus 1.00
5 - LS 1F 1.01
6 - Jantar Std. 3M (Brawo) 1.01
7 - 9 LS 1F/Cirrus/Jantar 0.98 - 1.01
10 - ASW 24 1.07
11 - 18 DG 100/Cirrus/ASW 19/LS 1F 0.98 - 1.01
18 - Discus 1.07
20 - ASW 19 1.01

Markus

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:43:44 AM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> And the Ventus and LS6 will have a significant advantage at this years Mifflin Nationals if their are a few ridge days. I also wonder if you will ever get enough "modern" gliders to have two classes if the Ventus and LS6 are considered "club" gliders.
>
>
>
> > After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, we had 2 years of waiting period before this could be implemented .
>
> >
>
> > Meantime RC quietly expands list to LS-6 and this year quietly to
>
> >
>
> > Ventus.(without asking anybody,without waiting period)
>
> >
>
> > It is very disappointing that RC member showed up in Parowan Sports Nationals
>
> >
>
> > with Ventus as a big surprise of new extended club class list !
>
> >
>
> > RW

so we'll be seeing you there?

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:51:43 AM UTC-5, gliderstud wrote:
> Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.
>
>
>
> Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.
>
>
>
> By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time ;)
>
>
>
> ...see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

A GREAT BIG AMEN! See you there my friend.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:31:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:43 AM UTC-6, gliderstud wrote:
>
> > Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20....just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time ;)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ...see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.
>
>
>
> Stud, you are so awesome! If I had a daughter, I wanted her to have your kids. I particularly like your shy modesty, never bragging about accomplishments or the superhuman difficulties you have overcome.
>
> You must be much beloved by your peers and even your adversaries.

I like him.

[Sean F (F2)]

Well said Sean Franke.

After thinking a bit, I see no reason Sports cant remain as is (126 to ash25) for those within the club range who are fearful of "dangerous and reckless" FAI rules. :-) And no real reason to water down this new US Club class by over expanding the class both up and down. Club class is wildly successful. Why alter it? especially as a first step? It is also a chance for the US to have a pure racing class. Would be great to see how that is received by US pilots who want pure racing.

To play devils advocate: Why are we calling this Club again if its actually NOT Club class as the rest of the world has standardized (both in range of gliders and tasking rules) and grown to wild levels of success?

Isn't this "really" just US Sports class "low performance?"

Hmmmm.

[Markus Graeber]

Again the rest of the World has NOT standardized their Club class definitions to IGC rules. Many have done adjustments to account for national particularities. As an example two large gliding countries below.

The UK:

The 2012 Rules for BGA Rated Competitions
....
10.2. Club Class. Water ballast must not be carried, scores are handicapped, and gliders listed in Appendix 1 with a Speed Index not exceeding 98 before additional performance enhancement handicap increments, are eligible to enter. In addition, all gliders listed on the current IGC Club Class handicap list are eligible. All gliders will fly at their allotted BGA Speed Index.
The only ballast of any sort that is permissible is that intended solely for the purpose of centre of gravity adjustment. This must be securely installed in such a way as to not invalidate the glider’s C of A.
Two seat gliders may be flown in the Club Class, provided that at registration it is declared whether the glider is flown solo or dual. The number of people on board may not be changed during the competition and in all cases the P2 must meet the requirement of 6.6.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2012.pdf - Page 30

There are many gliders on the BGA Speed Index that are not on the IGC list nor does the BGA impose a lower handicap limit. The upper limit of 98 is similar to the IGC limit.

France:

4.1. REGLEMENT DES COMPETITIONS FEDERALES DE VOL A VOILE
....
16.2. Handicaps FFVV « Classe Club »

http://ffvv.org/files/2012/05/np41-reglementcompetitions-edition2012rev2.pdf - Page 31

<Translation> A glider or ultralight handicap of less than 96 will be allowed to participate when adopting the lowest handicap which is: 96. The organizers may also provide a ranking of "guest competitor" (HC) and use the original glider handicap (see local procedures). <End Translation>

There are quite a few UL glider on the French list, they are relatively popular in France. The handicap range is the same as the IGC's.

