2008 SSA Contest Rules Meeting Minutes

[[email protected]]

Hello Racers & Fans
The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
racing/Rules & Process.
Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
UH
H Nixon
SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair

[DRN]

On Dec 13, 10:54*am, wrote:
> Hello Racers & Fans
> The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> racing/Rules & Process.
> Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> UH
> H Nixon
> SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair

Apologies Hank, but I can't find it - can you post a link ?
Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Tim Taylor]

On Dec 13, 8:54*am, wrote:
> Hello Racers & Fans
> The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> racing/Rules & Process.
> Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> UH
> H Nixon
> SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair

Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
little interest by the committee.

From the informal poll by 5 Ugly it was favored by nearly 2/3 of the
respondents, I guess our rules committee knows best.

http://www.5ugly.blogspot.com/

East Coast-West Coast Nationals: (50 voters)
Support: 64%
Against: 36%

From the minutes:

"64 Consider East/West Nationals
According to BB’s review, typically less that 3-4 pilots cross the
Miss to go to nationals on the coast.
Based on this, pilots are already essentially doing this. Lots of
practical problems. This would have to be
coordinated with the US Team committee for team selection. What would
be the effect on overall contest
participation. Who’s the national champion? If combining classes was
necessary for adequate
participation, would we have combined-class East and West champions?
This would be a very large
change from the way we’ve operated Nationals traditionally. It doesn’t
appear that there is a problem of
sufficient magnitude to justify such a change.
No change."

Only 3 to 4 pilots crossing the Mississippi each year, but it doesn't
appear to be an issue; at least for the rules committee.

They raised lots of questions (same ones we have seen before to
protect the current system), but did not appear to be interested in
finding any answers or even looking for them.

[Udo Rumpf[_2_]]

http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6310235857

>Apologies Hank, but I can't find it - can you post a link ?
>Thanks,
>Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"
>

[[email protected]]

>
> Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
> little interest by the committee.

As usual, the minutes compactly summarize a long discussion. We all
recognize the reality that most pilots choose to fly a different class
rather than chase "their" class around the country. Clearly, a
nationals and team-selection structure that better served this desire
and reflected this reality would be good. Just as clearly, the
considerations in the minutes are real. This isn't as easy as just
declaring separate "east" and "west" nationals for each class. If
we're going to fundamentally change the structure of nationals and
team selection, that takes a concrete, comprehensive and well-thought
out proposal. I'll be collecting ideas to see if there is something
workable here.

In the meantime, more "super-regionals" could well address pilot
desire for national-level racing within an easy drive. That's already
in the rules; encourage your local organizers to put one on.

John Cochrane
BB

[Tim Taylor]

On Dec 13, 1:20*pm, wrote:
> > Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
> > little interest by the committee.
>
> As usual, the minutes compactly summarize a long discussion. We all
> recognize the reality that most pilots choose to fly a different class
> rather than chase "their" class around the country. Clearly, a
> nationals and team-selection structure that better served this desire
> and reflected this reality would be good. Just as clearly, the
> considerations in the minutes are real. This isn't as easy as just
> declaring separate "east" and "west" nationals for each class. *If
> we're going to fundamentally change the structure of nationals and
> team selection, that takes a concrete, comprehensive and well-thought
> out proposal. I'll be collecting ideas to see if there is something
> workable here.
>
> In the meantime, more "super-regionals" could well address pilot
> desire for national-level racing within an easy drive. That's already
> in the rules; encourage your local organizers to put one on.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

John,

Thanks for the feedback. I know you have tried to address many of the
issues facing racing in the US. I hope to see ideas and questions
placed on next years SRA poll. I would be glad to help with
addressing the questions raised about the concept over the next year.
It would be nice to see a meaningful discussion on the issues of East/
West Nationals and the idea of a 7 day nationals that only takes two
weekends and one week rather than the current format that requires at
a minimum two full weeks. I think we will find both pilots, contest
organizers and the airports we use would like the latter much better.

I think the super regional idea is great, it is too bad that the only
super regional so far this year has to compete with a nationals in the
same area of the country during the same week (Region 9 vs 18M Nats in
Region 8).

Tim
TT

[JJ Sinclair]

Rather than calling for a new class like Club Class or more nationals
like East/West, I feel we should be addressing the real possibility
that what we have right now isn't being attended in great enough
numbers to make it a viable propasition for contest organizers. At
Montague next year I would think something like 10 standards, 10 opens
and 10 in a co-regionals is all we could hope for and this econopy
will only make those numbers decline.
Most who have organized contests would agree that somewhere around 35
contestants is the minimum break even point.
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 10:05*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:54*am, wrote:
>
> > Hello Racers & Fans
> > The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> > Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> > racing/Rules & Process.
> > Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> > UH
> > H Nixon
> > SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair
>
> Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
> little interest by the committee.
>
> From the informal poll by 5 Ugly it was favored by nearly 2/3 of the
> respondents, I guess our rules committee knows best.
>
> http://www.5ugly.blogspot.com/
>
> East Coast-West Coast Nationals: (50 voters)
> Support: 64%
> Against: 36%
>
> From the minutes:
>
> "64 Consider East/West Nationals
> According to BB’s review, typically less that 3-4 pilots cross the
> Miss to go to nationals on the coast.
> Based on this, pilots are already essentially doing this. Lots of
> practical problems. This would have to be
> coordinated with the US Team committee for team selection. What would
> be the effect on overall contest
> participation. Who’s the national champion? If combining classes was
> necessary for adequate
> participation, would we have combined-class East and West champions?
> This would be a very large
> change from the way we’ve operated Nationals traditionally. It doesn’t
> appear that there is a problem of
> sufficient magnitude to justify such a change.
> No change."
>
> Only 3 to 4 pilots crossing the Mississippi each year, but *it doesn't
> appear to be an issue; at least for the rules committee.
>
> They raised lots of questions (same ones we have seen before to
> protect the current system), but did not appear to be interested in
> finding any answers or even looking for them.

