US Club Class Participation

[[email protected]]

In a couple earlier threads related to a proposed Club class, I asked
pilots who
don't compete now, but would if we created a Club class, to reply
either on line or to me as RC chair. I indicated I would report the
result.
The response, surprisingly, was no replys.
The element we are looking for is how much increased participation
could come about if we create a seperate class.
So- I'll ask again, maybe in a slightly different way:
1) If you are not currently competing, would the creation of a Club
class bring you in to participation.
2) If you currently compete, or used to compete, would you acquire a
glider to participate in this new class?

If you don't like the wording of my questions, feel free to answer in
your own way.
The key element we are trying to quantify is how development of
another class will increase participation. We already know that some
pilots who own gliders in the Club handicap range would participate.
They affect entry activity as a net zero.

Thanks for your input.

Note: This is an informal poll pole by the RC Chair

H Nixon UH

[noel.wade]

I've been involved in some of these earlier threads, but let me try to
directly respond in a concise manner:

(I am a 200hr Private Pilot with 100 hours in Gliders, and as the
relatively new owner of an early DG-300)

1) No. I already planned to enter the Sports Class in 2009. It seems
like a pretty good avenue for getting started in competition: No
ballast, run-what-ya-brung, simple (non-approved) GPS/loggers allowed,
etc. I am not familiar with all of the complications and restrictions
that a Club Class would bring, but as a newcomer to competition I want
the _fewest_ number of rules/equipment complications so that I can
concentrate on the race schedule and learning how to fly race tasks.

2) Have not competed yet.

Thanks,

--Noel

[[email protected]]

The population you are looking for consists of pilots who could fly
Sports (or an FAI class) now and choose not to, but who would enter
Club Class if offered.

If there is any such population, it is probably very small. I have
never met a soaring pilot who gave any evidence of thinking along
those lines. Usually, for those interested in racing but not
competing, it's a entry barrier problem. Equipment ($$), skill set,
confidence, time. Sports has lower entry barriers than Club, so
addition of Club doesn't change this.

-T8

[[email protected]]

Hello Hank,

I haven't followed this at all, but here are some thoughts:

If the class was a narrow performance spread such as Libelle though
early Discus - no flaps, no winglets, no extra fairings, no water, all
handicapped, it might appeal to a large group.

The performance is enough alike that the tasks would be flown in
gaggles of very similar performing gliders. Pilots like flying
together.

The current Sports Class favors high wing loading, small fuselage,
modern gliders - no way around it, so it dissuades many from
attending. Still, Sports Class is very popular in certain venues such
as The Seniors, possibly because of the friendly, low-key social
nature.

Sports Class contests could be encouraged to award a special trophy to
the best Club Class glider.

Tom Knauff

[rlovinggood]

Hello UH,

I look forward to competing in Club Class.

I have competed in Sports Class and have thoroughly enjoyed it, but I
want to compete in a Club Class because:

1. The ships should be of similar performance. I won't be flying my
LS1-d against Ventii or ASW-27's, etc.
2. Hopefully, the handicaps will be "fair". Maybe follow the IGC/WGC
on Club Class handicaps.
3. Possibly get "close" to an Assigned task. Right now, it's
possible for the CD to call TAT with up to a 30 mile radius. Holy
Mackeral! For some of us, going from one side of the turnpoint to the
other is a task all by itself. If the turn point radius were made
smaller, it would require us, now flying very similar aircraft, to fly
in pretty similar air. And not spread us out across several
counties. I can see the need for large turn areas if the gliders are
extremely dissimilar in performance or the weather is iffy (like out
in the western part of the U.S. and there's a chance to see and avoid
storms), but keeping similar gliders on the same task would be more
fun. I might learn a bit more if I had a chance to actually see
someone on course. The large radii spreads us out too much. Might as
well be flying completely different courses.
4. And I will lobby my friends who fly Club Class ships to come join
the fun. At our club, we were successful for the 2007 and 2008
seasons in bringing in one new pilot each season to Sports Class and
they had a blast, and they'll be back. I hope to do the same for Club
Class and hope I can find more than the two from our club.