Markus

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Nov 15, 5:43*pm, Markus Graeber > wrote:
> Again the rest of the World has NOT standardized their Club class definitions to IGC rules. Many have done adjustments to account for national particularities. As an example two large gliding countries below.
>
> The UK:
>
> The 2012 Rules for BGA Rated Competitions
> ...
> 10.2. Club Class. Water ballast must not be carried, scores are handicapped, and gliders listed in Appendix 1 with a Speed Index not exceeding 98 before additional *performance enhancement handicap increments, are eligible to enter. In addition, all gliders listed on the current IGC Club Class handicap list are eligible. All gliders will fly at their allotted BGA Speed Index.
> The only ballast of any sort that is permissible is that intended solely for the purpose of centre of gravity adjustment. This must be securely installed in such a way as to not invalidate the glider’s C of A.
> Two seat gliders may be flown in the Club Class, provided that at registration it is declared whether the glider is flown solo or dual. The number of people on board may not be changed during the competition and in all cases the P2 must meet the requirement of 6.6.
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2012.pdf- Page 30
>
> There are many gliders on the BGA Speed Index that are not on the IGC list nor does the BGA impose a lower handicap limit. The upper limit of 98 is similar to the IGC limit.
>
> France:
>
> 4.1. REGLEMENT DES COMPETITIONS FEDERALES DE VOL A VOILE
> ...
> 16.2. Handicaps FFVV « Classe *Club »
>
> http://ffvv.org/files/2012/05/np41-reglementcompetitions-edition2012r...- Page 31
>
> <Translation> A glider or ultralight handicap of less than 96 will be allowed to participate when adopting the lowest handicap which is: 96. The organizers may also provide a ranking of "guest competitor" (HC) and use the original glider handicap (see local procedures). <End Translation>
>
> There are quite a few UL glider on the French list, they are relatively popular in France. The handicap range is the same as the IGC's.
>
> Markus

Markus, none of the examples (UK, France) include Ventus or LS-6. It
is not just gliders it is also tasking. It is quite different to fly
Speed task vs Area task. The handicap range in the U.S. club class
should be have the same range as the IGC handicap range. Tasks calling
should also be more aligned with IGC tasking read more Speed tasks.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Nov 15, 5:43*pm, Markus Graeber > wrote:
> Again the rest of the World has NOT standardized their Club class definitions to IGC rules. Many have done adjustments to account for national particularities. As an example two large gliding countries below.
>
> The UK:
>
> The 2012 Rules for BGA Rated Competitions
> ...
> 10.2. Club Class. Water ballast must not be carried, scores are handicapped, and gliders listed in Appendix 1 with a Speed Index not exceeding 98 before additional *performance enhancement handicap increments, are eligible to enter. In addition, all gliders listed on the current IGC Club Class handicap list are eligible. All gliders will fly at their allotted BGA Speed Index.
> The only ballast of any sort that is permissible is that intended solely for the purpose of centre of gravity adjustment. This must be securely installed in such a way as to not invalidate the glider’s C of A.
> Two seat gliders may be flown in the Club Class, provided that at registration it is declared whether the glider is flown solo or dual. The number of people on board may not be changed during the competition and in all cases the P2 must meet the requirement of 6.6.
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2012.pdf- Page 30
>
> There are many gliders on the BGA Speed Index that are not on the IGC list nor does the BGA impose a lower handicap limit. The upper limit of 98 is similar to the IGC limit.
>
> France:
>
> 4.1. REGLEMENT DES COMPETITIONS FEDERALES DE VOL A VOILE
> ...
> 16.2. Handicaps FFVV « Classe *Club »
>
> http://ffvv.org/files/2012/05/np41-reglementcompetitions-edition2012r...- Page 31
>
> <Translation> A glider or ultralight handicap of less than 96 will be allowed to participate when adopting the lowest handicap which is: 96. The organizers may also provide a ranking of "guest competitor" (HC) and use the original glider handicap (see local procedures). <End Translation>
>
> There are quite a few UL glider on the French list, they are relatively popular in France. The handicap range is the same as the IGC's.
>
> Markus

Markus, none of the examples (UK, France) include Ventus or LS-6 in
their list (due to handicaps being out of range). It
is not just gliders it is also tasking. It is quite different to fly
Speed task vs Area task. The handicap range in the U.S. club class
should be in the same range as the IGC handicap range. Tasks calling
should also be more aligned with IGC tasking read more Speed tasks.

