US club class definition

[[email protected]]

So where is the official definition of Club class on the SSA site?

I downloaded the Handicap Excel file, and sorted it by any that had a "C" attribute in the notes. It appears to include LS-6 .898 to Austria SH-1 1.115 but probably in error it shows something i never heard of as Freedom Falcon with a HC of 1.550.

Manuacturer Model Span Weight Notes Handicap
Rolladen-Schneider LS-6C-1515 838 C 0.898
Rolladen-Schneider LS-6 15 816 C 0.899
Schempp-Hirth Ventus b-15 15 810 C 0.899
Schempp-Hirth Ventus cb-15 15 810 C 0.899
Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-19.1 19.1 905 C 0.9
Schempp-Hirth Ventus a-15 15 780 C 0.9
Schempp-Hirth Ventus ca-15 15 780 C 0.9
Rolladen-SchneiderLS-8T-15 15 930 MSWC 0.905
ASC Falcon-15 15 845 C 0.908
DG Flugzeugbau DG-600-15 15 782 WC 0.91
Glasflugel 401 Kestrel 17 838 C 0.91
Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-17 17 838 C 0.91
Schempp-Hirth Discus 2c-15 15 836 SWC 0.91
Schleicher ASW-20B-15 15 880 C 0.91
Schleicher ASW-20C-15 15 850 C 0.912
Centrair ASW-20F 15 838 C 0.913
Schleicher ASW-20 15 830 C 0.913
Rolladen-Schneider LS-8-15 15 820 SWC 0.915
Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 790 SWC 0.915
Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 800 SWC 0.915
Schleicher ASW-28 15 778 SWC 0.915
HPH 304CZ-17 17.4 788 WC 0.917
IAR Brasov IS-32 20 1301 C 0.918
DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-17 17 818 C 0.92
DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-17 17 818 C 0.92
Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 780 SC 0.925
Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 790 SC 0.925
Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-18 18 897 C 0.93
Glasflugel BS-1 18 1014 C 0.93
Glasflugel BS-1B 18 1014 C 0.93
IAR Brasov IS-29E3 20 1046 C 0.93
PZL Bielsko SZD-38A Jantar1 19 890 C 0.93
Schempp-Hirth Discus b 15 790 SC 0.93
Schempp-Hirth Discus cs 15 790 SC 0.93
Schreder HP-18 Modified 15 825 WC 0.93
IAR Brasov IS-29E2 19 970 C 0.935
Schempp-Hirth Discus a 15 760 SC 0.935
Schleicher ASW-24B 15 788 SC 0.935
Glasflugel 304 15 786 C 0.937
HPH 304CZ 15 768 WC 0.937
Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-15 15 845 C 0.937
DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-15 15 812 C 0.94
DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-15 15 812 C 0.94
DG Flugzeugbau DG-303 15 805 SC 0.94
Glasflugel 303 Mosquito 15 801 C 0.94
IAR Brasov IS-29E 17.6 893 C 0.94
Oldershaw O-3 20 1035 C 0.94
Rolladen-SchneiderLS-3A 15 830 C 0.94
Rolladen-SchneiderLS-7 15 785 SWC 0.94
Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus a 15 780 C 0.94
Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus b 15 780 C 0.94
Schleicher ASW-24 15 772 SC 0.94
Schleicher ASW-24 Prototype15 888 SC 0.94
Slingsby T-65 Vega 15 790 C 0.94
PZL Bielsko SZD-55-1 15 760 SC 0.941
ASC Spirit 15 775 SC 0.942
Rolladen-Schneider LS-4B 15 820 SC 0.942
Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus c 15 768 C 0.943
Glasflugel H-301 Schuemann 15 662 C 0.945
Applebay Zuni II 15 790 C 0.95
DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 15 794 SC 0.95
Eiri Avion PIK-20B 15 780 C 0.95
Eiri Avion PIK-20D 15 768 C 0.95
Eiri Avion PIK-20D-78 15 750 C 0.95
Grob G-104 Speed Astir II 15 849 C 0.95
Grob G-104 Speed Astir IIB 15 849 C 0.95
IAR Brasov IS-29G 16.5 816 C 0.95
Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 15 780 SC 0.95
Rolladen-Schneider LS-4A 15 780 SC 0.95
Applebay Zuni 15 890 C 0.955
Centrair 101 Pegase D 15 840 SC 0.955
Centrair Pegasus 101A 15 829 SC 0.955
Centrair Pegasus 101B 15 840 SC 0.955
DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 Club 15 821 SFC 0.96
Group Genesis Genesis II 15 825 SC 0.96
HPH 304C 15 758 SWC 0.96
Centrair Pegasus 101AP 15 837 SWC 0.965
Centrair Pegasus 101BP 15 848 SWC 0.965
Flug FahrzeugwerkeDiamant-16.5 16.5 877 C 0.965
Schleicher ASW-19 15 800 SC 0.97
Schleicher ASW-19B 15 800 SC 0.97
PZL Bielsko SZD-37 Jantar 17.5 835 C 0.975
Schweizer SGS 1-35A 15 840 RC 0.975
Bolkow Phoebus C 17 798 C 0.98
Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-15 15 867 C 0.98
Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-17.7 17.7 838 C 0.98
Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-18.3 18.3 832 C 0.98
Schleicher ASW-17-15 15 1135 C 0.98
Glasflugel H-301 Libelle 15 662 C 0.983
DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 15 772 SC 0.99
DG Flugzeugbau DG-101G 15 780 SC 0.99
Glasflugel 206 Hornet 15 765 SC 0.99
PZL BielskoSZD-48-2 Jantar Std 215 858 SC 0.99
PZL BielskoSZD-48-3 Jantar Std 315 858 SC 0.99
PZL BielskoSZD-59 Standard 15 846 SC 0.99
Schreder HP-18 15 745 C 0.99
Schreder HP-18A 15 745 C 0.99
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1F 15 772 SC 0.995
Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 75 15 744 SC 0.995
Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 76 15 744 SC 0.995
PZL BielskoSZD-41A Jantar Standard15 848 SC 1
Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus 15 744 SC 1
Schleicher ASW-15 15 770 SC 1
Schleicher ASW-15B 15 770 SC 1
DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
DG Flugzeugbau DG-101 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
Laister LP-15 Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
Laister LP-15B Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
Neukom Elfe S-4 15 750 SC 1.01
Schreder HP-14 16.6 729 C 1.01
Schreder HP-14T 16.6 749 C 1.01
Slingsby HP-14C 18 840 C 1.01
Schweizer SGS 1-35 15 660 RC 1.013
Berkshire Concept-70 15 830 SC 1.015
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1B 15 752 SC 1.019
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1C 15 752 SC 1.019
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1D 15 752 SC 1.019
GlasflugelH-201 Standard Libelle15 675 SC 1.02
Hermanspann Chinook S 17.4 880 C 1.02
Schreder HP-19 15 745 C 1.02
Bolkow Phoebus B 15 772 SC 1.025
Centrair 101 Pegase Club 15 818 SFC 1.025
Schempp-Hirth Austria SHK 17 816 RC 1.03
Schreder HP-12A 16.6 755 C 1.03
Schreder HP-13H 16.6 729 C 1.03
Schreder HP-15 15 724 C 1.03
Schreder HP-16T 15 745 C 1.03
Schreder RS-15 15 721 C 1.03
Issoire Edelweiss C-30S 15 830 SC 1.038
PZL Bielsko SZD-59 Acro 13.2 835 C 1.04
Schreder HP-10 14.6 780 C 1.04
Schreder HP-11 15.9 680 C 1.04
Bolkow Phoebus A 15 772 SC 1.045
Grob G-102 Standard II 15 827 SC 1.051
Grob G-102 Astir CS 15 827 SC 1.052
Gehrlein GP-1 15 662 SC 1.06
Glasflugel 205 Club Libelle15 710 FC 1.06
Start+Flug H101 Salto-15.8 15.8 617 SC 1.065
Schweizer SGS 1-35 Club 15 685 FC 1.07
Slingsby T-51 Dart-17R 17 780 RC 1.07
AMS Flight Apis 15 15 508 SWC 1.08
IAR Brasov IS-29D2 15 794 SC 1.089
Prue UHP-1 17.4 755 C 1.089
PZL Bielsko SZD-36A Cobra 15 856 SC 1.089
Neukom Elfe S-3 15 710 SC 1.1
Schleicher ASK-23 15 795 SC 1.11
Niemi Sisu-1 15.2 765 C 1.115
Niemi Sisu-1A 15.2 765 C 1.115
Schempp-Hirth Austria SH-1 15 800 SRC 1.115
Champion Freedom Falcon 12.8 780 MC 1.55
PZL Bielsko SZD-36 Cobra 15 810 SC

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> So where is the official definition of Club class on the SSA site?
>
> I downloaded the Handicap Excel file, and sorted it by any that had a "C" attribute in the notes. It appears to include LS-6 .898 to Austria SH-1 1.115 but probably in error it shows something i never heard of as Freedom Falcon with a HC of 1.550.
>
> Manuacturer Model Span Weight Notes Handicap
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-6C-1515 838 C 0.898
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-6 15 816 C 0.899
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus b-15 15 810 C 0.899
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus cb-15 15 810 C 0.899
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-19.1 19.1 905 C 0.9
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus a-15 15 780 C 0.9
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus ca-15 15 780 C 0.9
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-8T-15 15 930 MSWC 0.905
> ASC Falcon-15 15 845 C 0.908
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-600-15 15 782 WC 0.91
> Glasflugel 401 Kestrel 17 838 C 0.91
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-17 17 838 C 0.91
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2c-15 15 836 SWC 0.91
> Schleicher ASW-20B-15 15 880 C 0.91
> Schleicher ASW-20C-15 15 850 C 0.912
> Centrair ASW-20F 15 838 C 0.913
> Schleicher ASW-20 15 830 C 0.913
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-8-15 15 820 SWC 0.915
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 790 SWC 0.915
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 800 SWC 0.915
> Schleicher ASW-28 15 778 SWC 0.915
> HPH 304CZ-17 17.4 788 WC 0.917
> IAR Brasov IS-32 20 1301 C 0.918
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-17 17 818 C 0.92
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-17 17 818 C 0.92
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 780 SC 0.925
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 790 SC 0.925
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-18 18 897 C 0.93
> Glasflugel BS-1 18 1014 C 0.93
> Glasflugel BS-1B 18 1014 C 0.93
> IAR Brasov IS-29E3 20 1046 C 0.93
> PZL Bielsko SZD-38A Jantar1 19 890 C 0.93
> Schempp-Hirth Discus b 15 790 SC 0.93
> Schempp-Hirth Discus cs 15 790 SC 0.93
> Schreder HP-18 Modified 15 825 WC 0.93
> IAR Brasov IS-29E2 19 970 C 0.935
> Schempp-Hirth Discus a 15 760 SC 0.935
> Schleicher ASW-24B 15 788 SC 0.935
> Glasflugel 304 15 786 C 0.937
> HPH 304CZ 15 768 WC 0.937
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-15 15 845 C 0.937
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-15 15 812 C 0.94
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-15 15 812 C 0.94
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-303 15 805 SC 0.94
> Glasflugel 303 Mosquito 15 801 C 0.94
> IAR Brasov IS-29E 17.6 893 C 0.94
> Oldershaw O-3 20 1035 C 0.94
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-3A 15 830 C 0.94
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-7 15 785 SWC 0.94
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus a 15 780 C 0.94
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus b 15 780 C 0.94
> Schleicher ASW-24 15 772 SC 0.94
> Schleicher ASW-24 Prototype15 888 SC 0.94
> Slingsby T-65 Vega 15 790 C 0.94
> PZL Bielsko SZD-55-1 15 760 SC 0.941
> ASC Spirit 15 775 SC 0.942
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4B 15 820 SC 0.942
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus c 15 768 C 0.943
> Glasflugel H-301 Schuemann 15 662 C 0.945
> Applebay Zuni II 15 790 C 0.95
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 15 794 SC 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20B 15 780 C 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20D 15 768 C 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20D-78 15 750 C 0.95
> Grob G-104 Speed Astir II 15 849 C 0.95
> Grob G-104 Speed Astir IIB 15 849 C 0.95
> IAR Brasov IS-29G 16.5 816 C 0.95
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 15 780 SC 0.95
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4A 15 780 SC 0.95
> Applebay Zuni 15 890 C 0.955
> Centrair 101 Pegase D 15 840 SC 0.955
> Centrair Pegasus 101A 15 829 SC 0.955
> Centrair Pegasus 101B 15 840 SC 0.955
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 Club 15 821 SFC 0.96
> Group Genesis Genesis II 15 825 SC 0.96
> HPH 304C 15 758 SWC 0.96
> Centrair Pegasus 101AP 15 837 SWC 0.965
> Centrair Pegasus 101BP 15 848 SWC 0.965
> Flug FahrzeugwerkeDiamant-16.5 16.5 877 C 0.965
> Schleicher ASW-19 15 800 SC 0.97
> Schleicher ASW-19B 15 800 SC 0.97
> PZL Bielsko SZD-37 Jantar 17.5 835 C 0.975
> Schweizer SGS 1-35A 15 840 RC 0.975
> Bolkow Phoebus C 17 798 C 0.98
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-15 15 867 C 0.98
> Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-17.7 17.7 838 C 0.98
> Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-18.3 18.3 832 C 0.98
> Schleicher ASW-17-15 15 1135 C 0.98
> Glasflugel H-301 Libelle 15 662 C 0.983
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 15 772 SC 0.99
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-101G 15 780 SC 0.99
> Glasflugel 206 Hornet 15 765 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-48-2 Jantar Std 215 858 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-48-3 Jantar Std 315 858 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-59 Standard 15 846 SC 0.99
> Schreder HP-18 15 745 C 0.99
> Schreder HP-18A 15 745 C 0.99
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1F 15 772 SC 0.995
> Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 75 15 744 SC 0.995
> Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 76 15 744 SC 0.995
> PZL BielskoSZD-41A Jantar Standard15 848 SC 1
> Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus 15 744 SC 1
> Schleicher ASW-15 15 770 SC 1
> Schleicher ASW-15B 15 770 SC 1
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-101 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
> Laister LP-15 Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
> Laister LP-15B Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
> Neukom Elfe S-4 15 750 SC 1.01
> Schreder HP-14 16.6 729 C 1.01
> Schreder HP-14T 16.6 749 C 1.01
> Slingsby HP-14C 18 840 C 1.01
> Schweizer SGS 1-35 15 660 RC 1.013
> Berkshire Concept-70 15 830 SC 1.015
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1B 15 752 SC 1.019
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1C 15 752 SC 1.019
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1D 15 752 SC 1.019
> GlasflugelH-201 Standard Libelle15 675 SC 1.02
> Hermanspann Chinook S 17.4 880 C 1.02
> Schreder HP-19 15 745 C 1.02
> Bolkow Phoebus B 15 772 SC 1.025
> Centrair 101 Pegase Club 15 818 SFC 1.025
> Schempp-Hirth Austria SHK 17 816 RC 1.03
> Schreder HP-12A 16.6 755 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-13H 16.6 729 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-15 15 724 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-16T 15 745 C 1.03
> Schreder RS-15 15 721 C 1.03
> Issoire Edelweiss C-30S 15 830 SC 1.038
> PZL Bielsko SZD-59 Acro 13.2 835 C 1.04
> Schreder HP-10 14.6 780 C 1.04
> Schreder HP-11 15.9 680 C 1.04
> Bolkow Phoebus A 15 772 SC 1.045
> Grob G-102 Standard II 15 827 SC 1.051
> Grob G-102 Astir CS 15 827 SC 1.052
> Gehrlein GP-1 15 662 SC 1.06
> Glasflugel 205 Club Libelle15 710 FC 1.06
> Start+Flug H101 Salto-15.8 15.8 617 SC 1.065
> Schweizer SGS 1-35 Club 15 685 FC 1.07
> Slingsby T-51 Dart-17R 17 780 RC 1.07
> AMS Flight Apis 15 15 508 SWC 1.08
> IAR Brasov IS-29D2 15 794 SC 1.089
> Prue UHP-1 17.4 755 C 1.089
> PZL Bielsko SZD-36A Cobra 15 856 SC 1.089
> Neukom Elfe S-3 15 710 SC 1.1
> Schleicher ASK-23 15 795 SC 1.11
> Niemi Sisu-1 15.2 765 C 1.115
> Niemi Sisu-1A 15.2 765 C 1.115
> Schempp-Hirth Austria SH-1 15 800 SRC 1.115
> Champion Freedom Falcon 12.8 780 MC 1.55
> PZL Bielsko SZD-36 Cobra 15 810 SC

Yeah, that "C" is there in error. It is a one off, homebuilt, pusher self launcher. If you want to see it, look at the September 1983 issue of SOARING magazine. Pages 50-52.