Thanks,
Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[[email protected]]

On Oct 17, 12:14*pm, rlovinggood > wrote:
> Hello UH,
>
> I look forward to competing in Club Class.
>
> I have competed in Sports Class and have thoroughly enjoyed it, but I
> want to compete in a Club Class because:
>
> 1. *The ships should be of similar performance. *I won't be flying my
> LS1-d against Ventii or ASW-27's, etc.
> 2. *Hopefully, the handicaps will be "fair". *Maybe follow the IGC/WGC
> on Club Class handicaps.
> 3. *Possibly get "close" to an Assigned task. *Right now, it's
> possible for the CD to call TAT with up to a 30 mile radius. *Holy
> Mackeral! *For some of us, going from one side of the turnpoint to the
> other is a task all by itself. *If the turn point radius were made
> smaller, it would require us, now flying very similar aircraft, to fly
> in pretty similar air. *And not spread us out across several
> counties. *I can see the need for large turn areas if the gliders are
> extremely dissimilar in performance or the weather is iffy (like out
> in the western part of the U.S. and there's a chance to see and avoid
> storms), but keeping similar gliders on the same task would be more
> fun. *I might learn a bit more if I had a chance to actually see
> someone on course. *The large radii spreads us out too much. *Might as
> well be flying completely different courses.
> 4. *And I will lobby my friends who fly Club Class ships to come join
> the fun. *At our club, we were successful for the 2007 and 2008
> seasons in bringing in one new pilot each season to Sports Class and
> they had a blast, and they'll be back. *I hope to do the same for Club
> Class and hope I can find more than the two from our club.
>
> Thanks,
> Ray Lovinggood
> Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

So far, we are at zero incremental participation. Let's hear from
pilots who won't fly sports class but would fly club class.

BTW I think I've only flown 2 ATs in the past three years flying in 15
meter class, so the idea that a club class would lead to a lot more
flying with other gliders is likely a fantasy. The TAT and MAT tasks
were developed to allow for variations in pilot experience at least as
much as for differences in glider performance.

9B

[WB]

On Oct 17, 10:55 am, wrote:
> In a couple earlier threads related to a proposed Club class, I asked
> pilots who
> don't compete now, but would if we created a Club class, to reply
> either on line or to me as RC chair. I indicated I would report the
> result.
> The response, surprisingly, was no replys.
> The element we are looking for is how much increased participation
> could come about if we create a seperate class.
> So- I'll ask again, maybe in a slightly different way:
> 1) If you are not currently competing, would the creation of a Club
> class bring you in to participation.
> 2) If you currently compete, or used to compete, would you acquire a
> glider to participate in this new class?
>
> If you don't like the wording of my questions, feel free to answer in
> your own way.
> The key element we are trying to quantify is how development of
> another class will increase participation. We already know that some
> pilots who own gliders in the Club handicap range would participate.
> They affect entry activity as a net zero.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Note: This is an informal poll pole by the RC Chair
>
> H Nixon UH

Hi UH,

First to answer or comment on your questions.

1. I already participate in the Sports Class, so I guess I really
can't answer this question as asked. However, does a new class really
have to draw more contestants to be valid? I think the current Sports
Class participant pool is large enough to spin off the Club Class and
still flourish.

2. My old Libelle is at the low end of the Club Class, so I'm all set
for now. (But when I get in a position to afford a new generation
ship, I'm going to say goodbye to Sports/Club Class and fly it in the
class it was designed for).