[Markus Graeber]

Andrzej, I wasn't claiming inclusion of the Ventus/LS-6 in the previous post. The point I was trying to make is that quite a few countries adjust their national Club class to national circumstances by including additional gliders (incl. UL & two seaters), adjust the permitted range in general (no lower limit e.g. in the UK, two options for including low performance gliders in France) etc. The near universal pure implementation of the IGC Club Class on the national level around the world is a myth, sorry. As far as I know Germany and Italy do have it, UK and France do not.

What is important is the club class concept and I fully agree that you need a limited handicap range (or not have to worry about too low/high handicaps when tasking) to allow e.g. for coherent speed tasking (and with it tasking more in line with FAI Worlds/Continentals). But the purists that claim you have to do it 100% the IGC way like the rest of the world or it's not going to work are missing the point IMHO (and this is coming from an IGC delegate ;-).

How far you can deviate e.g. from the IGC handicap range without putting the Club Class concept in jeopardy is of course open for debate. I personally don't see much of an issue to slightly extend the upper range to include the Ventus/LS-6 crowd, see the statistics I posted from the last 4 World/European Club Class Championships with the World's best Club Class pilots battling it out.

IMHO if an early ASW 20 is apparently not the most competitive glider for top level Club class competitions a Ventus or LS-6 will not suddenly turn out to be a game changer that will consistently smoke the lower performance part of the field because of their assumed superior performance in extreme conditions. Tasking of course plays a role, any CD who's hell bent on sending the lower performance ships into the mud will find a way of doing it, be the top dog an early ASW 20 or a LS-6.

For lack of equipment and pilots more and more countries do purely handicapped racing with sensible ranges to allow for good tasking. Even the IGC has started doing it out of necessity for the South American Continental Championships as mentioned earlier (three handicapped classes in that case). The trick is (and with it the debate) how far you can spread the handicap range for one class without making good and challenging tasking too difficult. E.g. at what point would it be sensible to split a handicapped competiton class in two to limit the handicap range to ensure good tasking. That's the basic idea behind the Club/Sports Class approach the US RC is now trying to implement.

The equipment available is a key consideration a can vary widely between countries, hence IMHO there is no point in insisting on a one fits all approach, even the IGC doesn't do it. The other big variable are the CDs and their ability to task sensibly for what's available.

Stepping back a for a moment and moving away from the narrow focus on the current implementation of the club class, consider that the FAI Sporting Code states the following intention/purpose:

> 6.5.8 Club Class
> The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high
> performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international
> championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the
> highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest
> levels.

The actual implementation of this noble & worthy goal at FAI level through the current IGC Club Class definition is, IMHO, pretty far away from what is outlined in 6.5.8. A Nimbus 2 or Kestrel is inexpensive (less than e.g. an ASW 20) but they are definitely high performance and would allow for high quality international championships yet they have no place to go on the FAI Cat 1 comp level...

The UK e.g. does allow Mini Nimbuses and 17m Kestrels but the IGC implementation of the Club Class concept is in practical terms a competition class for earlier generation standard/15m class gliders that are not competitive anymore in these classes. To use a US analogy you might call it IGC affirmative action for early generation standard/15m class gliders triggered by the European glider demographics of the turn of the century, a demographic that has continued to change considerably over the last decade or so (the FAI Club Class was introduced in 2001).

I have been pushing for developing a long term vision in the IGC for where we will be heading with the design and handicapped classes since it will only get worse. The developments on the national level are already making this clear and the US situation is a prime example. No luck so far though, the IGC unfortunately often tends to move at glacial speed...

Anyway, lots of food for thought, my 2 cents worth for this very important debate.

Markus

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> It is the the Limited Handicap Range that makes Club Class work so well. By opening up the range you dilute the benefits you are hopefully trying to capture - good, fairer handicapped racing.