Steve Leonard

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:59:06 PM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:

>
> Yeah, that "C" is there in error. It is a one off, homebuilt, pusher self launcher. If you want to see it, look at the September 1983 issue of SOARING magazine. Pages 50-52.
>
> Steve Leonard

Oops! 48-50.

SL

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:32:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> So where is the official definition of Club class on the SSA site?
>
> I downloaded the Handicap Excel file, and sorted it by any that had a "C" attribute in the notes. It appears to include LS-6 .898 to Austria SH-1 1.115 but probably in error it shows something i never heard of as Freedom Falcon with a HC of 1.550.
>
> Manuacturer Model Span Weight Notes Handicap
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-6C-1515 838 C 0.898
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-6 15 816 C 0.899
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus b-15 15 810 C 0.899
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus cb-15 15 810 C 0.899
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-19.1 19.1 905 C 0.9
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus a-15 15 780 C 0.9
> Schempp-Hirth Ventus ca-15 15 780 C 0.9
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-8T-15 15 930 MSWC 0.905
> ASC Falcon-15 15 845 C 0.908
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-600-15 15 782 WC 0.91
> Glasflugel 401 Kestrel 17 838 C 0.91
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-17 17 838 C 0.91
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2c-15 15 836 SWC 0.91
> Schleicher ASW-20B-15 15 880 C 0.91
> Schleicher ASW-20C-15 15 850 C 0.912
> Centrair ASW-20F 15 838 C 0.913
> Schleicher ASW-20 15 830 C 0.913
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-8-15 15 820 SWC 0.915
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 790 SWC 0.915
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 800 SWC 0.915
> Schleicher ASW-28 15 778 SWC 0.915
> HPH 304CZ-17 17.4 788 WC 0.917
> IAR Brasov IS-32 20 1301 C 0.918
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-17 17 818 C 0.92
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-17 17 818 C 0.92
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2a 15 780 SC 0.925
> Schempp-Hirth Discus 2b 15 790 SC 0.925
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-18 18 897 C 0.93
> Glasflugel BS-1 18 1014 C 0.93
> Glasflugel BS-1B 18 1014 C 0.93
> IAR Brasov IS-29E3 20 1046 C 0.93
> PZL Bielsko SZD-38A Jantar1 19 890 C 0.93
> Schempp-Hirth Discus b 15 790 SC 0.93
> Schempp-Hirth Discus cs 15 790 SC 0.93
> Schreder HP-18 Modified 15 825 WC 0.93
> IAR Brasov IS-29E2 19 970 C 0.935
> Schempp-Hirth Discus a 15 760 SC 0.935
> Schleicher ASW-24B 15 788 SC 0.935
> Glasflugel 304 15 786 C 0.937
> HPH 304CZ 15 768 WC 0.937
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-3-15 15 845 C 0.937
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-200-15 15 812 C 0.94
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-202-15 15 812 C 0.94
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-303 15 805 SC 0.94
> Glasflugel 303 Mosquito 15 801 C 0.94
> IAR Brasov IS-29E 17.6 893 C 0.94
> Oldershaw O-3 20 1035 C 0.94
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-3A 15 830 C 0.94
> Rolladen-SchneiderLS-7 15 785 SWC 0.94
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus a 15 780 C 0.94
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus b 15 780 C 0.94
> Schleicher ASW-24 15 772 SC 0.94
> Schleicher ASW-24 Prototype15 888 SC 0.94
> Slingsby T-65 Vega 15 790 C 0.94
> PZL Bielsko SZD-55-1 15 760 SC 0.941
> ASC Spirit 15 775 SC 0.942
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4B 15 820 SC 0.942
> Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus c 15 768 C 0.943
> Glasflugel H-301 Schuemann 15 662 C 0.945
> Applebay Zuni II 15 790 C 0.95
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 15 794 SC 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20B 15 780 C 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20D 15 768 C 0.95
> Eiri Avion PIK-20D-78 15 750 C 0.95
> Grob G-104 Speed Astir II 15 849 C 0.95
> Grob G-104 Speed Astir IIB 15 849 C 0.95
> IAR Brasov IS-29G 16.5 816 C 0.95
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4 15 780 SC 0.95
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-4A 15 780 SC 0.95
> Applebay Zuni 15 890 C 0.955
> Centrair 101 Pegase D 15 840 SC 0.955
> Centrair Pegasus 101A 15 829 SC 0.955
> Centrair Pegasus 101B 15 840 SC 0.955
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-300 Club 15 821 SFC 0.96
> Group Genesis Genesis II 15 825 SC 0.96
> HPH 304C 15 758 SWC 0.96
> Centrair Pegasus 101AP 15 837 SWC 0.965
> Centrair Pegasus 101BP 15 848 SWC 0.965
> Flug FahrzeugwerkeDiamant-16.5 16.5 877 C 0.965
> Schleicher ASW-19 15 800 SC 0.97
> Schleicher ASW-19B 15 800 SC 0.97
> PZL Bielsko SZD-37 Jantar 17.5 835 C 0.975
> Schweizer SGS 1-35A 15 840 RC 0.975
> Bolkow Phoebus C 17 798 C 0.98
> Flug and Fahrzeugwerke Diamant-15 15 867 C 0.98
> Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-17.7 17.7 838 C 0.98
> Schempp-Hirth Cirrus-18.3 18.3 832 C 0.98
> Schleicher ASW-17-15 15 1135 C 0.98
> Glasflugel H-301 Libelle 15 662 C 0.983
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 15 772 SC 0.99
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-101G 15 780 SC 0.99
> Glasflugel 206 Hornet 15 765 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-48-2 Jantar Std 215 858 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-48-3 Jantar Std 315 858 SC 0.99
> PZL BielskoSZD-59 Standard 15 846 SC 0.99
> Schreder HP-18 15 745 C 0.99
> Schreder HP-18A 15 745 C 0.99
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1F 15 772 SC 0.995
> Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 75 15 744 SC 0.995
> Schempp-Hirth Std Cirrus 76 15 744 SC 0.995
> PZL BielskoSZD-41A Jantar Standard15 848 SC 1
> Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus 15 744 SC 1
> Schleicher ASW-15 15 770 SC 1
> Schleicher ASW-15B 15 770 SC 1
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-100 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
> DG Flugzeugbau DG-101 Club 15 768 SFC 1.01
> Laister LP-15 Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
> Laister LP-15B Nugget 15 713 SC 1.01
> Neukom Elfe S-4 15 750 SC 1.01
> Schreder HP-14 16.6 729 C 1.01
> Schreder HP-14T 16.6 749 C 1.01
> Slingsby HP-14C 18 840 C 1.01
> Schweizer SGS 1-35 15 660 RC 1.013
> Berkshire Concept-70 15 830 SC 1.015
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1B 15 752 SC 1.019
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1C 15 752 SC 1.019
> Rolladen-Schneider LS-1D 15 752 SC 1.019
> GlasflugelH-201 Standard Libelle15 675 SC 1.02
> Hermanspann Chinook S 17.4 880 C 1.02
> Schreder HP-19 15 745 C 1.02
> Bolkow Phoebus B 15 772 SC 1.025
> Centrair 101 Pegase Club 15 818 SFC 1.025
> Schempp-Hirth Austria SHK 17 816 RC 1.03
> Schreder HP-12A 16.6 755 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-13H 16.6 729 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-15 15 724 C 1.03
> Schreder HP-16T 15 745 C 1.03
> Schreder RS-15 15 721 C 1.03
> Issoire Edelweiss C-30S 15 830 SC 1.038
> PZL Bielsko SZD-59 Acro 13.2 835 C 1.04
> Schreder HP-10 14.6 780 C 1.04
> Schreder HP-11 15.9 680 C 1.04
> Bolkow Phoebus A 15 772 SC 1.045
> Grob G-102 Standard II 15 827 SC 1.051
> Grob G-102 Astir CS 15 827 SC 1.052
> Gehrlein GP-1 15 662 SC 1.06
> Glasflugel 205 Club Libelle15 710 FC 1.06
> Start+Flug H101 Salto-15.8 15.8 617 SC 1.065
> Schweizer SGS 1-35 Club 15 685 FC 1.07
> Slingsby T-51 Dart-17R 17 780 RC 1.07
> AMS Flight Apis 15 15 508 SWC 1.08
> IAR Brasov IS-29D2 15 794 SC 1.089
> Prue UHP-1 17.4 755 C 1.089
> PZL Bielsko SZD-36A Cobra 15 856 SC 1.089
> Neukom Elfe S-3 15 710 SC 1.1
> Schleicher ASK-23 15 795 SC 1.11
> Niemi Sisu-1 15.2 765 C 1.115
> Niemi Sisu-1A 15.2 765 C 1.115
> Schempp-Hirth Austria SH-1 15 800 SRC 1.115
> Champion Freedom Falcon 12.8 780 MC 1.55
> PZL Bielsko SZD-36 Cobra 15 810 SC

Club Class is specified in the body of Contest rules. The Range of handicaps for US Club Class is .898 to 1.02.
The handicap list is out of date and currently in the process of being updated. Annotations for Club gliders is one of the updates that is being made.
For the Contest Board
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:04:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Club Class is specified in the body of Contest rules. The Range of handicaps for US Club Class is .898 to 1.02.
> UH

thanks, but i found it:

6.12.3 >> â€* US Club Class
6.12.3.1 ‡ â€* This class is open to sailplanes whose Handicap Factor in the SSA Handicap List is not less than 0.890. The maximum
Handicap Factor is 1.020: this is the maximum that can be assigned to any sailplane (regardless of its listed or calculated handicap)
and the maximum that is considered in decisions about tasking. Wingspan is limited to a maximum of 15.0 meters. Multi-place gliders
are not permitted.

[Sierra Whiskey]

I always find it hard to believe that an LS-8, ASW-28, and Discus 2 are considered "club" class. Seems a little modern and pricey for the average "club". Those are considered the top gliders of their own class (Standard) and are on the club class list among other aircraft that cannot claim the same merit.

[Sierra Whiskey]

It seems like the FAI list of club class gliders and their handicaps is simple and straight forward. Doesn't it make sense to adopt the FAI standard in reference to Club Class competition? The FAI won't allow an LS-8 (or similar glider) to compete in the Club Class Worlds, so why do we allow them on the US club class list?

Reference: http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/SC3AH_2016b

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 8:28:26 PM UTC-8, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> I always find it hard to believe that an LS-8, ASW-28, and Discus 2 are considered "club" class. Seems a little modern and pricey for the average "club". Those are considered the top gliders of their own class (Standard) and are on the club class list among other aircraft that cannot claim the same merit.

Over time the Club class drifts downward in handicap (or upward if you're looking at FAI handicaps which are inverted from US). It's just a question of timing. I suspect it won't be long before all Standard Class gliders show up on the FAI list.

The gliders that go into Club are based on a tradeoff between two considerations: critical mass of non-handicapped classes and having tight clustering of the Club handicap range. Standard Class is on the edge of viability as a standalone Class and the latest generation of Standard Class gliders are effectively out of production so in the US we've elected to give racers who own these gliders the option to race in Club.

In many ways Club Class is a misnomer in the US because there aren't likely enough Club Class gliders actually owned by clubs in the US to populate a contest. The few that are owed by clubs are typically not easy to take to contests. These gliders are mostly owned by individuals and syndicates. The situation in many other countries is quite different, with a lot more race-ready gliders owned by Clubs and actually available to race.

9B

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:45:03 AM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> The FAI won't allow an LS-8 (or similar glider) to compete in the Club Class Worlds, so why do we allow them on the US club class list?

Because a very small expansion of the handicap range significantly increases the number of US ships that qualify, potentially increasing participation.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 6:29:07 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:45:03 AM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> > The FAI won't allow an LS-8 (or similar glider) to compete in the Club Class Worlds, so why do we allow them on the US club class list?
>
> Because a very small expansion of the handicap range significantly increases the number of US ships that qualify, potentially increasing participation.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

you could also greatly increase participation in the standard class if you allowed flapped gliders to compete...

[Tony[_5_]]

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-6, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> I always find it hard to believe that an LS-8, ASW-28, and Discus 2 are considered "club" class. Seems a little modern and pricey for the average "club". Those are considered the top gliders of their own class (Standard) and are on the club class list among other aircraft that cannot claim the same merit.

FAI is considering a proposal at their upcoming meeting to further expand the FAI definition. The proposal does not change the handicap range but it does propose to allow water ballast in the club class and set a maximum weight. The goal of this proposal apparently is to shift the range of competitive gliders up.

Read all about it. Let your IGC representative know what you think.

http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2017_Agenda_Ax8_2_10

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 7:46:02 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 6:29:07 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:45:03 AM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> > > The FAI won't allow an LS-8 (or similar glider) to compete in the Club Class Worlds, so why do we allow them on the US club class list?
> >
> > Because a very small expansion of the handicap range significantly increases the number of US ships that qualify, potentially increasing participation.
> >
> > best,
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> you could also greatly increase participation in the standard class if you allowed flapped gliders to compete...

*I* can vote for RC members, and lobby them, same as you Tony.

I was in favor of this particular rule because it made sense to me (and I own an ASW-20B). I guess you feel differently?

best,
Evan

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 14:58:21 UTC+2, Tony wrote:
>
> FAI is considering a proposal at their upcoming meeting to further expand the FAI definition. The proposal does not change the handicap range but it does propose to allow water ballast in the club class and set a maximum weight. The goal of this proposal apparently is to shift the range of competitive gliders up.
>
> Read all about it. Let your IGC representative know what you think.
>
> http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2017_Agenda_Ax8_2_10

Same Cirri/Libelle/etc. will fly the competition, only now with ballast. Current scoring system dictates that you have to fly together with other pilots, so you need to have same performance glider as others. This fact does not change with water ballast.

[Tony[_5_]]

I understand the difficulty the rules committee faces attempting to encourage participation. Participation in the last 3 club class nationals would've been significantly lower if only FAI Club Class gliders had been allowed.

Part of the trouble is what people perception of the class is vs. what it was originally designed for.

I actually don't know for sure what the original intent of the club class was. It was developed before I was involved in the sport and way before I was involved in competition.

