FAI, soaring and Olympic Games [Archive]

Ted W

August 17th 04, 03:54 PM

Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:

1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)

2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd Olympic
wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA will
be in Duisburg, Germany.

The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's sports
might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
Olympics.

If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather will
not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
about revenue, period.

The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since Finland's
1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games in
Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with spectators.)

Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing games,
so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.

Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting, gliding,
free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be there
to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
sports closely.

More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org

-ted w.
"2NO"

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up
again.
>
> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would
have any geographic troubles
> on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising
sailing competition which
> had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable
weather that the competition
> would have to be left unheld.
>
> The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a
difference here. Well. Here
> is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of
monoclass failed and they have
> to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not
expencive standard or 15m
> class design.
>
> As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9
different classes on Olympics
> and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find
the concensus amongst all
> air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the
biggest argument towards
> Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most
suitable sport would be
> soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and
directly measurable. Making
> soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing
tasks only allowed on
> olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
> How can we do it?
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>

Tony Verhulst

August 17th 04, 04:10 PM

> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
the same, IMHO.

For other would be Olympic events, see:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=5746437

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Bill Daniels

August 17th 04, 05:02 PM

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>
> > There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
> > rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
> > following:
> >
> > Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
> TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
> not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
> coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
> the same, IMHO.
>
> For other would be Olympic events, see:
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=5746437
>
> Tony V.
> http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
>

The only way I can see soaring as a spectator sport is as a very technical
one. Not only would it require real-time GPS tracking, it would require on
board TV cameras on every competitor. Several camera aircraft would be
needed to follow the leaders plus a staff of color commentators to explain
why the pilot in 3rd place is taking a big chance by passing up that 5 knot
thermal in an effort to claim 1st place.

You couldn't do it real-time, you would have to cut away to another sport
while the drama develops. Most of it would be edited recaps of the last
hour or so of the action with color commentary. Long final glides just
aren't very interesting except to the pilot.

The rules would have to be vastly simplified so the audience could
understand them. Start gates, finish gates, simple speed triangles and
maybe even free distance would interest the audience.

On the other hand, soaring is a visually compelling activity. There are
very talented videographers who could produce stunning video clips that
would hold a very large audience.

The technology to do it just barely exists and it the cost would be
astronomical. However, do it right and you would have half a billion people
from around the world on the edge of their seats.

I've got a feeling that it will happen sooner or later.

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

August 17th 04, 05:05 PM

How was gliding presented in the 1936 Olympic games?

Perhaps that could be the marketing hook: make Hitler's dream a
reality! Make gliding an olympic sport!

Mark James Boyd

August 17th 04, 08:16 PM

Olympics are athletic. Soaring has avoided (for the most part) having
medals or awards for endurance (long hours = crash).

I dunno, the sailing olympians all look like they're in great shape.
Pretty physical, that sport. And bosled even. I dunno if
soaring really meets the hardbody "Olympic" concept.

But hey, I guess there's no harm trying...I suppose an Olympic
"cluster ballooning" event would be nice too... :)

In article >, iPilot > wrote:
>It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>
>There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
>rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
>following:
>
>Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
>None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
>on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
>had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
>None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
>would have to be left unheld.
>
>The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
>is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
>to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
>class design.
>
>As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
>and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
>air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
>Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
>soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
>soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
>olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
>How can we do it?
>
>Regards,
>Kaido
>
>

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

iPilot

August 17th 04, 08:18 PM

Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

"Ted W" > wrote in message
...
> Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:
>
> 1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
> and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
> direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)
>
> 2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
> International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd
Olympic
> wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
> games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA
will
> be in Duisburg, Germany.
>
> The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's
sports
> might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
> Olympics.
>
> If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
> must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather
will
> not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
> about revenue, period.
>
> The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
> airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
> the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
> Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since
Finland's
> 1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games
in
> Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with
spectators.)
>
> Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing
games,
> so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.
>
> Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting,
gliding,
> free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
> FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
> certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be
there
> to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
> sports closely.
>
> More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org
>
> -ted w.
> "2NO"
>
>
>
> "iPilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up
> again.
> >
> > There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
> nobody argues that it'd
> > rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
> community. Therefore my question is
> > following:
> >
> > Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
> >
> > None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would
> have any geographic troubles
> > on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising
> sailing competition which
> > had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> > None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable
> weather that the competition
> > would have to be left unheld.
> >
> > The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a
> difference here. Well. Here
> > is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of
> monoclass failed and they have
> > to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not
> expencive standard or 15m
> > class design.
> >
> > As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9
> different classes on Olympics
> > and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find
> the concensus amongst all
> > air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be
the
> biggest argument towards
> > Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the
most
> suitable sport would be
> > soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and
> directly measurable. Making
> > soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with
racing
> tasks only allowed on
> > olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
> >
> > How can we do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaido
> >
> >
>
>

nafod40

August 17th 04, 08:27 PM

iPilot wrote:
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.

While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.

Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo GameCube?

Tony Verhulst

August 17th 04, 08:38 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Olympics are athletic.

Well, that's the idea, anyway. I recently saw a picture of the US men's
archery team. To call their physiques anything close to "athletic" would
be a charitable.

Tony V.

scurry

August 17th 04, 09:03 PM

iPilot wrote:
> Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
> don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
> anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.
>
> Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
> to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
> get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
> another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn

[email protected]

August 17th 04, 09:44 PM

At least the archers need strong enough arms to pull back their bows.
How bout the air rifle events? I bet they have really buff trigger
fingers.

Curtl33

August 18th 04, 02:33 AM

>While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
>viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
>for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
>athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
>
I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world to agree
with this assessment.

Curt Lewis - 95 USA

Eric Greenwell

August 18th 04, 02:53 AM

Curtl33 wrote:
>>While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
>>viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
>>for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
>>athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
>>
>
> I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world to agree
> with this assessment.

I think a lot of them would agree, but they'd all point out that
"stamina" and "dexterity" aren't on the list of things it takes to be a
good racing pilot.

And because of this, I don't think of soaring as an Olympic sport. It is
primarily a very mental/intellectual sport, not a primarily physical one
like most (all?) the olympic sports I'm familiar with. It isn't about
flying a sailplane well, for example (like an aerobatic pilot), it's
about guiding the glider to the right place at the right time, meaning
where the lift is.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

scurry

August 18th 04, 04:40 AM

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Curtl33 wrote:
>
>>> While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard
>>> time viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge
>>> chair for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got
>>> the athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world
>> to agree
>> with this assessment.
>
>
> I think a lot of them would agree, but they'd all point out that
> "stamina" and "dexterity" aren't on the list of things it takes to be a
> good racing pilot.
>
> And because of this, I don't think of soaring as an Olympic sport. It is
> primarily a very mental/intellectual sport, not a primarily physical one
> like most (all?) the olympic sports I'm familiar with. It isn't about
> flying a sailplane well, for example (like an aerobatic pilot), it's
> about guiding the glider to the right place at the right time, meaning
> where the lift is.

I agree, but to paraphrase another poster, if it can be sold, and more
importantly can sell, it'll be good enough for the IOC.

Shawn

P.S. I've known a very good Laser racer who was decidedly un-athletic.
Curling, archery, and shooting are pretty light on athleticism as well

Kevin

August 18th 04, 05:04 AM

Most people think that all the Olympic sailing classes are one design,
which simply isnt true. The most competitive class, the Finn, is
similar to our 15m or Std class with designs within a rule.
Kevin Chrisnter 2c

iPilot

August 18th 04, 08:28 AM

I don't buy that argument.

1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship, you can hardly find any
fatman. Actually, in order ta win, one has to mantain full concentration in long flights during hot
days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good physical form. Partly for same
reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.
2. All shooting activities (incl. archery, clay pigeon shooting, pistol and rifle events) in
olympics require far less physically from athletes. The same applies to Equestrian disciplines where
physical health does not make the difference. The same applies to sailing.

Regads,
Kaido

"nafod40" > wrote in message ...
> iPilot wrote:
> > It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>
> While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
> viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
> for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
> athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
>
> Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo GameCube?
>

iPilot

August 18th 04, 08:54 AM

Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class. Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics - never happens.

"scurry" > wrote in message
...
> iPilot wrote:
> > Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
> > don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
> > anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.
> >
> > Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
> > to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
> > get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
> > another wannabies.
>
> Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
> that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
> racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
> people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
> experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
> international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
> gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
> class that's already established, with gliders already racing.
>
> Shawn

iPilot

August 18th 04, 10:25 AM

I do not think that soaring competes badly in this regard towards sailing, shooting and horse
raiding. The argument just doesn't stand. Weirdest sport, one ca find in olympic programme (though,
winter programme) in this regard is curling imho.

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Curtl33 wrote:
> >>While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
> >>viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
> >>for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
> >>athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world to agree
> > with this assessment.
>
> I think a lot of them would agree, but they'd all point out that
> "stamina" and "dexterity" aren't on the list of things it takes to be a
> good racing pilot.
>
> And because of this, I don't think of soaring as an Olympic sport. It is
> primarily a very mental/intellectual sport, not a primarily physical one
> like most (all?) the olympic sports I'm familiar with. It isn't about
> flying a sailplane well, for example (like an aerobatic pilot), it's
> about guiding the glider to the right place at the right time, meaning
> where the lift is.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

iPilot

August 18th 04, 12:42 PM

On example of the current olympians. Athlethic ain't it :-)
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Olympic%20Sports%20Gallery/Shooting/1195527_b.jpg

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message news:412259a4$1@darkstar...
> Olympics are athletic. Soaring has avoided (for the most part) having
> medals or awards for endurance (long hours = crash).
>
> I dunno, the sailing olympians all look like they're in great shape.
> Pretty physical, that sport. And bosled even. I dunno if
> soaring really meets the hardbody "Olympic" concept.
>
> But hey, I guess there's no harm trying...I suppose an Olympic
> "cluster ballooning" event would be nice too... :)
>
> In article >, iPilot > wrote:
> >It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
> >
> >There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> >rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question
is
> >following:
> >
> >Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
> >
> >None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic
troubles
> >on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
> >had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> >None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the
competition
> >would have to be left unheld.
> >
> >The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well.
Here
> >is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they
have
> >to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
> >class design.
> >
> >As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
> >and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst
all
> >air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument
towards
> >Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would
be
> >soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> >soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> >olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
> >
> >How can we do it?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Kaido
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

iPilot

August 18th 04, 01:11 PM

Well. It's not true.

"RULES of the INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS 2004 Edition" say following in Part B "RULES AND
INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS BOATS"

"Purpose of the Measurement Rules
1.1.1The Finn is a One-Design Class.
1.1.2 (74-1.1) (OR-1) The object of these rules is to establish a class of boats which is one-design
in all matters which affect
basic speed. The rules shall be interpreted in this spirit."

One-Desgn Class!!! Not some loosely specified standard class.

Basically the rules in Finn class are so strict that to transfer those to gliders class you get the
planes which have:
Same lenght
Same width
Exactly the same aerodynamic exterior of the fuselage
Exactly the same profile and the layout of the wing and the control surface.
Mostly the same materials in use.

Once again from Finn rules:
"Defining the hull shape requires use of a measurement jig to check length distances of the hull.
The jig should be
used during measurements at major championships and preferred for the first measurement of a boat,
particularly at builder's premises."
In case of soaring it compares to measuring the fuselage or wing profile in . Have you heard about
that anywhere?

In most places the permitted materials are listed.

If you are familiar with our standard class rules, it's a completly different philosophy
alltogether.

"Kevin" > wrote in message ...
> Most people think that all the Olympic sailing classes are one design,
> which simply isnt true. The most competitive class, the Finn, is
> similar to our 15m or Std class with designs within a rule.
> Kevin Chrisnter 2c
>

nafod40

August 18th 04, 02:37 PM

iPilot wrote:
> I don't buy that argument.
>
> 1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship, you can hardly find any
> fatman. Actually, in order to win, one has to mantain full concentration in long flights during hot
> days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good physical form. Partly for same
> reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.

I was a military pilot, and I remember we had some hefty (to put it
mildly) fighter guys who looked like they would have a coronary just
hiking the four flights of stairs from 2nd deck to the flight deck on
the carrier. We'd do semi-annual PT, and they were pitiful. Watching
them do sit ups was like a scene from "Free Willy".

Yet these same guys could strap on an ejection seat and fly 12 hour
missions with multiple refuelings, some hi-G dog fighting, lots of
hanging on the blades, followed by a night trap. And they were *good*,
which is why the Skipper looked the other way as to their weight.

So in short, I have some data points that say you don't have to be fit.

You do have to be tough, though. Toughness is a different thing, in my
experience.

Tony Verhulst

August 18th 04, 04:14 PM

iPilot wrote:
> I do not think that soaring competes badly in this regard towards sailing, shooting and horse
> raiding.

Here, all this time I thought that horse raiding was a criminal act.
Now, I find out it's a sport :-).

Tony V
:-)

Jack

August 18th 04, 06:41 PM

iPilot wrote:

> 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Interesting thought: the "Old Morality" of the SGS 1-26 is a hindrance?
I would have thought honesty would be considered one of its best features.

As far as "aged" goes, I am twice as old as my 1-26E.

Jack

Charles Petersen

August 18th 04, 08:49 PM

SAILING NOT PHYSICAL? You obviously have no familiarity with sailing small
hot boats. Take as a good example, the Finn class, where sailors, who use
their
body weight 'hiking' (suspending themselves out over the side of the boat by
sitting on the deck with their feet tucked under straps, and leaning out
'til horizontal), to offset the force of the wind that seeks to heel (roll)
their boat, wear sweatshirts to soak up additional weight by immersing them
in the water. Each time the wind changes, they must scamper across the boat
while adjusting the sails and then get their weight out on the other side.
It is very gruelling! Studies at McMaster University Medical Research,
focused on the physical condition of sailors and its effect on their
performance, found that fatigue decreases the ability to concentrate and
make decisions on where to go, strategically and tactically, - not unlike
soaring.

For more detail, start at http://www.finnclass.org/
"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> I don't buy that argument.
>
> 1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship,
you can hardly find any
> fatman. Actually, in order ta win, one has to mantain full concentration
in long flights during hot
> days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good
physical form. Partly for same
> reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.
> 2. All shooting activities (incl. archery, clay pigeon shooting, pistol
and rifle events) in
> olympics require far less physically from athletes. The same applies to
Equestrian disciplines where
> physical health does not make the difference. The same applies to sailing.
>
>
> Regads,
> Kaido
>
>
> "nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> > iPilot wrote:
> > > It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it
up again.
> >
> > While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time

> > viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
> > for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
> > athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
> >
> > Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo
GameCube?
> >
>
>

Robert Danewid

August 18th 04, 10:50 PM

I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
the Olympic Games is parachuting.

