Re: Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

[WaltWX[_2_]]

MY PREFERENCE ON COMBINING STANDARD CVLASS AFTER FURTHER
REFLECTION (July 17th)

After further reflection, I'm going to agree with Steve Northcraft and choose to group the STDs with the 15M (and OPENs if necessary). The 15M and OPENs are having trouble getting sufficient numbers as well.

My reasons:

1) Standard Class pilots who compete seriously at the Nats generally are flying top ships (Discus 2, LS-8's) which are similar in performance to the 15M last generation in weak or indecisive conditions.

2) Competing against top 15M National pilots gives the U.S. Team a "head-to-head" comparison of ability when it comes to selecting for the U.S. Team. If STDs were grouped with the Club Class, comparisons would be harder because of different location for the competition and weather.

3) I prefer to fly against the best competition pilots which are generally in the 15M class.

Comments:

1) As far as scoring is concerned, the 15M Nats could remain un-handicapped.. Select the National STD champion from the best placing STD pilots at the 15M Nats. In fact, a trophy could be given to the 2nd and 3rd placing (STD) pilots as well.

2) I'm not opposed to handicapping the 15M Nats for all ships, but this may not be popular with the 15M racers. After all, that's what the CLUB CLASS is for.

3) As long as the STD pilots are given due consideration and ranking with a new U.S. Team selection process, the lack of handicapping the combined STD 15M Nats would not be a problem for me. I understand that a more flexible U.S. Team process is being considered that would recognize performance across classes.

4) If the STD 15M Nats (possibly combined OPEN as well) were on one side of the country while the CLUB CLASS was on the other, that would give STD pilots two venues for being considered and qualifying on the U.S. Team for STD class. The only consideration is that the best placing STD pilot in the CLUB Nats could not hold the title, "STD Class National Champion". Wait a second... why not create two STD Class National champions per year... one from the CLUB CLASS and one from STD/15M (or West and East champion)? Just a thought... added enticement to fly in STD Class.

Walt Rogers WX

PS - After making up my mind where I fall in the combing STD Class issue, I saw Bruno Vassel's announcement about combining STD, 15M and OPENs at Nephi for 2016. That's fantastic! Now, it would make sense to place CLUB CLASS NATS in the Eastern U.S. for 2016. Where will the CLUB CLASS Nats be in 2015?

[[email protected]]

Thanks Walt -

I have one clarifying question. Your proposal is essentially for co-located, but separate Standard and 15M nationals. If there are fewer than the requisite number of Standard Class pilots for a Nationals should the Standard Class be cancelled or combined with 15m and if combined would that be with or without a handicap?

I like the idea of offering standard class gliders the ability to fly Club on one coast or 15m combined on the other coast and agree that many Std pilots would likely elect to fly against 15m, but that could change over time if more top pilots get excited about Club or if team selection criteria change. The flexibility for Std pilots to fly one class or the other to suit their locale is a key to helping Club attract top pilots but it could also deplete the attendance at the Std/15m contest and make it hard to get 10 std class gliders to sign up, thereby threatening the viability of a separate class.

Just trying to think through the consequences, implications and potential options.

- Andy, 9B

[WaltWX[_2_]]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 6:51:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Thanks Walt -
>
>
>
> I have one clarifying question. Your proposal is essentially for >co-located, but separate Standard and 15M nationals. If there are fewer >than the requisite number of Standard Class pilots for a Nationals >should the Standard Class be cancelled or combined with 15m and if >combined would that be with or without a handicap?

Actually, it was not made clear in my reply whether the STD and 15M Nats were scored as separate Nationals while being co-located. I suppose one could do that, but it doesn't seem necessary. If the STDs and 15M were scored separately, differences in ranking outcome for STD pilots would probably be negligible and it's not clear to me if would make difference. On weak survival days, I don't see completion ratios being much different between STD and 15M ships. In fact, I implicitly intended that there would be one Nationals scoring pool for both STD and 15M ships for simplicity. My recommendation was that I was "ok" with not handicapping STDs, because there will still be a 1st place, 2nd and third trophy for the highest placing STDs. Perhaps one could handicap all ships in the STD/15M scoring pool, but as I noted, this is probably not popular right now. The final cumulative points for the STD class could be modified later in the U.S. Team Selection process to normalize performance difference.

>
>
>
> I like the idea of offering standard class gliders the ability to fly >Club on one coast or 15m combined on the other coast and agree that many >Std pilots would likely elect to fly against 15m, but that could change >over time if more top pilots get excited about Club or if team selection >criteria change. The flexibility for Std pilots to fly one class or the >other to suit their locale is a key to helping Club attract top pilots >but it could also deplete the attendance at the Std/15m contest and make >it hard to get 10 std class gliders to sign up, thereby threatening the >viability of a separate class.

At some point (perhaps in the not too distant future), one may not get 10 STD class gliders to sign up with the 15M Nats. But, does it really matter? If we declare that the STD champion is the BEST STD performance in the co-located 15M Nats, so be it. When the number of signed up STDs drops too low (see 2014 rules 5.2.1.1 regarding minimal entries for a valid National Championship), say five entries, then that's the end of the STD Class National Championship era. Even if we decided to not award a STD Class National Champion, the new U.S. Team Selection rules could be flexible enough to accept one or two stellar performing pilots for future World Gliding Contests.

Further on down the road, the Club Class may build in popularity, and you're right, that may pull down entries in the co-located STD/15M Nats. But still, one can select STD Class entries from the Club Class pool in future World Championships.


>
>
>
> Just trying to think through the consequences, implications and potential options.
>
>
>
> - Andy, 9B

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:38:17 PM UTC-7, WaltWX wrote:

> Actually, it was not made clear in my reply whether the STD and 15M Nats were scored as separate Nationals while being co-located. I suppose one could do that, but it doesn't seem necessary. If the STDs and 15M were scored separately, differences in ranking outcome for STD pilots would probably be negligible and it's not clear to me if would make difference. On weak survival days, I don't see completion ratios being much different between STD and 15M ships. In fact, I implicitly intended that there would be one Nationals scoring pool for both STD and 15M ships for simplicity. My recommendation was that I was "ok" with not handicapping STDs, because there will still be a 1st place, 2nd and third trophy for the highest placing STDs. Perhaps one could handicap all ships in the STD/15M scoring pool, but as I noted, this is probably not popular right now. The final cumulative points for the STD class could be modified later in the U.S. Team Selection process to normalize performance difference.



I think it all only matters if you care about having a Standard Class National Champion or US representation at the WGC for the Standard Class. If either of those matter then you'd need to have a minimum number of contestants IN THE CLASS to make the contest count for the class. Today that is 10 competitors. Without 10 Standard Class gliders you could't have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd for Standard as a sub-ranking. You couldn't have a separate Standard Class champion (from a Nationals or WGC perspective) unless there were at least 10 Standard Class gliders flying. If, for example, there were only 1 or 2 Standard Class Competitors in a 15M Nationals there could be no Standard Class Champion (not enough competition) - under that scenario the Standard Class gliders would have to beat the 15M gliders outright for placing in the contest and PRL points would be calculated against the winner across all gliders, not just Standard.

In other words, it would be just like Montague this year - you could fly, but you get no separate accounting as Standard Class unless there are at least 10 of you flying in Standard. Is that what you were advocating for?

