Club Class vs. Sports Class

[noel.wade]

OK, so I made a long post in one thread about competition classes...
5U started another thread about the Rules Committee and I was really
tempted to respond to Karl's comments there; but I didn't want to
hijack the topic. So I'll post this in a new topic instead:

I'm a low-time glider pilot (though I've had a number of 300+km
flights this summer), and a newcomer to competition in gliders.
However, I have extensive experience with competition in various forms
of Auto-Racing. I've seen what works and what doesn't, and have
helped establish rules for successful classes (such as the wildly
popular "SpecMiata" class).

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Glider Competition yet, so I'm
not going to try to fix anything I don't fully understand - but I'd
like to make a few observations about the Club Class vs. Sports Class
issue:

1) I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. Its especially
helpful for new people to competition to have a straightforward class
that allows someone to show up with almost ANY glider and be legal to
compete. Handicapped classes do this (even if the system isn't
perfect and the playing-field isn't 100% level).

Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
meet this requirement, though. Excluding fancy aircraft does not
automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. A rich
ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
competition? By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
determine your skill-level either!

2) New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
can do well. But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time, and
trying to "rig" the rules or classes to give newcomers a better shot
at winning is just plain backwards! Competition is about people doing
their best; not about coddling people or giving them a special
advantage that throws the rest of the competition out of whack.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we throw new pilots "to the sharks"
and make them feel helpless. But we should find ways to make the
competition fun for them, and encourage them to STRIVE to get better
and rise to the top over time. No one expects rookie basketball
players to be better than NBA All-Stars. No one expects every first-
year QB to put up Brett Favre passing-numbers. No one expects
newcomers to the PGA to out-shoot Tiger Woods. Yet in all of these
venues, the first-timer AND the old-veteran compete on the same court
or the same course or in the same stadium; often head-to-head with
each other. Even though we aren't paid to be on TV like these other
sports, we're a legitimate sport that requires both talent and skill;
and people should expect that they have to work to become #1 just like
these "Pro Athletes" have to.

Like I said, if people are concerned about the newbies going up
against the top competitors, then the focus should be on how to make
the newcomers feel good and get rewarded for their attempts to get
better. "Rookie" awards, "Most Improved" awards, and active
encouragement by the veterans are all ways to do this. Newcomers
should also be encouraged to compare their standings (unofficially) to
other first-timers, not just the entire field. And I'm sure there are
many more ideas that folks can come up with...

3) If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly
rewards a particular make/model, then they need to speak up (in a
reasonable tone of voice), present good evidence, and go through the
proper channels to try to get the handicap reviewed and revised. NOT
just for that one "troublesome" make/model, but for the entire field.
In auto-racing we would do this for certain handicapped classes every
1 - 3 years. Of course, when looking at results you always have to
try to take pilot skill into account, in addition to the raw
performance of a glider. This makes the handicapping tricky and a bit
of an art-form; but it can be done.

Finally: The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
playing-field 100%, or to give everyone a "good chance to win".
There's just no way to be perfect with such a diverse group (both with
cars and gliders, _and_ with varying levels of pilot skill)! A good
handicapping system should give folks with similar skill-levels a
"legitimate shot" at finishing in a similar position on the
leaderboard despite flying different equipment. A good measure of a
handicap is to imagine the perennial top-10 competitors shuffling into
different gliders - if you think they could still finish at the top of
the group, then the handicap is doing its job.

Anyone think I'm way-off-base here?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> OK, so I made a long post in one thread about competition classes...
> 5U started another thread about the Rules Committee and I was really
> tempted to respond to Karl's comments there; but I didn't want to
> hijack the topic. *So I'll post this in a new topic instead:
>
> I'm a low-time glider pilot (though I've had a number of 300+km
> flights this summer), and a newcomer to competition in gliders.
> However, I have extensive experience with competition in various forms
> of Auto-Racing. *I've seen what works and what doesn't, and have
> helped establish rules for successful classes (such as the wildly
> popular "SpecMiata" class).
>
> I don't know all of the ins and outs of Glider Competition yet, so I'm
> not going to try to fix anything I don't fully understand - but I'd
> like to make a few observations about the Club Class vs. Sports Class
> issue:
>
> 1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. *Its especially
> helpful for new people to competition to have a straightforward class
> that allows someone to show up with almost ANY glider and be legal to
> compete. *Handicapped classes do this (even if the system isn't
> perfect and the playing-field isn't 100% level).
>
> Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
> meet this requirement, though. *Excluding fancy aircraft does not
> automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
> And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. *A rich
> ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
> learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
> automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
> Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
> handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
> competition? *By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
> 201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
> Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
> determine your skill-level either!
>
> 2) *New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
> can do well. *But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time, and
> trying to "rig" the rules or classes to give newcomers a better shot
> at winning is just plain backwards! *Competition is about people doing
> their best; not about coddling people or giving them a special
> advantage that throws the rest of the competition out of whack.
>
> Of course, this doesn't mean that we throw new pilots "to the sharks"
> and make them feel helpless. *But we should find ways to make the
> competition fun for them, and encourage them to STRIVE to get better
> and rise to the top over time. *No one expects rookie basketball
> players to be better than NBA All-Stars. *No one expects every first-
> year QB to put up Brett Favre passing-numbers. *No one expects
> newcomers to the PGA to out-shoot Tiger Woods. *Yet in all of these
> venues, the first-timer AND the old-veteran compete on the same court
> or the same course or in the same stadium; often head-to-head with
> each other. *Even though we aren't paid to be on TV like these other
> sports, we're a legitimate sport that requires both talent and skill;
> and people should expect that they have to work to become #1 just like
> these "Pro Athletes" have to.
>
> Like I said, if people are concerned about the newbies going up
> against the top competitors, then the focus should be on how to make
> the newcomers feel good and get rewarded for their attempts to get
> better. *"Rookie" awards, "Most Improved" awards, and active
> encouragement by the veterans are all ways to do this. *Newcomers
> should also be encouraged to compare their standings (unofficially) to
> other first-timers, not just the entire field. *And I'm sure there are
> many more ideas that folks can come up with...
>
> 3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly
> rewards a particular make/model, then they need to speak up (in a
> reasonable tone of voice), present good evidence, and go through the
> proper channels to try to get the handicap reviewed and revised. *NOT
> just for that one "troublesome" make/model, but for the entire field.
> In auto-racing we would do this for certain handicapped classes every
> 1 - 3 years. *Of course, when looking at results you always have to
> try to take pilot skill into account, in addition to the raw
> performance of a glider. *This makes the handicapping tricky and a bit
> of an art-form; but it can be done.
>
> Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
> playing-field 100%, or to give everyone a "good chance to win".
> There's just no way to be perfect with such a diverse group (both with
> cars and gliders, _and_ with varying levels of pilot skill)! *A good
> handicapping system should give folks with similar skill-levels a
> "legitimate shot" at finishing in a similar position on the
> leaderboard despite flying different equipment. *A good measure of a
> handicap is to imagine the perennial top-10 competitors shuffling into
> different gliders - if you think they could still finish at the top of
> the group, then the handicap is doing its job.
>
> Anyone think I'm way-off-base here?
>
> Thanks, take care,
>
> --Noel

Well stated.
UH

[Papa3]

On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:

> Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
> meet this requirement, though. *Excluding fancy aircraft does not
> automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
> And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. *A rich
> ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
> learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
> automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
> Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
> handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
> competition? *By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
> 201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
> Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
> determine your skill-level either!
>
>
> --Noel

Hi Noel,

A good post, and if I could just add one piece of context here to
consider. The reason for establishing handicap "sub-classes" such as
the club class is that there is such a diverse range of performance
out there in gliders that it becomes impossible at some point to run a
"race" in the traditional sense. An extreme example that is oft-
cited is the "1-26 vs. Nimbus argument." It's pretty clear that on
a day with strong winds and widely spaced thermals, no amount of
handicapping will make the 1-26 even remotely capable of getting
around a course that might be a walk in the park for the Nimbus.
Even with turn areas and MATs, there are some days when the required
performance is more than the 1-26 can muster (not that some 1-26
drivers aren't game for the challenge).