Robert

iPilot wrote:
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>
> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
> on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
> had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
> would have to be left unheld.
>
> The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
> is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
> to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
> class design.
>
> As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
> and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
> air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
> Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
> soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
> How can we do it?
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>

Tony

August 18th 04, 11:14 PM

>>>>"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment
can make a difference and
> this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
> in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
was made for - pilots who
> hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
aircraft than the oversimplified
> WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.
>
> Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they
wouldn't have made
> monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to
launch 3 different glider
> monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
Monoclass is a class where only
> one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
monoclasses in olympics
> would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
> have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
design. Maybe just to declare
> one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
available to everyone (that
> doesn't answer the cost needs however).
>
> There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
competition are different. In
> it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
techical sport to achieve
> IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -
never happens.
>
>
>
> "scurry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > iPilot wrote:
> > > Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete
(I
> > > don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not
know
> > > anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.
> > >
> > > Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring
needs
> > > to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
have to
> > > get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
> > > another wannabies.
> >
> > Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
> > that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
> > racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
> > people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
> > experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
> > international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
> > gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
> > class that's already established, with gliders already racing.
> >
> > Shawn
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

Bob Korves

August 19th 04, 01:15 AM

I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.

His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win. The rules are too tight to win
otherwise. With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
expense.

We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
clever engineering design.

There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
-Bob Korves

"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> >>>>"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport
to
> achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
> Olympics - never happens"
>
> What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
> water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
> sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors
performance
> in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.
>
> I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the
'gliding
> is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke
watching
> F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is
no
> reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
> co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
> also broadcasting live.
>
> Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
> sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch
as
> a few sailboats rounding a buoy.
>
> To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
> creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
> adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> "iPilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in
equipment
> can make a difference and
> > this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
> bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
> > in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
> was made for - pilots who
> > hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
> aircraft than the oversimplified
> > WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.
> >
> > Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when
they
> wouldn't have made
> > monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible
to
> launch 3 different glider
> > monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
> Monoclass is a class where only
> > one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
> monoclasses in olympics
> > would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
> foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
> > have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
> design. Maybe just to declare
> > one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
> available to everyone (that
> > doesn't answer the cost needs however).
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
> competition are different. In
> > it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
> techical sport to achieve
> > IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics -
> never happens.
> >
> >
> >
> > "scurry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > iPilot wrote:
> > > > Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can
compete
> (I
> > > > don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do
not
> know
> > > > anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.
> > > >
> > > > Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed
soaring
> needs
> > > > to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
> have to
> > > > get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're
just
> > > > another wannabies.
> > >
> > > Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to
me,
> > > that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
> > > racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
> > > people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
> > > experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in
the
> > > international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only).
If
> > > gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
> > > class that's already established, with gliders already racing.
> > >
> > > Shawn
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004
>
>

Stewart Kissel

August 19th 04, 01:34 AM

SNIP-
To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to
exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting,
challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
SNIP

Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine
racers might say the same thing about there sport...and
it could very well be true. But translating that to
outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most
soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane
races...I suspect the general TV viewing population
might find it a tough sale.

Eric Greenwell

August 19th 04, 02:24 AM

Bob Korves wrote:
> I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
> motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.
>
> His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
> rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
> that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
> have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win.

Bad example: Formula V is MUCHMUCHMUCH cheaper than CanAm cars! You
can't even buy an engine for a CanAm car for the price of a Formula V.
Sheez! They use PLENTY of dyno time in that class. You don't need to own
a dyno to do well in Formula V, just rent some time on one, or take it
to a track during the testing period and use some simple instrumentation
to accomplish the same thing. Because of the restrictive rules, spending
a lot of money gains you very little, unlike the less limited classes
where spending a lot of money gains you quite a bit.

Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I raced Formula V (in
which case they would no longer be very restrictive rules), it's a
relatively cheap class because the cars are light and low powered, so
the engine and tires hold up well. The small size of the cars and the
high minimum weight requirement makes makes their construction simple
and cheap.

The rules are too tight to win
> otherwise.

You can spend a pile of money, but in Formula V, one properly done pass
using the "draft" behind another car totally outweighs that money. Been
there, done that, watched it happen many times.

> With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
> class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
> expense.

Absolute nonsense. The cost of a quality team to come up with this
"cleverness in design" is enormous, and the cost of maintaining these
cars that truly live on the edge of destruction each race is enormous.
Check the decals on a CanAm car and Formula V to see the kind of
sponsorship it takes to field one of those cars competitively. Millions!
There is simply no comparison with Formula V. I think you have totally
misunderstood the situation.

> We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
> Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
> clever engineering design.

Does an ASW 28 cost less than a PW5? Of course not! Does the "clever
engineering" of the ASW 28 give it a big edge in it's class? No way! Get
real: what an less restricted class does is make everyone pay big bucks
for a craft that isn't any better than the competitors, unless he has
shells out even bigger bucks. You could build a PW5 that cost twice what
the "off the shelf" models cost, but it would be impossible to measure
the improvement over one owned by a pilot that spent some time and much
less money to tweak his plain old PW5.

>
> There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
> substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
> -Bob Korves

And span is expensive! That is why the restricted classes in many fields
appeal to people: people with ONLY skill can afford the equipment that
lets them demonstrate that skill. I can easily afford a Formula V, but I
don't think I'd want to spend the money to do well in the next step up,
which was Formula Ford, and maybe still is. It cost ("back then") twice
or three times as much to run a Formula Ford than a Formula V, and the
Formula Atlantic cars were way above that.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

tango4

August 19th 04, 05:42 AM

Make everyone one-man-rig on the line!

> wrote in message
...
> At least the archers need strong enough arms to pull back their bows.
> How bout the air rifle events? I bet they have really buff trigger
> fingers.
>

Mark James Boyd

August 19th 04, 06:40 AM

OK, maybe it isn't an olympic sport, but tossing toilet paper rolls
out of a glider and trying to hit a target seems like an excellent
way to "exploit technology and creativity," and is certainly exciting
and fun to watch.

Of course, there are SOME cheaters, who soak it in water and freeze it
right before throwing it out the window...NOT VERY SPORTING!!!
But an excellent way to get the observers at the target excited...

:PPPPPP

Mark

In article >,
Stewart Kissel > wrote:
>SNIP-
>To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to
>exploit technology and
>creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting,
>challenging and
>adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
>SNIP
>
>Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine
>racers might say the same thing about there sport...and
>it could very well be true. But translating that to
>outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most
>soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane
>races...I suspect the general TV viewing population
>might find it a tough sale.
>
>
>
>
>

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

iPilot

August 19th 04, 07:06 AM

Please, give a bit reasoning. For me, it seems that parachuting events involve mostly some
jundgement by the judges to get scored and thus are not directly measurable in minutes, seconds,
kilometers or whatever units available.

"Robert Danewid" > wrote in message
...
> I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
> the Olympic Games is parachuting.
>
> Robert
>
> iPilot wrote:
> > It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
> >
> > There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> > rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my
question is
> > following:
> >
> > Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
> >
> > None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic
troubles
> > on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition
which
> > had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> > None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the
competition
> > would have to be left unheld.
> >
> > The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well.
Here
> > is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they
have
> > to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
> > class design.
> >
> > As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on
Olympics
> > and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst
all
> > air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument
towards
> > Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would
be
> > soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> > soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> > olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
> >
> > How can we do it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaido
> >
> >
>

Liam Finley

August 19th 04, 07:19 AM

I see the problem now. We are too obsessed with the 'flying' aspect
of the sport, where the real potential is in the assembling and
disassembling aspect of the sport.

Assembling and disassembling gliders is physically strenuous, and is
fascinating for spectators who are amazed that an airplane can be fit
in such a small trailer. It can be done in any weather and location.
And it can be a team effort.

tango4

August 19th 04, 07:32 AM

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Please, give a bit reasoning. For me, it seems that parachuting events
involve mostly some
> jundgement by the judges to get scored and thus are not directly
measurable in minutes, seconds,
> kilometers or whatever units available.
>
>

Pretty much the same as synchronised diving!

Ian

iPilot

August 19th 04, 07:32 AM

Sorry about that. Regarding sailing my message was more like: "one's physical condition is not the
main factor that makes the difference".

"Charles Petersen" > wrote in message ...
> SAILING NOT PHYSICAL? You obviously have no familiarity with sailing small
> hot boats. Take as a good example, the Finn class, where sailors, who use
> their
> body weight 'hiking' (suspending themselves out over the side of the boat by
> sitting on the deck with their feet tucked under straps, and leaning out
> 'til horizontal), to offset the force of the wind that seeks to heel (roll)
> their boat, wear sweatshirts to soak up additional weight by immersing them
> in the water. Each time the wind changes, they must scamper across the boat
> while adjusting the sails and then get their weight out on the other side.
> It is very gruelling! Studies at McMaster University Medical Research,
> focused on the physical condition of sailors and its effect on their
> performance, found that fatigue decreases the ability to concentrate and
> make decisions on where to go, strategically and tactically, - not unlike
> soaring.
>
> For more detail, start at http://www.finnclass.org/
> "iPilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't buy that argument.
> >
> > 1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship,
> you can hardly find any
> > fatman. Actually, in order ta win, one has to mantain full concentration
> in long flights during hot
> > days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good
> physical form. Partly for same
> > reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.
> > 2. All shooting activities (incl. archery, clay pigeon shooting, pistol
> and rifle events) in
> > olympics require far less physically from athletes. The same applies to
> Equestrian disciplines where
> > physical health does not make the difference. The same applies to sailing.
> >
> >
> > Regads,
> > Kaido
> >
> >
> > "nafod40" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > iPilot wrote:
> > > > It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it
> up again.
> > >
> > > While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
>
> > > viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
> > > for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
> > > athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
> > >
> > > Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo
> GameCube?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

iPilot

August 19th 04, 08:12 AM

Finally one person who thinks the same way. Are we two the only people in soaring who think in a
terms: "what to do in order to get soaring to olympic games" instead of "which ways we do not apply"
which seems to be common here?

BTW. I didn't compare monoclass soaring to F1 racing. I compared soaring in its current form
(relatively loosely defined classes) to F1. For me it seems actually that F1 is far more restricted
rules wise than any glider class out there besides WC (but of course - it's not a monoclass by far).
Money makes the difference there.

I totally agree with you in other areas.

"Tony" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to
> achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
> Olympics - never happens"
>
> What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
> water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
> sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
> in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.
>
> I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
> is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
> F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
> reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
> co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
> also broadcasting live.
>
> Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
> sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
> a few sailboats rounding a buoy.
>
> To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
> creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
> adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
>
>
>
>
>
> "iPilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment
> can make a difference and
> > this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
> bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
> > in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
> was made for - pilots who
> > hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
> aircraft than the oversimplified
> > WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.
> >
> > Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they
> wouldn't have made
> > monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to
> launch 3 different glider
> > monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
> Monoclass is a class where only
> > one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
> monoclasses in olympics
> > would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
> foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
> > have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
> design. Maybe just to declare
> > one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
> available to everyone (that
> > doesn't answer the cost needs however).
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
> competition are different. In
> > it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
> techical sport to achieve
> > IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -
> never happens.
> >
> >
> >
> > "scurry" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > iPilot wrote:
> > > > Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete
> (I
> > > > don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not
> know
> > > > anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.
> > > >
> > > > Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring
> needs
> > > > to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
> have to
> > > > get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
> > > > another wannabies.
> > >
> > > Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
> > > that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
> > > racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
> > > people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
> > > experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
> > > international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
> > > gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
> > > class that's already established, with gliders already racing.
> > >
> > > Shawn
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004
>
>

Eric Greenwell

August 19th 04, 04:18 PM

tango4 wrote:

> "iPilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Please, give a bit reasoning. For me, it seems that parachuting events
>
> involve mostly some
>
>>jundgement by the judges to get scored and thus are not directly
>
> measurable in minutes, seconds,
>
>>kilometers or whatever units available.
>>
>>
>
>
> Pretty much the same as synchronised diving!

And, apparently, ice skating.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Tony

August 19th 04, 06:59 PM

All the arguments I'm hearing AGAINST gliding an an Olympic sport can be
equally applied to one or more other sports that are already included in the
Olympics, so I don't consider them to be valid - unless there are so many of
them that the cumulative effect is to make gliding's participation
unfeasible.

Which body is responsible for pushing for gliding to be included in the
olympics? Is it the FAI? Perhaps this is a problem as they are lobbying on
behalf of multiple air sports rather than focusing on one?

Has the FAI, IGC, or any other national or international body ever
commissioned sports broadcasting consultants to investigate how new
technology could be expoited to present and promote gliding competitions?

Aparently one country has been trying grand-prix synchronised starts. I'm
sure that would be an option for making the racing clearer to the
uneducated observer while at the same time providing for exciting TV
viewing. Synchonised starts, gaggles with individual trying to break away
and take a lead, and finish line beat-ups. I'm sure that it would be of
interest to more than die-hard glider pilots.

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> SNIP-
> To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to
> exploit technology and
> creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting,
> challenging and
> adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
> SNIP
>
> Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine
> racers might say the same thing about there sport...and
> it could very well be true. But translating that to
> outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most
> soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane
> races...I suspect the general TV viewing population
> might find it a tough sale.
>
>
>
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

Paul

August 19th 04, 10:48 PM

Hows this for a format.

84 gliders release a set distance and height from the venue all at the same
time.
They final glide to the finish line which is on the boundary fence. Extra
bonus points for using ground effect for the last three kilometres. Tall
trees and power lines for added skill test.
They can either land straight through or pull up for a dodgy circuit, then
attempt to land next to their trailers which are lined up down one side of
the runway with tops up and fuse dollys in place. Trailers are spaced six
meters apart. Their 3 man/women crews then have to clear them off the runway
or if the pilot is skillfull enough he boots on some rudder and tries to
park on the fuse dolly. Extra points for this. Then as pilot extracts
himself the crew set to work derigging the glider and storing in the
trailer. The winner is the one whos trailer top is down the fastest from the
release time and has the least penaltys. Penaltys are for hitting other
crews while landing and groundlooping.

Good crowd appeal. Everything happens within sight of the stands. Don't need
soarable weather so could be a winter games event as well. ( Ice lake would
really turn up the excitment ) Team event as well as individual. It is the
best part of the whole contest thing as far as spectator appeal goes.

I saw this once at the German nationals and its very entertaining.