I had this idea that the purpose of the club class was to give a competition home to gliders which are no longer competitive. Including modern standard class gliders doesn't seem to fit with that idea.

Just like you were interested in expansion in order to give your ASW-20B a place to compete, i am interested in keeping my Std. Cirrus competitive.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Interesting to me that the FAI list includes the Std Cirrus B with 16 meter tips installed. But, you can't put winglets on those tips. So much for it being limited to 15 meter span sailplanes...

Steve Leonard

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> I understand the difficulty the rules committee faces attempting to encourage participation. Participation in the last 3 club class nationals would've been significantly lower if only FAI Club Class gliders had been allowed..
>
> Part of the trouble is what people perception of the class is vs. what it was originally designed for.
>
> I actually don't know for sure what the original intent of the club class was. It was developed before I was involved in the sport and way before I was involved in competition.
>
> I had this idea that the purpose of the club class was to give a competition home to gliders which are no longer competitive. Including modern standard class gliders doesn't seem to fit with that idea.
>
> Just like you were interested in expansion in order to give your ASW-20B a place to compete, i am interested in keeping my Std. Cirrus competitive.

None of the ships added are game changers. In fact the std class ships are slightly lower performance (by CH handicap) than the ASW-20, so they don't change the race *at all*. The addition of Ventus A&B, most often now flown with winglets, moves the top performing ships out 1% or so on handicap.

Where's the harm?

best,
Evan

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Interesting to me that the FAI list includes the Std Cirrus B with 16 meter tips installed. But, you can't put winglets on those tips. So much for it being limited to 15 meter span sailplanes...
>
> Steve Leonard

That's getting fixed, I think....

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > I understand the difficulty the rules committee faces attempting to encourage participation. Participation in the last 3 club class nationals would've been significantly lower if only FAI Club Class gliders had been allowed.
> >
> > Part of the trouble is what people perception of the class is vs. what it was originally designed for.
> >
> > I actually don't know for sure what the original intent of the club class was. It was developed before I was involved in the sport and way before I was involved in competition.
> >
> > I had this idea that the purpose of the club class was to give a competition home to gliders which are no longer competitive. Including modern standard class gliders doesn't seem to fit with that idea.
> >
> > Just like you were interested in expansion in order to give your ASW-20B a place to compete, i am interested in keeping my Std. Cirrus competitive..
>
> None of the ships added are game changers. In fact the std class ships are slightly lower performance (by CH handicap) than the ASW-20, so they don't change the race *at all*. The addition of Ventus A&B, most often now flown with winglets, moves the top performing ships out 1% or so on handicap.
>
> Where's the harm?
>
> best,
> Evan

As the top end of the range moves up, 1% at a time, and the bottom end gets chopped off, those of us now close to the bottom start to get a little nervous, that's all.

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:31:55 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > > I understand the difficulty the rules committee faces attempting to encourage participation. Participation in the last 3 club class nationals would've been significantly lower if only FAI Club Class gliders had been allowed.
> > >
> > > Part of the trouble is what people perception of the class is vs. what it was originally designed for.
> > >
> > > I actually don't know for sure what the original intent of the club class was. It was developed before I was involved in the sport and way before I was involved in competition.
> > >
> > > I had this idea that the purpose of the club class was to give a competition home to gliders which are no longer competitive. Including modern standard class gliders doesn't seem to fit with that idea.
> > >
> > > Just like you were interested in expansion in order to give your ASW-20B a place to compete, i am interested in keeping my Std. Cirrus competitive.
> >
> > None of the ships added are game changers. In fact the std class ships are slightly lower performance (by CH handicap) than the ASW-20, so they don't change the race *at all*. The addition of Ventus A&B, most often now flown with winglets, moves the top performing ships out 1% or so on handicap.
> >
> > Where's the harm?
> >
> > best,
> > Evan
>
> As the top end of the range moves up, 1% at a time, and the bottom end gets chopped off, those of us now close to the bottom start to get a little nervous, that's all.

Complaints would be pretty loud if the RC suggested cutting Std Cirrus, LS-1, ASW-15, Std Libelle, don't you think? I'd complain...

I'll go out on a limb and state that no one is going to offer a successful argument to add 27s and V2s to Club while those ships remain competitive in 15m.

best,
Evan

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 2:31:55 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:03:18 PM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 1:38:51 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > > I understand the difficulty the rules committee faces attempting to encourage participation. Participation in the last 3 club class nationals would've been significantly lower if only FAI Club Class gliders had been allowed.
> > >
> > > Part of the trouble is what people perception of the class is vs. what it was originally designed for.
> > >
> > > I actually don't know for sure what the original intent of the club class was. It was developed before I was involved in the sport and way before I was involved in competition.
> > >
> > > I had this idea that the purpose of the club class was to give a competition home to gliders which are no longer competitive. Including modern standard class gliders doesn't seem to fit with that idea.
> > >
> > > Just like you were interested in expansion in order to give your ASW-20B a place to compete, i am interested in keeping my Std. Cirrus competitive.
> >
> > None of the ships added are game changers. In fact the std class ships are slightly lower performance (by CH handicap) than the ASW-20, so they don't change the race *at all*. The addition of Ventus A&B, most often now flown with winglets, moves the top performing ships out 1% or so on handicap.
> >
> > Where's the harm?
> >
> > best,
> > Evan
>
> As the top end of the range moves up, 1% at a time, and the bottom end gets chopped off, those of us now close to the bottom start to get a little nervous, that's all.

The reason for .898 was to let LS-6 and Ventus onto the list. Following the general trend of the IGC list that allowed the ASW-20, we shifted slightly to get these other contemporary gliders included. There is no plan to change where we are in range in the future as far out as we can see.
UH

[[email protected]]

Interesting, I have owned my Ventus B for 20 years and although I am not competitive with current production models in FAI class comps, I have only entered FAI 15 meter comps. And always getting my butt handed to me � Being included in club class I would consider competing in that class if for no other reason to see if it's me or the ship, even though I already know that answer.:) Now if only participation in the West would rise to the point that we could have Club class contests.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:44:39 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Interesting, I have owned my Ventus B for 20 years and although I am not competitive with current production models in FAI class comps, I have only entered FAI 15 meter comps. And always getting my butt handed to me � Being included in club class I would consider competing in that class if for no other reason to see if it's me or the ship, even though I already know that answer.:) Now if only participation in the West would rise to the point that we could have Club class contests.

Hobbs this summer!

[Paul T[_4_]]

What is needed internationally is a two class Club Class A and B - for
higher and lower performing 'obsolescent' ships - would be far better
than the ill thought out 13.5 m class - which is now producing mini-
15m class ships, costing 100k or more.
Maybe something like Ka6e to Asw19b -class A, LS4 to Ventus/LS6 -
class B ?

Don't see why it should be a span limited class either. Should be based
on handicap. - let in the Kestrels, Open Cirri ect.

Ka6e's, SHK's and Open Cirrus's have all flown in UK Club Class
Nationals before.

[Sierra Whiskey]

I like the explanation of "Club Class" on the FAI site:
"The Club Class arose to provide international level competition in club-type gliders for the large number of talented pilots who could not aspire to owning an expensive modern glider of their own. It has kept demand high for a number of older but still very valid designs."

Of course the term "Expensive" is relative, but the current US Club Class list spans roughly $10,000-$80,000 where the FAI list is much narrower.

My Two Cents:
If the handicapping of gliders were quantifiable through the use of a formula that accounted for the performance of the glider in order to actually level the playing field of the aircraft and allow for a measure of the pilot then the introduction of modern gliders to the class would make more sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but for over a decade the US handicap system has been more of an arbitrary assignment than a calculation.

I look at the Std. Cirrus compared to the LS-8. Their US Handicaps respectively are 1.0 and 0.915. To me this would imply that the LS-8 is 8.5% "better" than a Standard Cirrus. (Better is not the best descriptor, but is meant to be a summary of glide performance and speed).

Lets assume that the two gliders mentioned above are flying at Best L/D.
LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
Std. Cirrus: 36.5:1 at 50 kts
I calculate the difference in performance by looking at a multiple of the GR*V_(L/D). Since in this case the V_(L/D) is the same we can omit them, and just compute (36.5/43) which gives 0.849.

The numbers above are a bit crude because they are pulled from various sources online. Even the LS-8 data is "Calculated" and the tested data is slightly different. Looking at it from other sources:
LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
Std. Cirrus: 38:1 at 50 kts
This still gives the LS-8 an advantage of 0.884.

In a final "base" example I will use some extreme numbers, degrading the performance of the LS-8, and exaggerating the performance of the Standard Cirrus:
LS-8: 42:1 at about 50 kts
Std. Cirrus: 38.5:1 at 50 kts
We finally arrive at an advantage of 0.917! (I take this as a "Factory New Std. Cirrus" flying against a "Buggy LS-8 without Gap Seals"?)

The above examples would be great if we flew contests while flying at Best L/D speed over three hour courses of 150 miles. The fact of the matter is we are frequently pushing MacCreedy "2" speeds on four hour courses that exceed 240 miles. (Let's compare the performance at 60 kts)

Since I don't have either of these factory polar curves to use, again, I am coming up with crude numbers, but I still think they speak volumes. These are a comparison of the L/D at a constant sink rate (2 m/s):
LS-8: 24:1 at about 92 kts (92*24=2,208)
Std. Cirrus: 22:1 at 86 kts (22*86=1,892)
Now we have a performance comparison at a more representative cruise speed in competition with a yield of 0.857 in favor of the LS-8. This means at a target MacCreedy speed I would expect the LS-8 to perform roughly 14% more efficient than the Standard Cirrus assuming the exact same pilot in the exact same point (Position/Altitude). This seems to be quite far from the 8.5% advantage given by the current Handicap List.

Does anyone have any information on how the current US handicaps are derived? I would really like to see what performance numbers were used to calculate the level playing field numbers that we currently use.

Thank you for any help or pointing me in the right direction! Only one of my calculations even come close, and it seems to be an extreme example!

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 7:58:01 AM UTC+3, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> I like the explanation of "Club Class" on the FAI site:
> "The Club Class arose to provide international level competition in club-type gliders for the large number of talented pilots who could not aspire to owning an expensive modern glider of their own. It has kept demand high for a number of older but still very valid designs."
>
> Of course the term "Expensive" is relative, but the current US Club Class list spans roughly $10,000-$80,000 where the FAI list is much narrower.
>
> My Two Cents:
> If the handicapping of gliders were quantifiable through the use of a formula that accounted for the performance of the glider in order to actually level the playing field of the aircraft and allow for a measure of the pilot then the introduction of modern gliders to the class would make more sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but for over a decade the US handicap system has been more of an arbitrary assignment than a calculation.
>
> I look at the Std. Cirrus compared to the LS-8. Their US Handicaps respectively are 1.0 and 0.915. To me this would imply that the LS-8 is 8.5% "better" than a Standard Cirrus. (Better is not the best descriptor, but is meant to be a summary of glide performance and speed).
>
> Lets assume that the two gliders mentioned above are flying at Best L/D.
> LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 36.5:1 at 50 kts
> I calculate the difference in performance by looking at a multiple of the GR*V_(L/D). Since in this case the V_(L/D) is the same we can omit them, and just compute (36.5/43) which gives 0.849.
>
> The numbers above are a bit crude because they are pulled from various sources online. Even the LS-8 data is "Calculated" and the tested data is slightly different. Looking at it from other sources:
> LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 38:1 at 50 kts
> This still gives the LS-8 an advantage of 0.884.
>
> In a final "base" example I will use some extreme numbers, degrading the performance of the LS-8, and exaggerating the performance of the Standard Cirrus:
> LS-8: 42:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 38.5:1 at 50 kts
> We finally arrive at an advantage of 0.917! (I take this as a "Factory New Std. Cirrus" flying against a "Buggy LS-8 without Gap Seals"?)
>
> The above examples would be great if we flew contests while flying at Best L/D speed over three hour courses of 150 miles. The fact of the matter is we are frequently pushing MacCreedy "2" speeds on four hour courses that exceed 240 miles. (Let's compare the performance at 60 kts)
>
> Since I don't have either of these factory polar curves to use, again, I am coming up with crude numbers, but I still think they speak volumes. These are a comparison of the L/D at a constant sink rate (2 m/s):
> LS-8: 24:1 at about 92 kts (92*24=2,208)
> Std. Cirrus: 22:1 at 86 kts (22*86=1,892)
> Now we have a performance comparison at a more representative cruise speed in competition with a yield of 0.857 in favor of the LS-8. This means at a target MacCreedy speed I would expect the LS-8 to perform roughly 14% more efficient than the Standard Cirrus assuming the exact same pilot in the exact same point (Position/Altitude). This seems to be quite far from the 8.5% advantage given by the current Handicap List.
>
> Does anyone have any information on how the current US handicaps are derived? I would really like to see what performance numbers were used to calculate the level playing field numbers that we currently use.
>
> Thank you for any help or pointing me in the right direction! Only one of my calculations even come close, and it seems to be an extreme example!

BGA has them at 90 and 100, so 10% or 11.1% different depending on which way you look at it.

The problem with these is one number can't apply across all conditions, especially with gliders so far apart in performance and generation.

On strong days, the LS8 is obviously going to run away into the distance and win a three hour race by far more than twenty minutes.

But on a weak day where you can barely stay aloft and the thermals are weak and narrow? It might be a lot closer, maybe even close to equal.

There probably exist days when a Ka8 can beat an LS8. Not often, mind.

[[email protected]]

Regarding modern standard class gliders such as LS8 in Club Class, my opinion is that given an appropriate handicap factor, they may be perfectly acceptable provided ballasting is prohibited (as it is in the FAI definition of the class).
FAI leaves a lot of freedom about national rules for the gliders eligible in club class events (excluding those sanctioned by FAI at world or continental level).
In Italy we strictly apply the "IGC club class handicap list" which includes small adjustments for wingloading (think: Discus bT, PIK20E). The actual handicap for a single sailplane after the adjustments shall not exceed the max. accepted hcap factor indicated in the class definition.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 11:58:01 PM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
[...]
> My Two Cents:
> If the handicapping of gliders were quantifiable through the use of a formula that accounted for the performance of the glider in order to actually level the playing field of the aircraft and allow for a measure of the pilot then the introduction of modern gliders to the class would make more sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but for over a decade the US handicap system has been more of an arbitrary assignment than a calculation.
>
> I look at the Std. Cirrus compared to the LS-8. Their US Handicaps respectively are 1.0 and 0.915. To me this would imply that the LS-8 is 8.5% "better" than a Standard Cirrus. (Better is not the best descriptor, but is meant to be a summary of glide performance and speed).
>
> Lets assume that the two gliders mentioned above are flying at Best L/D.
> LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 36.5:1 at 50 kts
> I calculate the difference in performance by looking at a multiple of the GR*V_(L/D). Since in this case the V_(L/D) is the same we can omit them, and just compute (36.5/43) which gives 0.849.
>
> The numbers above are a bit crude because they are pulled from various sources online. Even the LS-8 data is "Calculated" and the tested data is slightly different. Looking at it from other sources:
> LS-8: 43:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 38:1 at 50 kts
> This still gives the LS-8 an advantage of 0.884.
>
> In a final "base" example I will use some extreme numbers, degrading the performance of the LS-8, and exaggerating the performance of the Standard Cirrus:
> LS-8: 42:1 at about 50 kts
> Std. Cirrus: 38.5:1 at 50 kts
> We finally arrive at an advantage of 0.917! (I take this as a "Factory New Std. Cirrus" flying against a "Buggy LS-8 without Gap Seals"?)
>
> The above examples would be great if we flew contests while flying at Best L/D speed over three hour courses of 150 miles. The fact of the matter is we are frequently pushing MacCreedy "2" speeds on four hour courses that exceed 240 miles. (Let's compare the performance at 60 kts)
>
> Since I don't have either of these factory polar curves to use, again, I am coming up with crude numbers, but I still think they speak volumes. These are a comparison of the L/D at a constant sink rate (2 m/s):
> LS-8: 24:1 at about 92 kts (92*24=2,208)
> Std. Cirrus: 22:1 at 86 kts (22*86=1,892)
> Now we have a performance comparison at a more representative cruise speed in competition with a yield of 0.857 in favor of the LS-8. This means at a target MacCreedy speed I would expect the LS-8 to perform roughly 14% more efficient than the Standard Cirrus assuming the exact same pilot in the exact same point (Position/Altitude). This seems to be quite far from the 8.5% advantage given by the current Handicap List.

