Does the FAI think its April 1st?

[Paul T[_4_]]

http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps

So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with this
list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.

[krasw]

On Monday, 2 October 2017 21:30:07 UTC+3, Paul T wrote:
> http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
>
> So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with this
> list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.

It is a very odd-looking list indeed.

[Muttley]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
> http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
>
> So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with this
> list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.

May be you should read this first

http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps

[krasw]

tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 14.57.45 UTC+3 Muttley kirjoitti:
> On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
> > http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
> >
> > So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with this
> > list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.
>
> May be you should read this first
>
> http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf
>
> Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps

1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate handicaps based on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and weather model.

2. Hmm... Computer generatend handicap spread is too large. Let's make it, shall we say, umm... 70% instead.

3. Done

Very scientific.

If you give a empty list of glider types to 100 competition pilots and ask them to individually write down their opionion of fair handicaps, you can create a averaged list that is fair to everyone (and you will be surprised how everyone will end up with same handicaps). Fair handicaps are actually quite obvious, no reason to use this kind of shoddy pseudoscience.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 9:03:43 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 14.57.45 UTC+3 Muttley kirjoitti:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
> > > http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
> > >
> > > So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with this
> > > list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.
> >
> > May be you should read this first
> >
> > http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf
> >
> > Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps
>
> 1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate handicaps based on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and weather model.
>
> 2. Hmm... Computer generatend handicap spread is too large. Let's make it, shall we say, umm... 70% instead.
>
> 3. Done
>
> Very scientific.
>
> If you give a empty list of glider types to 100 competition pilots and ask them to individually write down their opionion of fair handicaps, you can create a averaged list that is fair to everyone (and you will be surprised how everyone will end up with same handicaps). Fair handicaps are actually quite obvious, no reason to use this kind of shoddy pseudoscience.

If the objective is to drive club class to an ASW-20 dominated club class, the exercise should be successful.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tango Whisky]

> >
> > 1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate handicaps based on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and weather model.

What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg measurements?

[krasw]

tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 16.30.50 UTC+3 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
> > >
> > > 1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate handicaps based on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and weather model.
>
> What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg measurements?

I have no other explanation to 304 vs. Mosquito handicaps. Do you?

[[email protected]]

To digress, we may never know, but I wonder how similar the new weather model used by the FAI is to the new weather model used by Schempp-Hirth to optimise the new Ventus wing?

[Tango Whisky]

Le mardi 3 octobre 2017 15:39:20 UTC+2, krasw a écritÂ*:
> tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 16.30.50 UTC+3 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate handicaps based on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and weather model.
> >
> > What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg measurements?
>
> I have no other explanation to 304 vs. Mosquito handicaps. Do you?

The Idaflieg measurements involve a massive effort (calibrated reference sailplane, towing both sailplanes early morning high up multiple times, lots of customized measurement electronics and software)and are the most accurate measurements of glider polars you will ever get.

What you then do with the results is another story (which neither bothers nor interests me).

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 11:57 03 October 2017, Muttley wrote:
>On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
>> http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
>>
>> So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with
this
>> list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.
>
>May be you should read this first
>
>http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf
>
>Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps
>

Read it - 'commonsense gone out of the window' - some of the
anomalies on the list are ludicrous. SZD55 and Crystal less handicap
than an LS4, when they are at least equal to the Discus (some would
say marginally better)? 304 less than Mosqiuto. Mosqiuto higher
handicapped than Mini Nimbus - it's the same wing LS7 handicap
way less than ASW24 etc, ASW19 same as a Cirrus, LSIF higher
than ASW19 and Cirrus etc.etc.

Notice lack of US built gliders that would be in the 'performance
range' for club class not included.

SZD55, Crystal and to lesser extent LS7 seem big winners in this.

Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their
trolley', and that seems the consensus of most experienced pilots so
far.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 15:21 03 October 2017, Tango Whisky wrote:
>Le mardi 3 octobre 2017 15:39:20 UTC+2, krasw a
=C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 16.30.50 UTC+3 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
>> > > >=20
>> > > > 1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate
handicaps
>bas=
>ed on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and
weather
>mode=
>l.
>> >=20
>> > What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg
measurements?
>>=20
>> I have no other explanation to 304 vs. Mosquito handicaps. Do
you?
>
>The Idaflieg measurements involve a massive effort (calibrated
reference
>sa=
>ilplane, towing both sailplanes early morning high up multiple
times, lots
>=
>of customized measurement electronics and software)and are the
most
>accurat=
>e measurements of glider polars you will ever get.
>
>What you then do with the results is another story (which neither
bothers
>n=
>or interests me).

Trouble is sailplanes rarely compete in the smooth morning air!

[Tony[_5_]]

More axe work at the bottom of the handicap list. Asw19 and cirrus handicapped the same? A light szd-55 with the same handicap as a libelle. And the us wants to adopt this handicap list?

If this change ends up reflected in the us rules I might have to go get a real job again so I can afford to double or triple my investment in the sport so I can stay competitive...