"Liam Finley" > wrote in message
om...
> I see the problem now. We are too obsessed with the 'flying' aspect
> of the sport, where the real potential is in the assembling and
> disassembling aspect of the sport.
>
> Assembling and disassembling gliders is physically strenuous, and is
> fascinating for spectators who are amazed that an airplane can be fit
> in such a small trailer. It can be done in any weather and location.
> And it can be a team effort.

Bob Korves

August 20th 04, 12:15 AM

You are right, Eric. Bad example. I should be smart enough to not talk
about sports that I am not really familiar with. Nonetheless, that is how
my very experienced friend explained it to me.
-Bob Korves

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Korves wrote:
> > I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
> > motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.
> >
> > His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
> > rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he
said
> > that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you
don't
> > have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win.
>
> Bad example: Formula V is MUCHMUCHMUCH cheaper than CanAm cars! You
> can't even buy an engine for a CanAm car for the price of a Formula V.
> Sheez! They use PLENTY of dyno time in that class. You don't need to own
> a dyno to do well in Formula V, just rent some time on one, or take it
> to a track during the testing period and use some simple instrumentation
> to accomplish the same thing. Because of the restrictive rules, spending
> a lot of money gains you very little, unlike the less limited classes
> where spending a lot of money gains you quite a bit.
>
> Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I raced Formula V (in
> which case they would no longer be very restrictive rules), it's a
> relatively cheap class because the cars are light and low powered, so
> the engine and tires hold up well. The small size of the cars and the
> high minimum weight requirement makes makes their construction simple
> and cheap.
>
> The rules are too tight to win
> > otherwise.
>
> You can spend a pile of money, but in Formula V, one properly done pass
> using the "draft" behind another car totally outweighs that money. Been
> there, done that, watched it happen many times.
>
> > With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
> > class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without
huge
> > expense.
>
> Absolute nonsense. The cost of a quality team to come up with this
> "cleverness in design" is enormous, and the cost of maintaining these
> cars that truly live on the edge of destruction each race is enormous.
> Check the decals on a CanAm car and Formula V to see the kind of
> sponsorship it takes to field one of those cars competitively. Millions!
> There is simply no comparison with Formula V. I think you have totally
> misunderstood the situation.
(snip)
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Bruce Hoult

August 20th 04, 08:04 AM

In article >,
"Paul" > wrote:

> Hows this for a format.
>
> 84 gliders release a set distance and height from the venue all at the same
> time.
> They final glide to the finish line which is on the boundary fence. Extra
> bonus points for using ground effect for the last three kilometres. Tall
> trees and power lines for added skill test.
> They can either land straight through or pull up for a dodgy circuit, then
> attempt to land next to their trailers which are lined up down one side of
> the runway with tops up and fuse dollys in place. Trailers are spaced six
> meters apart. Their 3 man/women crews then have to clear them off the runway
> or if the pilot is skillfull enough he boots on some rudder and tries to
> park on the fuse dolly. Extra points for this. Then as pilot extracts
> himself the crew set to work derigging the glider and storing in the
> trailer. The winner is the one whos trailer top is down the fastest from the
> release time and has the least penaltys. Penaltys are for hitting other
> crews while landing and groundlooping.
>
> Good crowd appeal. Everything happens within sight of the stands. Don't need
> soarable weather so could be a winter games event as well. ( Ice lake would
> really turn up the excitment ) Team event as well as individual. It is the
> best part of the whole contest thing as far as spectator appeal goes.
>
> I saw this once at the German nationals and its very entertaining.

Especially for those with glider repair businesses! ;-)

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

LarSwan

August 20th 04, 02:13 PM

>I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
>the Olympic Games is parachuting.
>
>Robert

While I've never flown one myself, I wonder if hanggliding/parasailing would
make more Olympic friendly sport vs my beloved hardwinged soaring. Better TV
close-ups of thinner competitors faces/bodies, more colorful equipment, more
muscles used for control and landing, more percieved danger, more creative
options for required preliminaries events and room for individual expression.

Noting the influx of retired hang gliding pilots into our form of soaring...the
best way to promote soaring at the Olympics is to play our best card which may
be our hanggliding brothers. The media already preferences their images over
ours, go with it.

LT

scurry

August 20th 04, 04:08 PM

LarSwan wrote:
>>I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
>>the Olympic Games is parachuting.
>>
>>Robert
>
>
> While I've never flown one myself, I wonder if hanggliding/parasailing would
> make more Olympic friendly sport vs my beloved hardwinged soaring. Better TV
> close-ups of thinner competitors faces/bodies, more colorful equipment, more
> muscles used for control and landing, more percieved danger, more creative
> options for required preliminaries events and room for individual expression.

And a downhill event.
>
> Noting the influx of retired hang gliding pilots into our form of soaring...the
> best way to promote soaring at the Olympics is to play our best card which may
> be our hanggliding brothers. The media already preferences their images over
> ours, go with it.

Nice to imagine gliders in the Olympics, but I suspect you're right.

Shawn

Richard Brisbourne

August 20th 04, 09:41 PM

Paul wrote:

> Hows this for a format.
>
> 84 gliders release a set distance and height from the venue all at the
> same time.
> They final glide to the finish line which is on the boundary fence. Extra
> bonus points for using ground effect for the last three kilometres. Tall
> trees and power lines for added skill test.
> They can either land straight through or pull up for a dodgy circuit, then
> attempt to land next to their trailers which are lined up down one side of
> the runway with tops up and fuse dollys in place. Trailers are spaced six
> meters apart. Their 3 man/women crews then have to clear them off the
> runway or if the pilot is skillfull enough he boots on some rudder and
> tries to park on the fuse dolly. Extra points for this. Then as pilot
> extracts himself the crew set to work derigging the glider and storing in
> the trailer. The winner is the one whos trailer top is down the fastest
> from the release time and has the least penaltys. Penaltys are for hitting
> other crews while landing and groundlooping.
>
> Good crowd appeal. Everything happens within sight of the stands. Don't
> need soarable weather so could be a winter games event as well. ( Ice lake
> would really turn up the excitment ) Team event as well as individual. It
> is the best part of the whole contest thing as far as spectator appeal
> goes.
>
> I saw this once at the German nationals and its very entertaining.
>

Backwards trailer races are great fun as well.

--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

Robert Danewid

August 20th 04, 09:55 PM

It is more "media friendly". That is what counts, nothing more nothing less.

Robert

iPilot wrote:
> Please, give a bit reasoning. For me, it seems that parachuting events involve mostly some
> jundgement by the judges to get scored and thus are not directly measurable in minutes, seconds,
> kilometers or whatever units available.
>
>
>
> "Robert Danewid" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
>>the Olympic Games is parachuting.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>iPilot wrote:
>>
>>>It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>>>
>>>There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
>>>rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my
>
> question is
>
>>>following:
>>>
>>>Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>>>
>>>None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic
>
> troubles
>
>>>on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition
>
> which
>
>>>had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
>>>None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the
>
> competition
>
>>>would have to be left unheld.
>>>
>>>The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well.
>
> Here
>
>>>is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they
>
> have
>
>>>to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
>>>class design.
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on
>
> Olympics
>
>>>and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst
>
> all
>
>>>air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument
>
> towards
>
>>>Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would
>
> be
>
>>>soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
>>>soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
>>>olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>>>
>>>How can we do it?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Kaido
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

iPilot

August 23rd 04, 07:14 AM

I'm not so sure about that. If this is the only thing that counts we would have all sorts of car
racing, american wrestling etc. kind of sports on games. Nothing like that.

"Robert Danewid" > wrote in message
...
> It is more "media friendly". That is what counts, nothing more nothing less.
>
> Robert
>
> iPilot wrote:
> > Please, give a bit reasoning. For me, it seems that parachuting events involve mostly some
> > jundgement by the judges to get scored and thus are not directly measurable in minutes, seconds,
> > kilometers or whatever units available.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Robert Danewid" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
> >>the Olympic Games is parachuting.
> >>
> >>Robert
> >>
> >>iPilot wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
> >>>
> >>>There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that
it'd
> >>>rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my
> >
> > question is
> >
> >>>following:
> >>>
> >>>Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
> >>>
> >>>None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic
> >
> > troubles
> >
> >>>on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition
> >
> > which
> >
> >>>had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> >>>None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the
> >
> > competition
> >
> >>>would have to be left unheld.
> >>>
> >>>The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well.
> >
> > Here
> >
> >>>is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they
> >
> > have
> >
> >>>to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or
15m
> >>>class design.
> >>>
> >>>As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on
> >
> > Olympics
> >
> >>>and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst
> >
> > all
> >
> >>>air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument
> >
> > towards
> >
> >>>Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would
> >
> > be
> >
> >>>soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> >>>soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> >>>olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
> >>>
> >>>How can we do it?
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Kaido
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Tony

August 24th 04, 05:25 PM

Why couldn't gliding have a grand prix style start where the start line
opens at a certain time and all speeds are calculated from that start time -
just like sail boar racing?

There is no reason why gliders or support aircraft could not transmit live
video.

Why are glider pilots so keen to list technical reasons why broadcasting our
sport might be difficult rather than looking for solutions?

Anyone who watched the sailng at the olympics would have seen that with
boats taking in different directions, it was just about anyones guess as to
who was leading whom untill they rounded their waypoints (markers). I don't
hear many sailors detailing why they sport is not suitable for broadcast.

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>
> > There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
> > rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
> > following:
> >
> > Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
> TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
> not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
> coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
> the same, IMHO.
>
> For other would be Olympic events, see:
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=5746437
>
> Tony V.
> http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

For Example John Smith

August 24th 04, 09:22 PM

Are the differences between current model 15 meter ships really so great
that they don't constitute a 'single class'? It seems to me that this is
the fallacy that is tripping us up and pushed the sport into developing the
PW5 WCG. When the differences are so minor--this one's .05% better on the
run; this one a .0237% better climber--why not just declare them for
purposes of the sport to be a single class and 'run whatcha brung' w/out
handicapping?

Who defines the sport? The people in it or the Olympics folks? If it is in
our power let's make the change and have Olympic racers in sleek modern
ships.

I think the combination of tiny in-ship, wingtip or tail mounted camers
combined with helicopters outside the turnpoints and gps transmitters could
make for great TV.

Note: I was a co-owner of a PW5 for 3-4 years and now fly a 27 yr. old
Glasflugel design.

"Tony" > wrote in message
...
> Why couldn't gliding have a grand prix style start where the start line
> opens at a certain time and all speeds are calculated from that start
time -
> just like sail boar racing?
>
> There is no reason why gliders or support aircraft could not transmit live
> video.
>
> Why are glider pilots so keen to list technical reasons why broadcasting
our
> sport might be difficult rather than looking for solutions?
>
> Anyone who watched the sailng at the olympics would have seen that with
> boats taking in different directions, it was just about anyones guess as
to
> who was leading whom untill they rounded their waypoints (markers). I
don't
> hear many sailors detailing why they sport is not suitable for broadcast.
>
>
>
> "Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics,
but
> nobody argues that it'd
> > > rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
> community. Therefore my question is
> > > following:
> > >
> > > Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
> >
> > Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
> > TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
> > not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
> > coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
> > the same, IMHO.
> >
> > For other would be Olympic events, see:
> > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=sportsNews&storyID=5746437
> >
> > Tony V.
> > http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING
> >
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004
>
>

Chris OCallaghan

August 24th 04, 11:47 PM

Tony,

You've described what was once called the "shotgun" start, as
practiced at the 15M Nationals in Chester SC, 1988. All I can say is
Yikes!!! Scariest thing I've ever done in a sailplane. Sixty gliders
flying at 100+ knots at cloudbase in a confined area. Close second to
that was the implosion finish back in the days when you were penalized
for being overtime on a POST. Gliders arriving at the finish line from
all points on the compass at the same time. I understand the people on
the ground loved it! Glider demolition derby.

Eric Greenwell

August 25th 04, 12:25 AM

For Example John Smith wrote:

> Are the differences between current model 15 meter ships really so great
> that they don't constitute a 'single class'? It seems to me that this is
> the fallacy that is tripping us up and pushed the sport into developing the
> PW5 WCG.

Maybe not - remember the concept started 20 years ago, when things
seemed different. I sort of recall gliders coming out then with
noticeable improvements, and I think there was a feeling among many that
we were on a treadmill of increasingly expensive gliders (but not better
contests) if we didn't do something. Judging the start of the WC by what
you see today will lead to a bad analysis.

When the differences are so minor--this one's .05% better on the
> run; this one a .0237% better climber--why not just declare them for
> purposes of the sport to be a single class and 'run whatcha brung' w/out
> handicapping?

As I've mentioned in another posting, I agree with the argument that we
already have at least two de facto one-design classes: the Standard and
15 meter.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Gary Boggs

August 25th 04, 04:46 PM

So why do we have to have a one design contest for the Olympics?

Why not just make it a handicapped contest using the current fleet?

For Example John Smith

August 25th 04, 08:39 PM

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
>
> So why do we have to have a one design contest for the Olympics?

That's exactly my point and it sounds like you and Eric at least agree
>
> Why not just make it a handicapped contest using the current fleet?
>
Here we have a minor disagreement. Eric and I are saying that no
handicapping is required. We (the sport of soaring) just define 15m as a
monoclass and Standard as a monoclass.

There, now we're ready. Olympics 2008 will include 2 sailplane racing
classes - Standard and 15 Meter.
Oops, forgot rules. Same as for the World's I suppose?

For Example John Smith

August 25th 04, 08:41 PM

PW5 wouldn't be the first product to miss its mark due to faulty assumptions
based on current trends.
Anybody want to buy any 4 year old .com business plans?

Brent

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> For Example John Smith wrote:
>
> > Are the differences between current model 15 meter ships really so great
> > that they don't constitute a 'single class'? It seems to me that this
is
> > the fallacy that is tripping us up and pushed the sport into developing
the
> > PW5 WCG.
>
> Maybe not - remember the concept started 20 years ago, when things
> seemed different. I sort of recall gliders coming out then with
> noticeable improvements, and I think there was a feeling among many that
> we were on a treadmill of increasingly expensive gliders (but not better
> contests) if we didn't do something. Judging the start of the WC by what
> you see today will lead to a bad analysis.
>
> When the differences are so minor--this one's .05% better on the
> > run; this one a .0237% better climber--why not just declare them for
> > purposes of the sport to be a single class and 'run whatcha brung' w/out
> > handicapping?
>
> As I've mentioned in another posting, I agree with the argument that we
> already have at least two de facto one-design classes: the Standard and
> 15 meter.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Chris OCallaghan

August 25th 04, 09:59 PM

The Olympics is an inappropriate venue for what we do. If Soaring were
to be included, it should only come after car racing, horse racing,
speedboat racing, soapbox derbying, street luge, bmx, skateboarding,
rock climbing, hang gliding, paragliding, skydiving, airplane
aerobatics, and a dozen or so other like sports more popular than
sailplaning. The Olympics already serves enough arcane sports. At
least those carry with them a sense of antiquity. New sports really
should be added based on participation as well as suitability to the
Olympic ideal. We don't much rate on either count.