What phase of competition flight, often comprising nearly half the total time on course, have you left out? How much distance and speed is made during this phase? How different are the LS-8 and Std Cirrus during this phase? Does this affect your analysis at all :-)?

best,
Evan

[Sierra Whiskey]

No argument there, it is difficult to quantify the climb performance utilizing upward moving air. This would take some evaluation of the wing loading and sink rate at thermaling speeds.

That in mind, the analysis of speed and sink comparisons does indicate that if those two gliders left the same thermal at the same altitude and at the same time, the lower performing glider would arrive at the same next thermal lower and after the higher performing glider. Any delta in the climb performance (if one could be accurately calculated) would be negated by the point of arrival in the next thermal. So in a way the climb performance of the glider is accounted for in the calculation, probably as an under-estimate..

The above is probably why it is also so difficult to handicap variable ballasted gliders!

A while back I developed a plan to create a variable handicap where a Contest Director (with the help of the Weather Adviser) would declare three components to the race: Task, MacCready Value for the day, and a wind value for the day. Each handicap for the day would be based on the sink rate of each glider at the given MC and Headwind Values defined for the day. The idea was to level the playing field between a PW-5 and an ASG-29 across the different soaring conditions.

Examples:
1) Strong Lift- ASG-29 will cruise much further and more efficiently than a PW-5
2) Weak Lift- PW-5 will climb and stay aloft much easier.
3) Heavy Wind- ASG-29 has much better penetration into a strong headwind.

The reality is that the development of this system would take a significant amount of time due to a lack of high resolution data for glide performance across the spectrum of aircraft. Though the solution is difficult to design and implement, it would provide a better system to handicap gliders based on the soaring conditions, and not just a single performance value. The negative impact of this system is the requirement for rules protecting the CD from making a less than desirable call on the day values, and would introduce some new soaring strategy to optimize the performance of each aircraft based on the variable handicap for the given conditions.

This all came about while I was trying to determine how each glider's handicap is calculated. Unfortunately I am still unclear on how that happens.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:49:34 PM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> No argument there, it is difficult to quantify the climb performance utilizing upward moving air. This would take some evaluation of the wing loading and sink rate at thermaling speeds.
>
> That in mind, the analysis of speed and sink comparisons does indicate that if those two gliders left the same thermal at the same altitude and at the same time, the lower performing glider would arrive at the same next thermal lower and after the higher performing glider. Any delta in the climb performance (if one could be accurately calculated) would be negated by the point of arrival in the next thermal. So in a way the climb performance of the glider is accounted for in the calculation, probably as an under-estimate.
>
> The above is probably why it is also so difficult to handicap variable ballasted gliders!
>
> A while back I developed a plan to create a variable handicap where a Contest Director (with the help of the Weather Adviser) would declare three components to the race: Task, MacCready Value for the day, and a wind value for the day. Each handicap for the day would be based on the sink rate of each glider at the given MC and Headwind Values defined for the day. The idea was to level the playing field between a PW-5 and an ASG-29 across the different soaring conditions.
>
> Examples:
> 1) Strong Lift- ASG-29 will cruise much further and more efficiently than a PW-5
> 2) Weak Lift- PW-5 will climb and stay aloft much easier.
> 3) Heavy Wind- ASG-29 has much better penetration into a strong headwind.
>
> The reality is that the development of this system would take a significant amount of time due to a lack of high resolution data for glide performance across the spectrum of aircraft. Though the solution is difficult to design and implement, it would provide a better system to handicap gliders based on the soaring conditions, and not just a single performance value. The negative impact of this system is the requirement for rules protecting the CD from making a less than desirable call on the day values, and would introduce some new soaring strategy to optimize the performance of each aircraft based on the variable handicap for the given conditions.
>
> This all came about while I was trying to determine how each glider's handicap is calculated. Unfortunately I am still unclear on how that happens.

In regards to development of the system. You need to employ analytics to solve this problem. OLC data is all you need to find the levers.

[SoaringXCellence]

I recall when Carl Herold started the handicapping system for the US in 1972 (or about that time). He did not use the manufacturer numbers for the ship but rather the performance achieved in contests (back in those days it was racing to specific turnpoints which put more of the glider on the same course, in similar air).

He discounted the handicap when the glider was flown by an experienced (high scoring competitor) and increased the handicap if the model was doing well in the hands of new competitors.

I don't know what the "calculations" were, but in the beginning it was a rough cut which was refined year after year through the early '80's (I think) when others took over the task of assigning handicaps. I know that if a particular design was not commonly flown in competition the result was less useful.


I'm sure someone will correct me for the things I've forgotten, but that is the way I remember Carl explaining it.

Mike

[Sean Fidler]

I have avoided participation in handicap yacht racing events for over 20 years, but returned to sail with an old friend on his 33 foot boat in Michigan last summer for a few "handicap" races. My wife wanted to go sailing, so I agreed. It's always fun to go sailing on a nice afternoon. Other than these few times last summer, I have vigorously refused invitations based on my feelings about handicap racing. For my friend, the local handicap committee had hammered him so badly that he had already sold the boat. It was comical and a fun conversation. But the experience has some potential lessons surrounding it.

When the boat was delivered (4 year old design from England) a rating was formally requested. My friend had been out of sailing for awhile but was a former top sailor, last winning several season championships and many regattas before leaving the sport for roughly 10 years ago to focus on his young kids. The initial handicap estimate (before buying, via casual conversation with the handicap committee head and based on other popular boats which rated equal with it in England) was reasonable, so my friend felt comfortable (huge mistake) that the boat would have a competitive chance despite the usual handicap fear "tax" that is commonly added by corrupt local handicap committees to top sailors boats based on their skill as sailors.

So my friend decided to buy the boat and return to the sport in order to introduce his kids to sailing and take friends and family out for daysails. The boat was designed for the Solent (England, strong winds) and was overly stable (very heavy keel bulb with a smaller sail plan) for the generally light air conditions of the Great Lakes. But for my friend this would also provide a very stable sailing platform for teaching (not frightening) his kids. Very heavy boats generally get a small break on handicaps in the Great Lakes for this reason (uncompetitive)

So he invested 120k (a major investment for my friend) including some normal maintenance and shipped the boat to MI from England. Then the real "fun" began! Word got out and other owners clearly started getting nervous. A bunch of geniuses sat around a table at some yacht club, otherwise known as the "handicap committee annual meeting" (drinking cheap beer to embolden their "wisdom") and decided to give my friends boat a rating that was equivalent to modern 40+ boats with waterlines over 20% longer (think wingspan). They just pulled this rating out of thin air based on their "view" of what "believed" and not the enormous amount of VPP (velocity prediction program) data available (objective) showing the boats performance (vs other similar boats) at all wind speeds and angles, accurate to .001 knots! This boat was going to be a "good boat" but was not going to be "over performing" its waterline limitations in the slightest. In fact, it probably underperforms slighly in most conditions due to its extreme weight (nearly 12,000 pounds, which is very heavy for a 33 ft racing sailboat). The rating the committee enacted for my friend was ridiculous. It was clearly based on their fear of my friends sailing skill, not the boats performance. The rating was roughly 25% too strong and was an apparent effort to ensure that my friend was unable to compete. This proved true except for one of the races I attended and due to a tactical miracle. The boat performed exactly like a similar 33 footer but owed an extra 15-20 seconds a mile.

Of course, the handicap committee meeting included many of my friends "future competitors" (what a shock, eh?). All kinds of bogus "research" (see personal fantasy) was submitted by several of the other yacht owners explaining how fast (over embellished to say the least) this 4 year old English yacht design "might" be in. Of course they asked the committee to provide a ridiculous rating, strongly in their favor, which assumed all their "research" (counter to VPP data) was accurate. And of course the committee, desperate to win themselves as always, accommodated the subjective opinions of the other frightened competitors and approved a rating that turned heads globally per it's obvious incompetence and/or corruption. Personal opinion built the rating, not objective data. But the committee, uncomfortable with such attention, just didn't care about anything other then their own small world and potential to win $4 flags, and they stayed hidden under their rocks unwilling to budge.

This is the way, for the most part, that the handicap game has been played for 40 years (in sailing). Cheating, lying, manipulation and good old boy influence drives the handicap list. It's more a game of who you know on the committee (orngetting on it yourself) and of leveraging who you know to your personal advantage (hmm, sounds somewhat familiar...but I just can't place it...). I find such handicap processes to be shameful, ridiculous, disgusting and corrupt.

Of course, after conversation with the family and only half a season of sailing, my friend sold his new boat (nice profit) and reinvested the money in other family activities with absolutely no regrets. He was relieved to be out of that ugly system of corruption and bad sportsmanship. This was a moment of clarity for him, and for many around him. The fact that he knows not to be involved, ever again, was worth the hassle and will pay dividends to his family for years to come in terms of where to spend their time and money. It was a teachable moment. ;-). It was also a shame.

And they (the big boat handicap racing community) wonder why their "big boat" fleet has eroded by nearly 50% in the past 20 years. The corrupt, self serving process by which the handicaps are subjectively "determined." The scenario above is also quite common.

Of course small one design racing (boats of higher performance and a fraction of the cost) is growing as a result of this consistently ridiculous committee behavior, as is cruising boat sailing to some extent (people who like sailing with friends and family but have abandoned handicap racing entirely, allowing them to invest in more comfortable boats).

In my opinion handicaps are a poison to sport and should be avoided at all cost. And there seem to be similarities in soaring.

This is why I don't compete in sports class. Everyone knows what gliders are required to compete (or to have an advantage). This tells us immediately that existing handicaps are somewhat flawed. Any pilot should be equally competitive in any glider. That's the point, right? If that's not the case then their is more work to do, no? So why has this not been solved? See the Duo Discus for Sports or the Standard Cirrus for Club. We all know what certain gliders are considered to have the best handicaps. Of course a dry 18m ASG29 is generally considered to be uncompetitive. If able, ASG29 pilots use 15m for a more favorable handicap. But flapped ships are generally not competitive in sports class. An LS8 is often considered ideal. That's a problem to be solved, is it not? Yet it remains. Or, why is there no handicap for an FES equipped glider. Clearly FES results in significant additional drag vs the pure glider. Studies say 2-4%. These are simple facts. Unfortunately, as with sailing, glider handicaps are not based on facts and data but instead on some level of subjective opinion which influences or acts to retain them as is, even if obviously flawed. Ridiculous. Why is this allowed to continue?

Anyway enough about this. Handicaps are, IMO, really bad news. Imperfect and impure. I just thought I would mention why I, for one, have no interest in handicap soaring (or sailing) "competition."

If more effort was put into recognizing and solving this problem, I might change my opinion but I'm not holding my breath.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 6:05:23 AM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I have avoided participation in handicap yacht racing events for over 20 years, but returned to sail with an old friend on his 33 foot boat in Michigan last summer for a few "handicap" races. My wife wanted to go sailing, so I agreed. It's always fun to go sailing on a nice afternoon. Other than these few times last summer, I have vigorously refused invitations based on my feelings about handicap racing. For my friend, the local handicap committee had hammered him so badly that he had already sold the boat. It was comical and a fun conversation. But the experience has some potential lessons surrounding it.
>
> When the boat was delivered (4 year old design from England) a rating was formally requested. My friend had been out of sailing for awhile but was a former top sailor, last winning several season championships and many regattas before leaving the sport for roughly 10 years ago to focus on his young kids. The initial handicap estimate (before buying, via casual conversation with the handicap committee head and based on other popular boats which rated equal with it in England) was reasonable, so my friend felt comfortable (huge mistake) that the boat would have a competitive chance despite the usual handicap fear "tax" that is commonly added by corrupt local handicap committees to top sailors boats based on their skill as sailors.
>
> So my friend decided to buy the boat and return to the sport in order to introduce his kids to sailing and take friends and family out for daysails. The boat was designed for the Solent (England, strong winds) and was overly stable (very heavy keel bulb with a smaller sail plan) for the generally light air conditions of the Great Lakes. But for my friend this would also provide a very stable sailing platform for teaching (not frightening) his kids. Very heavy boats generally get a small break on handicaps in the Great Lakes for this reason (uncompetitive)
>
> So he invested 120k (a major investment for my friend) including some normal maintenance and shipped the boat to MI from England. Then the real "fun" began! Word got out and other owners clearly started getting nervous. A bunch of geniuses sat around a table at some yacht club, otherwise known as the "handicap committee annual meeting" (drinking cheap beer to embolden their "wisdom") and decided to give my friends boat a rating that was equivalent to modern 40+ boats with waterlines over 20% longer (think wingspan).. They just pulled this rating out of thin air based on their "view" of what "believed" and not the enormous amount of VPP (velocity prediction program) data available (objective) showing the boats performance (vs other similar boats) at all wind speeds and angles, accurate to .001 knots! This boat was going to be a "good boat" but was not going to be "over performing" its waterline limitations in the slightest. In fact, it probably underperforms slighly in most conditions due to its extreme weight (nearly 12,000 pounds, which is very heavy for a 33 ft racing sailboat). The rating the committee enacted for my friend was ridiculous. It was clearly based on their fear of my friends sailing skill, not the boats performance. The rating was roughly 25% too strong and was an apparent effort to ensure that my friend was unable to compete. This proved true except for one of the races I attended and due to a tactical miracle. The boat performed exactly like a similar 33 footer but owed an extra 15-20 seconds a mile.
>
> Of course, the handicap committee meeting included many of my friends "future competitors" (what a shock, eh?). All kinds of bogus "research" (see personal fantasy) was submitted by several of the other yacht owners explaining how fast (over embellished to say the least) this 4 year old English yacht design "might" be in. Of course they asked the committee to provide a ridiculous rating, strongly in their favor, which assumed all their "research" (counter to VPP data) was accurate. And of course the committee, desperate to win themselves as always, accommodated the subjective opinions of the other frightened competitors and approved a rating that turned heads globally per it's obvious incompetence and/or corruption. Personal opinion built the rating, not objective data. But the committee, uncomfortable with such attention, just didn't care about anything other then their own small world and potential to win $4 flags, and they stayed hidden under their rocks unwilling to budge.
>
> This is the way, for the most part, that the handicap game has been played for 40 years (in sailing). Cheating, lying, manipulation and good old boy influence drives the handicap list. It's more a game of who you know on the committee (orngetting on it yourself) and of leveraging who you know to your personal advantage (hmm, sounds somewhat familiar...but I just can't place it...). I find such handicap processes to be shameful, ridiculous, disgusting and corrupt.
>
> Of course, after conversation with the family and only half a season of sailing, my friend sold his new boat (nice profit) and reinvested the money in other family activities with absolutely no regrets. He was relieved to be out of that ugly system of corruption and bad sportsmanship. This was a moment of clarity for him, and for many around him. The fact that he knows not to be involved, ever again, was worth the hassle and will pay dividends to his family for years to come in terms of where to spend their time and money. It was a teachable moment. ;-). It was also a shame.
>
> And they (the big boat handicap racing community) wonder why their "big boat" fleet has eroded by nearly 50% in the past 20 years. The corrupt, self serving process by which the handicaps are subjectively "determined." The scenario above is also quite common.
>
> Of course small one design racing (boats of higher performance and a fraction of the cost) is growing as a result of this consistently ridiculous committee behavior, as is cruising boat sailing to some extent (people who like sailing with friends and family but have abandoned handicap racing entirely, allowing them to invest in more comfortable boats).
>
> In my opinion handicaps are a poison to sport and should be avoided at all cost. And there seem to be similarities in soaring.
>
> This is why I don't compete in sports class. Everyone knows what gliders are required to compete (or to have an advantage). This tells us immediately that existing handicaps are somewhat flawed. Any pilot should be equally competitive in any glider. That's the point, right? If that's not the case then their is more work to do, no? So why has this not been solved? See the Duo Discus for Sports or the Standard Cirrus for Club. We all know what certain gliders are considered to have the best handicaps. Of course a dry 18m ASG29 is generally considered to be uncompetitive. If able, ASG29 pilots use 15m for a more favorable handicap. But flapped ships are generally not competitive in sports class. An LS8 is often considered ideal. That's a problem to be solved, is it not? Yet it remains. Or, why is there no handicap for an FES equipped glider. Clearly FES results in significant additional drag vs the pure glider. Studies say 2-4%. These are simple facts. Unfortunately, as with sailing, glider handicaps are not based on facts and data but instead on some level of subjective opinion which influences or acts to retain them as is, even if obviously flawed. Ridiculous. Why is this allowed to continue?
>
> Anyway enough about this. Handicaps are, IMO, really bad news. Imperfect and impure. I just thought I would mention why I, for one, have no interest in handicap soaring (or sailing) "competition."
>
> If more effort was put into recognizing and solving this problem, I might change my opinion but I'm not holding my breath.