On a similar note, there is a big difference in the tactics of flying
when you can more-or-less stay with the pack than when you can't.
It's reasonably well accepted that, on balance, flying with a good
gaggle will get you home faster than struggling on your own. So, if
you don't have a pretty good chance of staying in contact with others,
you're really not participating in the same game.

It all sort of boils down to what we are trying to achieve. If we're
having a "fun race" where the handicapping should work more often than
not, then it's probably okay to have a very wide range of ships. But
if you are looking for a race with a reasonably level playing field,
then I suspect that sub-classes based on a range of handicaps is the
only way to go.

P3

[toad]

On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:

> 1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class.

Noel,

I am a long time sports class pilot, flying a Grob 102 and would love
a "club" class so that I would be scored more fairly, but I would miss
flying with my friends that have non-club qualifying gliders.

On balance, I would keep the classes combined.



> 2) *New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
> can do well. *But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time,

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.



> 3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly ...

The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. Especially for a weather driven sport.

> Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
> playing-field 100%,

Yes the idea IS to level the playing field between different aircraft,
leaving pilot ability the determining factor. So that the better pilot
wins.

It is very hard to have any semblance of fairness when the rating
spread is as wide as a Nimbus 3 against a ASK 14.

>
> --Noel

Thanks
Todd Smith
3S

[[email protected]]

I encourage everyone to realize that, when considering the matter at
hand, we realize it does not necessitate an "either/or" conclusion:
Sports Class and Club Class can coexist. The support of a Club Class
here in the U.S. is NOT ipso facto the death of Sports Class.

Alternatively, it may actually invigorate grass roots participation.

Ray Cornay
LS-4 RD

[noel.wade]

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad > wrote:

> But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
> if they are flying the best at that contest.

Todd -

This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
I completely disagree with you on this. I used to make the same
argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
winning. And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
like collectible card games where more money can make a big
difference...

But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
that makes someone's budget irrelevant. And many of the attempts to
do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.

I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
- but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
competing on a shoestring! :-P

The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. People love to make
comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is
COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. If
you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. If
you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
can get out of doing more with less... But screwing up the majority
of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. If
they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
doing what it is supposed to do.

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? Does the handicap take that into account? No! There are
plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
and have plenty of participation... These "unfair" sports haven't
stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?


> The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
> weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
> small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
changing and never exactly identical. That's one of the reasons this
sport is so challenging, afterall! So how do you come up with
standards or metrics on something like that? And don't think that it
only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? Or a
DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? How
finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
end up making the rules as a result?

I return to my original argument: You handicap to give folks in
various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. And
you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
before handicapped classes).

Take care,

--Noel

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > 1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class.
>
> Noel,
>
> I am a long time sports class pilot, flying a Grob 102 and would love
> a "club" class so that I would be scored more fairly, but I would miss
> flying with my friends that have non-club qualifying gliders.
>
> On balance, I would keep the classes combined.
>
> > 2) *New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
> > can do well. *But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time,
>
> But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
> if they are flying the best at that contest.
>
> > 3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly ...
>
> The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
> weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
> small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.
>
> > Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
> > playing-field 100%,
>
> Yes the idea IS to level the playing field between different aircraft,
> leaving pilot ability the determining factor. So that the better pilot
> wins.
>
> It is very hard to have any semblance of fairness when the rating
> spread is as wide as a Nimbus 3 against a ASK 14.
>
>
>
> > --Noel
>
> Thanks
> Todd Smith
> 3S


Help me out here. As a prctical matter what are the alternatives?
Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you
look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of
the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir.
If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under
Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly? The Duos
would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL.
There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports,
usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably
they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too
intimidating.

Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes,
pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly
Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low-
performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which
only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more
importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO.

The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing,
but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir
wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding? And
if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a stretch to
me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the
scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders.
You could do it, but I don't think it solves a real-world problem.
Dividing up classes let's you give out one more trophy, but I doubt it
would very often be to someone who would have won if he'd been flying
a newer glider - or if everyone else had been flying one like his.

The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
compete no mattery what ship they fly.

9B

[toad]

On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad > wrote:
>
> > But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
> > if they are flying the best at that contest.
>
> Todd -
>
> This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
> I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
> argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
> for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
> winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
> industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
> like collectible card games where more money can make a big
> difference...
>
> But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
> that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
> do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
> whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.
>
> I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
> - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
> force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
> than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
> competing on a shoestring! :-P

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.

> The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
> comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?


> COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
> you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
> and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If

I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.

> you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
> then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
> can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
> of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
> theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
> Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
> middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
> they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
> doing what it is supposed to do.
>
> Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
> that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
> about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
> ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
> plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
> and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
> stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
> skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?

There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
will improve your score through equipment limits. One design sailboat
classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
$10,000 purchase price.

>
> > The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
> > weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
> > small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.
>
> Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
> changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
> sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
> standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
> only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
> My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
> worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
> Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
> DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
> finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
> end up making the rules as a result?

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. Allowing any glider into the
scoring, (Nimbus vs 1-26) breaks the simple handicap system.

>
> I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
> various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
> you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
> weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
> before handicapped classes).
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel


Todd Smith

[toad]

Oh, you want a practical answer ? Didn't know that ;-) My practical
answer is to leave the system alone :-) I have fun at the
contests. A club class score done "on the side" within sports might
be interesting, but the scorer already has enough work. We don't have
the number of participants to really split the class.


There are 2 conflicting desires here: Inclusiveness vs Fair
scoring

Fair scoring requires limiting the types of glider so that the
handicap spread is small. Inclusiveness would allow any glider in
sports class.

The only real solution will be to double/triple the number of contest
glider pilots in the US. Then we can split the classes and have
enough people. No change to the racing rules will fix that issue.