To put it another way, if you toss an iron frisbee or hurl yourself
into sand boxes, you really need something like an Olympic gold medal
to justify the effort. Soaring has its own unique rewards that need no
extra adornments.

Gary Boggs

August 25th 04, 10:07 PM

But then we're back to having to have the latest (most expensive) design to
be competitive. I always thought that one of the reasons to have an Olympic
contest was to test the pilots, not the plane or the pocket book. Having a
handicapped contest would open it up to more than just those who could
afford the latest designs.

"For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So why do we have to have a one design contest for the Olympics?
>
> That's exactly my point and it sounds like you and Eric at least agree
> >
> > Why not just make it a handicapped contest using the current fleet?
> >
> Here we have a minor disagreement. Eric and I are saying that no
> handicapping is required. We (the sport of soaring) just define 15m as a
> monoclass and Standard as a monoclass.
>
> There, now we're ready. Olympics 2008 will include 2 sailplane racing
> classes - Standard and 15 Meter.
> Oops, forgot rules. Same as for the World's I suppose?
>
>

Andreas Maurer

August 26th 04, 11:14 AM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:07:47 -0700, "Gary Boggs"
> wrote:

>But then we're back to having to have the latest (most expensive) design to
>be competitive. I always thought that one of the reasons to have an Olympic
>contest was to test the pilots, not the plane or the pocket book. Having a
>handicapped contest would open it up to more than just those who could
>afford the latest designs.

Showjumping also uses pretty expensive designs - these horses are
easily twice as expensive as the most expensive glider, and here also
the "pilot" is only doing half of the job. Yet the sport seems to
work...

Bye
Andreas

Gary Boggs

August 26th 04, 04:28 PM

Part of the appeal of showjumping is that it IS elitist. I think this is
one of the biggest obstacles to growth in our sport. Many people think that
you have to be rich to fly or compete in sailplanes and it keeps them away
from our sport. When they find out that they can join a club and soar
relatively reasonably, they are very surprised. One of the original goals
of the World Class was that the sailplane be "reasonably" priced and I agree
with that. I see having Soaring as an Olympic sport being an avenue for
getting more exposure and more people thinking about becoming involved in
Soaring. I think our sport suffers from underexposure. I think it would
benefit us all if a few thousand more sailplanes were built and sold world
wide every year.

Gary Boggs

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:07:47 -0700, "Gary Boggs"
> > wrote:
>
> >But then we're back to having to have the latest (most expensive) design
to
> >be competitive. I always thought that one of the reasons to have an
Olympic
> >contest was to test the pilots, not the plane or the pocket book. Having
a
> >handicapped contest would open it up to more than just those who could
> >afford the latest designs.
>
> Showjumping also uses pretty expensive designs - these horses are
> easily twice as expensive as the most expensive glider, and here also
> the "pilot" is only doing half of the job. Yet the sport seems to
> work...
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

stephanevdv

August 26th 04, 05:00 PM

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> As I've mentioned in another posting, I agree with the argument that
> we already have at least two de facto one-design classes: the
> Standard and 15 meter

Listening to the comments of the competitors in last year's World
Gliding Championships at Leszno, I think many of them would disagree.
For example, many Discus 2 and Ventus 2 drivers would try to fly the
"a" type with the smaller fuselage, even if they needed a shoehorn to
get into it. With the same wing, the difference should be marginal
compared to the "b" type, but...

--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

For Example John Smith

August 26th 04, 06:23 PM

Maybe I'm failing in making the argument, but what I'm trying to say is that
a) the differences in performance between modern ships are tiny (no
handicapping required)
b) the annual incremental advance is small
c) the population of modern ships is large (enough)
Therefore, there's no need to design & build a WC ship--we already have two
designs that qualify--15M and Standard.

Brent
"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
> But then we're back to having to have the latest (most expensive) design
to
> be competitive. I always thought that one of the reasons to have an
Olympic
> contest was to test the pilots, not the plane or the pocket book. Having
a
> handicapped contest would open it up to more than just those who could
> afford the latest designs.
>
>
> "For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > So why do we have to have a one design contest for the Olympics?
> >
> > That's exactly my point and it sounds like you and Eric at least agree
> > >
> > > Why not just make it a handicapped contest using the current fleet?
> > >
> > Here we have a minor disagreement. Eric and I are saying that no
> > handicapping is required. We (the sport of soaring) just define 15m as
a
> > monoclass and Standard as a monoclass.
> >
> > There, now we're ready. Olympics 2008 will include 2 sailplane racing
> > classes - Standard and 15 Meter.
> > Oops, forgot rules. Same as for the World's I suppose?
> >
> >
>
>

Eric Greenwell

August 26th 04, 11:30 PM

stephanevdv wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>As I've mentioned in another posting, I agree with the argument that
>>we already have at least two de facto one-design classes: the
>>Standard and 15 meter
>
>
> Listening to the comments of the competitors in last year's World
> Gliding Championships at Leszno, I think many of them would disagree.
> For example, many Discus 2 and Ventus 2 drivers would try to fly the
> "a" type with the smaller fuselage, even if they needed a shoehorn to
> get into it. With the same wing, the difference should be marginal
> compared to the "b" type, but...

There are differences between the various gliders, but they are quite
small (I'd guess at 1% or less in overall speed), and even the
competitors don't agree which glider has the advantage. If they did, we
really would have a one-design class, as every pilot would show up with
the same glider.

Is anyone really interested in closing that 1% gap? I don't think so.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bob Kuykendall

August 27th 04, 01:48 AM

Hmmm. Maybe aero-towing and winching are more in line with the Olympic
tradition.

The scoring unit would be the milliHelen, with one awarded for each
launching of one ship. The winner is the team gets to a thousand
first.

Bob "face the music" K.

Denis

August 28th 04, 11:20 AM

For Example John Smith wrote:

> There, now we're ready. Olympics 2008 will include 2 sailplane racing
> classes - Standard and 15 Meter.
> Oops, forgot rules. Same as for the World's I suppose?

Allow a small delay for rules. Say, till Olympics 2009 ;-) ?

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Denis

August 28th 04, 11:27 AM

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> There are differences between the various gliders, but they are quite
> small (I'd guess at 1% or less in overall speed), and even the
> competitors don't agree which glider has the advantage.

Yes. Most competitors I've heard agree other gliders have definitively
an advantage over their ;-)

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

iPilot

August 29th 04, 04:41 PM

For a reason or another the current classes hev yet to make it to Olympics.
Moreover. I don't believe that they'll ever make it.

Monoclasses are preferred in sailing because that made it possible to gain
large presence in Olympics.

"For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe I'm failing in making the argument, but what I'm trying to say is
that
> a) the differences in performance between modern ships are tiny (no
> handicapping required)
> b) the annual incremental advance is small
> c) the population of modern ships is large (enough)
> Therefore, there's no need to design & build a WC ship--we already have
two
> designs that qualify--15M and Standard.
>
> Brent
> "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But then we're back to having to have the latest (most expensive) design
> to
> > be competitive. I always thought that one of the reasons to have an
> Olympic
> > contest was to test the pilots, not the plane or the pocket book.
Having
> a
> > handicapped contest would open it up to more than just those who could
> > afford the latest designs.
> >
> >
> > "For Example John Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > So why do we have to have a one design contest for the Olympics?
> > >
> > > That's exactly my point and it sounds like you and Eric at least agree
> > > >
> > > > Why not just make it a handicapped contest using the current fleet?
> > > >
> > > Here we have a minor disagreement. Eric and I are saying that no
> > > handicapping is required. We (the sport of soaring) just define 15m
as
> a
> > > monoclass and Standard as a monoclass.
> > >
> > > There, now we're ready. Olympics 2008 will include 2 sailplane racing
> > > classes - Standard and 15 Meter.
> > > Oops, forgot rules. Same as for the World's I suppose?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Tony

August 30th 04, 11:26 AM

So, same discussion in 4 years time?

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up
again.
>
> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would
have any geographic troubles
> on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising
sailing competition which
> had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable
weather that the competition
> would have to be left unheld.
>
> The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a
difference here. Well. Here
> is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of
monoclass failed and they have
> to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not
expencive standard or 15m
> class design.
>
> As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9
different classes on Olympics
> and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find
the concensus amongst all
> air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the
biggest argument towards
> Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most
suitable sport would be
> soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and
directly measurable. Making
> soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing
tasks only allowed on
> olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
> How can we do it?
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

Tony

August 31st 04, 10:00 PM

How did it work? Was there a single start line? How long was it?

I can see the danger in everyone trying to squeeze through a narrow gate at
the same time. Would a longer gate - say 10km perpendicular to the first TP
track help?

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Tony,
>
> You've described what was once called the "shotgun" start, as
> practiced at the 15M Nationals in Chester SC, 1988. All I can say is
> Yikes!!! Scariest thing I've ever done in a sailplane. Sixty gliders
> flying at 100+ knots at cloudbase in a confined area. Close second to
> that was the implosion finish back in the days when you were penalized
> for being overtime on a POST. Gliders arriving at the finish line from
> all points on the compass at the same time. I understand the people on
> the ground loved it! Glider demolition derby.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

Chris OCallaghan

September 1st 04, 04:27 AM

Pilots were required to take a picture of two trailers crossing the
"tee" at a given time. Sixty gliders all snapping a pic and rolling
out on course (a POST) to all points of the compass directly above the
airport.

A curved start line of 10k length is an interesting thought, but the
herd instinct prevails. Pilots will wait in the available lift, and a
large number will try to position themselves with certain contest IDs.
Pilot selected start times seem the best way to keep the density
lower, though never low.

"Tony" > wrote in message >...
> How did it work? Was there a single start line? How long was it?
>
> I can see the danger in everyone trying to squeeze through a narrow gate at
> the same time. Would a longer gate - say 10km perpendicular to the first TP
> track help?
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Tony,
> >
> > You've described what was once called the "shotgun" start, as
> > practiced at the 15M Nationals in Chester SC, 1988. All I can say is
> > Yikes!!! Scariest thing I've ever done in a sailplane. Sixty gliders
> > flying at 100+ knots at cloudbase in a confined area. Close second to
> > that was the implosion finish back in the days when you were penalized
> > for being overtime on a POST. Gliders arriving at the finish line from
> > all points on the compass at the same time. I understand the people on
> > the ground loved it! Glider demolition derby.
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

[email protected]

January 15th 14, 02:06 PM

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:19:38 PM UTC+3, iPilot wrote:
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>
> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
> on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
> had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
> would have to be left unheld.
>
> The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
> is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
> to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
> class design.
>
> As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
> and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
> air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
> Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
> soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
> How can we do it?
>
> Regards,
> Kaido

... Screenshot_1.png

SPEECHYFIER is a new Word Game. SPEECHYFIER creates a new TWEET from several received ones. Take this FREE application for your TWITTER account on Everywhere and now-here · http://www.speechyfier.com

WHAT IS SPEECHYFIER

SPEECHYFIER IS A NEW KIND OF WORD GAME. SPEECHYFIER creates a NEW sentence from several sentences.

A Summary Sentence. SPEECHYFIER is a game on
851559_477083359072365_1194981066_n

Find the summary sentence in time

Game Play :

When the game start , you have to find the summary sentence in time .

Click on words to complete the sentence .

Explanation :

Few sentences are proposed , they contain the summary sentence's words .

Look at the first word of each proposed sentence , the most repeated word will be

The first summary sentence's word .

You just have to repeat it for each element .

Specific rules :

- Whatever your answer , the next level always will be available .

- If you are not logged in , you can identify after each level to save your score .

- The difficulty selected reduces the time available level .

- Each good word found will give you one point .

- Each mistake will take you one point .

- No mistakes for each level will give you three points more ..
What Is SPEECHYFIER © ?

SPEECHYFIER © IS A NEW KIND OF WORD GAME.
SPEECHYFIER © creates a NEW sentence from several sentences.

A Summary About SPEECHYFIER ©

SPEECHYFIER © is a game on www.speechyfier-game.com SPEECHYFIER © IS A TWITTER APPLICATION, TOO. You can put the SPEECHYFIER © Application on your TWITTER account, And to have a new sentence generated from your published tweets, which will be published under a New TWEET . Register Now it’s FREE: www.speechyfier-twitter.com If you are already registered, please, use the direct access

Screenshot_1
WHAT IS SPEECHYFIER

SPEECHYFIER IS A NEW KIND OF WORD GAME. SPEECHYFIER creates a NEW sentence from several sentences.

A Summary Sentence. SPEECHYFIER is a game on

screenshot_03Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

screenshot_02

speechyfier , Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

speechy-2

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier 851559_477083359072365_1194981066_n Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Screenshot_3

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Screenshot_5

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

851559_477083359072365_1194981066_n

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Screenshot_6

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

speechy-3

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

logo

Game , games, play , free , free game , free games , play free game , play free games , online free , online game , online games , game online , games online , play online game , play online games , twitter , twitter application , add application , free applications , free application , game application , games application , game applications , games applications , speechyfier

[email protected]

July 3rd 14, 12:07 PM

Download Here the latest School of Dragons Cheat tool
http://workingcheats2014.info/school-of-dragons-cheats/

Sean Fidler

July 3rd 14, 08:51 PM

Soaring would be a fantastic Olympic sport. It would be great to see soaring get that kind of exposure. It would not be much more complex than the world championships are today. Of course all the racing should be in Grand Prix format ;-).

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004 5:19:38 AM UTC-4, iPilot wrote:
> It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.
>
> There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
> rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
> following:
>
> Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?
>
> None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
> on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
> had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
> None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
> would have to be left unheld.
>
> The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
> is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
> to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
> class design.
>
> As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
> and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
> air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
> Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
> soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
> soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
> olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.
>
> How can we do it?
>
> Regards,
> Kaido

July 3rd 14, 09:03 PM

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004 12:05:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> How was gliding presented in the 1936 Olympic games?
>
> Perhaps that could be the marketing hook: make Hitler's dream a
> reality! Make gliding an olympic sport!

that's sick.

July 3rd 14, 09:18 PM

On Tuesday, August 17, 2004 9:33:12 PM UTC-4, CLewis95 wrote:
> >While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time
> >viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
> >for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
> >athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
> >
> I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world to agree
> with this assessment.
>
> Curt Lewis - 95 USA

agreed!