This is exactly why we split sports class, with typically 30-40
entries in two. It gives smaller handicap racing, and allows for a
better race. You're welcome.

As soon as we get 60 entries, with a viable low-performace group, we
can split it up into three.

I mean, really, why not have even purer racing with a handicap range
of 0.939-0.941? Answer, because there are not enough entries.
Handicapped racing is always about realistically carving up the
available entries into groups, large enough to make a good race, small
enough to make a fair and enjoyable race not too dependent on luck of
weather, tasking, and handicap.

You're forgetting that "good, fairer racing" also depends on numbers.
8 guys in a narrow class is not as good a race as 25 in a very
slightly broader class. One of the big lessons of our team self-
examination process is that Europeans fly contests with 50 gliders and
10 world level pilots in them. 8 with 1 is not a substitute 12 gliders
is a rock bottom. Really, a successful world-level-preparation race
needs 30 gliders to be considered successful. Yes, that makes it a lot
harder to win. That's the point.

No other class says "you may not fly your glider in this race. Go
home" You are allowed to fly a ventus1 asw20, or discus LS4, or even a
1-26 if you're so inclined in 15 meter class. That's why both halves
of sports have open bottom ends.

> The currently proposed conception of Club Class has not been tailored to aim at getting these ships into the competition scene.

This is absolutely false. The RC's number one concern, and the number
one guiding principle in all our club class discussion has been how to
increase participation. You may rightly accuse us of not paying enough
attention to preparing the team for WGC, because we're too interested
in participation. But not that we're insufficiently focused on
participation!

We're talking about nationals. Next year. To go to nationals, you have
to participate in regionals and get on the ranking list. To get good
enough for nationals you have to participate in regionals. We looked
hard at the numbers. Go look at my Soaring article. The numbers are
just not there yet.

That's why we've been having club class regionals and super regionals
for several years now. And we can have as many as anyone wants to
schedule and show up for, with nothing but cheering from RC. To have a
successful class at the national level, you have to have a successful
class at the regional level. If people won't show up for any contest
that does not give US team points, frankly, they're never going to get
good enough to belong on that team.

You're making the usual "build it and they will come" argument, that
somehow declaring a much narrower nationals class will magically make
gliders appear that do not appear at super regionals, do not come to
sports nationals, and aren't even on the seeding list so they can't
appear. We're not talking about 3 or 4, to make this viable you have
to double the numbers that show up at sports nationals in "club"
gliders.

There is a bit of burned once, twice shy here. Club advocates said,
"restrict team selection to club gliders, then lots will show up, and
all the FAI guys will borrow a club glider to go to nationals." It
didn't work. Club advocates said, "restrict team selection to people
who haven't been to WGC before, so the little guy feels he has a
chance. That will double the numbers." It didn't work. Club advocates
said "tasking must ignore gliders below 1.0 handicap so we can have
real races, that will bring them all out." It didn't work. World class
advocates at IGC said "build a simple cheap one design glider so you
can have the "purest" race possible, and they'll line up for it" It
didn't work.

The path we have followed with club class is designed to build
participation without going out on a cliff that falls to pieces if the
theory is wrong again. We start with strong encouragement for
regional and super regional competitions, where you can experiment
with handicap ranges, rules tweaks, etc., find out what works in the
US, with our base of pilots and gliders. Build a base. That has been
successful, though the 10-12 gliders that show up were a good deal
below the forecasts. Anyway, kudos to those who worked hard on it. We
included lots of above sweeteners for club within sports nationals.
Now it has grown to the point that we can split sports nationals in
two, but keeping the upper limit where it was all along in the US
(V1/20ABC). You have everything you want, you just have to let a few
1-34s play along. The idea "20 gliders are waiting to come to
nationals, as soon as you write a rule that the 1-34 can't come
pollute our contest" is just silly.

This is realistic and responsible. Just pounding for "pure club class
now" -- and damn the torpedoes we all go home if not enough show up --
is not. Get 30 "club" gliders to show up at Mifflin, figure out where
the low performance gliders can go, and we can start talking about
next steps.