Sean tells us in another 1,326 word opus (I counted them) why he DOESN'T do something. The other day it was OLC flying how it's handicapped races. I gave up about half way through the painful read. Again my question, Sean: why **** on someone else's parade, can't we all decide how to spend our soaring time without you butting in? Please do hold your breath..

[John Carlyle]

Sean, have you ever heard the story about Finnigan to Flannigan?

Superintindint was Flannigan;
Boss av th' siction wuz Finnigin.
Whiniver th' cyars got off th' thrack
An' muddled up things t' th' divvle an' back,
Finnigin writ it t' Flannigan,
Afther th' wrick wuz all on agin;
That is, this Finnigin
Repoorted t' Flannigan.
Whin Finnigin furrst writ t' Flannigan,
He writed tin pa-ages, did Finnigin;
An' he towld just how th' wrick occurred--
Yis, minny a tajus, blundherin' wurrd
Did Finnigin write t' Flannigan
After th' cyars had gone on agin--
That's th' way Finnigin
Repoorted t' Flannigan.
Now Flannigan knowed more than Finnigin--
He'd more idjucation, had Flannigan.
An' ut wore 'm clane an' complately out
T' tell what Finnigin writ about
In 's writin' t' Musther Flannigan.
So he writed this back. "Musther Finnigin--
Don't do sich a sin agin;
Make 'em brief, Finnigin!"
Whin Finnigin got that frum Flannigan
He blushed rosy-red, did Finnigin.
An' he said: "I'll gamble a whole month's pay
That ut'll be minny an' minny a day
Befure sup'rintindint--that's Flannigan--
Gits a whack at that very same sin agin.
Frum Finnigin to Flannigan
Repoorts won't be loong agin."
Wan day on th' siction av Finnigin,
On th' road sup'rintinded be Flannigan,
A ra-ail give way on a bit av a curve
An' some cyars wint off as they made th' shwarrve.
"They's nobody hurted," says Finnigin,
"But repoorts must be made t' Flannigan."
An' be winked at McGorrigan
Who married a Finnigin.
He was shantyin' thin, suz Finnigin,
As minny a railroader's been agin,
An' 'is shmokey ol' lamp wuz burnin' bright
In Finnigin' shanty all that night--
Bilin' down 's repoort, wuz Finnigin.
An' he writed this here: "Musther Flannigan:--
Off agin, on agin,
Gone agin.--Finnigin."

-John, Q3

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:05:23 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I have avoided participation in handicap yacht racing events for over 20 years, but returned to sail with an old friend on his 33 foot boat in Michigan last summer for a few "handicap" races. My wife wanted to go sailing, so I agreed. It's always fun to go sailing on a nice afternoon. Other than these few times last summer, I have vigorously refused invitations based on my feelings about handicap racing. For my friend, the local handicap committee had hammered him so badly that he had already sold the boat. It was comical and a fun conversation. But the experience has some potential lessons surrounding it.
>
> When the boat was delivered (4 year old design from England) a rating was formally requested. My friend had been out of sailing for awhile but was a former top sailor, last winning several season championships and many regattas before leaving the sport for roughly 10 years ago to focus on his young kids. The initial handicap estimate (before buying, via casual conversation with the handicap committee head and based on other popular boats which rated equal with it in England) was reasonable, so my friend felt comfortable (huge mistake) that the boat would have a competitive chance despite the usual handicap fear "tax" that is commonly added by corrupt local handicap committees to top sailors boats based on their skill as sailors.
>
> So my friend decided to buy the boat and return to the sport in order to introduce his kids to sailing and take friends and family out for daysails. The boat was designed for the Solent (England, strong winds) and was overly stable (very heavy keel bulb with a smaller sail plan) for the generally light air conditions of the Great Lakes. But for my friend this would also provide a very stable sailing platform for teaching (not frightening) his kids. Very heavy boats generally get a small break on handicaps in the Great Lakes for this reason (uncompetitive)
>
> So he invested 120k (a major investment for my friend) including some normal maintenance and shipped the boat to MI from England. Then the real "fun" began! Word got out and other owners clearly started getting nervous. A bunch of geniuses sat around a table at some yacht club, otherwise known as the "handicap committee annual meeting" (drinking cheap beer to embolden their "wisdom") and decided to give my friends boat a rating that was equivalent to modern 40+ boats with waterlines over 20% longer (think wingspan).. They just pulled this rating out of thin air based on their "view" of what "believed" and not the enormous amount of VPP (velocity prediction program) data available (objective) showing the boats performance (vs other similar boats) at all wind speeds and angles, accurate to .001 knots! This boat was going to be a "good boat" but was not going to be "over performing" its waterline limitations in the slightest. In fact, it probably underperforms slighly in most conditions due to its extreme weight (nearly 12,000 pounds, which is very heavy for a 33 ft racing sailboat). The rating the committee enacted for my friend was ridiculous. It was clearly based on their fear of my friends sailing skill, not the boats performance. The rating was roughly 25% too strong and was an apparent effort to ensure that my friend was unable to compete. This proved true except for one of the races I attended and due to a tactical miracle. The boat performed exactly like a similar 33 footer but owed an extra 15-20 seconds a mile.
>
> Of course, the handicap committee meeting included many of my friends "future competitors" (what a shock, eh?). All kinds of bogus "research" (see personal fantasy) was submitted by several of the other yacht owners explaining how fast (over embellished to say the least) this 4 year old English yacht design "might" be in. Of course they asked the committee to provide a ridiculous rating, strongly in their favor, which assumed all their "research" (counter to VPP data) was accurate. And of course the committee, desperate to win themselves as always, accommodated the subjective opinions of the other frightened competitors and approved a rating that turned heads globally per it's obvious incompetence and/or corruption. Personal opinion built the rating, not objective data. But the committee, uncomfortable with such attention, just didn't care about anything other then their own small world and potential to win $4 flags, and they stayed hidden under their rocks unwilling to budge.
>
> This is the way, for the most part, that the handicap game has been played for 40 years (in sailing). Cheating, lying, manipulation and good old boy influence drives the handicap list. It's more a game of who you know on the committee (orngetting on it yourself) and of leveraging who you know to your personal advantage (hmm, sounds somewhat familiar...but I just can't place it...). I find such handicap processes to be shameful, ridiculous, disgusting and corrupt.
>
> Of course, after conversation with the family and only half a season of sailing, my friend sold his new boat (nice profit) and reinvested the money in other family activities with absolutely no regrets. He was relieved to be out of that ugly system of corruption and bad sportsmanship. This was a moment of clarity for him, and for many around him. The fact that he knows not to be involved, ever again, was worth the hassle and will pay dividends to his family for years to come in terms of where to spend their time and money. It was a teachable moment. ;-). It was also a shame.
>
> And they (the big boat handicap racing community) wonder why their "big boat" fleet has eroded by nearly 50% in the past 20 years. The corrupt, self serving process by which the handicaps are subjectively "determined." The scenario above is also quite common.
>
> Of course small one design racing (boats of higher performance and a fraction of the cost) is growing as a result of this consistently ridiculous committee behavior, as is cruising boat sailing to some extent (people who like sailing with friends and family but have abandoned handicap racing entirely, allowing them to invest in more comfortable boats).
>
> In my opinion handicaps are a poison to sport and should be avoided at all cost. And there seem to be similarities in soaring.
>
> This is why I don't compete in sports class. Everyone knows what gliders are required to compete (or to have an advantage). This tells us immediately that existing handicaps are somewhat flawed. Any pilot should be equally competitive in any glider. That's the point, right? If that's not the case then their is more work to do, no? So why has this not been solved? See the Duo Discus for Sports or the Standard Cirrus for Club. We all know what certain gliders are considered to have the best handicaps. Of course a dry 18m ASG29 is generally considered to be uncompetitive. If able, ASG29 pilots use 15m for a more favorable handicap. But flapped ships are generally not competitive in sports class. An LS8 is often considered ideal. That's a problem to be solved, is it not? Yet it remains. Or, why is there no handicap for an FES equipped glider. Clearly FES results in significant additional drag vs the pure glider. Studies say 2-4%. These are simple facts. Unfortunately, as with sailing, glider handicaps are not based on facts and data but instead on some level of subjective opinion which influences or acts to retain them as is, even if obviously flawed. Ridiculous. Why is this allowed to continue?
>
> Anyway enough about this. Handicaps are, IMO, really bad news. Imperfect and impure. I just thought I would mention why I, for one, have no interest in handicap soaring (or sailing) "competition."
>
> If more effort was put into recognizing and solving this problem, I might change my opinion but I'm not holding my breath.

Sailing massacre- So Sad
UH

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-5, John Carlyle wrote:
> Sean, have you ever heard the story about Finnigan to Flannigan?
>
> Superintindint was Flannigan;
> Boss av th' siction wuz Finnigin.
> Whiniver th' cyars got off th' thrack
> An' muddled up things t' th' divvle an' back,
> Finnigin writ it t' Flannigan,
> Afther th' wrick wuz all on agin;
> That is, this Finnigin
> Repoorted t' Flannigan.
> Whin Finnigin furrst writ t' Flannigan,
> He writed tin pa-ages, did Finnigin;
> An' he towld just how th' wrick occurred--
> Yis, minny a tajus, blundherin' wurrd
> Did Finnigin write t' Flannigan
> After th' cyars had gone on agin--
> That's th' way Finnigin
> Repoorted t' Flannigan.
> Now Flannigan knowed more than Finnigin--
> He'd more idjucation, had Flannigan.
> An' ut wore 'm clane an' complately out
> T' tell what Finnigin writ about
> In 's writin' t' Musther Flannigan.
> So he writed this back. "Musther Finnigin--
> Don't do sich a sin agin;
> Make 'em brief, Finnigin!"
> Whin Finnigin got that frum Flannigan
> He blushed rosy-red, did Finnigin.
> An' he said: "I'll gamble a whole month's pay
> That ut'll be minny an' minny a day
> Befure sup'rintindint--that's Flannigan--
> Gits a whack at that very same sin agin.
> Frum Finnigin to Flannigan
> Repoorts won't be loong agin."
> Wan day on th' siction av Finnigin,
> On th' road sup'rintinded be Flannigan,
> A ra-ail give way on a bit av a curve
> An' some cyars wint off as they made th' shwarrve.
> "They's nobody hurted," says Finnigin,
> "But repoorts must be made t' Flannigan."
> An' be winked at McGorrigan
> Who married a Finnigin.
> He was shantyin' thin, suz Finnigin,
> As minny a railroader's been agin,
> An' 'is shmokey ol' lamp wuz burnin' bright
> In Finnigin' shanty all that night--
> Bilin' down 's repoort, wuz Finnigin.
> An' he writed this here: "Musther Flannigan:--
> Off agin, on agin,
> Gone agin.--Finnigin."
>
> -John, Q3

And around and around went the big loco wheelw; and back and forth when the drivers of steel. Till suddenly Finnigin cried....

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

"... I, for one, have no interest in handicap soaring (or sailing) "competition."

Although this is a part of the tome on handicapping it is interesting that he is on the standby list for next month's Senior's.

Maybe he thinks running his ASG-29 against such as Silents without handicapping could improve his chances?

KS

[Sean Fidler]

Karl does your new duo have its nose wheel?

;-)

[[email protected]]

IIRC, years ago Dave Stevenson would select his Sports Class mount based on the published handicap values...and the site of the next national contest. Single-value handicaps can't theoretically apply equally for all days even at one location but knowing the expected weather helps narrow things down.

The problem I saw a while back was what I perceived as a sense with some that Sports and/or Club Class should exclude not just higher-performance gliders but better pilots. But being able to fly against some of the best pilots in the country--whether you have a state-of-the-art glider or something less cutting edge--is hugely appealing to me even if the handicap values are somewhat imprecise. In this case, with declining participation being perhaps the biggest problem we face in competitive soaring, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 4:49:34 PM UTC-5, Sierra Whiskey wrote:
> No argument there, it is difficult to quantify the climb performance utilizing upward moving air. This would take some evaluation of the wing loading and sink rate at thermaling speeds.
>
> That in mind, the analysis of speed and sink comparisons does indicate that if those two gliders left the same thermal at the same altitude and at the same time, the lower performing glider would arrive at the same next thermal lower and after the higher performing glider. Any delta in the climb performance (if one could be accurately calculated) would be negated by the point of arrival in the next thermal. So in a way the climb performance of the glider is accounted for in the calculation, probably as an under-estimate.
>
> The above is probably why it is also so difficult to handicap variable ballasted gliders!
>
> A while back I developed a plan to create a variable handicap where a Contest Director (with the help of the Weather Adviser) would declare three components to the race: Task, MacCready Value for the day, and a wind value for the day. Each handicap for the day would be based on the sink rate of each glider at the given MC and Headwind Values defined for the day. The idea was to level the playing field between a PW-5 and an ASG-29 across the different soaring conditions.
>
> Examples:
> 1) Strong Lift- ASG-29 will cruise much further and more efficiently than a PW-5
> 2) Weak Lift- PW-5 will climb and stay aloft much easier.
> 3) Heavy Wind- ASG-29 has much better penetration into a strong headwind.
>
> The reality is that the development of this system would take a significant amount of time due to a lack of high resolution data for glide performance across the spectrum of aircraft. Though the solution is difficult to design and implement, it would provide a better system to handicap gliders based on the soaring conditions, and not just a single performance value. The negative impact of this system is the requirement for rules protecting the CD from making a less than desirable call on the day values, and would introduce some new soaring strategy to optimize the performance of each aircraft based on the variable handicap for the given conditions.
>
> This all came about while I was trying to determine how each glider's handicap is calculated. Unfortunately I am still unclear on how that happens.