July 3rd 14, 09:25 PM

On Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:34:56 PM UTC-4, Stewart Kissel wrote:
> SNIP-
> To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to
> exploit technology and
> creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting,
> challenging and
> adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
> SNIP
>
> Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine
> racers might say the same thing about there sport...and
> it could very well be true. But translating that to
> outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most
> soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane
> races...I suspect the general TV viewing population
> might find it a tough sale.

i feel like if there were glider races on tv just like there is golf on the golf channel, every damn one of us would tune in.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

July 3rd 14, 11:22 PM

On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 13:18:36 -0700, ND wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 17, 2004 9:33:12 PM UTC-4, CLewis95 wrote:
>> >While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard
>> >time viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge
>> >chair for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got
>> >the athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.
>> >
>> I don't think you will get a single serious racing pilot in the world
>> to agree with this assessment.
>>
>> Curt Lewis - 95 USA
>
> agreed!

Getting your head around what Sports Administrators consider to be a
sport can be hard. I was heavily involved in competitive Free Flight
model flying when we were getting airsports recognised by the UK Sports
Council (its been a good deal for gliding too, but I digress).

The SAs were unconvinced that Free Flight was a sport (during each of the
seven one hour round in a day you make a flight, which usually involves
lobbing it up in a wind, following it downwind, retrieving it from
anything up to two miles away and getting back in time to fly again in
the next round. There's a scoring limit of 3 minutes of these flights.
Then, if more than one flyer has a perfect score, they get to do more
flights that evening with the scoring times increasing for each flyoff
until there is a winner. The SA view was that there was little sporting
prowess involved in getting the model trimmed, lift picking or launching
into lift and that the effort involved in retrieving models after each
flight was irrelevant to the sporting performance.

However, they were more than happy to agree that standing and twiddling
the sticks on an RC transmitter or spinning on the spot while controlling
a control line model were obviously worthy sporting skills.

On that basis I'd say that piloting a glider is most definitely a sport.

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

Sean[_2_]

October 30th 16, 10:40 PM

What did you all think about the recent Soaring International article (Nov, 2016 issue) on the value of re-starting the sport of glider racing in the Olympics. I for one think this would be very, very smart with minimal downside.

Sean

[email protected]

October 31st 16, 12:58 AM

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> What did you all think about the recent Soaring International article (Nov, 2016 issue) on the value of re-starting the sport of glider racing in the Olympics. I for one think this would be very, very smart with minimal downside.
>
> Sean

Pointless. Having your sport in the Olympics is just about ego. How many new sailors does the Olympics produce? Probably not many and sailing gets a boost because sailing can get Jr into a better college than his academics warrant. And sailing is something normal people and likely someone you know has done. Gliding is a freak sport done by eccentric freaks in funny hats. Doubt any of the freak sports that are included get a boost from the Olympics.
Best way to increase gliding participation would be to hire product researchers with a reliable personality scale(not the ones on social media) give it to multi decade soaring obsessed and see what populations share their proclivities. Plenty of people that would love soaring but they aren't airplane pilot types, don't know that they would love soaring and thus only a handful find soaring by luck.

BobW

October 31st 16, 02:22 AM

On 10/30/2016 6:58 PM, wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 6:40:30 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
>> What did you all think about the recent Soaring International article
>> (Nov, 2016 issue) on the value of re-starting the sport of glider racing
>> in the Olympics. I for one think this would be very, very smart with
>> minimal downside.
>>
>> Sean
>
> Pointless. Having your sport in the Olympics is just about ego. How many
> new sailors does the Olympics produce? Probably not many and sailing gets
> a boost because sailing can get Jr into a better college than his academics
> warrant. And sailing is something normal people and likely someone you
> know has done. Gliding is a freak sport done by eccentric freaks in funny
> hats. Doubt any of the freak sports that are included get a boost from the
> Olympics.

Gregg, Gregg, Gregg - Every 4 years the sport of curling grows leaps and
bounds thanks to its Olympic exposure, often getting as many as one or two new
recruits in a single year!!! AND its practitioners wear funny hats, too!
:)

Bob W.

Sean[_2_]

October 31st 16, 02:37 AM

I'm sorry to hear you react negatively to this.

Actually, Olympic sailing motivates many, many thousands of junior sailors worldwide to focus on the goal of qualifying for the Olympics. And this has a significant impact on youth sailing programs in the USA (massive growth) over the past 5-10 years, High School sailing teams'(growing rapidly in the USA over the past 10 years) and college sailing teams which have grown moderately. The US Sailing (SSA of sailing) effort to grow youth and high school sailing is directly related to Olympic sailing. They recruit and fund the US Jr Olympic development team and the side effect is that it provides the US as much larger pool of talent to develop. Thousands of kids have this in mind as they progress into the sport at early youth levels.

I say competition is good. At all levels. This adds to the growth and keeps kids in the sport longer. The Olympics are a big deal to kids. It's recognizable. Little about the sport of gliding is.

Gliding, especially in the US, is really poor when It comes to developing youth interest. As an organization the SSA has nearly hit rock bottom in this function. In fact, it may already be a lost cause. But Europeans and other FAI countries would probably enjoy an Olympic event to shoot for. But they don't appear to be working very hard for it either.

The Olympics would hurt nothing. But being part of the Olympics is a huge deal for many sports. Especially small ones. The initial upside of a new Olympic category for gliding is high when compared to to low cost of supporting the Olympic test event (the first step in this process). If successful, Gliding could be re-introduced into the Olympics. That would provide an opportunity for great exposure (major media, nationalistic pride, youth interest, exposure otherwise impossible) for the sport, especially outside (key) of the current demographics (tiny). That would be good, if not great for soaring.

I'm personally very positive about this idea. I find it curious that the FAI and IGC have not pursued this any further. It seems like a no brainer really.

The FAI is trying to do it from scratch with SGP, for example. Very difficult. But the Olympics has a massive pre-built audience to tap into. If you combined the two fomats, it could get a massive boost.

It would also be great for the sailplane manufacturer who is selected to build the gliders selected for the Olympic gliding competition. Sales of dozens of new gliders would be likely. Perhaps hundreds.

And, of course, it would be damn fun for the athletes/pilots and fans. Soaring has an exceptional visual appeal and "exoticness" that is second to none. And soaring would also be the only aviation sport in the Olympics. I would be surprised if paragliding or hang-gliding doesn't win the race however as we have wasted tons of time doing nothing, or have already given up apparently. Maybe it's time to make another proposal?

[email protected]

October 31st 16, 03:16 AM

How many SAT points is being a potential Olympic sailor worth? College admissions is the driver. Same reason kids play lacrosse. No such luck for soaring. The Olympics won't drive new starts, the freak sports in the Olympics get nil coverage. You have to watch them on youtube, and the sports are already on youtube. Which is great, we don't need to be in the Olympics to get coverage for our sport. Find a social media ace to promote the SGP. Or sell the SGP to a soda company.
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:37:41 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear you react negatively to this.
>
> Actually, Olympic sailing motivates many, many thousands of junior sailors worldwide to focus on the goal of qualifying for the Olympics. And this has a significant impact on youth sailing programs in the USA (massive growth) over the past 5-10 years, High School sailing teams'(growing rapidly in the USA over the past 10 years) and college sailing teams which have grown moderately. The US Sailing (SSA of sailing) effort to grow youth and high school sailing is directly related to Olympic sailing. They recruit and fund the US Jr Olympic development team and the side effect is that it provides the US as much larger pool of talent to develop. Thousands of kids have this in mind as they progress into the sport at early youth levels.
>
> I say competition is good. At all levels. This adds to the growth and keeps kids in the sport longer. The Olympics are a big deal to kids. It's recognizable. Little about the sport of gliding is.
>
> Gliding, especially in the US, is really poor when It comes to developing youth interest. As an organization the SSA has nearly hit rock bottom in this function. In fact, it may already be a lost cause. But Europeans and other FAI countries would probably enjoy an Olympic event to shoot for. But they don't appear to be working very hard for it either.
>
> The Olympics would hurt nothing. But being part of the Olympics is a huge deal for many sports. Especially small ones. The initial upside of a new Olympic category for gliding is high when compared to to low cost of supporting the Olympic test event (the first step in this process). If successful, Gliding could be re-introduced into the Olympics. That would provide an opportunity for great exposure (major media, nationalistic pride, youth interest, exposure otherwise impossible) for the sport, especially outside (key) of the current demographics (tiny). That would be good, if not great for soaring.
>
> I'm personally very positive about this idea. I find it curious that the FAI and IGC have not pursued this any further. It seems like a no brainer really.
>
> The FAI is trying to do it from scratch with SGP, for example. Very difficult. But the Olympics has a massive pre-built audience to tap into. If you combined the two fomats, it could get a massive boost.
>
> It would also be great for the sailplane manufacturer who is selected to build the gliders selected for the Olympic gliding competition. Sales of dozens of new gliders would be likely. Perhaps hundreds.
>
> And, of course, it would be damn fun for the athletes/pilots and fans. Soaring has an exceptional visual appeal and "exoticness" that is second to none. And soaring would also be the only aviation sport in the Olympics. I would be surprised if paragliding or hang-gliding doesn't win the race however as we have wasted tons of time doing nothing, or have already given up apparently. Maybe it's time to make another proposal?

Sean[_2_]

October 31st 16, 05:09 AM

Not sure what FAIs end game strategy is with SGP yet...the right producer and it's off to the races...and yes, I've talked to several producers. Longshot is an understatement but you never know...

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 16, 09:57 AM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 1:40:30 AM UTC+3, Sean wrote:
> What did you all think about the recent Soaring International article (Nov, 2016 issue) on the value of re-starting the sport of glider racing in the Olympics. I for one think this would be very, very smart with minimal downside.

I don't have that issue yet.

How many summer Olympics are held near to good soaring? I guess maybe, if it can be a couple of hundred km away.

The glider racing at the Dubai air games was a joke.

Pat Russell[_2_]

October 31st 16, 12:50 PM

It would be great if Gliding could return to the Olympics. But I agree with Gregg that it is hopeless.

Gliding and the Olympics have evolved in opposite directions since 1940. Gliding has left the hill and disappeared out of view, while the Olympics have left amateurism and embraced the television viewer.

"New" sports that don't play well on TV have no chance in the Olympics. The IOC even tried to drop wrestling in favor of ballroom dancing a few years ago. After vociferous protests, they somehow found the ability to include both.

FAI and IOC are neighbors in Lausanne. They do talk with each other. There is some hope that paramotors or canopy piloting will make it as Olympic "test events."

But Gliding... no.

Frank Whiteley

October 31st 16, 03:06 PM

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> Not sure what FAIs end game strategy is with SGP yet...the right producer and it's off to the races...and yes, I've talked to several producers. Longshot is an understatement but you never know...

SGP ramped up as a high impact, professional formula racing series that would/could be shown on sports channels live and in repeats. That faltered. I don't know if the producers of the Chile SGP ever recouped their costs (helicopter video platform costs were $250,000 alone). He tried with a Kickstarter to produce another soaring promotion, but all contributors received were their DVD's and headgear, so SGP format wound up with IGC.

The World Class adopted the PW-5 and it was flown in the WAG in Turkey. As a design class, it could be produced by anyone, which seemed a purist approach. I don't now what international competitions say about skiis, rifles, sailing boats, and other equipment sports. Anyway, apart from the WAG, the PW-5 and World Class did not inspire a majority of participants. Many others opined the World Class should have been based on a 40:1 glider, the LS-4, which is one or, if not the most produced, single seater. WGC adoption might have kept it production for many more years.

The Chile SGP and the Italian WAG 2009 both used Yellowbrick.com for real time tracking solutions, though I think both used different display servers. IIRC, over 5000 remote viewers watched these real time, so the displays were slightly different though both were excellent and engaging to the point where you could see pilots make divergent (and sometimes wrong) decisions. Spot and InReach are not comparable. Yellowbrick was not cheap. Helicopters and live feeds are not cheap, so sponsorship and advertising would be needed to make it happen. Probably out of the question for qualifiers. However, looking forward to about 2020, there may be opportunities.

On the technical side, satellite MUX space is still limited. Iridium NEXT has yet to fly, but it could open the door for real time cockpit video. Whether there are other options affordable and available, I can't say. Kind of like the dark (unlit) fiber infrastructure. Kind of hard to find out who and where. I'm locally aware of optical fiber that's been around for a long time, but never lit, despite the fees paid to bring high speed Internet to the masses. I still feel like I'm in frontier land and now Google has stalled on their Google fiber.

Gee, if only pilots could live (or slightly buffer) feed their soaring flights to their Facebook pages. This could be possible by 2020, just around the corner.

Frank Whiteley

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 16, 03:22 PM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 6:06:08 PM UTC+3, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> > Not sure what FAIs end game strategy is with SGP yet...the right producer and it's off to the races...and yes, I've talked to several producers. Longshot is an understatement but you never know...
>
> SGP ramped up as a high impact, professional formula racing series that would/could be shown on sports channels live and in repeats. That faltered. I don't know if the producers of the Chile SGP ever recouped their costs (helicopter video platform costs were $250,000 alone). He tried with a Kickstarter to produce another soaring promotion, but all contributors received were their DVD's and headgear, so SGP format wound up with IGC.
>
> The World Class adopted the PW-5 and it was flown in the WAG in Turkey. As a design class, it could be produced by anyone, which seemed a purist approach. I don't now what international competitions say about skiis, rifles, sailing boats, and other equipment sports. Anyway, apart from the WAG, the PW-5 and World Class did not inspire a majority of participants. Many others opined the World Class should have been based on a 40:1 glider, the LS-4, which is one or, if not the most produced, single seater. WGC adoption might have kept it production for many more years.
>
> The Chile SGP and the Italian WAG 2009 both used Yellowbrick.com for real time tracking solutions, though I think both used different display servers. IIRC, over 5000 remote viewers watched these real time, so the displays were slightly different though both were excellent and engaging to the point where you could see pilots make divergent (and sometimes wrong) decisions. Spot and InReach are not comparable. Yellowbrick was not cheap. Helicopters and live feeds are not cheap, so sponsorship and advertising would be needed to make it happen. Probably out of the question for qualifiers. However, looking forward to about 2020, there may be opportunities.
>
> On the technical side, satellite MUX space is still limited. Iridium NEXT has yet to fly, but it could open the door for real time cockpit video. Whether there are other options affordable and available, I can't say. Kind of like the dark (unlit) fiber infrastructure. Kind of hard to find out who and where. I'm locally aware of optical fiber that's been around for a long time, but never lit, despite the fees paid to bring high speed Internet to the masses. I still feel like I'm in frontier land and now Google has stalled on their Google fiber.
>
> Gee, if only pilots could live (or slightly buffer) feed their soaring flights to their Facebook pages. This could be possible by 2020, just around the corner.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Don't forget the 2006 NZ Gliding Grand Prix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc_aUMLEwNk

I thought the computer graphics at that event were superior to those that have followed.