9B

[Steve Koerner]

Speaking for myself as a 15m pilot, I really do not want the definition of 15m ruined with handicapping. And the idea posed here about having a handicap adjust to the weather is extra extra icky. 15m numbers have not been fantastic but it's still the strongest class and the numbers are good enough for sure. It doesn't need to be messed with please.

Yes, collocate with Standard is fine. That creates a good situation for Standard guys that they can know for sure that they will have a contest to fly. If they get 10, they have a Standard Nationals; if not, they can fly in 15m. No handicap.

[[email protected]]

I expect a lot of people share Steve's misgivings about handicaps - including me. On the other hand, it isn't clear to me how satisfying it is to fly a nationals in a glider where you have to make up as much as 60 points per day. WX and SN did it this year. As more people buy 18+M gliders 15M could face a similar reality.

Some here have said the vision for the future needs to be more bold and radical and others have said even the current state of affairs (allowing the latest generation Standard class gliders to fly in Club) is too radical.

One thing is for sure - the trajectory is down so status quo will likely mean more instances of cancelled nationals, particularly for Standard. Is the answer to tell them to fly OLC since 15m doesn't want them and Club doesn't either?

That makes it relatively easy for the RC and other governing bodies - do as little as possible and let it happen.

That's icky feeling too.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 7:06:43 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> Yes, collocate with Standard is fine. That creates a good situation for Standard guys that they can know for sure that they will have a contest to fly. If they get 10, they have a Standard Nationals; if not, they can fly in 15m. No handicap.

A little thought experiment.

Four Standard Class gliders flew at the 15M Nationals this year - three D2s and an LS-8 - along with a dozen 15M gliders. Not a giant turnout - particularly without the Standards.

Without handicaps they finished 5, 9, 10 and 12 out of 15 that flew the whole contest. With a 2-6% handicap they would have finished 3, 9, 10 and 12. The size of the handicap within that range didn't make any difference in the placement, but overall it would have meant a podium for WX whose raw score was 6.7% off of the winner's. Nice flying Walt.

The issue is one of some consequence at the top of the scoresheet. How you feel about that may depend on where you sit.

9B

[Sean Fidler]

9B I just wanted to commend you all for doing a really great job of moderating this very complex discussion. It is a tremendously difficult job.

After some time to think about it, I now believe that we are all going to have to accept some handicap influence (in all of our classes) if we want to increased attendance and improve financials for our precious contest organizers.

The health and community of the sport trumps pure classes. That appears to be the key point of this discussion and the reality today. The points that have been made on this are compelling.

I am certainly willing to accept that reality in general. I look forward to helping and participating in the future.

For whatever it's worth,

Sean

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 18 July 2014 07:06:43 UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Speaking for myself as a 15m pilot, I really do not want the definition of 15m ruined with handicapping. And the idea posed here about having a handicap adjust to the weather is extra extra icky. 15m numbers have not been fantastic but it's still the strongest class and the numbers are good enough for sure. It doesn't need to be messed with please.
>
>
>
> Yes, collocate with Standard is fine. That creates a good situation for Standard guys that they can know for sure that they will have a contest to fly. If they get 10, they have a Standard Nationals; if not, they can fly in 15m. No handicap.

Steve - your suggestion requires that if classes are combined then Std cannot possibly be competitive except in the weakest average weather. Its a not in anyway aligned with pilot skill comparison (the point of handicaps)with gliders that are clearly not the same - even if they are 'close'. Please refer to my post on Hobbs 2013 experience.

I'm still not sure why handicapping necessarily needs to *ruin* anything. We went limited range handicapping in Standard and it didnt change the racing experience at all - it was just too little too late to quickly bring in folks that had already self selected out of competition.

Handicapping model hasnt changed in decades and we now have data analysis tools not dreamed of when Carl Herold first started putting handicaps together - handicapping has evolved into a dirty word in some classes but no-one has actually thought about improving the handicapping to the point where it is no longer the Satan, the AntiChrist and the root of all Uncertainty in final pilot comparison. Thats why I'll be working on the therma-capping idea and running trials on past results to check it makes sense or not.

Yet another option for the Std situation may be to allow 15m to fly Std with negative flap locked out and a 9lb wingload limit for all. I cant see it happening myself until 15m also falls apart and no one wants to think about that it seems.

2T

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 1:12:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, 18 July 2014 07:06:43 UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
>
> > Speaking for myself as a 15m pilot, I really do not want the definition of 15m ruined with handicapping. And the idea posed here about having a handicap adjust to the weather is extra extra icky. 15m numbers have not been fantastic but it's still the strongest class and the numbers are good enough for sure. It doesn't need to be messed with please.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes, collocate with Standard is fine. That creates a good situation for Standard guys that they can know for sure that they will have a contest to fly. If they get 10, they have a Standard Nationals; if not, they can fly in 15m. No handicap.
>
>
>
> Steve - your suggestion requires that if classes are combined then Std cannot possibly be competitive except in the weakest average weather. Its a not in anyway aligned with pilot skill comparison (the point of handicaps)with gliders that are clearly not the same - even if they are 'close'. Please refer to my post on Hobbs 2013 experience.
>
>
>
> I'm still not sure why handicapping necessarily needs to *ruin* anything. We went limited range handicapping in Standard and it didnt change the racing experience at all - it was just too little too late to quickly bring in folks that had already self selected out of competition.
>
>
>
> Handicapping model hasnt changed in decades and we now have data analysis tools not dreamed of when Carl Herold first started putting handicaps together - handicapping has evolved into a dirty word in some classes but no-one has actually thought about improving the handicapping to the point where it is no longer the Satan, the AntiChrist and the root of all Uncertainty in final pilot comparison. Thats why I'll be working on the therma-capping idea and running trials on past results to check it makes sense or not.
>
>
>
> Yet another option for the Std situation may be to allow 15m to fly Std with negative flap locked out and a 9lb wingload limit for all. I cant see it happening myself until 15m also falls apart and no one wants to think about that it seems.
>
>
>
> 2T

Well if I had any dreams about being competitive in 18m class, I'm sure I would need to actually go buy a glider with 18m span since 18m is a solid class and nobody in 18m class will have one bit of a care that my little 15m glider isn't quite competitive. They'll still let me fly, of course, but certainly not with any handicap factor.

It's that same relationship between 15m and standard. I don't much care that your glider is not quite competitive (if you say it's not). 15m is still a solid class so we don't need you bad enough to mess with the good thing we have going, I'm sorry to say. Handicapping is absolutely not what I want in my class.

I hope standard class can survive for awhile. I also hope that 15m class can stay strong. It's predictable, though, that both will fade eventually. When our classes fade, there's a great place for our gliders in sports/modern/club. That's where handicapping must stay.

[[email protected]]

I'm intrigued by the idea of eliminating the Sports Nats, which don't have a purpose other than getting the winner a bad photo published in Soaring...I suppose you could say the same for the 1-26 Nats but they're too hard core to quit!

[Charlie Quebec]

I do quite like the handicapping they use in the F1.0 GP here in Aus.
The handicap is applied as a larger circle around the turnpoint/points in accordance with handicap.
This means speeds are directly comparable ‘off the stick”
Here from memory, we run
Multi class 15m 18m and open
Standard and Club class nationals.
Junior Nationals
20M Nationals.

[Tim Taylor]

It is time to end the Sports class and 13.5m in the US. We need to focus energy on improving the pilots we have in Club, Std, 15M, 18M and Open. We will have to see if 20M is a viable class as well. The turnout so far indicates there is not a large enough base to make it worth supporting.