John Cochrane

[Mike I Green]

Marcus,

I don't think it is fair to bring facts into this argument. Shame on you.

MG

On 11/14/2012 2:33 PM, Markus Graeber wrote:
> Just to clear up some misconceptions with regards to the IGC Club class definition. From the current FAI sporting code (http://www.fai.org/igc-documents):
>
> START QUOTE
>
> FAI Sporting Code
> Section 3 – Gliding
> CLASS D (gliders)
> including Class DM (motorgliders)
> ...
> Chapter 6
> GLIDER CLASSES and
> INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
> ...
> 6.2 HANDICAPPING
> The purpose of handicapping shall be to equalise the performance of competing gliders as far as possible. The handicap values used shall be directly proportional to the expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions for the competition concerned.
>
> If handicapping is to be used, it shall be applied directly to the speed or distance achieved: for finishers, to the speed only, for non-finishers, to the distance only. Competitors completing the task shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not completing the task shall not
> be given more than full distance points. Any list of handicaps proposed for a competition must be approved by the IGC.
> ...
> 6.5.8 Club Class
> The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest levels.
> a. ENTRY The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the agreed range of handicap factors for the competition.
> b. BALLAST Disposable ballast is not permitted.
> c. SCORING Championship scoring formulas shall include handicap factors.
> d. WING LOADING Wing loading shall not exceed 38 kg/m2.
> ...
> FAI Sporting Code
> Annex A to Section 3 – Gliding
> RULES FOR WORLD AND CONTINENTAL
> SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS
> CLASS D (gliders)
> Including Class DM (motorgliders)
> ...
> 1.3 CHAMPIONSHIP CLASSES
> 1.3.1 The Championships shall consist of the one or more classes as described in the main body of Section 3 of the Sporting Code, Chapter 6, and as listed in the Local Procedures.
> ...
> 4.2 MAXIMUM TAKE OFF MASS
> 4.2.1 The following Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) shall be enforced:
> ...
> d. Club Class – No ballast permitted and MTOM limited to the lowest of:
> 1. Maximum wing loading 38 Kg/m2
> 2. Maximum certified Take Off Mass without water according to Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS).
> ...
> 8.2 COMMON RULES
> ...
> 8.2.4 Handicaps
> Handicapping shall be used in the Club Class and may be used in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class in Continental Championships only. Organisers shall state in the Local Procedures if Handicapping is to be used in the 20 metre Multi-seat Class.
> a. Handicaps shall be taken from the valid IGC Handicap list or any other list approved by the IGC Bureau for the specific Championships.
> b. The Organisers shall publish a list of all competitors with their handicaps before the beginning of the Championships.
> c. Handicaps shall be applied according to 8.3.2.
> ...
> Appendix 3
> IGC Handicap Lists
> The IGC Handicap Committee is responsible for the evaluation, review and publication of glider handicaps. The IGC Handicap lists consists of:
>
> IGC Club Class Handicap List
> IGC 20 metre Multi-seat Class Handicap list
>
> The handicaps for each class are published on the FAI website.
> http://www.fai.org/fai-documents
>
> Effective date for changes to the handicap list is April 1st each year.
>
> General rules for the IGC Club Class:
> Only Single Seat Gliders with a handicap index of 1,09 or lower are eligible.
> Retrofitting a glider with retractable landing gear increases the Handicap by 0.02.
> Retrofitting a glider with winglets increases the Handicap by 0.01.
> The pilot is responsible for providing documentation to prove that his glider will be operated within the legal weight limits.
> The handicap is based on the performance at a stated glider reference weight, which is based on a typical empty weight plus 110 kg. Where a glider is flown at a higher weight by necessity, the handicap will be increased by 0.005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider exceeds the base handicap weight.
>
> General rules for the IGC 20 metre Multi-seat Class Handicap list:
> To be determined.
>
> END QUOTE
>
> The current official handicap range used by the IGC is 0.96 to 1.09 (see http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_ClubClassList_V1). The last handicap range change was in 2006/2007, when the top limit was moved up from 1,07 to 1,09. This led to the addition of ASW 20 WL (15m), Discus 1, ASW 24 WL/24B WL, DG 400 (15m), SZD 55 and ASW 20 (15m) to the official IGC Club class handicap list.
>
> Now the not so obvious actual implementation of the Club class: Have a look at
>
> Section 3 - 6.5.8 Club Class - a. ENTRY The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the agreed range of handicap factors for the competition.
>
> and then at
>
> Annex A to Section 3 - 8.2.4 Handicaps
> Handicapping shall be used in the Club Class ...
>
> a. Handicaps shall be taken from the valid IGC Handicap list or any other list approved by the IGC Bureau for the specific Championships.
> b. The Organisers shall publish a list of all competitors with their handicaps before the beginning of the Championships.
>
> So yes, the official IGC Club Class handicap range is 0.96 to 1.09 but if the glider of your choice is ostensibly within that range but not on the official IGC Handicap list you are out of luck for a Category 1 event (Worlds/Continentals)... Unless the IGC has approved a different list for the particular you want to fly in...
>
> This is the case for the 2012 Club Class WGC in Argentina this January, see http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_SP_Handicap_list_ARG_V2. They did not change the handicap range but did add the Std. Astir G102 & SZD-51 Junior to allow these gliders types to participate (even decent Club Class gliders are of limited supply in Argentina).
>
> This illustrates the point that unless the glider of your choice is by name on an approved IGC Club Class handicap list (general or event specific) it won't matter if it falls within the predefined range, it won't be allowed to participate in an FAI/IGC Category 1 event.
>
> The IGC maintains a very short handicap list that only includes the most common glider types in that handicap range, 51 total but in reality only some 15 or so truly different glider types. The current list is, as mentioned, Eurocentric with not a single non-European type on it.
>
> At the 3 previous South American Continental Championships in Argentina 8.2.4 a. was used to approve the Argentine Handicap system to run 3 handicapped classes of distinct handicap ranges, have a look at the results from the last one this past January:
>
> Standard Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1436
> 15m Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1437
> Open Class - http://igcrankings.fai.org/CompPage.php?compid=1438
>
> As you can see the glider list for Std/15m looked more like a Club Class list, this was a fully sanctioned FAI/IGC Continental Championship (Category 1) to which the full FAI/IGC sporting code (competition rules) applied.
>
> Markus Graeber
> IGC Delegate - Colombia
>