Now for my thoughts: Sports Class is a great concept and unarguably
successful. That success is powerful evidence that we do need an
"entry and exit" class as some call it (and I thought Standard was the
exit class :-). Regardless of it's success, there are some issues with
Sports Class that would be best addressed by establishing a Club Class
separate from Sports. 1) Sports has become so competitive, it is
drifting from it's concept as the entry and exit class. 2) The
validity of handicapping is always going to be arguable. Handicapping
would be less of an issue in Club Class due to the narrower range of
glider performance. 3) Appropriate tasking is a problem when the
performance range is extreme. If someone shows up in a Blanik, Ka-8,
or heaven help, a 1-26, it's difficult to put together a task that
will allow the low performance ships to get around the course and not
send the higher performance ships to the back of the turn cylinder
each day and still finish under time. Turn areas can only be made so
big before they start overlapping, and that ain't okay by the rules.
The Sports Class rules also deprive us of the chance to fly a good ol'
assigned task (and too often we fly the reviled MAT).

So, I think we have an opportunity here. The Club Class already exists
in a developed form in Europe, so we don't have to create it from
scratch. We could give a Club Class a try, in addition to, or in
conjunction with Sports Class. Club Classers can have the competitive,
challenging racing they want, Sports Class doesn't have to change (and
might become truer to it's purpose with somewhat "relaxed" tasks).
What's the real downside of having more choices? New racers with Club
Class ships can elect to fly Sports or Club Class. Highly competitive
pilots with high end ships can race in the class their ship was
designed for or they can dial it back and play in Sports. I say let's
give it a try and see how it goes. If Club Class can't support itself
or if it begins to disrupt the Sports Class, then we can ditch it.

Respectfully,

WB

[JJ Sinclair]

I was going to stay out of this, but what the hey!

Who buys a Libelle, Cirrus, LS-1, etc? Probably a new-be, right? Is he/
she likely to race it? Probably not, at least not right away. I tried
to get a Duster class going 38 years ago, there was a bunch of them
flying so I called for an informal competition. Who showed up? Just 3
and only one had any cross-country experience.

We are combining classes right now just to make ends meet. Montague
next year is hosting open nats, standard nate and a regionals. There
is a good chance they won't get over 30 total. Will the organizers be
able to pay all the bills? Will they likely bid to do that again, if
not?

Tasking is a problem in sports class where only MAT's and TAT's are
allowed due to vast differences in ships being flown. Some creative
tasking on the part of the CD could call a MAT with 5 or 6 turn-points
so that only the supper ships could do it all. Bring them back near
home about half way through and let the club ships quit if their time
is up. That's exactly what was intended when this task was introduced,
but it has become too easy to just call 1 turn or (no turns) and let
the CD off the hook.
JJ