The sports class serves no purpose other than a place for pilots to complete when they don't want to drive to their own nationals.

We would be better off with several handicapped contests, similar to Australia, held around the country so no one has to drive more than a day to complete in their own class.

The US process is unfriendly to those that work and have younger families. If we wish to improve the overall number of pilots that race and the quality of our pilots we need to stop pretending it is still 1960 and revise the entire process.

[Mike C]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 3:25:37 AM UTC-6, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> I do quite like the handicapping they use in the F1.0 GP here in Aus.
> The handicap is applied as a larger circle around the turnpoint/points in accordance with handicap.
> This means speeds are directly comparable ‘off the stick”
> Here from memory, we run
> Multi class 15m 18m and open
> Standard and Club class nationals.
> Junior Nationals
> 20M Nationals.

I think your F1.0 GP along with the excellent tracking system is a great format! You guys are on to something there.

Mike

[[email protected]]

Well Tim, you are wrong below.

> The sports class serves no purpose other than a place for pilots to complete when they don't want to drive to their own nationals.

The sports class also gives me in my DG400 a place to compete, as well as a number of other ships that don't fall into another class to compete.

Kevin
92

[Tim Taylor]

Actually Kevin,

The DG400 can fly in 15M, 18M and/or Club class. I don't see you signed up for the Sports Class Nationals.

Tim

[[email protected]]

Turnpoint cylinder based on handicap - sounds great!

[JS[_5_]]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 5:07:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Turnpoint cylinder based on handicap - sounds great!

Lake Keepit Soaring Club (home of the next WWGC) has been running handicapped GP events using this method for a while now. Entries from H201 to ASH25, and the result is fun.
The Formula 1.0 GP has taken it to another level.
Jim

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:45:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Actually Kevin,
>
> The DG400 can fly in 15M, 18M and/or Club class. I don't see you signed up for the Sports Class Nationals.
>
> Tim

Not Club Class, Tim. Those with motors have now been removed from the approved list, even if they were within the range. Also, those in range but with greater than 15 meter span were removed from the US Club Class List.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

> The DG400 can fly in 15M, 18M and/or Club class. I don't see you signed up for the Sports Class Nationals.


No, Only home for DG400 and several other birds now is in Sports. The 400 at least in the east does not climb well in 15 meter, and unless it was a 15 meter handicap class, there would be no reason to enter a 15 meter race. You could "fly" in 15 meter, but certainly not compete.

As for Club Class, it is only 15 meter now and pure gliders.

Still working for a living, so having to settle for the Seniors, Perry, and upcoming Cordele, but I look forward to flying in the Sports Class Natiionals again. Have flown in two, but my work makes it difficult, if not impossible to fly something on the other side of the country, and unfortunately, many nationals are set up so you have to take 3 weeks vacation to make it work with my work, where we cannot take individual days.

Kevin

[[email protected]]

As far as development for the Nationals, the 1-26 group is the one group that traditionally has gotten scheduling the best for someone that is still woking. Usually practice Monday and Tues with the contest beginning Wed, and ending up in time to have a couple of days to drive home. So only 2 weeks vacation are burnt.

Kevin
92
formerly 192

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 2:39:04 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 6:45:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> > Actually Kevin,
> >
> > The DG400 can fly in 15M, 18M and/or Club class. I don't see you signed up for the Sports Class Nationals.
> >
> > Tim
>
> Not Club Class, Tim. Those with motors have now been removed from the approved list, even if they were within the range. Also, those in range but with greater than 15 meter span were removed from the US Club Class List.
>
> Steve Leonard

One alternative would be to expand Club Class beyond the FAI definition to include motorgliders, longer wingspans and a wider range of handicaps. Then we could retire Sports Class because it would be totally redundant.

Some people seem to not like keeping Club Class close to the FAI definition. Others seem to want to keep Club Class pure to the FAI definition (no recent generation Standard Class ships, for example). How far afield should we go in expanding Club?

Discuss.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

I think Sports Class has done a lot and we need to keep it - I just question the purpose of crowning a National Champion, especially if a Sports Nats weakens turnout at the other Nats.

The FAI classes, let's conform as best we can to field a team that can win at the Worlds.

[Tim Taylor]

To improve the US performance we need to:
1. Provide as many opportunities for US pilots to race as possible under conditions that will match what they will see in the Worlds.

2. Allow pilots to race under the rules they will use at the worlds.

3. Focus the limited resources on a few classes until we improve the results.

This is why I believe we should have multiple national level contests for each class each year. This can be done without holding more total contests by holding combined class contests in the east/west/central regions.

Sports class should be limited to regional contests and club class should be expanded to allow all gliders in a reasonable range to compete.

The rules need to be changed to match the FAI rules so we are learning the correct game.

[Phil Chidekel]

> One alternative would be to expand Club Class beyond the FAI definition to include motorgliders, longer wingspans and a wider range of handicaps. Then we could retire Sports Class because it would be totally redundant.
>
> Some people seem to not like keeping Club Class close to the FAI definition. Others seem to want to keep Club Class pure to the FAI definition (no recent generation Standard Class ships, for example). How far afield should we go in expanding Club?
>
> Discuss.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

I fly a Glasflügel 401 Kestrel (which has 17m wings). It was "grandfathered" into club class last year, after it was neglected to be removed from the list when the club class was restricted to a span of 15m.

In my opinion, the purpose of the club class is to take old, inexpensive, and accessible gliders and make them competitive in a racing class. The club class should stay true to this spirit.

The Kestrel fits in the [American] club class handicap range. So does the Open Cirrus. My Kestrel might be worth $15k, and there are numerous Open Cirri listed for under $10k. Despite this, neither of these gliders can compete. Apparently an extra two meters of wing is a bigger advantage than another 25 years of airfoil/structural design evolution found on the Discus 2 or ASW-28.

I can immediately think of two US clubs that own Open Cirri, but these clubs can't send these gliders to compete in the club class nationals. I know of zero US clubs that own an ASW-28 or a Discus 2.

As I see it, we should either adopt the FAI club class definition and conform to the rest of the world, or expand our definition to be more inclusive. I'm not sure where span/motor restrictions came from. These seem like arbitrary and unnecessary limitations, particularly because the spirit of the club class has already been lost when gliders designed in 1967 that cost $10k are racing against gliders designed in 1997 that cost $70k.

To be clear, I'm fine with the new stuff remaining in the class. However, given that the list is already completely whack, there is *no* basis to limit the rest of us from having fun, too.

Rant over. I'm extremely grateful to UH for letting me borrow his ASW-24 to compete this year. But it feels wrong to be going to the club class nationals with something 20 years newer and 2-3 times more expensive than the poor Kestrel who gets left behind.

[[email protected]]

I agree with the ideas from Tim Taylor and Phil Chidekel. The US is one of the few countries that has a national for every FAI class and our own Sports Class.

What we see as a result is smaller and smaller national attendance due to the decline in numbers of pilots due to other causes but also because we keep spreading the remaining numbers between more classes. Many countries with successful teams on the World level have combined similar performing gliders into a single handicap class. An example would be 15 Meter, Standard Class and 20 Meter. They are all within a reasonable performance range and with a small handicap adjustment can fly together with Discus 2, Ventus 3 and Arcus flip flopping at the top of the scoresheeet. There are many advantages to this arrangement including flying against 50 gliders instead of 15, less trouble finding three different contest venues, increased returns for the host, etc.