[email protected]

October 31st 16, 04:30 PM

Last week I was watching live video feed from Warren Crammer from Wurtsburo flying in thier ASK21. I could hear him talking to me and I was texting him (while someone else was flying of coarse).

Not sure why you think live feed video is far away?

WH

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 16, 05:14 PM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 7:30:10 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> Last week I was watching live video feed from Warren Crammer from Wurtsburo flying in thier ASK21. I could hear him talking to me and I was texting him (while someone else was flying of coarse).
>
> Not sure why you think live feed video is far away?

Sure, if there are good mobile phone networks in the place you're flying. Much glider racing around the world takes place in areas with nil or weak mobile coverage.

Dan Marotta

October 31st 16, 05:27 PM

How about a soaring reality show on Discovery Channel? We could all get
tattoos, grow beards, quit getting haircuts, spit and cuss a lot, have
girl groupies with big boobs and low cut necklines... It'd be a hit for
sure! Where do I sign up?

On 10/30/2016 11:09 PM, Sean wrote:
> Not sure what FAIs end game strategy is with SGP yet...the right producer and it's off to the races...and yes, I've talked to several producers. Longshot is an understatement but you never know...

--
Dan, 5J

Sean[_2_]

October 31st 16, 06:08 PM

Actually, in Olympics, Pan Am Games, etc., often the sailing events are held miles away from the main Olympic city. For example, the Atlanta Olympics held our events (Sailing) in Savahnah, Georgia. 3-4 hours by car.

I think you miss the point of Dubai entirely Bruce. You may be thinking only of yourself, and even then only conventionally.

If we want soaring to grow substantially then we really need dramatically more poeple to notice it. To get interested in it. We need dramatically more exposure. Assuming we found a means of increasing public exposure (and image) of soaring...out of that pool, a few might get inspired to try it. Out of that few, some will get their license and so on.

These events, such as Dubai and the Olympics, are aimed at gaining exposure for the sport of soaring. They are aimed at demonstrating how soaring competitions work to the public and honoring the athletes & teams and ultimately the champions.

The Americas Cup has adapted itself to fit the TV format required to build advertising value. They run very short, fast, exciting races in a stadium environment as much as possible. This has raised awareness of the sport of sailboat racing dramatically and he events (NBC sports) are actually getting impressive ratings.

It is possible for soaring to have a similar jolt of energy. It just requires the proper circumstances. And none of this, Olympics, Dubai, etc., affects any other soaring pilot negatively. It simply raises awareness to a sport which is dismal (especially in the USA) from a marketing perspective. See sailplane Grand Prix.

In other word you should be thankful. We could use all the help that we could get right now...don't you think?

I think we should be more positive and thankful to those trying new ideas vs. insulting them.

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 16, 06:19 PM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:09:01 PM UTC+3, Sean wrote:
> Actually, in Olympics, Pan Am Games, etc., often the sailing events are held miles away from the main Olympic city. For example, the Atlanta Olympics held our events (Sailing) in Savahnah, Georgia. 3-4 hours by car.
>
> I think you miss the point of Dubai entirely Bruce. You may be thinking only of yourself, and even then only conventionally.
>
> If we want soaring to grow substantially then we really need dramatically more poeple to notice it. To get interested in it. We need dramatically more exposure. Assuming we found a means of increasing public exposure (and image) of soaring...out of that pool, a few might get inspired to try it. Out of that few, some will get their license and so on.
>
> These events, such as Dubai and the Olympics, are aimed at gaining exposure for the sport of soaring. They are aimed at demonstrating how soaring competitions work to the public and honoring the athletes & teams and ultimately the champions.
>
> The Americas Cup has adapted itself to fit the TV format required to build advertising value. They run very short, fast, exciting races in a stadium environment as much as possible. This has raised awareness of the sport of sailboat racing dramatically and he events (NBC sports) are actually getting impressive ratings.
>
> It is possible for soaring to have a similar jolt of energy. It just requires the proper circumstances. And none of this, Olympics, Dubai, etc., affects any other soaring pilot negatively. It simply raises awareness to a sport which is dismal (especially in the USA) from a marketing perspective.. See sailplane Grand Prix.
>
> In other word you should be thankful. We could use all the help that we could get right now...don't you think?
>
> I think we should be more positive and thankful to those trying new ideas vs. insulting them.

I watched the air sports from Dubai. There was pretty much exactly zero coverage of the glider races. I doubt many people saw it of even knew it was there. And those who saw it probably didn't get excited by a literal sled ride. It was nothing like even a Grand Prix race. It was not even anything like the sprint races on the last day of the 2006 NZ Grand Prix, which at least were close to terrain and required making use of what lift there was to improve the average speed (you could I think just about finish the course at best LD with zero lift). The Dubai races started with enough height to be MC 3 or 4 (or more?)

The glider aerobatics near Palm Jumeirah got quite a bit of coverage, but that's not us.

HGXC[_4_]

November 2nd 16, 02:48 PM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 1:27:06 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> How about a soaring reality show on Discovery Channel? We could all get
> tattoos, grow beards, quit getting haircuts, spit and cuss a lot, have
> girl groupies with big boobs and low cut necklines... It'd be a hit for
> sure! Where do I sign up?
>
> On 10/30/2016 11:09 PM, Sean wrote:
> > Not sure what FAIs end game strategy is with SGP yet...the right producer and it's off to the races...and yes, I've talked to several producers. Longshot is an understatement but you never know...
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Now that's funny -:)

Dennis

HGXC[_4_]

November 2nd 16, 02:56 PM

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 2:09:01 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> Actually, in Olympics, Pan Am Games, etc., often the sailing events are held miles away from the main Olympic city. For example, the Atlanta Olympics held our events (Sailing) in Savahnah, Georgia. 3-4 hours by car.
>
> I think you miss the point of Dubai entirely Bruce. You may be thinking only of yourself, and even then only conventionally.
>
> If we want soaring to grow substantially then we really need dramatically more poeple to notice it. To get interested in it. We need dramatically more exposure. Assuming we found a means of increasing public exposure (and image) of soaring...out of that pool, a few might get inspired to try it. Out of that few, some will get their license and so on.
>
> These events, such as Dubai and the Olympics, are aimed at gaining exposure for the sport of soaring. They are aimed at demonstrating how soaring competitions work to the public and honoring the athletes & teams and ultimately the champions.
>
> The Americas Cup has adapted itself to fit the TV format required to build advertising value. They run very short, fast, exciting races in a stadium environment as much as possible. This has raised awareness of the sport of sailboat racing dramatically and he events (NBC sports) are actually getting impressive ratings.
>
> It is possible for soaring to have a similar jolt of energy. It just requires the proper circumstances. And none of this, Olympics, Dubai, etc., affects any other soaring pilot negatively. It simply raises awareness to a sport which is dismal (especially in the USA) from a marketing perspective.. See sailplane Grand Prix.
>
> In other word you should be thankful. We could use all the help that we could get right now...don't you think?
>
> I think we should be more positive and thankful to those trying new ideas vs. insulting them.

Sean I am not sure that broad based exposure has any effect on building interest in a narrow specialized activity as soaring. I think you want to target your efforts to identified market segments that tend to fit soaring pilot profile. I have watch curling on past Olympics and never had the desire to try it.If you look at every persons time as resources, i think we would be better off using those resources to focus on those groups that that are more likely to be influenced.

Just my thoughts,

Dennis

Sean[_2_]

November 2nd 16, 03:59 PM

Marketing success is, at its most basic level, measured in terms of "exposures." In other words, how many times is your brand, product or company "exposed" to the eyes and ears of your target audience. Soaring is a general thing so IMO our audience is everyone. Next there is the "meaningfulness" of the exposures. Somewhat more subjective but worth considering. It is far more cost effective to focus on basic exposures than it is to try and target. Especially when you have little or nothing to start with (our situation). Trying to target from the beginning is like trying to land on the centerline after your rudder has fallen off the glider. Especially true when the sport is so amazingly obscure (almost hidden from the public) here in the USA. That and the fact that our demographic is 55+ (perhaps 65+) and needs to be equalized or exceeded at the teen and twenties demographic if we are to grow again (or even survive).

What I am talking about is basically regularly leveraging free exposure as a matter of practice. Employing the media and other marketing engines to work for us as normal operating procedure. It only takes paying attention. For example, every SSA contest (or any soaring event for that matter) should be writing press releases and calling local media outlets (TV, print, web) to visit. Media loves invitations. The exercise of inviting media can be automated and tuned. Media involvement is very rare in the USA, even at Nationals or SSA Conventions. It should be absolute at every event. Particular attention should be paid to sports media. As a sport, we are sitting on the ground with the engine off in terms of marketing. We have few youth members to leverage for help as other sports do (paragliding). Quite embarrassing. We need to work harder to make up for this unfortunately.

The Olympics is important and valuable. Shrugging it off because you have watched curling and not picked up curling is fairly dumb (sorry). Imagine an average Joe seeing 10 minutes of the Olympic glider race event similar to some of the better SGP coverage you may have seen. Now imagine 1.8 Billion people (Olympic viewership in Brazil this summer) being potentially exposed to glider racing. The Olympics have very, very strong youth demographics. They provide sports with a certain legitimacy as well. It might be hard for some of you to get your heads around, but I am thinking 10-20 years down the line here. If we want to have a great, thriving sport then we need to get our heads out of our butts and shamelessly expose the sport as much as possible. Why not? Or should we just keep standing around with our hands in our pockets? This conservative, tip-toeing around alone has gotten us where we are today. It cannot be allowed to continue.

Finally an Olympic bid is not that big of an undertaking for us here in the USA. The good news is that the US so separated from the FAI and Europe (the big boys) that we would not have to move a muscle. They would lead that effort because FAI is relevant and US rules are irrelevant. We should all be absolutely begging the FAI to build an Olympic bid for soaring. All upside for us and zero work.

Olympic Sailplane Racing. Sounds great to me! What is there to lose?

Sean

[email protected]

November 2nd 16, 07:46 PM

I hate being a "Debbie Downer" but.......... I was on the 1988 Olympic Team and have been part of an orphan sport for 45 years :)

"What's to lose" actually also What is to gain? is another good question before embarking down a road without a map.

I will give you 2 experiences that kind of speak to both.

1. We had a woman who had place 5th in the prior World's and felt to get on the podium requires her not to work at all and therefore fundraising was a high priority. She raised sufficient funds, unfortunately the thing she was unable to do was have sufficient time to train - she did not make the Team.

2. This/my Sport has been in every Olympics since 1936. They felt pretty cocky and safe after the 1980 Olympics - we won 3 medals, had Olympic profit sharing money, excellent exposure and a great sponsor. They forgot to take good care of the sponsor and that exposure alone would not gain any new Athletes.

The sponsor is gone - the money is gone and how many of you have heard of Olympic Sprint Kayaking ;)

It is dangerous to lose focus and to believe growth comes easy via exposure.. It is all about the execution of a plan and allowing it to evolve and follow where it succeeds, while stopping what does not.

Soaring is a beautiful Sport and I believe there are many ways to expand - I am not sure Olympic exposure is a magic bullet or maybe even a waste of time.

my 2 cents :)

WH

Bruce Hoult

November 2nd 16, 08:48 PM

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 10:46:43 PM UTC+3, wrote:
> I hate being a "Debbie Downer" but.......... I was on the 1988 Olympic Team and have been part of an orphan sport for 45 years :)
>
> "What's to lose" actually also What is to gain? is another good question before embarking down a road without a map.
>
> I will give you 2 experiences that kind of speak to both.
>
> 1. We had a woman who had place 5th in the prior World's and felt to get on the podium requires her not to work at all and therefore fundraising was a high priority. She raised sufficient funds, unfortunately the thing she was unable to do was have sufficient time to train - she did not make the Team.
>
> 2. This/my Sport has been in every Olympics since 1936. They felt pretty cocky and safe after the 1980 Olympics - we won 3 medals, had Olympic profit sharing money, excellent exposure and a great sponsor. They forgot to take good care of the sponsor and that exposure alone would not gain any new Athletes.
>
> The sponsor is gone - the money is gone and how many of you have heard of Olympic Sprint Kayaking ;)

I seem to recall a couple of chaps by names of Ian Ferguson and Paul MacDonald who weren't too bad at it.

[email protected]

November 3rd 16, 12:15 AM

> Olympic Sailplane Racing. Sounds great to me! What is there to lose?
>
> Sean

Dignity. Precious time. Besides those two Sean you are out of touch with modern reality of information processing. Only 6% of people trust the media, so why would take up a sport based on mainstream media coverage? If the media says it is safe and fun, 94% hearing that won't believe it. http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/death-of-mainstream-media-6-percent-trust.html
And lest you think old school media still has credibility, the ghey old lady is near death.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-Times-reports-95-7-percent-fall-quarterly-profit.html
SGP is perfect you make the rules to make it how pilots want to fly and new media compatible. Then pump it out with youtube, vimeo, twitter, gab, get a soda company involved, etc. The X-Alps is redbull media's largest audience event. Soaring and walking, plus human drama. The mainstream media and the olympics are extinct, they just haven't realized it yet. Waste of time and dignity.

Sean[_2_]

November 3rd 16, 02:00 AM

Geeze. No wonder we are nearly extinct. The glass is half empty, arrrrrhg!

Let's just peck away on our private Facebook accounts and tell more lies? That will fix things. :-)! Immediate gratification in small private groups beats hard work, trying new things and having a chance at success any day! In other words, we will never know if we never try.

Seriously, I think that the FAI has dropped the ball by not answering this question for all of us and trying over the bast 80 years to being soaring into the Olympics. Soaring would be a great Olympic television sport.

I was part the US Olympic Sailing Team. I did the Pan Am Games (our class was not in the Olympics) and it was a great experience. The Olympics definitely does not hurt sailing in the slightest. It is outstanding coverage and a huge highlight for the sport and for youth sailors. It would be amazing for soaring in my opinion...

Notice women are in the race, level with the men and ages range from 18 to 52 yrs old...

https://youtu.be/4emdfoTvNKk

[email protected]

November 3rd 16, 02:56 AM

"Soaring would be a great Olympic television sport."

I agree, but technology to cover a decent soaring competition well simply does not exist. (Satellite tracking, CGI and cockpit views make it exciting for those who understand the concept, but it looks like a video game to most spectators who are not pilots.)

Don't get me wrong- I watch the SGP videos from South Africa, New Zealand and Chile over and over. Ionia? Nyet!

