SGP vs. Normal Racing

[Jim White[_3_]]

I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
been aired once or maybe twice!

The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.

However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
use of the SGP format?

We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.

I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.

In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.

The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
less safe??

Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:30:12 PM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
> been aired once or maybe twice!
>
> The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
> Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.
>
> However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
> use of the SGP format?
>
> We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
> Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
> interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.
>
> I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
> because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.
>
> In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
> 980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
> minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.
>
> The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
> more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
> less safe??
>
> Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

I think the SGP format is great for the big boys - get 15 world class guys and you have something really interesting. Just like the Red Bull Air Race, the Indy 500 ............. experts only and a limited known driver pool. It is exciting to watch experts get close to the edge and really sad when the edge bites back.

The issue will be / if it is not already a issue..... too many gliders, too many inexperienced skilled pilots ..... i.e. FL?....... Sorry but I do not think the format can be expanded past the very top guys in the world without a huge problem.

My 2 cents, since I am on a lunch break :)

WH

[Tony[_5_]]

the points system in SGP is definitely different. As you may have seen from my final day interview in Orlando last year, I had not really given that aspect much thought. However, the volatility works both ways. You can easily lose a few points or gain a few points by being just a minute or two slower/faster. So while the percentages are cruel I'm not sure that the end result is really that much different.

I'm sure someone who is more interested in putting pencil to paper will be along soon to correct me :)

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

My 2c:

SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for spectators, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who want the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it is not designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for participants to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SGP have a lot more crashes. Car racing is designed for spectators and crashes are part of the attraction. Professional hockey is designed for spectators, who like the occasional fight.

Regular soaring contests are designed primarily for the enjoyment of the participants, especially at the national level. You gain only the respect of your peers for a few months if you win. It is designed for participants to enjoy soaring, and not just a highly tactical game that happens to involve gliders. A wide participant sport properly has a much greater emphasis on safety.

John Cochrane

[Branko Stojkovic]

SGP race is for sure more exciting to watch than the "normal" race. It is also riskier than the "normal" race. The risk and excitement go hand in hand.. Just check the YouTube, where the number of views attracted by a sport (or any other an activity) is highly correlated with its mortality rate. Wingsuit flying 5 feet away from the cliff wall will always be hard to beat by anything anyone can do in a glider, short of crashing it in a spectacular and cinematographically well documented manner.

To me the main question is this: Has SGP attracted more sponsors and a larger audience to our sport? I would argue that the short answer is no. If that is so, then shouldn't we (IGC?) reconsider the whole idea? Racing gliders is already one of the most dangerous sports out there and I don't think that adding more adrenalin to the formula is wise by any measure.

Branko
XYU

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:30:12 PM UTC, Jim White wrote:
> I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
> been aired once or maybe twice!
>
> The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
> Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.
>
> However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
> use of the SGP format?
>
> We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
> Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
> interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.
>
> I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
> because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.
>
> In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
> 980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
> minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.
>
> The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
> more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
> less safe??
>
> Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

Back in the late 80s I wrote a letter to Sailplane and Gliding advocating an F1 GP style glider racing format with what (IIRC) I referred to as "placing points" instead of the 1000 point system. The major point I emphasised at the time was that the distribution of points did not have to follow the then used F1 scheme of 10,8,9,7 etc. The choice of point distribution could have a powerful effect on the nature of the competition; in a field of 20 competitors, at one extreme, giving 100 points for a win and one less for every place thereafter would make for a very noncompetitive atmosphere whereas towards the other extreme 10,8,9,7,6,4,3,2,1 would make for an extreme competition at the top end and little reward or incentive at the other end. F1 figured have since then tailored their points to affect the result/reward incentive.

(A very eminent competition pilot was given right of reply and kindly explained why GP style flying was not a good idea.)

I have greatly enjoyed watching the GP series over the years but when it was introduced I was surprised at the points distribution chosen and am even more surprised that it hasn't been modified to reduce the incentive to risky flying at the top end increase both the reward and the discrimination of skill level at the lower end.

[[email protected]]

I agree that the SGP style of GP racing is likely to be more dangerous than normal competitions, but it's possible to run GP race without using the SGP rules which mitigates at least part of the difference in risk between the 2 formats.

We recently held a GP comp for early first gen plastic (club class) gliders in Australia that was a very successful and safe event - no gliders were damaged. Our rules differed from the SGP in a number of key ways :

1) Much higher start altitude - SGP wish to make a spectacle of the start, but the side effect is that most gliders end up together in the first thermal, at a lowish altitude - possibly one where there isn't time to get out if there is a coming together.