The US Club Class I do like how it is set up with a performance range that essentially matches the FAI handicaps. The FAI is from a Libelle 201 to an ASW-20A and the US extended that to an LS-6 which is only a few years older and not competitive in pure 15 Meter. That did lump in many that are not on the FAI list including the HP series and then at the higher end the more modern Discus 2/ASW-28 but these perform basically identical to a flapped ASW-20 which is on the list and the current World Champ in Club Class.

I do agree with Phil that I don't see why a Kestrel, Open Cirrus or similar glider with 16, 17, 18 Meter of span should be allowed because they are in the performance range. The FAI handicap list does include a 16 meter Cirrus B, so I would view it the same as winglets or other performance modifications that are allowed.

It is my understanding from the rules and a discussion that motors are allowed in US Club Class Nationals (Pik-20E for example) but possibly would not be eligible for Club Class selection.

Overall, I'd rather see more of a combined class approach and have 3-4 big nationals instead of 8 small nationals.

[Christopher Schrader[_2_]]

I don't understand how a glider gets "grandfathered" in. When Sandhill Soaring Club (my home club), purchased an Open Cirrus and I noticed the rules had changed eliminating the 17.7 Meter Open Cirrus from the list of Club Class approved ships in the USA (but not the 16.6 Meter Std. Cirrus), I called UH and was told the Open Cirrus had been eliminated from the class in an effort to align the rules with FAI. Hank can correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the gist for the change in the rules (even though the Discus 2 and ASW-28, who are not FAI Club Class approved gliders for WGC purposes were "approved" gliders under US Rules). To me the rule making is inconsistent.

While I didn't agree with the assessment considering Discus A/B/CS, ASW20's, 304CZ, were permitted to fly FAI Club Class (and in the USA Discus 2 were being permitted to fly Club Class too), I'm just one pilot; I don't deserve special consideration.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with Phil's statements; we should stick to the spirit of taking old, inexpensive gliders of similar performance, and give them their own racing class. To adulterate the class by allowing for Discus 2, and at the same time prohibiting Open Cirrus and Kestrels makes no sense to me. While the theoretical best L/D of the Cirrus gives it long legs (a nice feature for beginners), the polar of the Cirrus at high speed isn't much better than the Std. Cirrus. There's simply no way it can keep up with the likes of Discus CS, ASW-20, ASW-24, let alone an ASW-28 or Discus 2 being flown by a skilled racing pilot.

On another note, the transition from an Open Cirrus to LS-4 for purposes of fielding a competitive US Team is probably less significant than Discus 2 drivers downgrading to the same at WGC.

From a Growth & Retention standpoint (I speak for myself here), I operate under the presumption that the health of Club Class is closely tied to the future of soaring in the United States and the more contest pilots we recruit to Club Class the better off our sport will be. Thus creating barriers to entry to Club Class doesn't make any sense to me. Moreover, as Juniors move into adulthood, and Millennial newcomers make their way into our clubs, "Club Class" offers both individuals and club-members (and partners of small consortium), with access to these older ships, the most economical entry point into sailplane racing and sailplane ownership.

For those reasons, I say let Discus 2 drivers demonstrate their talent by competing against others flying the same state-of-the art FAI Standard Class gliders that were designed to compete at the Worlds in Standard Class. Let pilots flying club class ships and those of similar age, performance, cost, etc. fly Club Class.

Several individuals and clubs have asked my opinion of the Cirrus, and while I have nothing but great things to say about it for pilots transitioning to high-performance on a budget - I think it makes a wonderful club ship (it handles beautifully), I have to warn them that sadly, any pilot who aspires to fly Club Class Nationals with it won't be permitted to compete. Moreover, its handicap in Sports Class is thought of by many to put pilots at a significant disadvantage to other ships (I believe there are RAS threads going back at least 2 decades om this subject).

I really can't add more to what Phil said, accept that I'm inclined to host a Formula 1.0 GP style contest in 2020 or 2021, and just hope the rules committee will re-consider their decision to eliminate older 17m ships from Club Class.

Respectfully,

Chris Schrader (flying Chicken Noodle)



On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:12:05 PM UTC-4, Phil Chidekel wrote:
> > One alternative would be to expand Club Class beyond the FAI definition to include motorgliders, longer wingspans and a wider range of handicaps. Then we could retire Sports Class because it would be totally redundant.
> >
> > Some people seem to not like keeping Club Class close to the FAI definition. Others seem to want to keep Club Class pure to the FAI definition (no recent generation Standard Class ships, for example). How far afield should we go in expanding Club?
> >
> > Discuss.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> I fly a Glasflügel 401 Kestrel (which has 17m wings). It was "grandfathered" into club class last year, after it was neglected to be removed from the list when the club class was restricted to a span of 15m.
>
> In my opinion, the purpose of the club class is to take old, inexpensive, and accessible gliders and make them competitive in a racing class. The club class should stay true to this spirit.
>
> The Kestrel fits in the [American] club class handicap range. So does the Open Cirrus. My Kestrel might be worth $15k, and there are numerous Open Cirri listed for under $10k. Despite this, neither of these gliders can compete. Apparently an extra two meters of wing is a bigger advantage than another 25 years of airfoil/structural design evolution found on the Discus 2 or ASW-28.
>
> I can immediately think of two US clubs that own Open Cirri, but these clubs can't send these gliders to compete in the club class nationals. I know of zero US clubs that own an ASW-28 or a Discus 2.
>
> As I see it, we should either adopt the FAI club class definition and conform to the rest of the world, or expand our definition to be more inclusive. I'm not sure where span/motor restrictions came from. These seem like arbitrary and unnecessary limitations, particularly because the spirit of the club class has already been lost when gliders designed in 1967 that cost $10k are racing against gliders designed in 1997 that cost $70k.
>
> To be clear, I'm fine with the new stuff remaining in the class. However, given that the list is already completely whack, there is *no* basis to limit the rest of us from having fun, too.
>
> Rant over. I'm extremely grateful to UH for letting me borrow his ASW-24 to compete this year. But it feels wrong to be going to the club class nationals with something 20 years newer and 2-3 times more expensive than the poor Kestrel who gets left behind.

[Christopher Schrader[_2_]]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I agree with the ideas from Tim Taylor and Phil Chidekel. The US is one of the few countries that has a national for every FAI class and our own Sports Class.
>
> What we see as a result is smaller and smaller national attendance due to the decline in numbers of pilots due to other causes but also because we keep spreading the remaining numbers between more classes. Many countries with successful teams on the World level have combined similar performing gliders into a single handicap class. An example would be 15 Meter, Standard Class and 20 Meter. They are all within a reasonable performance range and with a small handicap adjustment can fly together with Discus 2, Ventus 3 and Arcus flip flopping at the top of the scoresheeet. There are many advantages to this arrangement including flying against 50 gliders instead of 15, less trouble finding three different contest venues, increased returns for the host, etc.
>
> The US Club Class I do like how it is set up with a performance range that essentially matches the FAI handicaps. The FAI is from a Libelle 201 to an ASW-20A and the US extended that to an LS-6 which is only a few years older and not competitive in pure 15 Meter. That did lump in many that are not on the FAI list including the HP series and then at the higher end the more modern Discus 2/ASW-28 but these perform basically identical to a flapped ASW-20 which is on the list and the current World Champ in Club Class.
>
> I do agree with Phil that I don't see why a Kestrel, Open Cirrus or similar glider with 16, 17, 18 Meter of span should be allowed because they are in the performance range. The FAI handicap list does include a 16 meter Cirrus B, so I would view it the same as winglets or other performance modifications that are allowed.
>
> It is my understanding from the rules and a discussion that motors are allowed in US Club Class Nationals (Pik-20E for example) but possibly would not be eligible for Club Class selection.
>
> Overall, I'd rather see more of a combined class approach and have 3-4 big nationals instead of 8 small nationals.