Todd Smith
3S

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 1:29*pm, toad > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad > wrote:
>
> > > But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
> > > if they are flying the best at that contest.
>
> > Todd -
>
> > This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
> > I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
> > argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
> > for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
> > winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
> > industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
> > like collectible card games where more money can make a big
> > difference...
>
> > But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
> > that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
> > do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
> > whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.
>
> > I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
> > - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
> > force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
> > than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
> > competing on a shoestring! :-P
>
> Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
> want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
> chance of winning in.
>
> Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.
>
> > The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
> > comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is
>
> That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
> to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?
>
> > COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
> > you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
> > and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If
>
> I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
> friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.
>
>
>
>
>
> > you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
> > then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
> > can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
> > of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
> > theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
> > Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
> > middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
> > they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
> > doing what it is supposed to do.
>
> > Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
> > that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
> > about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
> > ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
> > plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
> > and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
> > stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
> > skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?
>
> There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
> will improve your score through equipment limits. *One design sailboat
> classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
> $10,000 purchase price.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
> > > weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
> > > small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.
>
> > Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
> > changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
> > sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
> > standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
> > only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
> > My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
> > worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
> > Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
> > DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
> > finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
> > end up making the rules as a result?
>
> I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
> simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
> scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.
>
>
>
> > I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
> > various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
> > you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
> > weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
> > before handicapped classes).
>
> > Take care,
>
> > --Noel
>
> Todd Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think I could support a system that, as a practical matter,
exclued pilots from being able to compete in a regionals becasue of
the kind of glider thay own. Nimbuses fly in Sports typically because
there is no Open Class offered and they guys who own SparrowHawks and
Russias, well, Sports is all they've got.

In my experience the ships out at the edges of the handicap list only
rarely end up at the top of the scorsheet over the course of a
contest. The guys with high handicaps are likely to be at a big
disadvantage on one or more days and the guys with really low
handicaps generally have trouble beating the field by that much,
between gaggle flying and tasking for the average glider that makes it
hard to break away by a lot on a consistent basis. The only case I can
recall, the Twin Astir this year, Nick did an extraordinary job of
flying. Was it enough to beat KS on the basis of pure piloting? - I
dunno, but I didn't hear a lot of complaining and there were plenty of
races between much more closely matched gliders down the scoresheet
where I'm sure the handicap made the difference in placing.

Honestly, if I got beat in a contest by an ASK-14 it tip my hat to the
pilot - handicap or not. That's gutsy.

9B

[noel.wade]

Todd -

I like your last answer (about practical solutions) and it sounds like
we've got very similar ideas, so I don't want to be antagonistic
here... but a couple of minor bits of "food for thought" for everyone:

> Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
> want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
> chance of winning in.

You talk about this and you talk about One-Design sailboat races.
Have you heard about the World Class Glider competitions or the 1-26
Association? :-)

I also wonder about that budget range... That would include an LS-6 or
an SZD-55, and I think those are pretty competitive machines aren't
they? How about an ASW-20 or an LS-4 or a Discus b/c? And if its
true from the post above about a Twin-Astir and an LS-3 winning
recently, then those are two concrete examples of a glider in the $20k
- $50k budget range that can win under the current system.

> That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
> to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?

The intention is to score the competition as fairly as possible within
reasonable bounds. My point is that at a certain level you just have
to understand that the guy in an ASK-14 is at a disadvantage no matter
what you do - and he can't expect to compete on a serious or high
level with that equipment. A lot of the arguments I hear about the
new handicap class is to "internationalize" it and allow for US Team
selection and all that jazz - that implies competition at a high
level, and I'm just making the point that high-level competition
demands good equipment. I return to my argument that trying to cater
to the minority with the worst equipment will be harmful to the
majority in the long run.

> I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
> simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
> scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.

Right, but there's no way to be inclusive and encourage all
participation and drive up numbers and attract new folks - yet exclude
specific ships or have ultra-complicated handicapping systems that try
to take too many factors into account.

BTW, one minor point: You use the term "fair scoring" several times.
I haven't even competed yet, but I've looked at the handicaps on the
web and they seem reasonably fair to me. My experience with auto-
racing is that the more complicated you make the handicap, the more
factors people point to and whine about being "unfair". It would be
great if we could come up with _perfect_ scoring (I think the better
term for what is desired) that only takes pilot skill into account...
But unfortunately I just don't think its practical.

....Will be interesting to see all of this play out!

Take care,

--Noel

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:49:33 -0700, cornay wrote:

> I encourage everyone to realize that, when considering the matter at
> hand, we realize it does not necessitate an "either/or" conclusion:
> Sports Class and Club Class can coexist. The support of a Club Class
> here in the U.S. is NOT ipso facto the death of Sports Class.
>
Noel, another data point: Club Class is built round lower performance
gliders because, as I understand it, it was dreamt up as a way to let
owners of older gliders compete on a more or less even footing, while
those flying modern aircraft can fly in Standard, 15m Racing, 18m and
Open classes. I don't think cost came into the Club thinking though, of
course typically Club gliders are cheaper.

I don't understand how Sport class is used in the US, but in the UK all
gliders are handicapped so that the national ladder isn't a nonsense.
This handicap has another use too. My club runs a Regionals which is
split into Club and Sport classes on the glider handicap. This is done
precisely to avoid the 1-26 vs Nimbus problem and to make the handicap
setter's task possible. Before you ask, we do indeed have everything from
Libelles to ASH-25s and Nimbus 3s entering the Regionals.


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

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 5:17*pm, wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:29*pm, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad > wrote:
>
> > > > But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
> > > > if they are flying the best at that contest.
>
> > > Todd -
>
> > > This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
> > > I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
> > > argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
> > > for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
> > > winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
> > > industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
> > > like collectible card games where more money can make a big
> > > difference...
>
> > > But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
> > > that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
> > > do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
> > > whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.
>
> > > I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
> > > - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
> > > force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
> > > than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
> > > competing on a shoestring! :-P
>
> > Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
> > want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
> > chance of winning in.
>
> > Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.
>
> > > The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
> > > comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is
>
> > That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
> > to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?
>
> > > COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
> > > you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
> > > and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If
>
> > I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
> > friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.
>
> > > you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
> > > then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
> > > can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
> > > of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
> > > theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
> > > Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
> > > middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
> > > they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
> > > doing what it is supposed to do.
>
> > > Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
> > > that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
> > > about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
> > > ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
> > > plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
> > > and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
> > > stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
> > > skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?
>
> > There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
> > will improve your score through equipment limits. *One design sailboat
> > classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
> > $10,000 purchase price.
>
> > > > The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
> > > > weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
> > > > small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.
>
> > > Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
> > > changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
> > > sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
> > > standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
> > > only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
> > > My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
> > > worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
> > > Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
> > > DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
> > > finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
> > > end up making the rules as a result?
>
> > I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
> > simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
> > scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.
>
> > > I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
> > > various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
> > > you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
> > > weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
> > > before handicapped classes).
>
> > > Take care,
>
> > > --Noel
>
> > Todd Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't think I could support a system that, as a practical matter,
> exclued pilots from being able to compete in a regionals becasue of
> the kind of glider thay own. Nimbuses fly in Sports typically because
> there is no Open Class offered and they guys who own SparrowHawks and
> Russias, well, Sports is all they've got.
>
> In my experience the ships out at the edges of the handicap list only
> rarely end up at the top of the scorsheet over the course of a
> contest. The guys with high handicaps are likely to be at a big
> disadvantage on one or more days and the guys with really low
> handicaps generally have trouble beating the field by that much,
> between gaggle flying and tasking for the average glider that makes it
> hard to break away by a lot on a consistent basis. The only case I can
> recall, the Twin Astir this year, Nick did an extraordinary job of
> flying. Was it enough to beat KS on the basis of pure piloting? - I
> dunno, but I didn't hear a lot of complaining and there were plenty of
> races between much more closely matched gliders down the scoresheet
> where I'm sure the handicap made the difference in placing.
>
> Honestly, if I got beat in a contest by an ASK-14 it tip my hat to the
> pilot - handicap or not. That's gutsy.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We all tipped our hats when Bill Batesole whupped everybody one day a
couple years ago
in his ASK-14. Good lift- not much wind- and he CREAMED us. Then he
fell back when he missed a ridge
gap crossing- Ah Well.
I took a quick look at what was flown in the last 12 Sports Nats.
Roughly 40% of the gliders competing were in the currently
contemplated group set by the USTC for "club class" team selection. 5
contests were won by club class gliders, 2 by long wingers (Duos) ,4
by current production ships(ASW-27(2) and LS-8(2), and 1 by a Foka.
It should also be noted that the rules specifically call for tasking
which is set based on the performance range of the "club" ships. The
low performance and high performance guys gotta take their chances.
FWIW
UH