Why declare values for lift and wind ahead of time?
Just analyze the average lift and wind from the .igc files and then compute all the handicap factors. Not very transparent ahead of the day but all computable - and not left to poor weather forecasting. In the UK they have tried Windicaps in addition to handicaps.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I have sailed handicap yacht races for over 30 years, the reason it is fun and boats of various sizes, shapes, and vintages can race. We are not racing for money or livelihood, rather fun (same as in gliders, although there is big money in sailboat racing). Hell, I was on a boat that beat Dennis Connor, he was in a Farr 60 and I (along with rest of crew) were in a J-120, kind of like an /asw-15 vs asw -22bl. Which leads to another point Dennis Connor, pretty good sailor, is very active in the handicap racing (of sailboats).

No matter what your motivations are, it boils down to fun or some sort of personal achievement, or betterment. You will not support your family by racing sailplanes. Some have fun just boring hole in the sky, some want to race only against the best on a closed circuit, AST, some want to measure what a sailpane pilot must decided on XC days, planning, picking the right sector... Just because it does not float your boat, does not mean it is not attractive to others.

At the yacht club I avoid the complainers, and I have yet to hear someone bitching about their handicap.


On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 4:05:23 AM UTC-8, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I have avoided participation in handicap yacht racing events for over 20 years, but returned to sail with an old friend on his 33 foot boat in Michigan last summer for a few "handicap" races. My wife wanted to go sailing, so I agreed. It's always fun to go sailing on a nice afternoon. Other than these few times last summer, I have vigorously refused invitations based on my feelings about handicap racing. For my friend, the local handicap committee had hammered him so badly that he had already sold the boat. It was comical and a fun conversation. But the experience has some potential lessons surrounding it.
>
> When the boat was delivered (4 year old design from England) a rating was formally requested. My friend had been out of sailing for awhile but was a former top sailor, last winning several season championships and many regattas before leaving the sport for roughly 10 years ago to focus on his young kids. The initial handicap estimate (before buying, via casual conversation with the handicap committee head and based on other popular boats which rated equal with it in England) was reasonable, so my friend felt comfortable (huge mistake) that the boat would have a competitive chance despite the usual handicap fear "tax" that is commonly added by corrupt local handicap committees to top sailors boats based on their skill as sailors.
>
> So my friend decided to buy the boat and return to the sport in order to introduce his kids to sailing and take friends and family out for daysails. The boat was designed for the Solent (England, strong winds) and was overly stable (very heavy keel bulb with a smaller sail plan) for the generally light air conditions of the Great Lakes. But for my friend this would also provide a very stable sailing platform for teaching (not frightening) his kids. Very heavy boats generally get a small break on handicaps in the Great Lakes for this reason (uncompetitive)
>
> So he invested 120k (a major investment for my friend) including some normal maintenance and shipped the boat to MI from England. Then the real "fun" began! Word got out and other owners clearly started getting nervous. A bunch of geniuses sat around a table at some yacht club, otherwise known as the "handicap committee annual meeting" (drinking cheap beer to embolden their "wisdom") and decided to give my friends boat a rating that was equivalent to modern 40+ boats with waterlines over 20% longer (think wingspan).. They just pulled this rating out of thin air based on their "view" of what "believed" and not the enormous amount of VPP (velocity prediction program) data available (objective) showing the boats performance (vs other similar boats) at all wind speeds and angles, accurate to .001 knots! This boat was going to be a "good boat" but was not going to be "over performing" its waterline limitations in the slightest. In fact, it probably underperforms slighly in most conditions due to its extreme weight (nearly 12,000 pounds, which is very heavy for a 33 ft racing sailboat). The rating the committee enacted for my friend was ridiculous. It was clearly based on their fear of my friends sailing skill, not the boats performance. The rating was roughly 25% too strong and was an apparent effort to ensure that my friend was unable to compete. This proved true except for one of the races I attended and due to a tactical miracle. The boat performed exactly like a similar 33 footer but owed an extra 15-20 seconds a mile.
>
> Of course, the handicap committee meeting included many of my friends "future competitors" (what a shock, eh?). All kinds of bogus "research" (see personal fantasy) was submitted by several of the other yacht owners explaining how fast (over embellished to say the least) this 4 year old English yacht design "might" be in. Of course they asked the committee to provide a ridiculous rating, strongly in their favor, which assumed all their "research" (counter to VPP data) was accurate. And of course the committee, desperate to win themselves as always, accommodated the subjective opinions of the other frightened competitors and approved a rating that turned heads globally per it's obvious incompetence and/or corruption. Personal opinion built the rating, not objective data. But the committee, uncomfortable with such attention, just didn't care about anything other then their own small world and potential to win $4 flags, and they stayed hidden under their rocks unwilling to budge.
>
> This is the way, for the most part, that the handicap game has been played for 40 years (in sailing). Cheating, lying, manipulation and good old boy influence drives the handicap list. It's more a game of who you know on the committee (orngetting on it yourself) and of leveraging who you know to your personal advantage (hmm, sounds somewhat familiar...but I just can't place it...). I find such handicap processes to be shameful, ridiculous, disgusting and corrupt.
>
> Of course, after conversation with the family and only half a season of sailing, my friend sold his new boat (nice profit) and reinvested the money in other family activities with absolutely no regrets. He was relieved to be out of that ugly system of corruption and bad sportsmanship. This was a moment of clarity for him, and for many around him. The fact that he knows not to be involved, ever again, was worth the hassle and will pay dividends to his family for years to come in terms of where to spend their time and money. It was a teachable moment. ;-). It was also a shame.
>
> And they (the big boat handicap racing community) wonder why their "big boat" fleet has eroded by nearly 50% in the past 20 years. The corrupt, self serving process by which the handicaps are subjectively "determined." The scenario above is also quite common.
>
> Of course small one design racing (boats of higher performance and a fraction of the cost) is growing as a result of this consistently ridiculous committee behavior, as is cruising boat sailing to some extent (people who like sailing with friends and family but have abandoned handicap racing entirely, allowing them to invest in more comfortable boats).
>
> In my opinion handicaps are a poison to sport and should be avoided at all cost. And there seem to be similarities in soaring.
>
> This is why I don't compete in sports class. Everyone knows what gliders are required to compete (or to have an advantage). This tells us immediately that existing handicaps are somewhat flawed. Any pilot should be equally competitive in any glider. That's the point, right? If that's not the case then their is more work to do, no? So why has this not been solved? See the Duo Discus for Sports or the Standard Cirrus for Club. We all know what certain gliders are considered to have the best handicaps. Of course a dry 18m ASG29 is generally considered to be uncompetitive. If able, ASG29 pilots use 15m for a more favorable handicap. But flapped ships are generally not competitive in sports class. An LS8 is often considered ideal. That's a problem to be solved, is it not? Yet it remains. Or, why is there no handicap for an FES equipped glider. Clearly FES results in significant additional drag vs the pure glider. Studies say 2-4%. These are simple facts. Unfortunately, as with sailing, glider handicaps are not based on facts and data but instead on some level of subjective opinion which influences or acts to retain them as is, even if obviously flawed. Ridiculous. Why is this allowed to continue?
>
> Anyway enough about this. Handicaps are, IMO, really bad news. Imperfect and impure. I just thought I would mention why I, for one, have no interest in handicap soaring (or sailing) "competition."
>
> If more effort was put into recognizing and solving this problem, I might change my opinion but I'm not holding my breath.

[[email protected]]

Beginner's Question for UH or other recognized experts...

Is the handicap for either club class or sports class just based on a glider's "Best L/D" at a given wing loading (I assume max theoretical wing loading) or does it also take into account how straight or curved a glider's polar is? What effect does wing loading have on the handicap, if any?

/Chris Schrader (B2G)

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:12:39 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> Beginner's Question for UH or other recognized experts...
>
> Is the handicap for either club class or sports class just based on a glider's "Best L/D" at a given wing loading (I assume max theoretical wing loading) or does it also take into account how straight or curved a glider's polar is? What effect does wing loading have on the handicap, if any?
>
> /Chris Schrader (B2G)

Non expert, unrecognizable opinion. Handicaps are based more on the polar curve for a sailplane without ballast, and a set of assumed conditions. It is a measure of the cross country achievable speed with a given type of task, wind, and thermal strength. There were many assumptions made in determining actual achievable climb rate based on vertical motion of the air in which the plane will climb. Glide polars for calculation have been anything from factory provided, to those measured by the Idaflieg, Dick Johnson, Paul Bikle, and others.

A specific sailplane type was set as the "Standard" and assigned a handicap of 1.0. In the US, higher performance (higher achievable cross country speed in the assumed conditions) gives a lower handicap number. The handicap is, under the defined conditions, to correct the achieved speed of any plane with the same pilot to have the same handicapped speed on the same day. In other words, the handicap is attempting to make all planes equal, and let the best pilot win.

The basic handicaps have been adjusted in numerous ways over the years. I had heard that Carl had used contest results to fine tune things. There have been attempts to adjust the basic handicap for different locations with stronger or weaker lift than the initial assumed lift, more or less wind, etc.

As to wing loading, the same plane at a higher wing loading will have a lower handicap number. This goes back to the assumptions, and they lead you to the conclusion that if you are able to climb at the assumed rate, a heavier model of the same plane will achieve a higher cross country speed. So, it should have a lower handicap number, because in the US system, achieved speed is multiplied by the HC to determine "handicapped speed".

In the US, there are now adjustments made to the handicap if the plane and pilot is either above or below the reference weight. So, a plane and pilot that is over the reference weight will have its handicap number reduced, and if the plane and pilot is below the reference weight, its handicap number will be increased.

That is my understanding of the current system in the US as it stands today.. The same handicap number defined for "Sports Class" is used if a plane is flown in "Club Class". It is just that "Club Class" only permits planes of a certain span (or less) and a certain handicap range to participate. "Sports Class" lets anyone compete.

Hope this helps.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

All this arguing over who is the winner, when it takes an indepth education to understand who won given the complexities of the race. Meanwhile, the Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it was crystal clear who won the race. Millions watched it televised live around the world.

Soaring is exciting, it's thrilling, but all of these complexities reduces the interest of everyone to basically nothing.

Here in the world of Soaring, crossing the finish line first or last is entirely irrelevant. Only the elite few who have graduated from the College of Soaring Nonsense, can understand the race. Understanding how the rules work is about equal to understanding the tax code....

Once again, we find ourselves fighting over rules, and wondering why soaring is in a demise......hmmm, is this a parallel???

The more simple the rules are, the more attractive the sport is!

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I would offer an "alternative fact", while soaring is declining in the US, I doubt it has anything to do with the Club Class definition, or with handicapping of club class. Hijacking an unrelated problem to bolster your position on yet another in-related issue is diffusing of the most important issue, "new blood".

1On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:22:20 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> All this arguing over who is the winner, when it takes an indepth education to understand who won given the complexities of the race. Meanwhile, the Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it was crystal clear who won the race. Millions watched it televised live around the world.
>
> Soaring is exciting, it's thrilling, but all of these complexities reduces the interest of everyone to basically nothing.
>
> Here in the world of Soaring, crossing the finish line first or last is entirely irrelevant. Only the elite few who have graduated from the College of Soaring Nonsense, can understand the race. Understanding how the rules work is about equal to understanding the tax code....
>
> Once again, we find ourselves fighting over rules, and wondering why soaring is in a demise......hmmm, is this a parallel???
>
> The more simple the rules are, the more attractive the sport is!

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:22:20 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> All this arguing over who is the winner, when it takes an indepth education to understand who won given the complexities of the race. Meanwhile, the Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it was crystal clear who won the race. Millions watched it televised live around the world.
>
> Soaring is exciting, it's thrilling, but all of these complexities reduces the interest of everyone to basically nothing.
>
> Here in the world of Soaring, crossing the finish line first or last is entirely irrelevant. Only the elite few who have graduated from the College of Soaring Nonsense, can understand the race. Understanding how the rules work is about equal to understanding the tax code....
>
> Once again, we find ourselves fighting over rules, and wondering why soaring is in a demise......hmmm, is this a parallel???
>
> The more simple the rules are, the more attractive the sport is!

Have you ever actually raced a glider? Every time I have, it has always been pretty obvious who the winners and losers have been. Perhaps not immediately, but soon enough.

Of course, if you need immediate gratification...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 11:43:31 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:22:20 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > All this arguing over who is the winner, when it takes an indepth education to understand who won given the complexities of the race. Meanwhile, the Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it was crystal clear who won the race. Millions watched it televised live around the world.
> >
> > Soaring is exciting, it's thrilling, but all of these complexities reduces the interest of everyone to basically nothing.
> >
> > Here in the world of Soaring, crossing the finish line first or last is entirely irrelevant. Only the elite few who have graduated from the College of Soaring Nonsense, can understand the race. Understanding how the rules work is about equal to understanding the tax code....
> >
> > Once again, we find ourselves fighting over rules, and wondering why soaring is in a demise......hmmm, is this a parallel???
> >
> > The more simple the rules are, the more attractive the sport is!
>
> Have you ever actually raced a glider? Every time I have, it has always been pretty obvious who the winners and losers have been. Perhaps not immediately, but soon enough.
>
> Of course, if you need immediate gratification...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk, in case you missed it: Wilbur is one of Sean's many pseudonyms, he is blessed with so many personalities. He thinks employing other screen names to support his position is really clever. So sad.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 6:02:51 PM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 3:12:39 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Beginner's Question for UH or other recognized experts...
> >
> > Is the handicap for either club class or sports class just based on a glider's "Best L/D" at a given wing loading (I assume max theoretical wing loading) or does it also take into account how straight or curved a glider's polar is? What effect does wing loading have on the handicap, if any?
> >
> > /Chris Schrader (B2G)
>
> Non expert, unrecognizable opinion. Handicaps are based more on the polar curve for a sailplane without ballast, and a set of assumed conditions. It is a measure of the cross country achievable speed with a given type of task, wind, and thermal strength. There were many assumptions made in determining actual achievable climb rate based on vertical motion of the air in which the plane will climb. Glide polars for calculation have been anything from factory provided, to those measured by the Idaflieg, Dick Johnson, Paul Bikle, and others.
>
> A specific sailplane type was set as the "Standard" and assigned a handicap of 1.0. In the US, higher performance (higher achievable cross country speed in the assumed conditions) gives a lower handicap number. The handicap is, under the defined conditions, to correct the achieved speed of any plane with the same pilot to have the same handicapped speed on the same day.. In other words, the handicap is attempting to make all planes equal, and let the best pilot win.
>
> The basic handicaps have been adjusted in numerous ways over the years. I had heard that Carl had used contest results to fine tune things. There have been attempts to adjust the basic handicap for different locations with stronger or weaker lift than the initial assumed lift, more or less wind, etc.
>
> As to wing loading, the same plane at a higher wing loading will have a lower handicap number. This goes back to the assumptions, and they lead you to the conclusion that if you are able to climb at the assumed rate, a heavier model of the same plane will achieve a higher cross country speed. So, it should have a lower handicap number, because in the US system, achieved speed is multiplied by the HC to determine "handicapped speed".
>
> In the US, there are now adjustments made to the handicap if the plane and pilot is either above or below the reference weight. So, a plane and pilot that is over the reference weight will have its handicap number reduced, and if the plane and pilot is below the reference weight, its handicap number will be increased.
>
> That is my understanding of the current system in the US as it stands today. The same handicap number defined for "Sports Class" is used if a plane is flown in "Club Class". It is just that "Club Class" only permits planes of a certain span (or less) and a certain handicap range to participate. "Sports Class" lets anyone compete.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Steve Leonard

This is a good synopsis of how the handicapping system works.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 1:22:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> All this arguing over who is the winner, when it takes an indepth education to understand who won given the complexities of the race. Meanwhile, the Daytona 500 was last Sunday and it was crystal clear who won the race. Millions watched it televised live around the world.
>
> Soaring is exciting, it's thrilling, but all of these complexities reduces the interest of everyone to basically nothing.
>
> Here in the world of Soaring, crossing the finish line first or last is entirely irrelevant. Only the elite few who have graduated from the College of Soaring Nonsense, can understand the race. Understanding how the rules work is about equal to understanding the tax code....
>
> Once again, we find ourselves fighting over rules, and wondering why soaring is in a demise......hmmm, is this a parallel???
>
> The more simple the rules are, the more attractive the sport is!