I agree we should have fewer but larger contests, however, I don't see a problem with hosting concurrent National Championships at one contest site. In other words, why not host the Club Class along with Std. Class, or say 15M with Std. Class or 20M, or 18M with Open, or any combination thereof. I would also look closely at making sure we accommodate pilots owning 20M ships to make sure we don't overlap 20M with those other FAI Classes. For purposes of pilot development and US Team selection I've got to think we want highly competitive nationals and don't want to see 20M overlap those other FAI Classes, except for maybe 15M, but to the extent 20M overlapping can be avoided it should. I also wouldn't hold 15M with 18M as a lot of 18M pilots fly 15M Nationals too.

As for Sports Class, it seems to me that the Seniors, Perry, and Nephi have turned into defacto Sports Class Championships of sorts. Keep in mind teams are not presently selected from Sports Class events. For this reason, dropping Sports Class Nationals and marketing the Seniors, Perry, and other Sports Class contests as special contests for those looking to compete at a National level but who aren't interested in being considered for the US Team makes a lot of sense to me.

Embrace these contests, call them "Sports Class Championships" by adding the phrase to the contests names, and by all means continue to make the social aspects of the contest desirable for people traveling from all over the country - but think of them as 2nd tier National-level contests similar to the Players Championship in golf or the Miami Open in tennis. In other words, they are not "Majors" like the US Open, Wimbledon, or the Masters, etc. I have a hard time thinking attendance at these events would change simply because Sports Class Nationals was dropped from the nomenclature. I just don't see that happening.

Just my 2 cents.

- Chris Schrader

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 12:04:37 UTC-6, Christopher Schrader wrote:
> On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 8:26:32 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I agree with the ideas from Tim Taylor and Phil Chidekel. The US is one of the few countries that has a national for every FAI class and our own Sports Class.
> >
> > What we see as a result is smaller and smaller national attendance due to the decline in numbers of pilots due to other causes but also because we keep spreading the remaining numbers between more classes. Many countries with successful teams on the World level have combined similar performing gliders into a single handicap class. An example would be 15 Meter, Standard Class and 20 Meter. They are all within a reasonable performance range and with a small handicap adjustment can fly together with Discus 2, Ventus 3 and Arcus flip flopping at the top of the scoresheeet. There are many advantages to this arrangement including flying against 50 gliders instead of 15, less trouble finding three different contest venues, increased returns for the host, etc.
> >
> > The US Club Class I do like how it is set up with a performance range that essentially matches the FAI handicaps. The FAI is from a Libelle 201 to an ASW-20A and the US extended that to an LS-6 which is only a few years older and not competitive in pure 15 Meter. That did lump in many that are not on the FAI list including the HP series and then at the higher end the more modern Discus 2/ASW-28 but these perform basically identical to a flapped ASW-20 which is on the list and the current World Champ in Club Class.
> >
> > I do agree with Phil that I don't see why a Kestrel, Open Cirrus or similar glider with 16, 17, 18 Meter of span should be allowed because they are in the performance range. The FAI handicap list does include a 16 meter Cirrus B, so I would view it the same as winglets or other performance modifications that are allowed.
> >
> > It is my understanding from the rules and a discussion that motors are allowed in US Club Class Nationals (Pik-20E for example) but possibly would not be eligible for Club Class selection.
> >
> > Overall, I'd rather see more of a combined class approach and have 3-4 big nationals instead of 8 small nationals.
>
> I agree we should have fewer but larger contests, however, I don't see a problem with hosting concurrent National Championships at one contest site. In other words, why not host the Club Class along with Std. Class, or say 15M with Std. Class or 20M, or 18M with Open, or any combination thereof. I would also look closely at making sure we accommodate pilots owning 20M ships to make sure we don't overlap 20M with those other FAI Classes. For purposes of pilot development and US Team selection I've got to think we want highly competitive nationals and don't want to see 20M overlap those other FAI Classes, except for maybe 15M, but to the extent 20M overlapping can be avoided it should. I also wouldn't hold 15M with 18M as a lot of 18M pilots fly 15M Nationals too.
>
> As for Sports Class, it seems to me that the Seniors, Perry, and Nephi have turned into defacto Sports Class Championships of sorts. Keep in mind teams are not presently selected from Sports Class events. For this reason, dropping Sports Class Nationals and marketing the Seniors, Perry, and other Sports Class contests as special contests for those looking to compete at a National level but who aren't interested in being considered for the US Team makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Embrace these contests, call them "Sports Class Championships" by adding the phrase to the contests names, and by all means continue to make the social aspects of the contest desirable for people traveling from all over the country - but think of them as 2nd tier National-level contests similar to the Players Championship in golf or the Miami Open in tennis. In other words, they are not "Majors" like the US Open, Wimbledon, or the Masters, etc. I have a hard time thinking attendance at these events would change simply because Sports Class Nationals was dropped from the nomenclature. I just don't see that happening.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> - Chris Schrader

Lots of ideas, suggestions and thoughts in this thread. One area that has only been lightly touched upon is getting locations and sites for contests.

Anybody notice that no new, ok maybe a couple, sites have held contests? Notice it is the same sites year over year? Notice how many sites no longer holding contests? Recruit all the competition pilots you want but if there are no sites or folks to run the contests then what are you going to do?

Chris, go back through the contests and you will see that classes are combined but it the groupings have changed over the years with introduction of 15/18M configurations and now 18M/Open glider configurations. These owners want the opportunity to fly multiple Classes per year.

Larger contests are a huge challenge when comes to glider movement, launch order, available tow planes, density altitudes etc. The Open class has a maximum weight of 850 kg, 1,873 pounds, so think about what is needed for tow planes, runway length with high density altitudes. Also some of the newer gliders have recommended tow speeds of 85 knots or higher!

Lots of variables to dal with

[Dave Springford]

IIRC, one of the original concepts of a club class was that it could be defined by any limited handicap range. It seems to have morphed, at the FAI level, into a strict, these 10 models only class.

Depending on contest size, instead of one sports class encompassing 1-26 to Arcus and trying to apply handicaps, why not split it into 2 or 3 club classes of defined handicap range? Of course, you need to maintain a minimum class size to have a reasonable competition. Set ranges like Club A .80-.89 Club B .90-.99, Club C 1.00- 1.10 and keep the gliders close in performance in each class.

Class ranges likely need to be finalized the day of the contest once all gliders in the contest are known.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 7:20:40 PM UTC-4, Dave Springford wrote:
> IIRC, one of the original concepts of a club class was that it could be defined by any limited handicap range. It seems to have morphed, at the FAI level, into a strict, these 10 models only class.
>
> Depending on contest size, instead of one sports class encompassing 1-26 to Arcus and trying to apply handicaps, why not split it into 2 or 3 club classes of defined handicap range? Of course, you need to maintain a minimum class size to have a reasonable competition. Set ranges like Club A .80-..89 Club B .90-.99, Club C 1.00- 1.10 and keep the gliders close in performance in each class.
>
> Class ranges likely need to be finalized the day of the contest once all gliders in the contest are known.