[Brad[_2_]]

> We all tipped our hats when Bill Batesole whupped everybody one day a
> couple years ago
> in his ASK-14. Good lift- not much wind- and he CREAMED us. Then he
> fell back when he missed a ridge

This is where handicapping offers no help at all to a pilot flying a
"low" performance glider. I regulary fly XC competativley with my
friends out of AWO. I am flying a 13m Apis and everyone else is in 15m
or bigger span ships. I do pretty well but do find my tactics are very
different to keep me from driving myself into some farmers field when
long glides are required or the Q and ridges are spaced just of of
reach.

Somedays there is just no way I am willing to push the extra bit, but
I am sure I could be succesful if I was flying a longer span ship.

That being said, regardless of handicaps and such, I doubt I would be
inclined to shell out a bunch of money to buy an approved logger and
what ever else is required, then spend more money on entry fees etc
when I can fly with my local buddies and have a great time.

Bet I am not alone in this.

Brad

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 4:11 pm, wrote:

> Help me out here. As a pr[a]ctical matter what are the alternatives?
> Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you
> look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of
> the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir.
> If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under
> Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly?

Non qualified Club Class gliders would still compete in Sports Class--
nothing changes.
Remember, this doesn't have to be an "either/or" scenario.

> The Duos would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL.

"Open" Class = open to *any* glider.
Non-Club gliders are always "qualified" for Sports Class.

> There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports,
> usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably
> they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too
> intimidating.

No, they could still participate in Sports Class.

> Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes,
> pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly
> Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low-
> performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which
> only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more
> importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO.

Having to task a Sports Class event is a function of the performance
capability of the lowest performing glider, no matter what the highest
performing glider is and regardless of how many gliders are in
between.

Splits the field/less fun: Having to fly to the back of the TP area
on short tasks every day, no matter what, because the limitations of a
1-26/L-13/Twin Astir entrant must be considered in tasking all but
erases all else's enroute strategy options--now that's no fun.

> The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing,
> but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir
> wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding?

Because a Twin Astir is not a WGC Club Class designated glider. If
the U.S. intends to send a Club Class team over to compete on the
world stage, why should not we chose that team from a process using
Club Class gliders under Club Class rules? Does it make any sense to
pick a dirt track champion to race F-1 in the Monaco Grand Prix?

> And if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a stretch to
> me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the
> scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders.

Not "either/or"...Not "either/or""...Not "either/or""...Not "either/
or""...Not "either/or"…

A Sports winner and a Club winner. Different tasking, competing
simultaneously.
-The new guys can do Sports.
-The older guys wanting shorter tasks can do Sports.
-The guy who wants to give rides can do Sports.
-The guy in the hot ship can do Sports (though I really don’t think
that was the intent).
-The guy flying a kite can do Sports.
However,
-Those flying Club Class designated gliders who want to compete flying
more challenging courses against like aircraft (thus inducing a small
spread in handicap range) thereby making it a function of less the
plane and more the pilot, can--*and want*--to do Club Class.

Holding a Club Class race within a Sports Class event takes nothing
away from the Sports Class participants. On the other hand, forcing
Club Class gliders to the U.S. Sports Class intentions does, under
certain circumstances, take away from WGC Club Class intentions.

> The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
> its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
> compete no matter[y] what ship they fly.

Granted. But I don't see how allowing those wishing to compete as a
Club Class takes anything away from Sports Class any more so than,
say. World Class or the 1-26 Ass'n takes away from Sports Class.

HIgh Thermals,

Ray Cornay
LS-4 RD

[Sam Giltner[_1_]]

That says it all. Thanks Ray. Sam




At 00:29 24 September 2008, wrote:
>
>On Sep 23, 4:11 pm, wrote:
>
>> Help me out here. As a pr[a]ctical matter what are the alternatives?
>> Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you
>> look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of
>> the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir.
>> If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under
>> Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly?
>
>Non qualified Club Class gliders would still compete in Sports Class--
>nothing changes.
>Remember, this doesn't have to be an "either/or" scenario.
>
>> The Duos would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be
>SO=
>L.
>
>"Open" Class =3D open to *any* glider.
>Non-Club gliders are always "qualified" for Sports Class.
>
>> There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports,
>> usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably
>> they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too
>> intimidating.
>
>No, they could still participate in Sports Class.
>
>> Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes,
>> pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly
>> Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low-
>> performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which
>> only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more
>> importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO.
>
>Having to task a Sports Class event is a function of the performance
>capability of the lowest performing glider, no matter what the highest
>performing glider is and regardless of how many gliders are in
>between.
>
>Splits the field/less fun: Having to fly to the back of the TP area
>on short tasks every day, no matter what, because the limitations of a
>1-26/L-13/Twin Astir entrant must be considered in tasking all but
>erases all else's enroute strategy options--now that's no fun.
>
>> The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing,
>> but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir
>> wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding?
>
>Because a Twin Astir is not a WGC Club Class designated glider. If
>the U.S. intends to send a Club Class team over to compete on the
>world stage, why should not we chose that team from a process using
>Club Class gliders under Club Class rules? Does it make any sense to
>pick a dirt track champion to race F-1 in the Monaco Grand Prix?
>
>> And if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a
stretch
>t=
>o
>> me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the
>> scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders.
>
>Not "either/or"...Not "either/or""...Not "either/or""...Not
"either/
>or""...Not "either/or"=85
>
>A Sports winner and a Club winner. Different tasking, competing
>simultaneously.
>-The new guys can do Sports.
>-The older guys wanting shorter tasks can do Sports.
>-The guy who wants to give rides can do Sports.
>-The guy in the hot ship can do Sports (though I really don=92t think
>that was the intent).
>-The guy flying a kite can do Sports.
>However,
>-Those flying Club Class designated gliders who want to compete flying
>more challenging courses against like aircraft (thus inducing a small
>spread in handicap range) thereby making it a function of less the
>plane and more the pilot, can--*and want*--to do Club Class.
>
>Holding a Club Class race within a Sports Class event takes nothing
>away from the Sports Class participants. On the other hand, forcing
>Club Class gliders to the U.S. Sports Class intentions does, under
>certain circumstances, take away from WGC Club Class intentions.
>
>> The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
>> its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
>> compete no matter[y] what ship they fly.
>
>Granted. But I don't see how allowing those wishing to compete as a
>Club Class takes anything away from Sports Class any more so than,
>say. World Class or the 1-26 Ass'n takes away from Sports Class.
>
>HIgh Thermals,
>
>Ray Cornay
>LS-4 RD
>
>
>