WB wrote:
> On Oct 17, 10:55 am, wrote:
> > In a couple earlier threads related to a proposed Club class, I asked
> > pilots who
> > don't compete now, but would if we created a Club class, to reply
> > either on line or to me as RC chair. I indicated I would report the
> > result.
> > The response, surprisingly, was no replys.
> > The element we are looking for is how much increased participation
> > could come about if we create a seperate class.
> > So- I'll ask again, maybe in a slightly different way:
> > 1) If you are not currently competing, would the creation of a Club
> > class bring you in to participation.
> > 2) If you currently compete, or used to compete, would you acquire a
> > glider to participate in this new class?
> >
> > If you don't like the wording of my questions, feel free to answer in
> > your own way.
> > The key element we are trying to quantify is how development of
> > another class will increase participation. We already know that some
> > pilots who own gliders in the Club handicap range would participate.
> > They affect entry activity as a net zero.
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Note: This is an informal poll pole by the RC Chair
> >
> > H Nixon UH
>
> Hi UH,
>
> First to answer or comment on your questions.
>
> 1. I already participate in the Sports Class, so I guess I really
> can't answer this question as asked. However, does a new class really
> have to draw more contestants to be valid? I think the current Sports
> Class participant pool is large enough to spin off the Club Class and
> still flourish.
>
> 2. My old Libelle is at the low end of the Club Class, so I'm all set
> for now. (But when I get in a position to afford a new generation
> ship, I'm going to say goodbye to Sports/Club Class and fly it in the
> class it was designed for).
>
> Now for my thoughts: Sports Class is a great concept and unarguably
> successful. That success is powerful evidence that we do need an
> "entry and exit" class as some call it (and I thought Standard was the
> exit class :-). Regardless of it's success, there are some issues with
> Sports Class that would be best addressed by establishing a Club Class
> separate from Sports. 1) Sports has become so competitive, it is
> drifting from it's concept as the entry and exit class. 2) The
> validity of handicapping is always going to be arguable. Handicapping
> would be less of an issue in Club Class due to the narrower range of
> glider performance. 3) Appropriate tasking is a problem when the
> performance range is extreme. If someone shows up in a Blanik, Ka-8,
> or heaven help, a 1-26, it's difficult to put together a task that
> will allow the low performance ships to get around the course and not
> send the higher performance ships to the back of the turn cylinder
> each day and still finish under time. Turn areas can only be made so
> big before they start overlapping, and that ain't okay by the rules.
> The Sports Class rules also deprive us of the chance to fly a good ol'
> assigned task (and too often we fly the reviled MAT).
>
> So, I think we have an opportunity here. The Club Class already exists
> in a developed form in Europe, so we don't have to create it from
> scratch. We could give a Club Class a try, in addition to, or in
> conjunction with Sports Class. Club Classers can have the competitive,
> challenging racing they want, Sports Class doesn't have to change (and
> might become truer to it's purpose with somewhat "relaxed" tasks).
> What's the real downside of having more choices? New racers with Club
> Class ships can elect to fly Sports or Club Class. Highly competitive
> pilots with high end ships can race in the class their ship was
> designed for or they can dial it back and play in Sports. I say let's
> give it a try and see how it goes. If Club Class can't support itself
> or if it begins to disrupt the Sports Class, then we can ditch it.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> WB

[[email protected]]

On Oct 18, 1:12*am, WB > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 10:55 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > In a couple earlier threads related to a proposed Club class, I asked
> > pilots *who
> > don't compete now, but would if we created a Club class, to reply
> > either on line or to me as RC chair. I indicated I would report the
> > result.
> > The response, surprisingly, was no replys.
> > The element we are looking for is how much increased participation
> > could come about if we create a seperate class.
> > So- I'll ask again, maybe in a slightly different way:
> > 1) If you are not currently competing, would the creation of a Club
> > class bring you in to participation.
> > 2) If you currently compete, or used to compete, would you acquire a
> > glider to participate in this new class?
>
> > If you don't like the wording of my questions, feel free to answer in
> > your own way.
> > The key element we are trying to quantify is how development of
> > another class will increase participation. We already know that some
> > pilots who own gliders in the Club handicap range would participate.
> > They affect entry activity as a net zero.
>
> > Thanks for your input.
>
> > Note: This is an informal poll pole by the RC Chair
>
> > H Nixon *UH
>
> Hi UH,
>
> First to answer or comment on your questions.
>
> 1. I already participate in the Sports Class, so I guess I really
> can't answer this question as asked. However, does a new class really
> have to draw more contestants to be valid? I think the current Sports
> Class participant pool is large enough to spin off the Club Class and
> still flourish.
>
> 2. My old Libelle is at the low end of the Club Class, so I'm all set
> for now. (But when I get in a position to afford a new generation
> ship, I'm going to say goodbye to Sports/Club Class and fly it in the
> class it was designed for).
>
> Now for my thoughts: Sports Class is a great concept and unarguably
> successful. That success is powerful evidence that we do need an
> "entry and exit" class as some call it (and I thought Standard was the
> exit class :-). Regardless of it's success, there are some issues with
> Sports Class that would be best addressed by establishing a Club Class
> separate from Sports. 1) Sports has become so competitive, it is
> drifting from it's concept as the entry and exit class. 2) The
> validity of handicapping is always going to be arguable. Handicapping
> would be less of an issue in Club Class due to the narrower range of
> glider performance. 3) Appropriate tasking is a problem when the
> performance range is extreme. *If someone shows up in a Blanik, Ka-8,
> or heaven help, a 1-26, it's difficult to put together a task that
> will allow the low performance ships to get around the course and not
> send the higher performance ships to the back of the turn cylinder
> each day and still finish under time. Turn areas can only be made so
> big before they start overlapping, and that ain't okay by the rules.
> The Sports Class rules also deprive us of the chance to fly a good ol'
> assigned task (and too often we fly the reviled MAT).
>
> So, I think we have an opportunity here. The Club Class already exists
> in a developed form in Europe, so we don't have to create it from
> scratch. We could give a Club Class a try, in addition to, or in
> conjunction with Sports Class. Club Classers can have the competitive,
> challenging racing they want, Sports Class doesn't have to change (and
> might become truer to it's purpose with somewhat "relaxed" tasks).
> What's the real downside of having more choices? New racers with Club
> Class ships can elect to fly Sports or Club Class. Highly competitive
> pilots with high end ships can race in the class their ship was
> designed for or they can dial it back and play in Sports. I say let's
> give it a try and see how it goes. If Club Class can't support itself
> or if it begins to disrupt the Sports Class, then we can ditch it.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> WB