That option is available in US regionals if organizers wish to do so.
UH

[Christopher Schrader[_2_]]

> Chris, go back through the contests and you will see that classes are combined but it the groupings have changed over the years with introduction of 15/18M configurations and now 18M/Open glider configurations. These owners want the opportunity to fly multiple Classes per year.

I noticed that, and I fully understand where they're coming from. I wasn't sure from the previous posting (I presume it was Mike Westbrook) whether the author was suggesting we start eliminating FAI classes or not. I don't support that. I support grouping them together where it makes sense so we have roughly 3-4 healthy, well-attended Nationals taking into consideration what I said about 20M being a training ground for pilot development be it prominent Juniors or other up-and-coming racers. Other "fun" Sports Class contests like the Seniors for example may be marketed as 2nd tier national-level contests called "Championships" where I'd expect the Top 10 pilots will still be in a close competitive battle for the podium.

- Chris Schrader

[JS[_5_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Christopher Schrader wrote:
> I support grouping them together where it makes sense so we have roughly 3-4 healthy, well-attended Nationals taking into consideration what I said about 20M being a training ground for pilot development be it prominent Juniors or other up-and-coming racers. Other "fun" Sports Class contests like the Seniors for example may be marketed as 2nd tier national-level contests called "Championships" where I'd expect the Top 10 pilots will still be in a close competitive battle for the podium.
>
> - Chris Schrader

That suggests contests being hosted together that don't overlap classes.
But how?

Some complications:
JS1C can race in 18m and Open.
Ventus 2/3, JS3 or ASG29 can race in 18m or 15m.
Discus 2 or ASW28 can race in Standard or Club.
LS8 or Discus 2 can race in Standard or 15m.

Perhaps:
Club and Sports can be hosted together with no overlap.
Standard and 18m can be hosted together with little overlap.
15 and Open can be hosted together with little overlap.
1-26, 13.5m and 20m 2-seater can be hosted together with no overlap.

How likely would there be too few or too many entries in any of those?

If we were trying to bring more people into soaring and hope most get into XC and some end up racing, more fun meets should be hosted. Call them camps, pre-regionals or whatever you like. And invite two-seaters to all regionals, for reasons already stated.

To me the Juniors and Club Class are the most important, and both SSA and FAI seem to have lost the plot for Club Class. Young or otherwise new or limited funds pilots need a place to fly their (typically less than $20k) glider. It's hard enough for them to hang around with a bunch of old farts without the contests or handicaps messing with them.

Caveat:
Not a competition pilot. My involvement is limited to coaching XC, and contest crewing.
Jim

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Christopher Schrader wrote:
> > I support grouping them together where it makes sense so we have roughly 3-4 healthy, well-attended Nationals taking into consideration what I said about 20M being a training ground for pilot development be it prominent Juniors or other up-and-coming racers. Other "fun" Sports Class contests like the Seniors for example may be marketed as 2nd tier national-level contests called "Championships" where I'd expect the Top 10 pilots will still be in a close competitive battle for the podium.
> >
> > - Chris Schrader
>
> That suggests contests being hosted together that don't overlap classes.
> But how?
>
> Some complications:
> JS1C can race in 18m and Open.
> Ventus 2/3, JS3 or ASG29 can race in 18m or 15m.
> Discus 2 or ASW28 can race in Standard or Club.
> LS8 or Discus 2 can race in Standard or 15m.
>
> Perhaps:
> Club and Sports can be hosted together with no overlap.
> Standard and 18m can be hosted together with little overlap.
> 15 and Open can be hosted together with little overlap.
> 1-26, 13.5m and 20m 2-seater can be hosted together with no overlap.
>
> How likely would there be too few or too many entries in any of those?
>
> If we were trying to bring more people into soaring and hope most get into XC and some end up racing, more fun meets should be hosted. Call them camps, pre-regionals or whatever you like. And invite two-seaters to all regionals, for reasons already stated.
>
> To me the Juniors and Club Class are the most important, and both SSA and FAI seem to have lost the plot for Club Class. Young or otherwise new or limited funds pilots need a place to fly their (typically less than $20k) glider. It's hard enough for them to hang around with a bunch of old farts without the contests or handicaps messing with them.
>
> Caveat:
> Not a competition pilot. My involvement is limited to coaching XC, and contest crewing.
> Jim

Not to speak for the site selection committee, but something like the above is generally the goal - host a couple of Nationals together for organizer economics - generally with a bigger class and a smaller one together (occasionally three classes, but that can lead to problems getting everyone launched in time - especially if you are talking out west with big gliders in the mix). The other goal is to make it so the folks with gliders that can reasonably fly in two different classes are eligible for at least one Nationals on their side of the country each year.
The other objective is to flip/flop east and west each year so that the Nationals for each class move around geographically year to year.

Of course this perfect world often gets confounded by which organizations are willing to host and preferences they might have for how to combine things that don't necessarily match with the above "system". The rest is subject to cajoling and negotiation.

I'm guessing the SSA would welcome energetic folks who are willing to volunteer to take on a portion of this important work.

I'm not sure how it would work to have two versions of each class' Nationals each year - at least without combining classes via handicapping. The expected size of each class would go down which could affect competitiveness. This is particularly problematic for Standard and 20M where the number of participants hovers around the minimum every year. 15M is not far behind. Open has gotten a boost from the JS1, but many of those might go to 18M if we had east and west Nationals. Splitting the folks who live in the middle of the country likely makes the competitiveness problem worse. Having a larger number of sparsely attended Nationals would give more advantage to pilots who can "double dip" by flying a lot of Nationals on both sides of the country in their specific class. Let the gamesmanship begin.

I have toyed with the idea of making PRL (and US Team selection) points a function of the average PRL points of the top 4-6 pilots in a contest and eliminating the distinction between Regionals and Nationals from a points perspective. 100 and 92 points maximum might be about right on average, but there are sparsely attended Nationals where a bit of luck counts a lot and some Regionals that are just as competitive as a Nationals - why not make the points awarded a function of the breadth and depth of the competitive field and relax some of the constraints around overweighting Nationals in a specific class?