2) Less Serious, Less Start Bunching - At an SGP where there is a lot at stake, the competitors tend to start in the same piece of air where there is an advantage (downwind first leg, line of CU, etc). This didn't happen as much at our event. We also switched during the event to a start line length that was effectively unlimited, spacing gliders out further.

3) Variable Turnpoint Sizes - We accepted gliders one bracket either side of the Australian Club Class handicap of 1.0. This includes Libelles, Jantars, Hornets, Cirruses, Astirs, etc. To make up for the slight difference in performance between these aircraft the turnpoint radius differs so the Standard Libelle (lower end of performance) turns several kilometres before the Jantar.

4) We split competitors into 2 groups - To make the start (and first climb) less busy, we seeded pilots into 2 groups that changed every day after scores were tallied. The largest group was 13, but we had 26 aircraft competing.

5) We weren't in the mountains...

GP racing is definitely more palatable to the public, but included in public is crews, wives, husbands, kids, etc - Bringing them to a competition where there are shortish tasks, easily understood scoring, meaningful in-flight tracking, and no hours of prestart jockeying makes it easier to convince them to attend next year.

http://f1gp.com.au/

Nick Gilbert.

[[email protected]]

Although GP racing is a spectacle for the public, and yes I would prefer a little higer start, I find it more enjoyable to fly and more social amongst the pilots than the high pressure WGC atmosphere. Flown about five qualifying comps in Australia and the Sisteron and Varese finals. The experience of following those pilots in the mountains was awesome. I did have to put personal limits on myself to bug out if I was concerned even if right behind someone!
Tom Clafffey.

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

What is interesting on this subject is that nobody has stated why they feel
that SGP is less safe than the "standard format" competition.

SGP puts an emphasis on racing, rather than distance. It essentially uses
the best part of the day to go as fast as possible.

The reference to the tragic accident in Chile, I do not believe is relevant
to the SGP format, it was mountain flying accident.

Flying in the mountains carries additional risk, risk that is mitigated by
an experienced mountain pilot.

So….. take the SGP out of the mountains, how is it more dangerous. I do
not believe it is.

I have not flown an SGP, but do have several hundred hours in the French
alps.

As an aside, I personally would not fly any comp in the mountains, but that
is due to my expertise level. Would I in five years’ time with more
mountain experience? Who knows.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 09:09 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
>What is interesting on this subject is that nobody has stated why they
fee
>that SGP is less safe than the "standard format" competition.
>
I guess the IGC do. The SGP rule book limits the entry to 20 gliders
compared to 50 in normal racing format.

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

I suspect that is to do with the mass finish i.e. the likelihood of many
finishes at once and the airfield's ability to handle that scenario
safely.



At 12:30 07 February 2018, Jim White wrote:
>At 09:09 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
>>What is interesting on this subject is that nobody has stated why the
>fee
>>that SGP is less safe than the "standard format" competition.
>>
>I guess the IGC do. The SGP rule book limits the entry to 20 glider
>compared to 50 in normal racing format.
>
>

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
spectat=
ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who want
the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it is
not
designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SGP

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
standard format comp?

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 13:14 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
>At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
> "SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed fo
>spectat=
>ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who wan
>the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it i
>not
>designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for
participa
>nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SG
>
>have a lot more crashes".
>
>Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.
>
>Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
>have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.
>
>Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.
>
>Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than
>standard format comp?
>
>
Because the risk reward equation is different and that drives different
behaviours by encouraging the taking of more risk.

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 9:30:12 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
> been aired once or maybe twice!
>
> The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
> Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.
>
> However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
> use of the SGP format?
>
> We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
> Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
> interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.
>
> I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
> because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.
>
> In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
> 980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
> minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.
>
> The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
> more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
> less safe??
>
> Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

The region 11 FAI contest in Truckee is adding a one day SGP in the middle of the contest this year. I will not be flying that part as I don't want to take that much risk. Too many gliders bunched up a the start. Gliders of very different performance levels thrown together. Pilots with very different skill levels. A finish at a busy airport (with a tower) where winds are unpredictable and microbursts are a little too common. No thanks.

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

At 15:59 07 February 2018, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

>The region 11 FAI contest in Truckee is adding a one day SGP in the
middle
>=
>of the contest this year. I will not be flying that part as I don't want
>t=
>o take that much risk. Too many gliders bunched up a the start. Gliders
>o=
>f very different performance levels thrown together. Pilots with very
>diff=
>erent skill levels. A finish at a busy airport (with a tower) where
winds
>=
>are unpredictable and microbursts are a little too common. No thanks.