This hits the nail on the head I think. Club class is meant to be the
path to world racing, not the entry to competition flying. Who starts
competition flying by going out and buying a brand new ASG-29 so
they can jump into 18 meter class? On the other hand, what about
those of us with something that hasn't been competitive for 20 years
and can't afford or don't want to trade up? Where do we go after
Sports class?

I'll circle back to world competitiveness, too. If we have a class
designed for "newbies" and "old guys", is that really the best pool
of pilots to be selecting our world championship fliers from?

-- Matt

[gliderman]

I would be interested in flying club class if it consisted of assigned
tasks only. I have been flying gliders all of my life and grew up
crewing at several contests per year. I lost interest in racing when
the rules got so convoluted that it ended up more like a chess match
than a race.

Those "racers" out there getting ready to lamb baste me right now
should realize that I don't really care, because I lost all hope of
"racing" gliders 20+ years ago.

Paul Gravance

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:20:48 -0700, gliderman wrote:

> I would be interested in flying club class if it consisted of assigned
> tasks only.
>
I assume that in US terminology "assigned task" is what I, in the UK,
understand as a "racing task" - racing round a set of fixed turnpoints.

If so, mandating that only assigned tasks can be set probably closes a
few too many options for the task setter and would result in more
scrubbed days than if judicious use of assigned area tasks on marginal
days is allowed. That's the norm in the UK a racing task is set on a good
day and an AAT if the weather is marginal.


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

[gliderman]

Yes, your assumption is correct and please forgive my slip. You see, I
live in the Southern California desert, where we just don't bother
flying on the occasional "marginal" day! ;-)

[Martin Gregorie[_4_]]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:12:50 -0700, gliderman wrote:

> Yes, your assumption is correct and please forgive my slip. You see, I
> live in the Southern California desert, where we just don't bother
> flying on the occasional "marginal" day! ;-)

I know about your weather from visits to the Central Valley and
Sacramento and because a friend, originally from the East Coast, says she
wants to retire some place like the East Coast or UK (masochist!) because
she's bored with all that unchanging sun. Yes, I do have the Endless
October T-shirt.


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

[Jay Pokorski]

UH,

Short answer:

1) N/A
2) No (N/A if the ASW20 is included in Club)

As a Libelle driver, I would have rather flown against similar gliders
in a Club Class, though it would have made me no more likely to start
in 2002. Now, with a "vintage" ASW20, I'd likely pick Club over Sports
if the 20 is included, but again it would in no way affect my decision
to enter a given contest. However, the chance to occasionally finish
ahead of a 27 or 29 does make Sports a bit more appealing!