I didn't see any fighting. What did I miss?
As for complexity, look at Nascar rules. Their rule book makes ours look like a post card.
They do put on a good to great show, yet they struggle to retain viewers.
FWIW
UH

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I have always had a difficult time understanding the attraction of NASCAR, they race around a track making left turns, in cars they call stock when absolutely nothing on them is stock. Grand Prix, seems much more exciting and is a sport enjoyed all over the world. Was it really that much fun to run from the cops with a trunk full of bootleg liquor? And what the heck does an American motor sport have to do with gliding?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:44:37 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote: <SNIP> And what the heck does an American motor sport have to do with gliding?

NASCAR is still the most popular in-person spectator sport in the U.S. American football is the most watched, including on TV.

The most popular participation athletic activity is fitness walking, followed by running, followed by treadmill (which, based on my observation, comprises a mix of fitness walking and running combined with reading magazines and watching television).

With the exception of the soaring Grand Prix enthusiasts, I'm not sure many glider pilots care too much about soaring becoming more of a spectator sport. It's probably never going to budge the needle. We do care about boosting participation, not just altruistically to share it with others but also selfishly to gain a little more influence in airspace and regulatory decisions. I'd say another reason is so gliders and soaring equipment could be less expensive but there already seem to be way more suppliers than the volume of sales could possibly justify so I'm not optimistic that even a doubling of activity would reduce my costs very much.

But speaking of money, that's one common thread in NASCAR and NFL football: sponsorship, advertising, subscription, tickets, merchandising, etc. None of that is likely to be available in soaring. Many think that's a good thing; we argue enough about arcane rules decisions just for fun. Add money and I hate to think what RAS would sound like.

As someone who's been a fitness enthusiast for 40 years, I know one thing that makes fitness walking or running attractive is that almost anyone can get into it easily. The only cost is a pair of shoes. The other gear is optional. The "rules" are simple, even for races. You can start running without any instruction and you can continue to train and improve (at least on an age-adjusted basis) for a lifetime. Once you gain some experience, you realize that it's not particularly weather dependent. So, among other things, you can actually plan the rest of your life around it. And you can easily share it with lots of other enthusiasts in all kinds of organized, informal, and/or competitive ways. It can be a big part of your social life, or you can be a solitary enthusiast. You can fit your workout in almost any time. Races and camps are held in all kinds of great places to visit so that even non-participating families enjoy going along for the ride.

None of the foregoing is true about soaring. It's amazing soaring still exists at all, actually. :)

With regard to competition, I do think rules complexity can be intimidating, even discouraging. I say that having been competing since 1968 and having come back from multi-year layoffs three different times, forcing me to "catch up" on the latest rules changes. I think the rules could be simpler (but wouldn't want to try to do it myself). I prefer certain types of tasks over others (but would not want to return to the days of 100% assigned tasks--we lost too many contest days that way, thank you). I think the cost of a new glider is insane (but I'm currently refinishing my 25-year-old ASW 24 that is still competitive in at least 3 classes).

Why is soaring, especially competitive soaring, declining? Probably not because of the factors I listed. Those have always been true. Soaring was never popular. What's changed is the plethora of alternative leisure activities available to the average American and the different lifestyles and attitudes today.

All the sniping over the rules is amusing to me. I suspect you could change almost any aspect of the rules--even throw them away and just invite everyone to show up and fly it off--and it wouldn't change much. The exceptions would be at soaring's version of destination resorts, such as Nephi, where the allure of spectacular conditions and a variety of flying activities appeals. But this year's OLC Camp and last year's 3-class nationals were both oversubscribed, so that probably says something about the futility of tinkering with the rules to improve participation.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to "get it right". I've certainly joined the debate at times. But I can compete pretty much head to head in my glider in Standard, Sports, and Club Classes (referring to sailplane performance, not pilot ability). And that, coupled with a handful of regionals within easy driving distance and an almost sure-thing attractive national contest somewhere every year, already provides more alternatives than I have time.

Chip Bearden

[BobW]

On 3/1/2017 5:01 PM, wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 5:44:37 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> <SNIP> And what the heck does an American motor sport have to do with
> gliding?
>
> NASCAR is still the most popular in-person spectator sport in the U.S.
> American football is the most watched, including on TV...
<Good, thoughtful, assessment on "soaring participation considerations"
snipped...>

....so I can quibble about a stat that was making the aviation press rounds a
few years ago, i.e.: air shows are America's most watched sporting activity.
(I saw it in several magazines, so it *had* to be true.) Since - so far as I'm
aware - no one/agency seeks to actually gather and "census-ize" airshow ticket
sales, so...take *that* NASCAR!!!

BTW, throughout a considerable portion of my misspent and extended youth, I
went to LOTS of airshows...even saw a few sailplanes (3 different pilots, to
be exact - long before those noisy jets came along) in 'em too! Take *that*
NASCAR!!!

[[email protected]]

UH,

FWIW - Nascar, Indy Car Andy Grand Prix have millions of viewers. Total viewers of the Daytona 500 was 23 Million according to google.

How many people viewed the last Nationals? What is the max turnout (interest) you have seen at any glider race? It's virtually non existent.

With live feed cameras, spot tracking, and the age of the internet, passing on these resources to bring excitement to the sport will be another nail in the coffin.

You said it best UH, the rule book should fit on a postcard. Yet it's so complicated, the average aviation enthusiast can't understand how the race is scored within a 30 second explanation.

Grand Prix racing for soaring can and is understood within a short and simple explanation.

The SSA needs to have a major exploration into what the heck they are doing that is killing Soaring. For starters, it's complicated rules like above. The game needs to be able to explained briefly and simplistically to have anyone's interest be sparked. Multiple starts, going deep into a turnoint, or flying adding turn points on a MAT, just don't get the average joe excited about our sport.

Or you can just ignore the decline in our sport like a fool with cancer and die a slow death.

Tour de France, auto racing, swim racing, marathons, Reno air racing, to the cannonball run, all are understood with a brief explanation of how to win..

If this is not changed, we will only attracte a very small number of people..

[Dan Marotta]

You don't see the draw? Really? It's the accidents, Dude. Everyone
wants to see explosions, fire, parts bouncing down the track. Bring
your beer and hot dawgs. Yeeeehaw!

(I'd rather be flying)

On 3/1/2017 3:44 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I have always had a difficult time understanding the attraction of NASCAR, they race around a track making left turns, in cars they call stock when absolutely nothing on them is stock. Grand Prix, seems much more exciting and is a sport enjoyed all over the world. Was it really that much fun to run from the cops with a trunk full of bootleg liquor? And what the heck does an American motor sport have to do with gliding?

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

1. Soaring as a spectator sport will never be popular.
2. If #1 is wrong you guys are going to hate what soaring becomes. All of you currently racing would be out of the game, perhaps allowed to compete only to fill the grid as backmarkers.
3. Soaring is declining in popularity because men have given up control of their free time. When soaring was more popular if your dad was a soaring pilot you grew up at the airport. Now you grow up playing team sports while your dad drives you around to your games, that is when he isn't standing around the mall holding your mother's purse.

[[email protected]]

So many naysayers!! Each of you are contributors to the decline in our sport!!

Does swimming in the olympics have explosions?? Does the Tour de France have explosions??? Does the World Cup have explosions???

Our sailplanes go almost as fast on a ridge day as a stock car. And on a moderate thermal day, the inter thermal speeds are around 100 mph, that's exciting!! Our sport may not have the explosions, but neither do so many other competitions that are televised and enjoyable to follow.

If you want this sport to draw interest, Grand Prix soaring is the solution.. Look at the reaction on the faces of the spectators in the videos from other countries. They enjoy the excitement just like other forms of racing.

Having a sport where the ultimate competition is not even a time trial, nor an all out race, but a screwed up set of rules where a winner can cross the finish place last and a loser can cross the finish line first, is a very very hard sport to sell.

[[email protected]]

So many naysayers!! Each of you are contributors to the decline in our sport!!

Does swimming in the olympics have explosions?? Does the Tour de France have explosions??? Does the World Cup have explosions???

Our sailplanes go almost as fast on a ridge day as a stock car. And on a moderate thermal day, the inter thermal speeds are around 100 mph, that's exciting!! Our sport may not have the explosions, but neither do so many other competitions that are televised and enjoyable to follow.

If you want this sport to draw interest, Grand Prix soaring is the solution.. Look at the reaction on the faces of the spectators in the videos from other countries. They enjoy the excitement just like other forms of racing.

Having a sport where the ultimate competition is not even a time trial, nor an all out race, but a screwed up set of rules where a winner can cross the finish place last and a loser can cross the finish line first, is a very very hard sport to sell.

[Dan Marotta]

The point you're missing, "Wil", is that not every one cares the
slightest bit about competition. If you want to race, have a ball, but
the vast majority of soaring pilots aren't interested in glider races.
I think the decline in the sport is due to what someone else stated
earlier: that today's man and woman have given up control of their free
time. I can't count the number of times I've heard, "Sorry, I have to
take the wife shopping", or "Sorry, I have to take the kids to the zoo".

It's a matter of choices and management. Some of us have one, some have
both, unfortunately a lot have neither. And what possible interest can
there be in watching a bunch of guys pedal their bicycles? And who
watches Olympic swimming anyway?

Dan (not afraid to sign my real name)

On 3/2/2017 12:04 PM, wrote:
> So many naysayers!! Each of you are contributors to the decline in our sport!!
>
> Does swimming in the olympics have explosions?? Does the Tour de France have explosions??? Does the World Cup have explosions???
>
> Our sailplanes go almost as fast on a ridge day as a stock car. And on a moderate thermal day, the inter thermal speeds are around 100 mph, that's exciting!! Our sport may not have the explosions, but neither do so many other competitions that are televised and enjoyable to follow.
>
> If you want this sport to draw interest, Grand Prix soaring is the solution. Look at the reaction on the faces of the spectators in the videos from other countries. They enjoy the excitement just like other forms of racing.
>
> Having a sport where the ultimate competition is not even a time trial, nor an all out race, but a screwed up set of rules where a winner can cross the finish place last and a loser can cross the finish line first, is a very very hard sport to sell.

--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Whisky]

I would say that 95% of the pilots are not interested in competitions whatsoever.

[[email protected]]

Dan,

You've missed my point entirely. It went right over your head. But kudos to you and well played on preaching the mainstream political agenda of soaring cult policies (because it's always been this way, therefore it should remain this way forever). Don't you know an inability to change is handicaps the ability to grow?

Let's be clear:

When the wife says: "I would rather you take me shopping."

That translates to: "Your sport is boring, I can't cheer you on, there's no excitement for me, and I can't watch you from down below, when you come home first, I can't get excited you won, because you probably lost. It's not like all other forms of racing where spouses can get excited, because, sorry hunny, you're really not in a "race". I just sit on the side of the runway and get depressed."

When the kids say "Dad we would rather you take us to the zoo." That translates to:

"Dad, you leave us for hours, we feel abandoned. We can't watch your spot tracker and even begin to understand if you are winning. When you start heading home, you add another turnpoint with a MAT, fly away to a far off airport and go opposite direction. Really hard to understand. When it looks like your going to round a tue point, you go 30 miles past it like your lost, but then try to explain its for "more points". The rules are so co fusing with handicaps and turn cylinders that we would rather just go to the zoo."

Since you slammed swimming and biking, here are some stats for you.

Total number of viewers for the Tour de France was 3.5 BILLION.

Total number of viewers for the Olympic's in 2012 was 4.8 BILLION.

Total number of viewers for the last world soaring championship....maybe 1,000 estimated.

Grand Prix is on the rise! Soaring as we know it is on the demise!

This thread is all about how handicaps can push you from a loser to a winner. Just imagine how many fans of NASCAR would be upset if a 10th place finisher was by a handicap system announced 1st place. It would be an outrage and serious loss of interest in the sport.

I've said it before, the leadership in the SSA needs to make serious changes or otherwise face year over year decline in our sport. Perhaps doing away with the handicap system, and doing away with turn cylinders, and doing away with start anytime you want would be a new beginning and just would we need to revive the excitement of soaring.

I understand this is an unpopular stance, because in this sport, if you don't agree with the political figures at large, for no good reason, you will be looked at with serious discontent.

Folks, the silent majority has SPOKEN and either QUIT soaring or choose not to join.....

[[email protected]]

Dear Tango Whiskey,

You state that 95% of glider pilots are not interesting in racing. I think that's an honest and accurate estimation!

When 95% of any group finds no interest or enjoyment in something, that's because it's poorly designed!!!

Well said, bravo, bravo...

95% of gliders pilots have spoken.
The wives have spoken.
The children have spoken.

Hmmm.....is not clear to you all that the design is broken???

[[email protected]]

A group of scientists placed five monkeys in a cage, and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on top.

Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water.

After a while, every time a monkey would start up the ladder, the others would pull it down and beat it up.

After a time, no monkey would dare try climbing the ladder, no matter how great the temptation.

The scientists then decided to replace one of the monkeys. The first thing this new monkey did was start to climb the ladder. Immediately, the others pulled him down and beat him up.

After several beatings, the new monkey learned never to go up the ladder, even though there was no evident reason not to, aside from the beatings.

The second monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The first monkey participated in the beating of the second monkey. A third monkey was changed and the same was repeated. The fourth monkey was changed, resulting in the same, before the fifth was finally replaced as well.

What was left was a group of five monkeys that – without ever having received a cold shower – continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.

If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they beat up on all those who attempted to climb the ladder, their most likely answer would be “I don’t know. It’s just how things are done around here.�

Does that sound at all familiar?

[Tango Whisky]

Le vendredi 3 mars 2017 14:01:11 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> Dear Tango Whiskey,
>
> You state that 95% of glider pilots are not interesting in racing. I think that's an honest and accurate estimation!
>
> When 95% of any group finds no interest or enjoyment in something, that's because it's poorly designed!!!
>
> Well said, bravo, bravo...
>
> 95% of gliders pilots have spoken.
> The wives have spoken.
> The children have spoken.
>
> Hmmm.....is not clear to you all that the design is broken???

Sorry Sean, or Wilbur, or whatever,

I've been doing soaring for 35+ years, and most of the folks (including me) is not interested in competition. Whatever the competition looks like.