We fly hundreds of miles, in three dimensions. Altitudes of over 15,000 ft. and speeds above 100 mph are simply out of the operating range of most helicopter camera platforms.

Contrast these parameters with Sean's favorite: Sailing is performed in two dimensions at sea level at speeds of about 11 knots. The course is a few miles in length and width.

Extremely easy to cover with helicopters, and lots of folks can watch the "action" from the shore or from a boat outside the course with a decent set of binoculars and a few beers. Bikini clad crew on other spectator boats also add to the enjoyment with the aforesaid binoculars. Not so much in soaring.

Sean[_2_]

November 3rd 16, 06:11 AM

I'll paint a picture...

The budget for Olympic sailing RIO this summer was around 25 million dollars (from what I have heard). And advertising investment was 5-10x that amount for NBC. Other Olympic events have far, FAR, larger budgets (obviously) and the network makes a fortune. Think about that. The media investment (and in turn sponsor investment) in Olympic coverage can be enormous. With that kind of money focused on soaring, even a fraction, Olympic Sailplane Competiton coverage would be like nothing we have ever seen before. Chile and New Zealand would look like child's play in comparison. It would probably be broadcast live from the cockpits in addition to improvement everywhere else. If that happened, and based on the history it has a snowballs chance in hell, Olympic Soaring would gain enormous exposure.

And this attention would be more than "just the Olympic event." The bid process for the sport alone would be major news. The media around each countries qualification process (trials), the test and pre-Olympic events leading up to the Olympics, the glider design/manufacturer drama deciding what gliders will used for the Olympics, etc would all begin to play out years before the actual Olympic event. A whole new level of potential interest would be created on a scale we can not really imagine. Sponsors may even become interested outside the Olympics which could carry into domestic events, national organizations such as the SSA, etc.

We might even grow again.

FAI where are you?

By the way, there is a great article on this very subject in gliding international this month.

[email protected]

November 3rd 16, 11:25 AM

If you want soaring to be comparable to sailing you have to make soaring a collegiate sport. With the right Title IX lawyer you probable could :) Otherwise the Olympic comparison to equestrian events is more apt. Without specifically searching how much Olympic equestrian coverage do you see in the regular press?

Sean[_2_]

November 4th 16, 11:32 PM

College Soaring is an AMAZING idea Gregg!

We could help create a virtual engine (with careful care and feeding) that would give high school and college kids a focus. Learn to soar, learn cross country, get your CFIG to teach other youth, learn to race and compete and win in College on your College Soaring Team.

If the SSA actually pursued any of this ideas with any focus (rather than recreating their own rules, for example) we might have some growth.

Meanwhile, we look forward to the upcoming US rule changes which provide ZERO measured (or other) value to our sport.

College Soaring Teams in the USA? I truly love this idea. Did I bring this up before? ;-) Just like College sailing, the local club that hosts these teams will get a huge boost. I am thinking of Sandhill hosting the University of Michigan near my home. Imagine 100 American colleges with active soaring teams (with instruction, coaching, fun social activities & social networks surrounding them) and a network of contest, competitions, championships and ultimately a College National Championship.

Why not high school too?

It just take 5-10 to start...in 20 years, this could be really big.

Sean

[email protected]

November 5th 16, 12:36 PM

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 7:32:28 PM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> College Soaring is an AMAZING idea Gregg!
>
> We could help create a virtual engine (with careful care and feeding) that would give high school and college kids a focus. Learn to soar, learn cross country, get your CFIG to teach other youth, learn to race and compete and win in College on your College Soaring Team.
>
> If the SSA actually pursued any of this ideas with any focus (rather than recreating their own rules, for example) we might have some growth.
>
> Meanwhile, we look forward to the upcoming US rule changes which provide ZERO measured (or other) value to our sport.
>
> College Soaring Teams in the USA? I truly love this idea. Did I bring this up before? ;-) Just like College sailing, the local club that hosts these teams will get a huge boost. I am thinking of Sandhill hosting the University of Michigan near my home. Imagine 100 American colleges with active soaring teams (with instruction, coaching, fun social activities & social networks surrounding them) and a network of contest, competitions, championships and ultimately a College National Championship.
>
> Why not high school too?
>
> It just take 5-10 to start...in 20 years, this could be really big.
>
> Sean

How about making it the Collegiate Soaring Association?
UH

HGXC[_4_]

November 5th 16, 02:31 PM

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:59:32 AM UTC-4, Sean wrote:
> Marketing success is, at its most basic level, measured in terms of "exposures." In other words, how many times is your brand, product or company "exposed" to the eyes and ears of your target audience. Soaring is a general thing so IMO our audience is everyone. Next there is the "meaningfulness" of the exposures. Somewhat more subjective but worth considering. It is far more cost effective to focus on basic exposures than it is to try and target. Especially when you have little or nothing to start with (our situation). Trying to target from the beginning is like trying to land on the centerline after your rudder has fallen off the glider. Especially true when the sport is so amazingly obscure (almost hidden from the public) here in the USA. That and the fact that our demographic is 55+ (perhaps 65+) and needs to be equalized or exceeded at the teen and twenties demographic if we are to grow again (or even survive).
>
> What I am talking about is basically regularly leveraging free exposure as a matter of practice. Employing the media and other marketing engines to work for us as normal operating procedure. It only takes paying attention.. For example, every SSA contest (or any soaring event for that matter) should be writing press releases and calling local media outlets (TV, print, web) to visit. Media loves invitations. The exercise of inviting media can be automated and tuned. Media involvement is very rare in the USA, even at Nationals or SSA Conventions. It should be absolute at every event. Particular attention should be paid to sports media. As a sport, we are sitting on the ground with the engine off in terms of marketing. We have few youth members to leverage for help as other sports do (paragliding). Quite embarrassing. We need to work harder to make up for this unfortunately.
>
> The Olympics is important and valuable. Shrugging it off because you have watched curling and not picked up curling is fairly dumb (sorry). Imagine an average Joe seeing 10 minutes of the Olympic glider race event similar to some of the better SGP coverage you may have seen. Now imagine 1.8 Billion people (Olympic viewership in Brazil this summer) being potentially exposed to glider racing. The Olympics have very, very strong youth demographics. They provide sports with a certain legitimacy as well. It might be hard for some of you to get your heads around, but I am thinking 10-20 years down the line here. If we want to have a great, thriving sport then we need to get our heads out of our butts and shamelessly expose the sport as much as possible. Why not? Or should we just keep standing around with our hands in our pockets? This conservative, tip-toeing around alone has gotten us where we are today. It cannot be allowed to continue.
>
> Finally an Olympic bid is not that big of an undertaking for us here in the USA. The good news is that the US so separated from the FAI and Europe (the big boys) that we would not have to move a muscle. They would lead that effort because FAI is relevant and US rules are irrelevant. We should all be absolutely begging the FAI to build an Olympic bid for soaring. All upside for us and zero work.
>
> Olympic Sailplane Racing. Sounds great to me! What is there to lose?
>
> Sean

"Marketing success is, at its most basic level, measured in terms of "exposures."""

Marketing success is based on ROI of the marketing budget. We have data that tells us where we are likely to find new pilots, to ignore that and go broad reach is silly and a losing proposition. As to the exposure .. being in the Olympics and getting exposure is two different tasks. Networks pick what they cover based on mass appeal, soaring leaves little to the viewer and after NBC took a bath on the last Olympics what makes you think they are going to want to take valuable viewer time on a difficult to follow unknown sport like soaring on their next run?

"Trying to target from the beginning is like trying to land on the centerline after your rudder has fallen off the glider."

Goes against standard strategy. Have you ever directing a companyâ€™s marketing function? I have and I would not have lasted using your logic. Rudder allows for direction... broad reach by definition lacks direction.

Dennis

DC

Sean[_2_]

November 6th 16, 05:21 AM

DC, yes, as a matter of fact, I have. Highly successfully, several times in entirely different markets. But you can disagree. I couldn't care less. No harm, no foul.

If the SSA stays it's course (same people, same mindsets, small moves) it will die. Fairly soon. In several ways it is already dead. Sad to watch. But hard to deny.

It needs a total reorg. A major shake up. Complete disruption. Chaos. It has been the same for far, far too long. In numerous ways. "And that's the way we like it!"

I am so bored of these discussions. Like trying to motivate sand.

Papa3[_2_]

November 6th 16, 06:12 PM

It could even be something like this: http://www.coloradosoaring.org/ssa/coll/home.htm

Sean[_2_]

November 7th 16, 01:47 AM

Why is this called the Colorado Collegate Soaring Association? Something driven by the Air Force Acadamy?

Why not the US College Soaring Association? Why was this not owned by the SSA?

College soaring clubs/teams sound great, other than thr fact that this is literally the first that I have ever heard of them. I have never seen anything about this on the SSA website, Social Media, or heard about it in conversation.

What a great place for the SSA to help focus a local SSA clubs efforts on developing a college soaring club (and eventually team). This ticks a lot of currently challenged SSA growth "boxes" if you think about it.

But as with all 2nd tier college "sports" clubs or teams, without active competition, good marketing and GREAT social fun for the college kids, it is doomed to fail quickly. And, as with all things new, this effort would take a good amount of care and feeding from a number of established clubs and SSA leaders to create a self sustaining/growing new segment of US soaring participation.

I would definitely be willing to work on University of Michigan or Michigan State University, if, 20-30 other major Universities had equal commitments from other pilots to seriously explore found clubs/teams ;and the SSA put a plan together to develop something for college). it needs to be a national effort that can feed of itself to succeed. One or two at a time would fail.

A great first target would be a "Big 10," "PAC 10" and "ACC" college soaring team series.

Who's with me? ;-)

https://youtu.be/6eX3fiQLo84

Papa3[_2_]

November 7th 16, 03:56 AM

Sean,

If nothing else, you are entertaining.

Busy with work this evening, but in a nutshell... The Collegiate Soaring Association has been around for 30 years. It is an affiliate of the SSA. It was founded by Dr. John Campbell in 1984 who was a post-doc at Princeton when I was an undergraduate. The two of us, along with several others, spent years working very hard to revive college-based soaring activity. John was incredibly passionate about the project, and spent countless hours promoting, cajoling, and driving this. We obtained 501 C3 status, we received a few donations, we even hosted competitions. I personally drove around to Penn State, Ohio State, RIT, and several others with John to conduct workshops, help with recruiting drives, etc. I drove the 1-36 which was donated around to several sites as a loaner to help drive activity.

Eventually, we were able to pull together a few Collegiate Championships, but in reality they were just a couple of juniors participating in existing SSA Regionals (I believe Sean Franke won one, though calling it an "MSU Championship" was really a stretch). John managed to pull a "local" competition together in Colorado due in large part to the presence of the Air Force Academy. When John tragically died way too young from brain cancer, the CSA really started to fade away.

In the end, it turned out that College Soaring clubs are very hard to maintain. As an example, the Princeton club was at one point one of the largest campus organizations, with over 70 members. It was started by Steve Sliwa, himself a Harris Hill Junior. We had tremendous advantages, being a university with an active Flight Research program and our own airport. That meant qualified CFIs, towpilots, and even mechanics. But, over the years, the university got out of the Flight Research business, they sold the airport, and the nearest glider operation was an hour away. After a few years, the membership was down to a handful of students, and those students rotate out every 4 years. Also, many recent graduates are challenged by finances, time, and frankly have other passions. So, imagine the difficulty at other colleges and universities that don't already have an active group of students naturally inclined toward aviation.

Soaring is a very quirky sport. If a person with as much energy and drive as John can't achieve critical mass in Collegiate Soaring over 10 years, it's not something that a couple of posts on RAS will change.

Erik Mann (P3)

..

Tom Kelley #711

November 7th 16, 04:58 AM

On Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 8:56:43 PM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> Sean,
>
> If nothing else, you are entertaining.
>
> Busy with work this evening, but in a nutshell... The Collegiate Soaring Association has been around for 30 years. It is an affiliate of the SSA. It was founded by Dr. John Campbell in 1984 who was a post-doc at Princeton when I was an undergraduate. The two of us, along with several others, spent years working very hard to revive college-based soaring activity. John was incredibly passionate about the project, and spent countless hours promoting, cajoling, and driving this. We obtained 501 C3 status, we received a few donations, we even hosted competitions. I personally drove around to Penn State, Ohio State, RIT, and several others with John to conduct workshops, help with recruiting drives, etc. I drove the 1-36 which was donated around to several sites as a loaner to help drive activity.
>
> Eventually, we were able to pull together a few Collegiate Championships, but in reality they were just a couple of juniors participating in existing SSA Regionals (I believe Sean Franke won one, though calling it an "MSU Championship" was really a stretch). John managed to pull a "local" competition together in Colorado due in large part to the presence of the Air Force Academy. When John tragically died way too young from brain cancer, the CSA really started to fade away.
>
> In the end, it turned out that College Soaring clubs are very hard to maintain. As an example, the Princeton club was at one point one of the largest campus organizations, with over 70 members. It was started by Steve Sliwa, himself a Harris Hill Junior. We had tremendous advantages, being a university with an active Flight Research program and our own airport. That meant qualified CFIs, towpilots, and even mechanics. But, over the years, the university got out of the Flight Research business, they sold the airport, and the nearest glider operation was an hour away. After a few years, the membership was down to a handful of students, and those students rotate out every 4 years. Also, many recent graduates are challenged by finances, time, and frankly have other passions. So, imagine the difficulty at other colleges and universities that don't already have an active group of students naturally inclined toward aviation.
>
> Soaring is a very quirky sport. If a person with as much energy and drive as John can't achieve critical mass in Collegiate Soaring over 10 years, it's not something that a couple of posts on RAS will change.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> .

Thanks for sharing. Didn't John have a Phoebus C at one time? I believe we had dinner in Chester many, many years ago while we were at a regional. Yes, he was extremely supportive of youth in soaring.

Best. Tom #711.