For purposes of World Team selection, a Club Class within the Sports
Class Nationals for World Team competitors makes sense to me, but I
see no advantage at the regional level. Even at the 2006 Sports
Nationals, I suspect less than half were there to compete for a spot
on the World Team, while many of us considered it simply a chance to
race at Mifflin and/or qualify for Perry.

When it comes to increasing the pool of competition pilots, I wonder
if anything has done more than the Sports Only regionals (geared
towards first-timers) put on by KS and company in 2002 or 5U in 2004.
How many first-timers at one of those contests (like myself) are still
actively racing, and did those two contests significantly increased
the pool of active competition pilots?

Best Regards,

Jay
R6

On Oct 17, 11:55*am, wrote:
> In a couple earlier threads related to a proposed Club class, I asked
> pilots *who
> don't compete now, but would if we created a Club class, to reply
> either on line or to me as RC chair. I indicated I would report the
> result.
> The response, surprisingly, was no replys.
> The element we are looking for is how much increased participation
> could come about if we create a seperate class.
> So- I'll ask again, maybe in a slightly different way:
> 1) If you are not currently competing, would the creation of a Club
> class bring you in to participation.
> 2) If you currently compete, or used to compete, would you acquire a
> glider to participate in this new class?
>
> If you don't like the wording of my questions, feel free to answer in
> your own way.
> The key element we are trying to quantify is how development of
> another class will increase participation. We already know that some
> pilots who own gliders in the Club handicap range would participate.
> They affect entry activity as a net zero.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Note: This is an informal poll pole by the RC Chair
>
> H Nixon *UH

[[email protected]]

UH,

I guess the answer is zero net increase in participation. We all have
our thoughts on Sports/Club Class (mine is that I'd like to be able to
fly whatever glider I bring and I want to measure myself against the
best pilots--that's how I learned about racing when I started 40 years
ago and it's one way I continue to learn). But it sounds like everyone
who currently flies competitively has a "home" and few if any pilots
who aren't in racing would be enticed by a Club Class. IMHO, the last
thing this country needs is another competition class. I just came
back from Region 4N where we had a respectable 35+ pilots...divided
into FOUR classes. Pretty soon soaring will be like those classic car
shows where the classes are defined so that nearly everyonse gets a
trophy (1st place: "Best 1955-1957 Production American 2-Door Sedan,
Stock Body, Modified Engine, Frame-Up Restoration, Street Legal,
Driven Furthest Distance to Show" Class). We can't support the
plethora of classes we have now and we're talking about adding another
one? Since when did the Federal Government get involved in structuring
our competitions? :)

I know this is a serious subject for some but it does smack of
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Let's focus on keeping the
ship afloat.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[Papa3]

On Oct 17, 2:03*pm, wrote:
> Hello Hank,
>
> I haven't followed this at all, but here are some thoughts:
>
> If the class was a narrow performance spread such as Libelle though
> early Discus - no flaps, no winglets, no extra fairings, no water, all
> handicapped, it might appeal to a large group.
>
> The performance is enough alike that the tasks would be flown in
> gaggles of very similar performing gliders. Pilots like flying
> together.
>
> The current Sports Class favors high wing loading, small fuselage,
> modern gliders - no way around it, so it dissuades many from
> attending. Still, Sports Class is very popular in certain venues such
> as The Seniors, possibly because of the friendly, low-key social
> nature.
>
> Sports Class contests could be encouraged to award a special trophy to
> the best Club Class glider.
>
> Tom Knauff

As I look around some of the larger clubs that I visit on the east
coast (places like Harris Hill, M-ASA, my home club ACA), it just
doesn't appear that there is a "large group" of people who own second
or first generation glass ships who choose not to participate in
contests because of some perceived lack of fairness in the Sports
Class or even the FAI classes At any given site, I see the
following:

- People who love to race and will do whatever it takes to race in
whatever ship they can get their hands on. Heck, there are even guys
flying vintage ASW-24s against D2s and LS8s in the standard class
(just had to get that one in). These are your hard core racers.
- Competent XC pilots who will go to a race provided it is convenient
(e.g. nearby) or enough of a draw (e.g. Parowan). These folks don't
care where they are on the national seeding list and may not even race
every year. Their biggest concerns tend to be things like is there
free beer, are there showers at the campsites, are some of my friends
going? I just don't hear these guys (who are just as likely to own an
ASW-27 as an LS-3) putting "competitiveness" at the top of their
list.
- Competent XC pilots for whom racing doesn't appeal. These folks
may perceive that racing is elitist, dangerous, too expensive, a
hassle, not fun, etc.

IMO, it's the last group that we should be focusing on if the goal is
to increase the overall participation in racing. As I look at my
club, I see us introducing at least 1 or 2 new people into regional
Sports Class competitions each year. Although this is good, it's
obvoiusly not great in a club where there are probably 30 or more
privately owned glass ships and a couple of perfectly good club 1-34s
which could all find a home in Sports Class.

So, if I had to make a list of priorities, tweaking handicaps or
creating additional classes would be right near the bottom. Instead,
I would focus on:

- More and better supported local racing with a defined path into
regional competitions.
- More "newbie" schools like the ones we see from time to time.
- More regional competitions which expressly target entry-level
racers.
- Continued focus on the contest environment (social events,
camaraderie, etc.)

Finally, I firmly believe that if each hard core racer would make a
committment to budy-up with one newbie at his home field, we would be
able to at least maintain our current level of participation if not
increase it. I think these grass roots efforts would be far more
effective than trying to fine tune classes.

Respectfully,
P3

p.s. Yup, it's actually snowing outside my office window here in
Warren NJ. Guess the end of soaring season is almost upon us.

[BB]

> I just came
> back from Region 4N where we had a respectable 35+ pilots...divided
> into FOUR classes.... We can't support the
> plethora of classes we have now and we're talking about adding another
> one?

Here is a suggestion to the club class advocates for a typical small,
dry, regional-level contest. Divide the entire fleet into three
classes, "FAI" lets everyone in, but in practice will be handicaps
above club; tasking set to modern 15/standard glider and high level
pilots. "Club" is any glider on the US team list, as the proposed club
class, with tasking set to typical club gliders std cirrus-LS4 range.
"low performance" is any glider with handicap more than 1, with
tasking set appropriately for the gliders and pilots that show up at
any contest. Everyone flies by sports rules.

This accomplishes what is to my main the main argument for club class,
removing the large luck element that comes from racing gliders with
wildly different handicaps against each other. It also would make
running a regional contest a good deal simpler. It addresses the
class profusion we have now. The majority of regionals already combine
std/15, and only Perry had enough entries to meet the minimum 5 pilots
in both sports and club. It addresses the problem that if we add
"club" then "sports" has a gaping hole in the middle, which may make
it totally unworkable.

I know FAI traditionalists will disapprove, but before going nuts keep
in mind this is a suggestion for an option that people could use to
run one or two small low-key regionals where there is strong interest
in club class. If enough FAI gliders show up, you could easily start
having regular FAI classes with the "FAI Sports" as a catch-all for
the gliders and pilots who don't fit. It's not a suggestion for how
all regionals should be run. It's a suggestion only for regionals. No,
I don't want to write any rules; this is a suggestion for something
club advocates could ask for a waiver to do if they like the idea. So
don't start flaming yet!