[toad]

On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Todd -
>
> I like your last answer (about practical solutions) and it sounds like
> we've got very similar ideas, so I don't want to be antagonistic
> here... but a couple of minor bits of "food for thought" for everyone:
>
> > Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
> > want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
> > chance of winning in.
>
> You talk about this and you talk about One-Design sailboat races.
> Have you heard about the World Class Glider competitions or the 1-26
> Association? *:-)
>
> I also wonder about that budget range... That would include an LS-6 or
> an SZD-55, and I think those are pretty competitive machines aren't
> they? *How about an ASW-20 or an LS-4 or a Discus b/c? *And if its
> true from the post above about a Twin-Astir and an LS-3 winning
> recently, then those are two concrete examples of a glider in the $20k
> - $50k budget range that can win under the current system.
>
> > That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
> > to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?
>
> The intention is to score the competition as fairly as possible within
> reasonable bounds. *My point is that at a certain level you just have
> to understand that the guy in an ASK-14 is at a disadvantage no matter
> what you do - and he can't expect to compete on a serious or high
> level with that equipment. *A lot of the arguments I hear about the
> new handicap class is to "internationalize" it and allow for US Team
> selection and all that jazz - that implies competition at a high
> level, and I'm just making the point that high-level competition
> demands good equipment. *I return to my argument that trying to cater
> to the minority with the worst equipment will be harmful to the
> majority in the long run.
>
> > I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
> > simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
> > scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.
>
> Right, but there's no way to be inclusive and encourage all
> participation and drive up numbers and attract new folks - yet exclude
> specific ships or have ultra-complicated handicapping systems that try
> to take too many factors into account.
>
> BTW, one minor point: *You use the term "fair scoring" several times.
> I haven't even competed yet, but I've looked at the handicaps on the
> web and they seem reasonably fair to me. *My experience with auto-
> racing is that the more complicated you make the handicap, the more
> factors people point to and whine about being "unfair". *It would be
> great if we could come up with _perfect_ scoring (I think the better
> term for what is desired) that only takes pilot skill into account...
> But unfortunately I just don't think its practical.
>
> ...Will be interesting to see all of this play out!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

Noel,

I seem to not be explaining myself well about the handicap system that
I want. I want a simple 1 number system like we currently use. But
that only works well when the handicap range is small. That's why I
would like the club class. I also would like the club class so that
the tasking could be set at the same level of difficulty as the
standard / 15m / etc classes. Currently sports rules specify easier
tasking than the other "big boy" classes.

I just recognize that we don't have the numbers to have both the
sports and the club class.

And there is a "perfect" scoring system. Have everybody fly the same
glider :-) No handicaps needed. Please do a groups.google.com
search on this group to see why the current world class didn't work
out so well the last time. Please do not discuss this in this
thread. Do the search, you'll see why.


Todd
3S

[[email protected]]

On Sep 23, 5:29*pm, wrote:
> On Sep 23, 4:11 pm, wrote:

>
> Non qualified Club Class gliders would still compete in Sports Class--
> nothing changes.
> Remember, this doesn't have to be an "either/or" scenario.
>
> > The Duos would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL.
>
> "Open" Class = open to *any* glider.
> Non-Club gliders are always "qualified" for Sports Class.
>
Only if you do both Club and Sports - which will be a numbers problem
in many regionals
>
> Having to task a Sports Class event is a function of the performance
> capability of the lowest performing glider, no matter what the highest
> performing glider is and regardless of how many gliders are in
> between.

That's why Sports Class is all TAT and MAT tasks so everyone can fly
the same task irrespective of performance. With 11 turnpoints and 30
mile radii this should never be a problem. Maybe we need to train CDs
better.

> Splits the field/less fun: *Having to fly to the back of the TP area
> on short tasks every day, no matter what, because the limitations of a
> 1-26/L-13/Twin Astir entrant must be considered in tasking all but
> erases all else's enroute strategy options--now that's no fun.

I understand your point but disagree that this is an issue unless the
CD is indifferent to the issue. The 2005 Parowan Sports Nationals has
a Nimbus 4, a Nimbus 3, a PW-6 and a Russia. The Regionals in 2004,
2007 and 2008 had similar mixes. The guys flying the low performance
gliders got around pretty much every day but also knew they were going
to be both challenged and at a disadvantage. Again, under Sports
Class rules all the tasks are TAT/MAT so with the right tasking this
should never be a problem. If you can make it work in the west you can
make it work anywhere. Also, under your suggestion, the Nimbus 4 and
Russia are still in Sports class together, so it doesn't seem like
you've improved things for the guys who will feel it the most.

>
> Because a Twin Astir is not a WGC Club Class designated glider. *If
> the U.S. intends to send a Club Class team over to compete on the
> world stage, why should not we chose that team from a process using
> Club Class gliders under Club Class rules? *Does it make any sense to
> pick a dirt track champion to race F-1 in the Monaco Grand Prix?

I think the facts belie this argument. Just look at the 2005 Sports
Nationals by way of example. It was not oversubscribed, yet less than
a dozen of the 48 competitors flew club class ships. You have to go
down to 15th place to fill out the podium for Club Class - I'm not
sure that's the best way to pick a world team member. Honestly I don't
think the piloting skills to make and ASW-20 go fast are closer to
those needed for a Libelle than for an ASW-27 - probably the opposite.
So, there's no point in excluding top pilots from consideration for
the team in club class just because they don't have access to an older
generation ship.

The issue is that outside the US clubs have lots of current-1 and -2
generation ships that are available to fly and race and so the class
is well filled out and competitive. That's not as true in the US, so
Club Class is more a function of private owners who race those ships
and the numbers are much smaller. I think splitting Club and Sports
and trying to run both will lead to a less competitive club class team
selection and a less robust sports class.

>
> Not "either/or"...Not "either/or""...Not "either/or""...Not "either/
> or""...Not "either/or"…

I understand - re-read my last post. I covered both the scenario where
you did Club instead of Sports as well as the scenario where you did
Club in addition to Sports.

> A Sports winner and a Club winner. *Different tasking, *competing
> simultaneously.
> -The new guys can do Sports.
> -The older guys wanting shorter tasks can do Sports.
> -The guy who wants to give rides can do Sports.
> -The guy in the hot ship can do Sports (though I really don’t think
> that was the intent).
> The guy flying a kite can do Sports.

You just argued for 75-85% of the guys currently flying Sports to keep
flying Sports. This means a small Club Class at most contests and
potentially more gaming by guys who want to fish for a trophy by
flying in the class with 4 gliders in it. You already see some of this
in 15M vs 18M class.

> However,
> -Those flying Club Class designated gliders who want to compete flying
> more challenging courses against like aircraft (thus inducing a small
> spread in handicap range) thereby making it a function of less the
> plane and more the pilot, can--*and want*--to do Club Class.

I just don't agree. The guys with the extreme high and low handicaps
aren't typically high on the scoresheet, so what we're talking about
here is should an ASW-27 be permitted to fly against an ASW-20. Go
fly against Rick Culbertson in his -20 and you'll see that the pilot
matters a lot more than you might think - even without a handicap. One
thing I could see is encouraging pilots in current generation gliders
with seeding points above, say 80, to fly in an FAI class.