Michael Opitz

November 7th 16, 12:49 PM

At 03:56 07 November 2016, Papa3 wrote:
>Sean,=20
>
>If nothing else, you are entertaining. =20
>
>Busy with work this evening, but in a nutshell... The Collegiate
Soaring
>A=
>ssociation has been around for 30 years. It is an affiliate of the
SSA.
>=
>It was founded by Dr. John Campbell in 1984 who was a post-doc
at
>Princeton=
> when I was an undergraduate. The two of us, along with several
others,
>sp=
>ent years working very hard to revive college-based soaring
activity.
>Joh=
>n was incredibly passionate about the project, and spent
countless hours
>pr=
>omoting, cajoling, and driving this. We obtained 501 C3 status,
we
>receiv=
>ed a few donations, we even hosted competitions. I personally
drove
>aroun=
>d to Penn State, Ohio State, RIT, and several others with John to
conduct
>=
>workshops, help with recruiting drives, etc. I drove the 1-36
which was
>=
>donated around to several sites as a loaner to help drive activity.
>
>Eventually, we were able to pull together a few Collegiate
Championships,
>=
>but in reality they were just a couple of juniors participating in
>existing=
> SSA Regionals (I believe Sean Franke won one, though calling it
an "MSU
>Ch=
>ampionship" was really a stretch). John managed to pull a "local"
>competi=
>tion together in Colorado due in large part to the presence of the
Air
>Forc=
>e Academy. When John tragically died way too young from brain
cancer,
>th=
>e CSA really started to fade away.=20
>
>In the end, it turned out that College Soaring clubs are very hard
to
>maint=
>ain. As an example, the Princeton club was at one point one of the
largest
>=
>campus organizations, with over 70 members. It was started by
Steve Sliwa,
>=
>himself a Harris Hill Junior. We had tremendous advantages,
being a
>unive=
>rsity with an active Flight Research program and our own airport.
That
>mea=
>nt qualified CFIs, towpilots, and even mechanics. But, over the
years,
>th=
>e university got out of the Flight Research business, they sold the
>airport=
>, and the nearest glider operation was an hour away. After a few
years,
>th=
>e membership was down to a handful of students, and those
students rotate
>o=
>ut every 4 years. Also, many recent graduates are challenged by
finances,
>=
>time, and frankly have other passions. So, imagine the difficulty
at
>othe=
>r colleges and universities that don't already have an active group
of
>stud=
>ents naturally inclined toward aviation.=20
>
>Soaring is a very quirky sport. If a person with as much energy
and drive
>=
>as John can't achieve critical mass in Collegiate Soaring over 10
years,
>i=
>t's not something that a couple of posts on RAS will change. =20
>
>Erik Mann (P3)
>

I was the SSA Youth Education Chair before John Campbell, and
wrestled with the same issues. College soaring goes back to the
1930's with the MIT and Michigan clubs. The biggest problem is
that we soar in the summer when the college students go home to
other places. In spring when we start up, they are studying for
finals. The timelines just aren't conducive to making it work
reliably.

The collegiate soaring thing has gone up and down over the years.
Back in 1971, Pete Silvaggio at Cornell tried to start a collegiate
soaring association. He even organized a contest at Harris Hill
(which I won) that summer. I think we had competitors there from
maybe 4 schools.

My old alma mater (RPI) even designed and built an ultralight glider
as an exercise in design and composite construction. Dr. Francis
Bundy even test flew it up in Schenectady (I believe), but it never
went much further than that. The students were able to work on
the construction over the winter school year part time, but during
the soaring season, they were gone. I think that there were also
insurance issues with flying that glider as well.....

Money is also an issue because most college students don't have
much extra to spend with already having to pay for college, etc..

College soaring sounds like a great idea, and it has been tried many
times. The only consistently successful operation is at the USAF
Academy where the students stay there and fly over the summer as
opposed to going back home like most college student do. The
flying is also free for them, as it is part of the overall USAFA
program.

RO

[email protected]

November 7th 16, 01:46 PM

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
George Santayana

I like new ideas and without trying to grow I agree we will shrink - just need to be smart/calculating - not all disruptive ideas and Chaos end well or get the desired results.

A Soaring Film is in contention for a Emmy...... Excellent exposure. and a gliders has been in 2 major movies in the past few years - also great exposure. All good all positive and it took no volunteer resources, which are limited.

The hard part is how to best use our limited volunteer resources (until the US Government hands SSA a truck load of cash, just JOKING). Also how to nurture new ideas and help guide them with out seeming like all ideas are old and bad.

You never know what will catch a new glider pilot's eye (like that Disney movie that caught my eye when I was 13) or the person who flew at 14 take and few years off (like 30) and hope to be a pilot for a few decades, and can support the sport and has some time to volunteer a little.

my 2.5 cents.

WH

Sean[_2_]

November 7th 16, 01:50 PM

I would think that clubs and the SSA would subsidize this to reach critical mass per a strategic plan.

College kids are perfect. High school programs also make sense.

But this kind of thing always needs great care and feeding and many coordinated SSA leader hands on deck for sure.

We can't afford to be failed at this one.

Casey[_2_]

November 7th 16, 02:15 PM

Someone may have said something similar on previous post for I have not read all.

Looking at current sports in the Olympics (http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/sports/) it seems to me the one thing they have in common is spectators. Maybe not televised but in the stands. IMHO, I think the committee looks at what will bring revenue into the host site. There have been great strides in helping make soaring better for spectators with tracking but until sailplane racing gets more into every household and becomes an event that can be watched and cashed in on, its a long shot to be an Olympic sport.

Sean[_2_]

November 7th 16, 03:15 PM

True, but this is a new age. Traditional media and even tradition spectating have changed dramatically and continues to change dramatically. Soaring has an opportunity to get ahead of that rather than constantly trying to catch up. Spectators are now world wide via a smartphone either live or via a recording of live video (or edited summary) watched at the spectators leisure.

I think soaring Olympic spectators could be at the airport over a big screen just like sailing often is (see first link below). Imagine watching small boats race 1 mile away. Not very exciting in and of itself. That's not really what those spectators are there. The spectators are there to support the sport and be a part of it. They are watching the movie screen to see the on the water camera footage. At least with soaring they can see the actual finish up close from this position.

Here is the most recent Olympics sailing event as an example...

This one shows a good view of 5-10k spectators watching the sailing event from the English shore in the very beginning of this video: https://youtu.be/mOD3JSw-ghg

High performance sailing: https://youtu.be/4emdfoTvNKk

CNN interview of German team creating millions of media impressions for sailing (free promotion x10,000+): https://youtu.be/u7EUQbsYHrc

This could be soaring.

Papa3[_2_]

November 7th 16, 03:21 PM

An interesting data point in my opinion would be Harris Hill and their Juniors. It is far-and-away the largest, longest running, most highly supported junior group out there (there are others that are growing, but HHSC is the poster child). If you are really interested in the topic, it would be good to get some hard data backed up by some qualitative input to understand exactly what has been generated by this great organization. Off the top of my head, I can name a few (less than 10) competition pilots who are currently active coming out of the HHSC program. Sean Murphy is heading to Benalla for our 15M team. Heinz Weisenbuhler has represented the US in Open and Doppelsitzers. There are several others in "my" generation (40 to 50 year olds). In the last 20 years though, there are only a couple who have stuck with it, despite all of the support one could ask for. More often than not they've been around for a couple of years in their late teens/early 20s, then "life happens." Right now, the next great hope is Noah Ritter.

So there's the rub... if the best-supported Junior organization has literally a handful of pilots who go on to embrace racing, what are we missing?

Sean, I don't disagree with you that what's been done in the past isn't necessarily the best/only model. But I think slinging arrows at "The SSA" when in fact every one of these initiatives relies on hard working (unpaid) volunteers who mostly have other jobs isn't going to get the reaction you might be hoping for.

That's it for me this week. Work and family beckon.

p3

N97MT

November 7th 16, 03:31 PM

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 7:50:07 AM UTC-6, Sean wrote:
> I would think that clubs and the SSA would subsidize this to reach critical mass per a strategic plan.
>
Really? How are you going to do that?

My Eagle Fund contributions are not enough already?

What's in it for me?

Dan Marotta

November 7th 16, 04:57 PM

I remember John from my years at the new Black Forest. He was dedicated
to youth in soaring.

On 11/6/2016 8:56 PM, Papa3 wrote:
> Sean,
>
> If nothing else, you are entertaining.
>
> Busy with work this evening, but in a nutshell... The Collegiate Soaring Association has been around for 30 years. It is an affiliate of the SSA. It was founded by Dr. John Campbell in 1984 who was a post-doc at Princeton when I was an undergraduate. The two of us, along with several others, spent years working very hard to revive college-based soaring activity. John was incredibly passionate about the project, and spent countless hours promoting, cajoling, and driving this. We obtained 501 C3 status, we received a few donations, we even hosted competitions. I personally drove around to Penn State, Ohio State, RIT, and several others with John to conduct workshops, help with recruiting drives, etc. I drove the 1-36 which was donated around to several sites as a loaner to help drive activity.
>
> Eventually, we were able to pull together a few Collegiate Championships, but in reality they were just a couple of juniors participating in existing SSA Regionals (I believe Sean Franke won one, though calling it an "MSU Championship" was really a stretch). John managed to pull a "local" competition together in Colorado due in large part to the presence of the Air Force Academy. When John tragically died way too young from brain cancer, the CSA really started to fade away.
>
> In the end, it turned out that College Soaring clubs are very hard to maintain. As an example, the Princeton club was at one point one of the largest campus organizations, with over 70 members. It was started by Steve Sliwa, himself a Harris Hill Junior. We had tremendous advantages, being a university with an active Flight Research program and our own airport. That meant qualified CFIs, towpilots, and even mechanics. But, over the years, the university got out of the Flight Research business, they sold the airport, and the nearest glider operation was an hour away. After a few years, the membership was down to a handful of students, and those students rotate out every 4 years. Also, many recent graduates are challenged by finances, time, and frankly have other passions. So, imagine the difficulty at other colleges and universities that don't already have an active group of students naturally inclined toward aviation.
>
> Soaring is a very quirky sport. If a person with as much energy and drive as John can't achieve critical mass in Collegiate Soaring over 10 years, it's not something that a couple of posts on RAS will change.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> .

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

November 8th 16, 01:08 AM

More sailing commentary. Really funny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPjMvTmE2g

Tony[_5_]

November 8th 16, 01:40 AM

On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 10:57:31 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I remember John from my years at the new Black Forest. He was dedicated
> to youth in soaring.
>
> On 11/6/2016 8:56 PM, Papa3 wrote:
> > Sean,
> >
> > If nothing else, you are entertaining.
> >
> > Busy with work this evening, but in a nutshell... The Collegiate Soaring Association has been around for 30 years. It is an affiliate of the SSA.. It was founded by Dr. John Campbell in 1984 who was a post-doc at Princeton when I was an undergraduate. The two of us, along with several others, spent years working very hard to revive college-based soaring activity. John was incredibly passionate about the project, and spent countless hours promoting, cajoling, and driving this. We obtained 501 C3 status, we received a few donations, we even hosted competitions. I personally drove around to Penn State, Ohio State, RIT, and several others with John to conduct workshops, help with recruiting drives, etc. I drove the 1-36 which was donated around to several sites as a loaner to help drive activity.
> >
> > Eventually, we were able to pull together a few Collegiate Championships, but in reality they were just a couple of juniors participating in existing SSA Regionals (I believe Sean Franke won one, though calling it an "MSU Championship" was really a stretch). John managed to pull a "local" competition together in Colorado due in large part to the presence of the Air Force Academy. When John tragically died way too young from brain cancer, the CSA really started to fade away.
> >
> > In the end, it turned out that College Soaring clubs are very hard to maintain. As an example, the Princeton club was at one point one of the largest campus organizations, with over 70 members. It was started by Steve Sliwa, himself a Harris Hill Junior. We had tremendous advantages, being a university with an active Flight Research program and our own airport. That meant qualified CFIs, towpilots, and even mechanics. But, over the years, the university got out of the Flight Research business, they sold the airport, and the nearest glider operation was an hour away. After a few years, the membership was down to a handful of students, and those students rotate out every 4 years. Also, many recent graduates are challenged by finances, time, and frankly have other passions. So, imagine the difficulty at other colleges and universities that don't already have an active group of students naturally inclined toward aviation.
> >
> > Soaring is a very quirky sport. If a person with as much energy and drive as John can't achieve critical mass in Collegiate Soaring over 10 years, it's not something that a couple of posts on RAS will change.
> >
> > Erik Mann (P3)
> >
> > .
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

John was a dynamo. The last time I saw him was at an SSA Banquet. He was ravaged by cancer at the time and very frail. As soon as he saw me he asked if I was going to get a glider club started at Iowa State. I could see the twinkle in his eye. The energy was still there. Amazing.

He was a great guy and an example for the rest of us to aspire to

Sean[_2_]

November 8th 16, 05:41 AM

I think the Harris Hill group is doing great. But they are unique in many ways in terms of the facility, history, museum, funding, etc.

What's missing? :-). How about what isn't missing?

1) Serious focus at the SSA level. Leadership and realistic prioritization..
2) A sense of urgency nationally (carefully drilled down to the club level) and a plan. Oddly youth soaring programs would be very healthy for soaring clubs yet we seem to have few and no real national focus.
3) A national plan to motivate/help clubs to do what Harris Hill is doing.
4) A website (for the youth specifically) along with social channels. Kids do not want to talk to us about this, they want to talk to other kids. It needs to be self sustaining and "theirs" not ours. (a different conversation)
5) The chemistry and inertia of 30 such vibrant youth programs (or 10-15 in a region) operating simultaneously and feeding off each other. One or two at a time is not going to ignite this. Many need to be doing what Harris hill is doing now.

IMO, the SSA leadership needs to seriously re-prioritize (rules committee, etc) and re-focus on making sure that we develop these programs and measure success constantly.

Just look at Britain, Australia, France, Germany, etc. They seem to have great youth energy and participation (at all levels). Many have several national youth competitions, each with 50+ youth pilots each (plus instructors, etc). Imagine 3 or 4 seniors full of Juniors. Great parties for the kids, fun, etc. A great vibe. Healthy, active social media, video (youtube), twitter, snap-chat, etc.

A few quick examples (links to websites, etc all available and lots of inter-team taunting [very healthy]):
(Some of these are all 50x more active than our own SSA overall websites and social media)
(PS...websites are becoming almost irrelevant)
https://www.facebook.com/ukjuniorgliding/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/176599515713334/
https://www.facebook.com/GermanJuniorGlidingTeam/
https://www.facebook.com/Belgian-Junior-Gliding-Team-457310690991217/
https://www.gliding.co.uk/juniorgliding
Also France, Spain, Italy, Nordic countries, Poland, etc, etc, etc, etc.
All flying FAI rules together by the way.

The truth is that we may never recover. The kids are trying but they are going to need significantly more help than they have at present. We (SSA, US Soaring) cant survive without solving this problem soon. It needs to be a huge priority. It simply is not.

How the US fell so far off the ledge with youth soaring yet so many other countries are still thriving (and highly organized and focused) is puzzling to me (despite the obvious). What happened 15, 20, 25 years ago to cause this near extinction vs. other counties east and west? Australia has the same size, isolation problem but seems to be developing many juniors. Even Canada is stronger. Anyone have any thoughts?