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Ron Gleason]

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 16:57:04 UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> > On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Christopher Schrader wrote:
> > > I support grouping them together where it makes sense so we have roughly 3-4 healthy, well-attended Nationals taking into consideration what I said about 20M being a training ground for pilot development be it prominent Juniors or other up-and-coming racers. Other "fun" Sports Class contests like the Seniors for example may be marketed as 2nd tier national-level contests called "Championships" where I'd expect the Top 10 pilots will still be in a close competitive battle for the podium.
> > >
> > > - Chris Schrader
> >
> > That suggests contests being hosted together that don't overlap classes..
> > But how?
> >
> > Some complications:
> > JS1C can race in 18m and Open.
> > Ventus 2/3, JS3 or ASG29 can race in 18m or 15m.
> > Discus 2 or ASW28 can race in Standard or Club.
> > LS8 or Discus 2 can race in Standard or 15m.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> > Club and Sports can be hosted together with no overlap.
> > Standard and 18m can be hosted together with little overlap.
> > 15 and Open can be hosted together with little overlap.
> > 1-26, 13.5m and 20m 2-seater can be hosted together with no overlap.
> >
> > How likely would there be too few or too many entries in any of those?
> >
> > If we were trying to bring more people into soaring and hope most get into XC and some end up racing, more fun meets should be hosted. Call them camps, pre-regionals or whatever you like. And invite two-seaters to all regionals, for reasons already stated.
> >
> > To me the Juniors and Club Class are the most important, and both SSA and FAI seem to have lost the plot for Club Class. Young or otherwise new or limited funds pilots need a place to fly their (typically less than $20k) glider. It's hard enough for them to hang around with a bunch of old farts without the contests or handicaps messing with them.
> >
> > Caveat:
> > Not a competition pilot. My involvement is limited to coaching XC, and contest crewing.
> > Jim
>
> Not to speak for the site selection committee, but something like the above is generally the goal - host a couple of Nationals together for organizer economics - generally with a bigger class and a smaller one together (occasionally three classes, but that can lead to problems getting everyone launched in time - especially if you are talking out west with big gliders in the mix). The other goal is to make it so the folks with gliders that can reasonably fly in two different classes are eligible for at least one Nationals on their side of the country each year.
> The other objective is to flip/flop east and west each year so that the Nationals for each class move around geographically year to year.
>
> Of course this perfect world often gets confounded by which organizations are willing to host and preferences they might have for how to combine things that don't necessarily match with the above "system". The rest is subject to cajoling and negotiation.
>
> I'm guessing the SSA would welcome energetic folks who are willing to volunteer to take on a portion of this important work.
>
> I'm not sure how it would work to have two versions of each class' Nationals each year - at least without combining classes via handicapping. The expected size of each class would go down which could affect competitiveness. This is particularly problematic for Standard and 20M where the number of participants hovers around the minimum every year. 15M is not far behind. Open has gotten a boost from the JS1, but many of those might go to 18M if we had east and west Nationals. Splitting the folks who live in the middle of the country likely makes the competitiveness problem worse. Having a larger number of sparsely attended Nationals would give more advantage to pilots who can "double dip" by flying a lot of Nationals on both sides of the country in their specific class. Let the gamesmanship begin.
>
> I have toyed with the idea of making PRL (and US Team selection) points a function of the average PRL points of the top 4-6 pilots in a contest and eliminating the distinction between Regionals and Nationals from a points perspective. 100 and 92 points maximum might be about right on average, but there are sparsely attended Nationals where a bit of luck counts a lot and some Regionals that are just as competitive as a Nationals - why not make the points awarded a function of the breadth and depth of the competitive field and relax some of the constraints around overweighting Nationals in a specific class?
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, I believe your direction of thinking is correct; why is there a distinction between regionals and nationals for rewarding points for PRL or team selection? Possibly many years or decades ago it made sense now the barriers to entry for a Nationals is so low it typically comes down to writing a check and flying in a regionals.

Another way to think about this is to add a another variable to the equation; quality of pilots participating. Currently the points awarded for a competition require a minimum number of participants and minimum number of days flown. Then each day has a number of parameters that affect scoring such as number of folks completing the task, minimum number of miles, minimum time etc.

With hang gliding and paragliding they refer to this as 'Participant Validity'. Their competition rulebook states

The more accomplished the field of competitors at a given competition, the more challenging the event becomes. Participant validity takes the skill of the participants (based on performance at previous sanctioned competitions) into consideration when determining how many ranking points are potentially available for a given competition.

You can see more details at https://www.ushpa.org/page/download.aspx?DocKey=531 and go to page 14.

Your other point was how to measure the quality of a given competition. Tough one and not one I have any ideas

[Tim Taylor]

Andy,

I hope the committee will continue to consider changes seriously. I will try to address a few of your comments.

> Not to speak for the site selection committee, but something like the above is generally the goal - host a couple of Nationals together for organizer economics - generally with a bigger class and a smaller one together (occasionally three classes, but that can lead to problems getting everyone launched in time - especially if you are talking out west with big gliders in the mix).

I think this is the correct approach. We can hold contests with three classes and still limit it to 60 gliders or less. It is the quality of competition, not the number of gliders that makes a competition meaningful. I think your point about launching is incorrect. Each class has to be in the air in one hour, not the entire field. Several classes actually make it easier (other than open class), not harder. You can run a competition with fewer tow planes.

>The other goal is to make it so the folks with gliders that can reasonably fly in two different classes are eligible for at least one Nationals on their side of the country each year. The other objective is to flip/flop east and west each year so that the Nationals for each class move around geographically year to year.

This is a good idea, but should not be the basis for increasing competitors.. The gliders capable of this are all at the high end of the cost range. We are killing the sport by moving to 15/18m and 18/21M gliders with prices tags of $160K to $300K. We need to focus on the Club, Standard and 15M class to grow the sport.

> I'm not sure how it would work to have two versions of each class' Nationals each year - at least without combining classes via handicapping. The expected size of each class would go down which could affect competitiveness.

Actually the size of the class has very little to do with competiveness to a point. Both Uvalde in 2018 and Bermuda High in 2019 were very good contests. The quality of the pilots and a field of 20 makes a very good contest.. Forcing pilots to gain ranking points at the regional level and earn their way into a nationals is not a bad system. It has actually been bad for the US to have National contest with lower ranked pilots competing. The top pilots get used to using the lower ranked pilots as makers and waiting to start later and “hunt” the other pilots down as markers. This technique does not work at the International level were most of the pilots are flying very fast.

>This is particularly problematic for Standard and 20M where the number of participants hovers around the minimum every year.

If a class can not sustain a nations it should be dropped or combined with something else. I am not sure 20M is even worth pursuing. We need to focus on a few classes and build the quality of the pilots if we are going to improve the sport overall.

>15M is not far behind.

15M is hurting because of the US contest site system, not because the class is lacks pilots or gliders. If we had a contest on the East and West each year it would likely be the largest class other than maybe Club. It is being hurt because most pilots are being forced to buy 15/18M glider to be able to race each year without driving 3000 to 5000 miles for a contest. The entry cost to fly the 15/18M gliders is killing new pilots joining the sport.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Thanks for the thoughts Tim. Some replies.

1) The RC doesn't control many of these issue, though I'm sure we could offer up some perspectives for consideration further up the chain.

2) On three classes. It is true that the launch window from a rules perspective is by class. I was remembering the 2016 Nationals a Nephi where the Open Class often had 3-hour or sub-3-hour tasks which seemed sub-optimal. Contests ought to have reasonable task lengths for all classes. Heavy glider classes often have to launch last at high density altitudes which consistently puts them in a short-day situation.

3) I agree it's not the total field size that matters as much as the number of top ranked pilots, but I think east-west nationals would have a detrimental effect on the later metric as well since there are only so many top pilots to go around. It's pretty easy to figure out how many "97-plus" PRL ranked pilots you need to have a competitive contest. Just look at the mean and standard-deviation of scores for each pilot on the PRL, then you can figure out the probability of having a "100-point" winner for any number of pilots with a specific PRL score (you need to take care to eliminate 97-plus pilots who earned 97-plus in an under-competitive Nationals, but this is a small effect). I'd be inclined to assign 100-points to any contest with a 95 percent confidence interval of producing a 100-point performance. My rough calculations indicate you'd need 5 or 6 pilots with 97-plus PRL points for a contest to have that probability of being worth 100 points. The risk you run with east-west Nationals is you end up with Nationals that don't earn 100-point status.