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

My first reaction to John's proposal was "No, no, don't take away my
Standard Class." My second reaction was "Sure, why not?" Way back in
1991, Karl Striedieck, Charlie Spratt, and about 10 of us showed up at
Lockhaven, PA in October for a Region 2/3 contest (it was the
precursor of the increasingly popular Region 4N contest I just
returned from at Fairfield, PA). Various gliders were flown and the
scores were handicapped. I don't know whether we were within the
rules, had a waiver, or what. John Good was there so I suspect it was
OK. The competition was fierce: Karl, John Seymour, world champion
Janusz Centka, Shempp-Hirth's Tilo Holighaus, U.S. Sports Class
Champion Dave Stevenson, et al. We had a blast and I learned a lot.
Anything that helps make competition more accessible without removing
my ability to fly whatever I bring against good pilots is OK with me,
at least at the regional level. My only suggestion would be to allow
pilots to "move up" from the Club Class to FAI Class if they wish. Not
everything more than a few years old is obsolete. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB" ("obsolete" but still going as well as anything out there)
USA

[BB]

My only suggestion would be to allow
> pilots to "move up" from the Club Class to FAI Class if they wish. Not
> everything more than a few years old is obsolete. :)

That's why I think it's best to define "FAI class" as anything. Then
an ASW24, say, can choose where to fly, either with club or the big
boys.

The "FAI" class could just use the 2% handicaps now used for std/15.

John Cochrane BB

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

The Club Class is popular and works very well in the UK and in Europe. It
is ideal for those who can't afford the latest hot glass sailplanes but
still want to race at National and International level. The only proviso I
would make is that it only really works well if the handicap range is kept
fairly small. You would be unlikely to win in something like a K8, because
all the handicap in the World won't get you across those big gaps, or stop
you running out of day on tasks set for higher performance machines.

Most of the gliders that take part in the UK Club Class are older Standard
Class gliders that would be blown into weeds in an unhandicapped
competition against the latest generation machines. So you get gliders
such as the Standard Cirrus, Libelle, ASW19, ASW24, Grob Astir, LS7 plus a
few two seater glass trainers taking part. The Class is only defined by a
maximum handicap limit and a ban on carrying water ballast.

Derek Copeland


At 22:03 29 October 2008, wrote:
>My first reaction to John's proposal was "No, no, don't take away my
>Standard Class." My second reaction was "Sure, why not?" Way back in
>1991, Karl Striedieck, Charlie Spratt, and about 10 of us showed up at
>Lockhaven, PA in October for a Region 2/3 contest (it was the
>precursor of the increasingly popular Region 4N contest I just
>returned from at Fairfield, PA). Various gliders were flown and the
>scores were handicapped. I don't know whether we were within the
>rules, had a waiver, or what. John Good was there so I suspect it was
>OK. The competition was fierce: Karl, John Seymour, world champion
>Janusz Centka, Shempp-Hirth's Tilo Holighaus, U.S. Sports Class
>Champion Dave Stevenson, et al. We had a blast and I learned a lot.
>Anything that helps make competition more accessible without removing
>my ability to fly whatever I bring against good pilots is OK with me,
>at least at the regional level. My only suggestion would be to allow
>pilots to "move up" from the Club Class to FAI Class if they wish. Not
>everything more than a few years old is obsolete. :)
>
>Chip Bearden
>ASW 24 "JB" ("obsolete" but still going as well as anything out
there)
>USA
>

[Derek Copeland[_2_]]

At 03:00 30 October 2008, Derek Copeland wrote:
>
>Most of the gliders that take part in the UK Club Class are older
Standard
>Class gliders that would be blown into weeds in an unhandicapped
>competition against the latest generation machines. So you get gliders
>such as the Standard Cirrus, Libelle, ASW19, ASW24, Grob Astir, LS7 plus
a
>few two seater glass trainers taking part. The Class is only defined by
a
>maximum handicap limit and a ban on carrying water ballast.
>
>
Sorry, I missed out the LS4 and the DG100/101/300 series which are also
numerically quite popular Club Glass gliders.

Derek C