How many gliders in the region 11 comp?

[Dan Marotta]

I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


On 2/7/2018 6:14 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
> At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
> "SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
> spectat=
> ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who want
> the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it is
> not
> designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for participa
> nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such,it is quite sensible that SGP
>
> have a lot more crashes".
>
> Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.
>
> Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
> have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.
>
> Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.
>
> Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
> standard format comp?
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I'm signed up for Truckee and look forward to trying the format. (I also was strongly in favor of the late lamented last start time option so this would be easier in regular regionals.)

To clarify my previous comment, the FAI SGP was, if you read the documents, clearly designed to be interesting for spectators and media. The rewards for pilots are the glory of winning a high profile event, and wingtip to wingtip racing if you like that sort of thing, but you'll fly short tasks and won't get to explore much.

SGP lite events, such as Truckee, are quite different. Here the objective is to give pilots a bit more race feel without pushing the limits in many ways.

Regular races have this problem of sitting around at the start waiting for others to go first, missing a lot of the day, and the whole leeching and gaggling game. A grand-prix lite, or last start time, but combined with regular scoring not an inch is as good as a mile could make racing more fun.

John Cochrane

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
>likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
>contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
>would not call it an "absurd" statement.
>

But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
an SGP?

As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.

The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.

I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
the mountains?

When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.

The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
threads have flown an SGP.

From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
have to go back.

The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
having even competed in one.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

SGP is wonderful for the sport of soaring. It is exciting to watch and draws non-pilot spectators, in theory. We need more sport promotion and a the SGP series is a format that is exciting for spectators and pilots. If it is not your cup of tea fine, many don't want to drag race gliders, but this is an opportunity to get corporate sponsors, TV deals, fans... If SGP could get a bit more media coverage I believe it could really grow in audience which will ultimately help the numbers in our sport grow!

As for SGP vs "Normal racing" why debate? You can fly as safe a contest as you want, be it SGP or not.

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-8, Justin Craig wrote:
> At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
> >likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
> >contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
> >would not call it an "absurd" statement.
> >
>
> But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
> an SGP?
>
> As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.
>
> The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
> so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.
>
> I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
> the mountains?
>
> When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
> start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.
>
> The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
> threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.
>
> It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
> threads have flown an SGP.
>
> From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
> have to go back.
>
> The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
> be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
> having even competed in one.

[Dan Marotta]

Two things and then I'll try to stay out of this:

Racing is more dangerous than not racing.Â* Look at RATES not NUMBERS.Â*
Compare NASCAR racing to the daily commute.Â* Of course there are more
accidents in daily driving but the RATE is way higher in racing.Â* So
which is more dangerous?Â* Reading all the comments indicates to me that
a lot of proponents for more rules either just don't get it or they
simply want to have the last say in rule making.

Just because someone has a different opinion does not make him an
armchair pilot.Â* I've been flying gliders for over 30 years with over
550 hours just in the last two years.


On 2/7/2018 10:07 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
> At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
>> likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
>> contests, to have more frequent incidents.ÂÂ* In that interpretation I
>> would not call it an "absurd" statement.
>>
> But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
> an SGP?
>
> As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.
>
> The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
> so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.
>
> I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
> the mountains?
>
> When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
> start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.
>
> The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
> threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.
>
> It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
> threads have flown an SGP.
>
> From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
> have to go back.
>
> The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
> be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
> having even competed in one.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Aspects of a SGP that are great for spectators but not the greatest for safety:

As mentioned, starting everyone at the same time.

Scoring formula that gives you a whole place if you beat the other guy by one meter. And no more credit if you beat him by a lot.

This produces strategies much like sailboat racing. You don't have to go fast, you just have to beat the other guy. So if you can, get an energy advantage and cover, then dash to the finish. And argue about the last meter.

All landouts are the same.

From the reports, the last day in chile the pilots stuck in a big gaggle and kept pushing lower and lower over poor terrain. That makes sense strategically.

In the past, scoring finishes at zero altitude led to some very spectator-friendly finishes, but not exactly pilot friendly. Interestingly SGP has put in some altitude minimums in the interest of safety that remain controversial in regular US racing.

To its credit, starting everyone at the same time means start late, catch the gaggle and sit there will not work.