>
> Holding a Club Class race within a Sports Class event takes nothing
> away from the Sports Class participants. *On the other hand, forcing
> Club Class gliders to the U.S. Sports Class intentions does, under
> certain circumstances, take away from WGC Club Class intentions.

Again, I don't really agree. I think the main point is to try to get a
full field of competitors. Splitting up a field of 10 Sports class
competitors in a typical regionals into 4 Club Class and 6 Sports
Class just means than all but one Club Class pilots make the podium.
Good if your objective is to get a medal, but bad if you want to
determine who the best pilot is.

>
> > The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
> > its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
> > compete no matter[y] what ship they fly.
>
> Granted. *But I don't see how allowing those wishing to compete as a
> Club Class takes anything away from Sports Class any more so than,
> say. World Class or the 1-26 Ass'n takes away from Sports Class.

It only takes away by driving the number of competitors in a class
down by 50% on average. I think a good exercise would be to go back
through all the sports class scoresheets for the last couple of years
and divide them into club class qualified and the remainder, just to
see what we get in terms of numbers and what it would have meant for
seeding points. My guess it that the guys flying club class gliders
will see their points go up on average, not because of handicaps, but
because of less competition.

My 2 cents.

9B

[Mike the Strike]

9B said:

> The issue is that outside the US clubs have lots of current-1 and -2
> generation ships that are available to fly and race and so the class
> is well filled out and competitive. That's not as true in the US, so
> Club Class is more a function of private owners who race those ships
> and the numbers are much smaller. I think splitting Club and Sports
> and trying to run both will lead to a less competitive club class team
> selection and a less robust sports class.


I'm surprised it took so long for someone to make this excellent point
- thanks Andy!

Gliding is much more a club-based activity in Europe and the rest of
the world than it is in the USA, where it tends to be more of an
individual sport. Here, a pilot is more likely to fly his own ship at
a commercial FBO than fly a club ship at a private gliderport. With a
much smaller number of truly club-class ships, I doubt that club class
will ever be really viable in the USA.

As weatherman, I also helped the Task Committee at this year's Region
9 in Parowan. Sports Class was extremely diverse, with everything
from an ultralight Sparrowhawk to a Duo Discus. Nevertheless, the
Committee managed to set tasks that challenged every one of the
competitors. I heard no complaints about tasks being either too easy
or too difficult.

I have personally learned a lot by flying tasks with pilots who are
far better than I am. I'll never catch them, of course, - I'm just
not good enough - but I have improved my cross-country techniques and
speeds by watching them and analyzing their flight logs. Anyone can
do this, whatever they fly.

Finally, give the scorer a break! It's a hard and thankless task
without introducing yet another variable.

Mike

[noel.wade]

Todd - I was being sarcastic about "one-design" classes. I bought a
Russia AC-4 before I bought my DG-300, so I know the story of the
World Class all too well.

....And as a separate comment about this thread - It really sounds like
the people here arguing for a second handicap class all have the same
underlying desire: They want a handicapped class, but one that only
includes SOME gliders - the ones they think are most fair to compete
against each other and the ones they think are already close in
performance.

(*with my tongue fimly planted in my cheek for the next few
statements*)
Wow, what would these same people think about something as "crazy" as
the Standard Class! Imagine, a Discus2 going up against an LS-10!
With NO handicap! Boy, that Discus sure is at a big disadvantage (2%
or 5%) under specific circumstances - Hell, that's a "1.05"
handicap! They ought to do something about that... Its a travesty!

Also, If we really wanted a "Club Class" in the USA that was
representative of most Club fleets, we'd see an AWFUL lot of G-102s,
Schweizer metal birds, and Blaniks or Twin Astirs... Maybe a Junior,
for the "high dollar" folks! Anyone with a glider produced after the
mid 1970's would be disqualified! And how long would it take for
people to start complaining about how that 1-26 or 1-36 can't be
handicapped well-enough to compare with that Astir or Junior on a
windy or strong-lift day? After all, the G-102 and Junior have much
better penetration and handicapping alone can't account for the
differences in their polars under various conditions!

*sigh*
--Noel

[John Smith]

noel.wade wrote:

> After all, the G-102 and Junior have much
> better penetration and handicapping alone can't account for the
> differences in their polars under various conditions!

How about a dynamic handicap? Using the logger files, you could evaluate
not only the wind profile, but also the strenght and diameter of
thermals and their separation, cloud base, etc. etc. and apply not a
handicap number, but rather a handycap matrix which is fair for all
gliders in all conditions. And don't forget to define a pilot factor as
well, otherwise the experienced ones would have an unfair advantage!

You know that you have your parameters and the formula correct when,
after normalizing the results, everybody gets 1000 points.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 19:47 23 September 2008, noel.wade wrote:

>Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: Do you really think
>that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? What
>about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
>ball? Does the handicap take that into account? No!

Actually, I think it *does* for bowling and golf. The handicap in both
cases is based on the prior performance record of the individual
competitor; if he's working with better equipment, that will show up as
better performance. Hard for me to see how the same approach could work
in racing gliders, but then again I know almost nothing about competition
- my very limited racing has been confined mostly to 1-26s. I *was* part
of a bowling team at work for a couple of years, though. Mostly we just
went bowling to drink beer and tell jokes. I've seen a lot of that going
on at glider contests, too.

Jim Beckman

[Tim[_2_]]

Just to throw my 2 cents into this debate...

I come at this as a former US Club Class Team member who owns a club
class glider and loves the club class concept BUT one that has put
himself on the "Black List" of pilots banned from competing in Club
Class due to flying another WGC in a non-club, world, junior class. I
would definitely fly a Club Class event here in the US rather than a
Sports Class event at any level - it is fairer! Even more so at a Club
Class Nationals if I could get back on the team ;-(

Getting a US Club Class Nationals (integrated with US Sports Nats
which I support as a 1st step to possible independence of the class)
will allow people who fly club class ships the opportunity for fairer
racing amongst a smaller range of handicapped ships AND allow for
flying Assigned Tasks (AT's) like the rest of the classes here in the
US get to fly. Flying AT's is fun and really lets you measure your
skills on a fixed course on any particular day against the best pilots
who fly. I know that there are those who would ban all AT-type tasks
in the interest of safety, but they are fun AND the Club Class around
the world lets older gliders fly AT's whereas our Sports Class makes
this fairly impossible or extremely unfair to the "lower" performance
ships.

Getting to the Team topoic, one thing I beleive our club class team
members are missing from their experience when they go to Club Class
Worlds is that, coming out of the US Sports Class, many of them HAVE
NEVER FLOWN an Assigned Task in a club class ship in their qualifiying
for the team. And if they are a Sports Class only competitior having
flown contests only in Sports Class, they will NEVER have flown an AT
until they get sent on a 500km AT in the mountains of France with
thunderstorms likely (as was done in France 2006).

Getting competitive pilots on the US Club Class Team requires having
practice and experience at Club Class racing prior to getting
overseas. The only way this works is to enable Club Class pilots to be
better developed here at home. How we do this is to provide for Club
Class contests here at home. Whether or not they are integrated with
other classes at the national level or as a stand alone nationals is
irrelevant. The need for the class both to better develop our team
members AND to provide for better and fairer racing for all who wish
to should be the end goal here.

One additional thing that never gets said in this debate is that the
Ruels Committeee has no way of knowing what non-competition pilots
would be spurred into club class flying if the Club Class was added
tot he list of competing classes. If they send the SRA poll to
existent contest pilots only and you ask to add another class... well
then off course you are going to perceiving a further fracturing of
the currently existing base of contest pilots.