--
Mike I Green

[[email protected]]

Markus:

Thank you for injecting a tremendous amount of fact into this discussion. Without actual facts, there can be no informed decision-making. That is what I wish to promote more of here.

While I am among the more vocal pilots for a separate Club Class to be implemented here in the US, I am not against making modifications to the range of allowed handicaps for next year's trial Club Class Nationals. We did it in Moriarty in 2011 to good effect. We brought in additional glider types (V1, Ls6, ASW20) at the low end, while expanding up a bit at the high end to try and capture the many HP gliders, among others.

But, I have to disagree with the point that the V1, LS6, and now D2 type ships are not potential game changers, especially in a US Club Class. These glider are not necessarily game changers in European conditions. When I flew my Libelle, it was a terrific ship in the East - and not so much in the west. In fact when I went to make the 2006 US Team I borrowed a Hph 304cz for the effort.

When US nationals are held west of the Mississippi it is my belief that the gliders with performance better than a Discus 1 are definitely advantaged and skew the results in favor of the lower (US)/higher(overseas) handicaps. There is one prominent US Club Class pilot who has an east coast glider and a western conditions glider. One wonders why would this be?

Most of the specific comp results posted (Thank you Markus) have been for very European conditions that I equate to East of the Mississippi conditions here in the US. I would be interested to see some broken-out results from US Sports Class Nationals, and broadly subscribed Sports Class Regionals, held west of the Mississippi to see if my suspicion is confirmed???

Whatever the eventual configuration for a US Club Class in 2013, please count on me being at Mifflin, flying Club Class (hooray!!!), and being thankful for the opportunity to do so after all these years.

And again, Thank You to everyone for their well thought comments on this topic.

Sincerely,
Tim McAllister EY