For pilot enjoyment, grand prix starts -- including allowing pilots to leave early if they choose to do so -- plus regular scoring might cut down on start roulette and leeching, without the incentives of win by a meter scoring. Granted it would be a lot less fun for the spectators who now want to see if Sebastian will or will not keep that meter or two ahead of Tilo.

Not a criticism really,

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-8, Justin Craig wrote:

> Wrong...
>
> Please elaborate...
>
> Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it...?

I'll take "sealioning" for a thousand, Alex.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 12:16:57 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:

> To its credit, starting everyone at the same time means start late, catch the gaggle and sit there will not work.
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=127&v=sd5lfB-MsKc

Well, I am now again amazed that we have so many armchair experts who know so much yet have never flown an SGP qualifier or World final. Simply amazing.

The above video at (a cough) 2:57 or so, shows me, #711(applause please) as being in last place (which 7T happily announce's) @ the 2017 Orlando SGP qualifier.

Yet, I go on to win the day. (Thank you, applause, please). As a old man just had to say that! The start is really not a major concern(its a fairly long start line and folks are spread out). Out on course, the group does try different ideas. We all know thermals cycle and have watched those below or above climb up or slip away). Also, a small different spot on the ridge does matter for best lift. Listening to a couple of guys announce what the pilots are doing or thinking out on the course is no different than announcers on Nascar or the NFL. Spector appeal is what they are trying to sell! They aren't seeing what the pilots are and really have no idea what the guys are thinking!

Now, about this being a spectator sport. Over the last 8 World finals for the SGP, the live views have remanded constant at around 9,000 live views per final. You can also check the YouTube views for daily grid interviews, etc. Knowledge will bring wisdom which may better educate one's views. Needless, unfounded, radical extreme rants do not foster nor promote our sport.

The last 2 days in Vitacure I didn't fly and sat in the restaurant watching the big screen. Thier were plenty of chairs available. If you check the pictures on my blog, you can see the dining room for the chairs. On the finishes, well less than a hundred or so folks (remember there was an airshow to attract interest) were outside watching.

Appears "fake news and views" has now made an appearance on RAS(again). OMG, Wait a minute, Pelosi lives in your district( hell, she's still ranting on), now I understand! :>))).

Best. Tom #711.

[WB]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:30:12 PM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> > I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
> > been aired once or maybe twice!
> >
> > The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
> > Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.
> >
> > However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
> > use of the SGP format?
> >
> > We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
> > Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
> > interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.
> >
> > I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
> > because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.
> >
> > In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
> > 980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
> > minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.
> >
> > The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
> > more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
> > less safe??
> >
> > Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?
>
> I think the SGP format is great for the big boys - get 15 world class guys and you have something really interesting. Just like the Red Bull Air Race, the Indy 500 ............. experts only and a limited known driver pool.. It is exciting to watch experts get close to the edge and really sad when the edge bites back.
>
> The issue will be / if it is not already a issue..... too many gliders, too many inexperienced skilled pilots ..... i.e. FL?....... Sorry but I do not think the format can be expanded past the very top guys in the world without a huge problem.
>
> My 2 cents, since I am on a lunch break :)
>
> WH

FAI SGP format ain't the only way to run a Grand Prix style race. A few years ago, a series of GP format races sports class races were run out of Seminole Lake Gliderport. That's flat-as-a-table Florida,for all y'all from outside the USA. I was lucky enough to be able to participate in one GP weekend. Great fun. About 10-12 pilots. I saw no safety problem with the start. We started at an altitude that would be unremarkable for any regular contest.. We were more or less line abreast. We could all see each other and all going in more or less the same direction. Very cool to see. Lots of cu's that day so the fleet spread out pretty quick as each went their own way searching for a faster path through the air. We were all anxious to get away from the group, so gaggling was not an issue. I saw hardly anyone out on course, but somehow I would meet up with the same pilots at the turns. Very interesting that we took different paths but ended up so close. Most of the group arrived at the last turn more or less together. Then it was a drag race to the finish. We had a minimum finish height, just like any other sports class race, so one got too low. There was still enough lift to sustain, so entering the pattern and landing was a relaxed affair. I'd say that particular GP experience presented no more risk, or even less risk due to the low number of racers, than the average sports class contest day.

I'd say the lesson is that the GP format can be fun and safe as long as one adapts it to the local conditions.



WB.

[[email protected]]

The finish is not the problem. The reason for limited numbers at a SGP is the starts, 20 gliders on the line at the same height, speed and time is enough.
Tom Claffey