I can understand that flying over a flat countryside can be boring, but I spend my time in the air exclusively in the Alps which is probably the most demanding (and exciting) terrain you can imagine. I don't need the "extra thrill" of a competition. I'm just competing against myself, and sometimes I win.

Decline in soaring does not have *anything* to do with competition rules, as others have pointed out. Changing the rules doesn't improve anything on this aspect. Attracting public to competition - well, the GP's have been around for what, 10 years? What did they change?

And if you have a wife waiting for you all day long next to the runway - well, my wife doesn't wait for me at the airfield, she's got a life on her own. And I like it that way.

Bert
Ventus cM "TW"

[[email protected]]

You are insane if you think a rule change will get pilot's wives and children interested. 'If only the rules changed we would have groupies' Nope. Although I've always said soaring should have umbrella girls on the grid, a la Formula 1. Bicycle racing is popular because everyone has ridden a bicycle and the cost of self identifying as a hardcore bicycle type is cheap. Olympic sports are popular because of pomp and if your kid is good at just about any them college is free.
How is the SGP going to compete with Redbull's Air Race's or these guys http://worldwingsuitleague.com/facts/wwl-partners/ And what do you expect from a successful SGP? Corporate sponsors? http://www.npr.org/2014/11/29/367362502/why-clif-bar-dropped-athletes-in-dangerous-sports Billionaire funded professional teams? Larry Ellison won the America's Cup without even being on the boat, imagine that. Or just more middle aged guys manning up and taking back their weekends? That would be awesome, noble and good for soaring but I don't see how the SGP gets anyone there.

[WB]

"Bicycle racing is popular because everyone has ridden a bicycle and the cost of self identifying as a hardcore bicycle type is cheap."

Whoomp! There it is. The precise reason so many things like NASCAR, Golf, Pro ball, even Pro Fishing for heavens sake, are popular spectator sports. They are "relatable". Everybody who has ever driven a car fantasizes that they could do what the NASCAR guys do. Everybody can see themselves wearing a patch covered sponsor outfit and reeling in a lunker bass. How do we make soaring relatable? Short answer: Can't be done with the general population.. The average Joe doesn't understand how flying works and doesn't have the attention span or motivation to learn. If it ain't immediately intuitive, then average people won't bother. So what are we to do? We have to find the "above average" types who can be educated. Those folks who actually seek out new things to learn and do. Doesn't "above average" describe all the people you know in soaring? How do we find them? Same way every seller of consumer products in the world does it: Marketing. Spend real money on real advertising done by professionals. For-profit companies with something to sell know this (or they go out of business). Somehow, recreational clubs never seem to get this. Sure, we try all sorts of things to get our message out there in front of the public, but it's strictly amateur hour. We need to have professional marketers generate some sustained mass market visibility for soaring. By mass market, I don't necessarily mean national network TV or newspapers although that would be great. A tighter focus to the "above average population" would likely be much more cost effective. Regardless, it needs to be slick, professionally produced, and sustained. I understand that such a campaign might be prohibitively expensive even if done in only a few markets, but I think that type of marketing is PART of what it will take to actually increase the soaring population.

If professional marketing is only part of the strategy, what's the rest? I hate to say it, but clubs ain't it. At least, clubs aren't on the front line. Clubs will be how we sustain soaring, but to get soaring growing again, we need to support commercial soaring schools. Clubs just do not have the capacity and steady customer service that can add enough new pilots to grow soaring. Soaring clubs typically saturate their instructional capacity at about 3 new pilots and even then it's often a "catch-as-catch-can" intermittent form of flight training. Commercial schools can manage the "throughput".. Anyone here know of a commercial glider operation with too much business?

So, gotta be some of youse out there that know about marketing and/or commercial soaring operations. How much money would it take to hit one major market with a sustained marketing campaign of, say, maybe one year duration. Ads, commercials, vids in publications, maybe on cable, or on internet sites that cater to middle aged folks with both money and smarts. How much new business can a typical commercial soaring operation accommodate? It would be instructive, at least, to see how this experiment would work out.

WB

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird, without a noisy engine(s).

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:48:00 -0800, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they
> all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I
> have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird,
> without a noisy engine(s).

I'm curious: how healthy is the American GA community in comparison to
the gliding one?


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

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

>> I have given so many glider flights to power pilot friends of mine, they
>> all liked it but were not interested in taking up soaring as a sport. I
>> have no idea why a pilot would not be interested in flying like a bird,
>> without a noisy engine(s).
>
> I'm curious: how healthy is the American GA community in comparison to the
> gliding one?

An interesting question with no pat answer. All of what follows is from
memory; it's up to seriously interested readers to verify numbers...

In terms of sheer size, it's *roughly* 50-times larger. One segment - the
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) - has by their
probably-pretty-accurate, given how the program was/is set up, given over 2
million introductory rides to kids, at no cost to parents or participants,
since the 1990s; details on EAA's website. The program has been going on for
long enough for some kids hooked early-on to have become pilots, and who are
themselves now giving the next generation of kids rides in the same program.

Nonetheless, the licensed power pilot population has been declining (more or
less) steadily since the end of WW-II.

Arguably, EAA-related activities contain the healthiest segments of licensed
general aviation over here. Working from memory, in the past few years, each
year more single-engine airplanes with "Experimental - Amateur Built"
registrations have joined the fleet than new factory-built single-engine
airplanes. Most, but far from all, are either single- or two-seaters.

The largest/most-attended annual aviation event over here is "Oshkosh," which
more or less regularly, now, draws folks from across the (sometimes, both)
pond(s) flying in in their own GA ships, with more coming via airline.

Even so, - and I may be wrong on this particular stat - EAA's membership has
been more or less level for a long time, now.

Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
aviation is concerned.

The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
since '79.

Bob W.

[WB]

>
> Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
> flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
> barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
> aviation is concerned.
>
> The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
> since '79.
>
> Bob W.

Just my opinion, but I think the main entry barrier is not at entry, but at the point about 2/3rds of the way to solo. The trainee just gets tired of spending days at the airfield and getting only a couple of flights with an instructor.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 8:45:59 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> >
> > Given that today *everyone* has plenty of potential exposure to the reality of
> > flight/pilots-required/etc., exposure would seem to be less "the main" entry
> > barrier, than "something else," insofar as the health (or not) of US general
> > aviation is concerned.
> >
> > The above is from the perspective of an SSA member since '72 and an EAA member
> > since '79.
> >
> > Bob W.
>
> Just my opinion, but I think the main entry barrier is not at entry, but at the point about 2/3rds of the way to solo. The trainee just gets tired of spending days at the airfield and getting only a couple of flights with an instructor.

There is some real truth to WB's observation for some people.
In our area a student has the option of flying with our club or going to a commercial operation 10 miles away.
When a student is not happy with waiting and sharing resources we suggest that he or she try the other operation. Some do and some stay there. Most don't due to the difference in cost, which is about double.
We run a training operation all day with two 2-33's staffed as required. Most students get 2 to 3 flights a day.
If someone is time constrained we suggest they get there at the start of operations and we'll get their flying in so they can get to the soccer game, or whatever.
Interestingly the people who act most time constrained can't drag their butts out of bed in the morning. They expect to be customers, not club members. Experience shows they are much less likely to stick with it and be long term participants.
We do put extra effort into having waiting member help out which makes the time go quicker.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

Agreed - Soaring is not as relatable as other forms of racing.

But people are INSANE if they believe the current levels of participation are acceptable.

In 2016 a total of TWELVE pilots entered the Standard Class Nationals.

That's it!!! TWELVE!!!

Nationals should have a wait list every year, and take years for pilots to achieve a score that qualifies them into the national race.

We are at the point where we must combine multiple classes to even have enough pilots to "break even" at a national contest. That's sad, it's unfortunate and speaks volumes to a lack of common sense to make this a popular sport in America.

I doubt that we will even have billions or millions interested in our sport. But hoping for more than 12 in a class, or more than 25 in a large national class is completely realistic.....if you listen to those who do not participate.


Don't survey the current racing pilots, survey those who have quit the sport or won't enter a race only. Ask them why they are turned off to the idea of competition.

Ask the pilots who don't compete, if a race that has a rule book that can fit on a post card (aside from FAR's) if that would entice them to join.

Ask the pilots if a grand prix race is more exciting than an MAT.

Don't ask anyone in the current SSA leadership, because obviously what they are doing, is not working.

Once again....12 pilots entered the standard class nationals. There's more than a HALF A MILLION pilots in the USA. Add on ratings are easy to get. Why would only 12 pilots enter a class for a nationals???

Things that make you go hmmmmmm....

Whoooomp, there it is!

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Curious to compare the US competition attendee numbers to other countries around the world.
Are they all dropping in the last, say, 30 years?
Are some countries stagnant at some level?
Are some countries gaining attendance?
If they're all/mostly dropping, by what percentage?

There will be some that have gone up, partly because private aircraft ownership was expensive or even not allowed.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Agreed - Soaring is not as relatable as other forms of racing.
>
> But people are INSANE if they believe the current levels of participation are acceptable.
>
> In 2016 a total of TWELVE pilots entered the Standard Class Nationals.
>
> That's it!!! TWELVE!!!
>
> Nationals should have a wait list every year, and take years for pilots to achieve a score that qualifies them into the national race.
>
> We are at the point where we must combine multiple classes to even have enough pilots to "break even" at a national contest. That's sad, it's unfortunate and speaks volumes to a lack of common sense to make this a popular sport in America.
>
> I doubt that we will even have billions or millions interested in our sport. But hoping for more than 12 in a class, or more than 25 in a large national class is completely realistic.....if you listen to those who do not participate.
>
>
> Don't survey the current racing pilots, survey those who have quit the sport or won't enter a race only. Ask them why they are turned off to the idea of competition.
>
> Ask the pilots who don't compete, if a race that has a rule book that can fit on a post card (aside from FAR's) if that would entice them to join.
>
> Ask the pilots if a grand prix race is more exciting than an MAT.
>
> Don't ask anyone in the current SSA leadership, because obviously what they are doing, is not working.
>
> Once again....12 pilots entered the standard class nationals. There's more than a HALF A MILLION pilots in the USA. Add on ratings are easy to get. Why would only 12 pilots enter a class for a nationals???
>
> Things that make you go hmmmmmm....
>
> Whoooomp, there it is!

I'm guilty of abetting thread drift.
Out of respect for the person who started this thread, please start your own.
UH

[Michael Opitz]

>UH stated:
>They expect to be customers, not club members.

Exactly! They want to show up just before launch with everything
all set up for them beforehand, and then leave as soon as their
flight is over so they can go do some other activity. Oh, and they
want to reserve the best time of the day for themselves ahead of
time as well. They want to have the benefits that a commercial
operator provides, but want to pay low club rates while not
participating in any of the club duties which lower the costs...
Welcome to the USA attitude...."I want everything, and I want it
now, and I want it for free - or cheap."

My club in Germany had it right. If you wanted to fly, you had to be
there before 9 AM to help unload the hangar. After that, you helped
wherever you could outside of the time you got to fly. Afterwards,
you were obligated to stay and help until all was put away, and the
hangar doors were closed for the night. Unfortunately for soaring
in the USA, most Americans will never put up with rules and
restrictions like those found in other places. They will just go and
look for something else which is easier to do.

When prospective new members show up at our place, we explain
that ours is a participatory club, and that we own the airport as
well. We tell them right up front that if they don't want to
participate in the duties of running the club and the airport, that
they should get in their cars and drive the 50 miles to the same
commercial operator that UH refers his people to as well.

Everyone likes the low club rates, but not a lot want to do the
required participation work which keeps the rates low and
affordable... If you leave the work to a dedicated few, they burn out
and leave after some period of time where they have been taken
advantage of....

I think it is just a pervasive cultural attitude that is found in the
USA, and that is - and has been- a "hard nut to crack"...

FWIW,,,,,,, RO

[Dan Marotta]

Mike is right, but it wasn't always that way in the USA. All these
useless (entitled) people grew up in the past 40 or so years.

Flame suit on.

On 3/4/2017 9:00 AM, Michael Opitz wrote:
>> UH stated:
>> They expect to be customers, not club members.
> Exactly! They want to show up just before launch with everything
> all set up for them beforehand, and then leave as soon as their
> flight is over so they can go do some other activity. Oh, and they
> want to reserve the best time of the day for themselves ahead of
> time as well. They want to have the benefits that a commercial
> operator provides, but want to pay low club rates while not
> participating in any of the club duties which lower the costs...
> Welcome to the USA attitude...."I want everything, and I want it
> now, and I want it for free - or cheap."
>
> My club in Germany had it right. If you wanted to fly, you had to be
> there before 9 AM to help unload the hangar. After that, you helped
> wherever you could outside of the time you got to fly. Afterwards,
> you were obligated to stay and help until all was put away, and the
> hangar doors were closed for the night. Unfortunately for soaring
> in the USA, most Americans will never put up with rules and
> restrictions like those found in other places. They will just go and
> look for something else which is easier to do.
>
> When prospective new members show up at our place, we explain
> that ours is a participatory club, and that we own the airport as
> well. We tell them right up front that if they don't want to
> participate in the duties of running the club and the airport, that
> they should get in their cars and drive the 50 miles to the same
> commercial operator that UH refers his people to as well.
>
> Everyone likes the low club rates, but not a lot want to do the
> required participation work which keeps the rates low and
> affordable... If you leave the work to a dedicated few, they burn out
> and leave after some period of time where they have been taken
> advantage of....
>
> I think it is just a pervasive cultural attitude that is found in the
> USA, and that is - and has been- a "hard nut to crack"...
>
> FWIW,,,,,,, RO
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

What do business do? They think smarter, not harder.

Maybe instead of making the club sweep the hangar everyday, they can invest in a leaf blower.

Maybe instead of disassembling a club glider everyday to store in a trailer, they can invest in a hangar.

Perhaps instead of having club members walk wingtipa, they can invest in a wing wheel.

If this sport isn't made easier and convenient, you're done.

Wake up, think outside the box!!!!


Telling a guest on day one they MUST WORK AND PULL THEIR WEIGHT AROUND HERE, scares the heck out them.

Their are easier and smarter ways.

[Michael Opitz]

At 16:55 04 March 2017, wrote:
>What do business do? They think smarter, not harder.
>
>Maybe instead of making the club sweep the hangar everyday,
they can invest
>in a leaf blower.
>
>Maybe instead of disassembling a club glider everyday to store in
a
>trailer, they can invest in a hangar.
>
>Perhaps instead of having club members walk wingtipa, they can
invest in a
>wing wheel.
>
>If this sport isn't made easier and convenient, you're done.
>
>Wake up, think outside the box!!!!
>
>
>Telling a guest on day one they MUST WORK AND PULL THEIR
WEIGHT AROUND
>HERE, scares the heck out them.
>
>Their are easier and smarter ways.
>
You forget their premise. They want it for free or cheap! They
don't want to invest in a leaf blower, or a wing tip wheel, let alone a
hangar!! That costs money!! They don't want to spend money or
work either.. They want others to do it for them for free. Most of
them are slackers who want to ride on the backs of a few that are
willing to work..

They want easy and convenient, but especially CHEAP!! Sometimes
those "wants" are mutually exclusive and ride on imposing on other
members.

Our club owns weed whackers and leaf blowers as well as tractors
and mowers too. The club needs members that are willing to pitch
in with some of their own time (and sometimes muscle too).