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
> At 11:57 03 October 2017, Muttley wrote:
> >On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
> >> http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps
> >>
> >> So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with
> this
> >> list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.
> >
> >May be you should read this first
> >
> >http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf
> >
> >Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps
> >
>
> Read it - 'commonsense gone out of the window' - some of the
> anomalies on the list are ludicrous. SZD55 and Crystal less handicap
> than an LS4, when they are at least equal to the Discus (some would
> say marginally better)? 304 less than Mosqiuto. Mosqiuto higher
> handicapped than Mini Nimbus - it's the same wing LS7 handicap
> way less than ASW24 etc, ASW19 same as a Cirrus, LSIF higher
> than ASW19 and Cirrus etc.etc.
>
> Notice lack of US built gliders that would be in the 'performance
> range' for club class not included.
>
> SZD55, Crystal and to lesser extent LS7 seem big winners in this.
>
> Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their
> trolley', and that seems the consensus of most experienced pilots so
> far.

Perhaps M. Rohde-Brandenburger owns an ASW-19? Holy c r a p.

I'm busy filling out US rules poll. Among the questions (paraphrasing): "Should we harmonize US rules with FAI?" My answer (also paraphrasing): yes, but not until the FAI adopts less stupid rules.

This, unfortunately, is a step in the wrong direction!

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

> Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their trolley'...

I have heard a similar complaint about every handicap list published in the past 30 years.

[Tango Eight]

Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."

I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 21:44:52 UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
> Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."
>
> I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Still not un-published, I see.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
> May be you should read this first
> http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

To quote from that document: "It is supposed, that a slower glider is faster and a faster glider is slower...".

OK, OK, that quote (from section 3.3) is out of context... But really, the document spells out the theory. If you don't like the results, point out where the theory is incorrect. There are many possible issues, for example:
* the measured or estimated polars may be incorrect - commenters on this thread seems to focus on that
* the weather model (which is not assuming calm morning air!) may be bad, in the sense of being not representative of real flying conditions
* the weather model may be OK but the flying model is bad, in the sense that winning competitors don't fly like the MacCready model, rather follow "energy lines" etc
* the arbitrary taking of the square root to reduce the handicaps' spread may be silly - and this after all the nice theorizing? But this step does not change the rank ordering of the handicaps.

Personally, I think that the weather and task conditions on different days give the various gliders different relative performances, and thus cannot be summarized by one fixed "handicap" number for each model. (If that wasn't the case, nobody would ever fly without full ballast.) Nevertheless, mild handicapping is better than no handicapping at all. And it's all for fun.. And since I fly a glider with performance that is much lower than the low end of "club class", I find the strength of the feelings over these minute differences somewhat amusing. But note I am not defending this specific set of handicaps.

[krasw]

The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single sailplane (representing type with production run of 300+), in this case done mostly in 70's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes worth of first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider types. No one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and generation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer generation would not have better performance. Now we have a list that has examples of both of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in the method is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling includes use of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys get there soon.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
>The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single
sailplane
>(re=
>presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done
mostly in
>7=
>0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes
worth
>of=
> first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider
types.
>N=
>o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
>gener=
>ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer
generation
>woul=
>d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has
examples of
>both=
> of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in
the
>metho=
>d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling
includes use
>=
>of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys
get there
>=
>soon.
>

Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors re: this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
>The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single
sailplane
>(re=
>presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done
mostly in
>7=
>0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes
worth
>of=
> first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider
types.
>N=
>o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
>gener=
>ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer
generation
>woul=
>d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has
examples of
>both=
> of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in
the
>metho=
>d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling
includes use
>=
>of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys
get there
>=
>soon.
>

Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors re: this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?

[krasw]

lauantai 7. lokakuuta 2017 18.15.06 UTC+3 Paul T kirjoitti:
> At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
> >The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single
> sailplane
> >(re=
> >presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done
> mostly in
> >7=
> >0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes
> worth
> >of=
> > first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider
> types.
> >N=
> >o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
> >gener=
> >ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer
> generation
> >woul=
> >d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has
> examples of
> >both=
> > of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in
> the
> >metho=
> >d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling
> includes use
> >=
> >of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys
> get there
> >=
> >soon.
> >
>
> Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
> not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors re: this
> new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?

IGC handicap list is made by handicap committee. IGC delegates do not get to vote, discuss or even see the handicap list before publication, even if they wanted to. It is totally in the control of committee members.

[Rick Sheppe[_2_]]

Hi Evan -
I did say that, and I was wrong. When I wrote that on October 3, the
consensus of the Bureau seemed to be leaning toward reverting to the
old list until the new one could be reviewed.

But it didn't turn out that way.

I wrote a report to SSA:
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Club%20Class%20status%20report%20to%20SSA.pdf

-Rick

P.S. It's "Delegate," not "rep"


On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:44:50 -0700 (PDT), Tango Eight
> wrote:

>Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."
>
>I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.
>
>best,
>Evan Ludeman / T8