4) Dropping classes is something that requires serious consideration. This thread started 5 years ago with an observation that a Standard Nationals had been cancelled (due to insufficient participation IIRC). If we'd followed the "kill-the-class" advice we would no longer have Standard Class Nationals. Once they are gone, it's hard to make a case for bringing them back. People who own gliders that only race competitively in one class can become orphans if their Class is eliminated (Standard would be that were it not for the expanded Club Class definition - which remains controversial today). Should we require people to upgrade gliders to keep racing Nationals? Sometimes it might be inevitable. I've seen a lot of Standard Class pilots move to 15/18 Meter over the past 5 years. IMO splitting Nationals makes it more likely that classes die from insufficient participation or competitiveness. This is compounded if you think of it in the context of point 3, above.

5) I don't get your point about 15M being particularly victimized by site selection. Most classes have had their time in the barrel on sites that have had difficult logistics or unfortunate weather. My guess is that people with 15/18M gliders may get siphoned to 18M Nationals and that may be exacerbated by the relative site attractiveness, but also because 18M is seen as the most competitive class by many. That would likely get worse with east-west nationals.

6) I agree that part of why the US performs poorly at WGC is that our pilots fly fewer WGC-level contests. Sadly, not all US Nationals are WGC-level competition. WGCs are wicked competitive with deep talent pools. I doubt that splitting up Nationals will improve matters as you will divide up the limited US top-ranked talent pool. There are also a pretty limited number of pilots with 8 weeks available to fly 2 Nationals in a year, let alone 4 and I worry about diluting the competitive field. I think the simple solution could be to open up the PRL scoring system to the competitiveness factor described in Point 3 then it doesn't really matter if it's called a Regional or National contest so long as you can attract half a dozen top pilots to fly. There are some iterative dynamics of who flies where that need to be considered in such a system, particularly with contests that are "on the bubble" of making 100-point status. The advantage is that we get to try out the concept and see if we can generate enough interest to attract the requisite number of top pilots to fly east and west sites in the same class in the same year.

7) I do think there is a statistical advantage that accrues to pilots who fly a lot of Nationals (though flying a lot certainly builds skills). The reason for this is that we assign points for the year based on best performance. I think it makes more sense to have a system that is at least partly based on average performance for the year (averaged across 100-point contests) so that pilots flying multiple contests don't "ratchet up" by taking the high scores across a somewhat random distribution of performances. There would still be a potential for gaming in the sense that a pilot with a good performance early in the season, might elect to not fly a second contest to avoid the risk of doing less well later and lowering his/her average while a pilot with a poor performance would have every incentive to try again. I think overall this is a minor point that could be handled with a hybrid system that weighs average score AND highest score.

Thanks again for the detailed input and rationale.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 10:18:33 AM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I hope the committee will continue to consider changes seriously. I will try to address a few of your comments.
>
> > Not to speak for the site selection committee, but something like the above is generally the goal - host a couple of Nationals together for organizer economics - generally with a bigger class and a smaller one together (occasionally three classes, but that can lead to problems getting everyone launched in time - especially if you are talking out west with big gliders in the mix).
>
> I think this is the correct approach. We can hold contests with three classes and still limit it to 60 gliders or less. It is the quality of competition, not the number of gliders that makes a competition meaningful. I think your point about launching is incorrect. Each class has to be in the air in one hour, not the entire field. Several classes actually make it easier (other than open class), not harder. You can run a competition with fewer tow planes.
>
> >The other goal is to make it so the folks with gliders that can reasonably fly in two different classes are eligible for at least one Nationals on their side of the country each year. The other objective is to flip/flop east and west each year so that the Nationals for each class move around geographically year to year.
>
> This is a good idea, but should not be the basis for increasing competitors. The gliders capable of this are all at the high end of the cost range. We are killing the sport by moving to 15/18m and 18/21M gliders with prices tags of $160K to $300K. We need to focus on the Club, Standard and 15M class to grow the sport.
>
> > I'm not sure how it would work to have two versions of each class' Nationals each year - at least without combining classes via handicapping. The expected size of each class would go down which could affect competitiveness.
>
> Actually the size of the class has very little to do with competiveness to a point. Both Uvalde in 2018 and Bermuda High in 2019 were very good contests. The quality of the pilots and a field of 20 makes a very good contest. Forcing pilots to gain ranking points at the regional level and earn their way into a nationals is not a bad system. It has actually been bad for the US to have National contest with lower ranked pilots competing. The top pilots get used to using the lower ranked pilots as makers and waiting to start later and “hunt” the other pilots down as markers.. This technique does not work at the International level were most of the pilots are flying very fast.
>
> >This is particularly problematic for Standard and 20M where the number of participants hovers around the minimum every year.
>
> If a class can not sustain a nations it should be dropped or combined with something else. I am not sure 20M is even worth pursuing. We need to focus on a few classes and build the quality of the pilots if we are going to improve the sport overall.
>
> >15M is not far behind.
>
> 15M is hurting because of the US contest site system, not because the class is lacks pilots or gliders. If we had a contest on the East and West each year it would likely be the largest class other than maybe Club. It is being hurt because most pilots are being forced to buy 15/18M glider to be able to race each year without driving 3000 to 5000 miles for a contest. The entry cost to fly the 15/18M gliders is killing new pilots joining the sport.
>
> >Open has gotten a boost from the JS1, but many of those might go to 18M if we had east and west Nationals. Splitting the folks who live in the middle of the country likely makes the competitiveness problem worse.
>
> Actually, having two contests for each class improves the competitions and improves the quality of US pilots overall. One of the main reasons the US is not competitive is most pilots do not race enough each year. The size of the US and the cost, distance and time required to go to contests is killing the sport. By holding at least two national level contest each year we allow pilots to at least fly one contest in their class each year and those that want to fly more gain extra experience by having the opportunity to fly additional contests. Potentially a pilot with a 15/18M glider could fly four nationals in a year. This would improve the quality of all of our pilots.
>
> >Having a larger number of sparsely attended Nationals would give more advantage to pilots who can "double dip" by flying a lot of Nationals on both sides of the country in their specific class. Let the gamesmanship begin.
>
> This is an incorrect statement. The gamesmanship has been in the system because only those willing to drive gamed the system. This would actually level the playing field and improve our US teams overall. We would have a deeper pool of pilots that are flying more quality contests.
>
> > I have toyed with the idea of making PRL (and US Team selection) points a function of the average PRL points of the top 4-6 pilots in a contest and eliminating the distinction between Regionals and Nationals from a point’s perspective. 100 and 92 points maximum might be about right on average, but there are sparsely attended Nationals where a bit of luck counts a lot and some Regionals that are just as competitive as a Nationals - why not make the points awarded a function of the breadth and depth of the competitive field and relax some of the constraints around overweighting Nationals in a specific class?
>
> I agree with this completely! There should be a quality factor for contests that adjust the team selection points accordingly. At Bermuda High we had 22 pilots, 17 of the 22 had been National Team pilots. It does not take a large contest to make it competitive. This has been done in many other sports. It also means the organizers work to get a strong group of at least 5 to 6 pilots in each class.
>
> Tim Taylor
> TT