The question that needs to be asked and has never been fairly
addressed by the SRA poll is the following: If you are a glider pilot
having access to or flying a club class-type glider and do not
currently compete: Would the addition of Club Class events at the
regional and national level encourage you to get racing?

Get me a meaningful answer to that question and we may see that adding
Club Class may, in fact, expand the base of contest pilots and then
everyone wins. We just dont know and fears of "further dividing up"
the existing contest pilot population are unfounded until we get that
answer.

Tim McAllister EY

[MickiMinner]

>
> Also, If we really wanted a "Club Class" in the USA that was
> representative of most Club fleets, we'd see an AWFUL lot of G-102s,
> Schweizer metal birds, and Blaniks or Twin Astirs... *Maybe a Junior,
> for the "high dollar" folks! *Anyone with a glider produced after the
> mid 1970's would be disqualified! *>
> *sigh*
> --Noel


Does anyone remember that the region 9 (which had standard, sports,
15m and 18m classes) in Parowan, the Sports Class winner was a Grob
Twin Astir? That ship needed so much work done and was so old, that
it was a "family joke" among the region 9 pilots. However, that was
the same pilot (Nick Kennedy) that was standing on the winning podium
every single day of the 7 day contest.

I have to tell you too, that the Sparrowhawk also won a day or two.
Of course, I did have to make a joke, and give the pilot of the
Sprarrowhawk (Bill Thar) a D-cell battery as a prize. Mike the Strike
was right, the tasking was different, however, I also had another
pilot at the 2008 parowan contest that had NEVER flown in a contest
before mentioning (after his gut wrenching screams, of I DID IT...I
DID IT) that he learned more in one week of a contest, than a year of
flying at the club. He flew an older ship (Ventus, but most of his
flying was in a Zuni II). If a contest is aware of the ships that
have entered, it can be fun, exciting, and a learning experience, no
matter what type of ship you are flying. Also, a lot of people forget
that contests are not just for winning trophies...they are training,
learning, and challenging yourself.

Just my 2cents.
micki

[[email protected]]

On Sep 24, 1:00*am, John Smith > wrote:
> noel.wade wrote:
> > After all, the G-102 and Junior have much
> > better penetration and handicapping alone can't account for the
> > differences in their polars under various conditions!
>
> How about a dynamic handicap? Using the logger files, you could evaluate
> not only the wind profile, but also the strenght and diameter of
> thermals and their separation, cloud base, etc. etc. and apply not a
> handicap number, but rather a handycap matrix which is fair for all
> gliders in all conditions. And don't forget to define a pilot factor as
> well, otherwise the experienced ones would have an unfair advantage!
>
> You know that you have your parameters and the formula correct when,
> after normalizing the results, everybody gets 1000 points.

Interesting.

I thought about this idea a bit a couple of years back. I think it
would be possible to come up with something analytically on the basis
of pilot seeding, average climb strength, average altitude, wind and
maybe some task-specific attributes. You do have to be able to
separate out pilot skill from sailplane performance when you do it and
I suspect there is some autocorrelation between the two. Something
simpler might be increasing the spread in handicaps as task distance
increases, since task distance is a decent indicator for a lot of the
other factors you'd want to consider (except wind).

The problem, and the reason I dismissed the idea, is that it is
cumbersome, would potentially lead to a lot of arguing about how each
day gets measured and further obfuscates the scoring process -- not to
mention the burden on the scorer.

The other problem is that one of the issues for very low performance
ships in particular is the risk of outlanding - which goes up as the
tasks get more challenging. Because you are adjusting handicaps on the
basis of long-term averages, you would likely see lots of points
lavished on the pilots in low-performing ships just for getting around
the course on challenging days. As a consequence you could end up with
a handicap system that pushes pilots in low-performing ships to the
top of the scoresheet in the, say, 2 out of 5 contests where they can
get around the course every day, but finds them at the bottom of the
scoresheet in the contests where they have a landout. On average they
are in the middle, but they end up winning a disproportionate share of
contests. BB wrote a very interesting article on this in terms of
overall contest strategy irrespective of handicaps. The current
handicap system has a bit of this built in already - increasing the
spreads might make it worse rather than better.

The conclusion I came to is that the current system works well enough
for most Std and 15M ship of late-70s vintage on up. The Sports Class
is and should be optimized around a typical mid-80s 15M and Std
gliders (basically, Club Class, that is). If you want to fly
something outside these parameters you need to accept the fact that
the scoring system can't totally level the playing field for you, but
in the end you probably aren't expecting to be on the podium - and
that's okay. At least you still get to fly with everybody else and
learn about racing. I have a slightly different view on 2-seaters, but
that's a topic for a whole different thread.

The idea of restricting team selection to people flying Club Class
gliders only I think is a red herring because the scoring system and
contest rules are optimized around these gliders already so the odds
that someone flying an ASK-14 is going to get on the US team is
impossibly low (if they did they'd have earned it). The arguments
about low performing gliders dragging the tasking down should be
resolved through better training of CDs on how to call tasks and in
particular by realizing that you can't optimize task calling for the
lowest common denominator - that's not the main purpose of Sports
Class. If someone wants to fly a 2-33 in a Regionals they better have
a big crew and a trailer ready to go.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Sep 24, 11:49*am, Tim > wrote:
> Just to throw my 2 cents into this debate...
>
> I come at this as a former US Club Class Team member who owns a club
> class glider and loves the club class concept BUT one that has put
> himself on the "Black List" of pilots banned from competing in Club
> Class due to flying another WGC in a non-club, world, junior class. I
> would definitely fly a Club Class event here in the US rather than a
> Sports Class event at any level - it is fairer! Even more so at a Club
> Class Nationals if I could get back on the team ;-(
>
> Getting a US Club Class Nationals (integrated with US Sports Nats
> which I support as a 1st step to possible independence of the class)
> will allow people who fly club class ships the opportunity for fairer
> racing amongst a smaller range of handicapped ships AND allow for
> flying Assigned Tasks (AT's) like the rest of the classes here in the
> US get to fly. Flying AT's is fun and really lets you measure your
> skills on a fixed course on any particular day against the best pilots
> who fly. I know that there are those who would ban all AT-type tasks
> in the interest of safety, but they are fun AND the Club Class around
> the world lets older gliders fly AT's whereas our Sports Class makes
> this fairly impossible or extremely unfair to the "lower" performance
> ships.
>
> Getting to the Team topoic, one thing I beleive our club class team
> members are missing from their experience when they go to Club Class
> Worlds is that, coming out of the US Sports Class, many of them HAVE
> NEVER FLOWN an Assigned Task in a club class ship in their qualifiying
> for the team. And if they are a Sports Class only competitior having
> flown contests only in Sports Class, they will NEVER have flown an AT
> until they get sent on a 500km AT in the mountains of France with
> thunderstorms likely (as was done in France 2006).
>
> Getting competitive pilots on the US Club Class Team requires having
> practice and experience at Club Class racing prior to getting
> overseas. The only way this works is to enable Club Class pilots to be
> better developed here at home. How we do this is to provide for Club
> Class contests here at home. Whether or not they are integrated with
> other classes at the national level or as a stand alone nationals is
> irrelevant. *The need for the class both to better develop our team
> members AND to provide for better and fairer racing for all who wish
> to should be the end goal here.
>
> One additional thing that never gets said in this debate is that the
> Ruels Committeee has no way of knowing what non-competition pilots
> would be spurred into club class flying if the Club Class was added
> tot he list of competing classes. If they send the SRA poll to
> existent contest pilots only and you ask to add another class... well
> then off course you are going to perceiving a further fracturing of
> the currently existing base of contest pilots.
>
> The question that needs to be asked and has never been fairly
> addressed by the SRA poll is the following: If you are a glider pilot
> having access to or flying a club class-type glider and do not
> currently compete: Would the addition of Club Class events at the
> regional and national level encourage you to get racing?
>
> Get me a meaningful answer to that question and we may see that adding
> Club Class may, in fact, expand the base of contest pilots and then
> everyone wins. We just dont know and fears of "further dividing up"
> the existing contest pilot population are unfounded until we get that
> answer.
>
> Tim McAllister EY

Tim makes some excellent points.
It should be noted, however, that the same discrimination against
previous US team members(other than Club) being on the Club team,
helped open the door for Tim, and some others, to get to go to the
"Big Show". This policy may not put the best pilots in the US on the
team, but it does provide a way to develop new talent. Sadly, mot
enough pilots seem to be aware, or interested, in this opportunity.
AST experience. I don't know of any Club team member who has not had
AST experience. It is true that a pilot coming up only in Sports could
end up in this situation in the future. I know Tim had it because I
watched him fly his Libelle against current technology ships and get
his a** handed to him. He smiled all the way, had fun, and learned a
lot.
Tim's point about about the question of who isn't coming now and would
if we had an active Club class is a good one which was on the poll
draft list at one time and not used. Clearly this is a key point. The
single largest driving force for creating another class is if it will
increase participation enough to justify the offsetting negatives.
If you are a pilot who would fall into this catagory, we would like to
hear from you, so please ring in at on this.
I'll report back later on what I hear.
Thanks for ringing in Tim.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Sep 24, 8:49*am, Tim > wrote:
> Just to throw my 2 cents into this debate...
>
> I come at this as a former US Club Class Team member who owns a club
> class glider and loves the club class concept BUT one that has put
> himself on the "Black List" of pilots banned from competing in Club
> Class due to flying another WGC in a non-club, world, junior class. I
> would definitely fly a Club Class event here in the US rather than a
> Sports Class event at any level - it is fairer! Even more so at a Club
> Class Nationals if I could get back on the team ;-(
>
> Getting a US Club Class Nationals (integrated with US Sports Nats
> which I support as a 1st step to possible independence of the class)
> will allow people who fly club class ships the opportunity for fairer
> racing amongst a smaller range of handicapped ships AND allow for
> flying Assigned Tasks (AT's) like the rest of the classes here in the
> US get to fly. Flying AT's is fun and really lets you measure your
> skills on a fixed course on any particular day against the best pilots
> who fly. I know that there are those who would ban all AT-type tasks
> in the interest of safety, but they are fun AND the Club Class around
> the world lets older gliders fly AT's whereas our Sports Class makes
> this fairly impossible or extremely unfair to the "lower" performance
> ships.
>
> Getting to the Team topoic, one thing I beleive our club class team
> members are missing from their experience when they go to Club Class
> Worlds is that, coming out of the US Sports Class, many of them HAVE
> NEVER FLOWN an Assigned Task in a club class ship in their qualifiying
> for the team. And if they are a Sports Class only competitior having
> flown contests only in Sports Class, they will NEVER have flown an AT
> until they get sent on a 500km AT in the mountains of France with
> thunderstorms likely (as was done in France 2006).
>
> Getting competitive pilots on the US Club Class Team requires having
> practice and experience at Club Class racing prior to getting
> overseas. The only way this works is to enable Club Class pilots to be
> better developed here at home. How we do this is to provide for Club
> Class contests here at home. Whether or not they are integrated with
> other classes at the national level or as a stand alone nationals is
> irrelevant. *The need for the class both to better develop our team
> members AND to provide for better and fairer racing for all who wish
> to should be the end goal here.
>
> One additional thing that never gets said in this debate is that the
> Ruels Committeee has no way of knowing what non-competition pilots
> would be spurred into club class flying if the Club Class was added
> tot he list of competing classes. If they send the SRA poll to
> existent contest pilots only and you ask to add another class... well
> then off course you are going to perceiving a further fracturing of
> the currently existing base of contest pilots.
>
> The question that needs to be asked and has never been fairly
> addressed by the SRA poll is the following: If you are a glider pilot
> having access to or flying a club class-type glider and do not
> currently compete: Would the addition of Club Class events at the
> regional and national level encourage you to get racing?
>
> Get me a meaningful answer to that question and we may see that adding
> Club Class may, in fact, expand the base of contest pilots and then
> everyone wins. We just dont know and fears of "further dividing up"
> the existing contest pilot population are unfounded until we get that
> answer.
>
> Tim McAllister EY

You've been on the team so your view automatically gets my attention
Tim.

One way to test most of your ideas would be to at least do a separate
scoring for Club Class ships within the next Sports Nationals - it
wouldn't take any rules changes to do it and you could even give out a
Joe Giltner-type award for the Club Class "winner". It wouldn't give
the AST experience you're looking for, but call a few MATs with more
than a couple of assigned turnpoints and you'll get most of the
effect. I find the AST the easiest to fly - dodging weather not
withstanding - but I grew up in racing with only ASTs so I'm used to
it. Back then just navigating the course was often my biggest
challenge. :-)

I still think at the regional level you are going to divide up the
classes too much and that overall Sports Class is a better solution to
the challenges facing soaring competition in the US, as well as for
picking US team members.

9B

[Brian[_1_]]

<snip>
> Noel,
>
> I seem to not be explaining myself well about the handicap system that
> I want. * I want a simple 1 number system like we currently use. *But
> that only works well when the handicap range is small. *That's why I
<snip>
> Todd
> 3S

Todd that is effectively what we have with the sports class and is
probably the way it should be in my opinion.
The high performing ships that really outclass the majority tend to
have very low handicap numbers that tend to make them difficult to be
competitive in most sport class competitions. The really low
performance ships are hard to be competitive in simply because it can
be difficult to consisitantly complete the tasks. So usually the only
reason low performance and really high performance ships compete in
sport class is becuase there isn't a better place for them to compete.
The real racing occures in the middle somewhere.

Just my opinion.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
HP16T N16VP.

[noel.wade]

On Sep 24, 3:22*pm, wrote:

> I still think at the regional level you are going to divide up the
> classes too much and that overall Sports Class is a better solution to
> the challenges facing soaring competition in the US, as well as for
> picking US team members.

As a newcomer (who thinks international competiton is cool but
realizes that it is highly unlikely that I'll do it), I couldn't agree
more with 9B's comments.

The US Team comprises such a small percentage of the glider-pilots in
the USA. Its a point of pride to have top finishers at the
International competiton; but I don't want to see my Regionals suffer
just so a a couple of different names get to go overseas once every
year or two.

And the issue of participation goes beyond the "number of entrants per
class" issue. It also speaks to the QUALITY of the pilots I fly
against... If they're scattered between too many classes then I'm not
really getting a chance to fly against the best, am I?

--Noel