You gotta be ****in me.......... So, 50 voters on 5U's page, of which
32 (64%) (which is less that 5% of all the seeded pilots in the US)
now requires all of us to make major changes in our present system?
They have really studied our present system and understand the
design? Who were these 32 voters? Have they even been to a regional
or national event? How long have they even been in our sport?
Ok, you got me, as your really gotta be ****in me................. 711.

[Tim Taylor]

On Dec 13, 4:31*pm, wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:05*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 8:54*am, wrote:
>
> > > Hello Racers & Fans
> > > The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> > > Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> > > racing/Rules & Process.
> > > Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08..
> > > UH
> > > H Nixon
> > > SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair
>
> > Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
> > little interest by the committee.
>
> > From the informal poll by 5 Ugly it was favored by nearly 2/3 of the
> > respondents, I guess our rules committee knows best.
>
> >http://www.5ugly.blogspot.com/
>
> > East Coast-West Coast Nationals: (50 voters)
> > Support: 64%
> > Against: 36%
>
> > From the minutes:
>
> > "64 Consider East/West Nationals
> > According to BB’s review, typically less that 3-4 pilots cross the
> > Miss to go to nationals on the coast.
> > Based on this, pilots are already essentially doing this. Lots of
> > practical problems. This would have to be
> > coordinated with the US Team committee for team selection. What would
> > be the effect on overall contest
> > participation. Who’s the national champion? If combining classes was
> > necessary for adequate
> > participation, would we have combined-class East and West champions?
> > This would be a very large
> > change from the way we’ve operated Nationals traditionally. It doesn’t
> > appear that there is a problem of
> > sufficient magnitude to justify such a change.
> > No change."
>
> > Only 3 to 4 pilots crossing the Mississippi each year, but *it doesn't
> > appear to be an issue; at least for the rules committee.
>
> > They raised lots of questions (same ones we have seen before to
> > protect the current system), but did not appear to be interested in
> > finding any answers or even looking for them.
>
> You gotta be ****in me.......... So, 50 voters on 5U's page, of which
> 32 (64%) (which is less that 5% of all the seeded pilots in the US)
> now requires all of us to make major changes in our present system?
> They have really studied our present system and understand the
> design? *Who were these 32 voters? *Have they even been to a regional
> or national event? *How long have they even been in our sport?
> Ok, you got me, as your really gotta be ****in me................. 711.

Tom,

No one says we "have" to change it, but many of us would like for it
to be explored. For you the current systems works fine, for others
the weeks, miles and cost required to race in our respective classes
is a limiting factor in participation. As JJ said the question is how
do we get participation in contests to a level to make them
sustainable. Providing a good site and great competition makes a site
more attractive to pilots. Providing the incentive of national level
points makes it even more attractive.

Contests have evolved in the US over the last forty years, so saying
"it has always been that way, why change it?" is not a valid
argument. Forty years ago we had one class, today we have at least
seven.

I think having contests in each half of the country has the potential
to increase numbers and racing skills for the entire country. We
won't know until we have a good discussion about it. So far I have
not seen a real discussion on the topic. I have been approached and e-
mailed by many people that are interested in a change. While the one
survey is not a large representation, it is a start to say there is
interest in the idea.

We already combine classes at contests so why would it be so hard to
imagine contests in the east and west that allows the top 20 to 30
seeded pilots in each class to participate and earn national team
points. We would likely be able to get 60 to 65 planes to make a
contest worthwhile. If we consider reducing the contest to 7 days we
will likely find more sites willing to host the contest and more
pilots willing to participate.

I am not set on any particular set of charges, but I would like to see
the number of participants and the level of competition improved in
the US. I don't think using Sports class in alternating years is a
good substitute for flying in Std, 15m or 18M classes.

I am glad that BB has been willing to start thinking about the idea as
a representative of the SRA Rules committee and look forward to a
thoughtful discussion that tries to look at the advantages and
disadvantage of the possibilities as well as addressing the concerns
about how a National Champion is selected (or if we need a national
champion). The current system is not very good for team selection.
It is based only on finish postion in a single class. Look at any of
the classes and team selection is based on only a few that are willing
to travel.

http://soaringweb.org/US_TEAM

In 15M only John Seaborn has flown in the last 3 contests out of 98
pilots on the list.

Many of the pilots that have talked to me have been around the sport a
long time. My first contest was about 1989 and my first nationals was
1992 if I remember correctly. It is easy to get in a game of who has
been here longer, etc, but the real question is what is best for the
sport long term.

Tim
TT

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 6:17*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 4:31*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 10:05*am, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 13, 8:54*am, wrote:
>
> > > > Hello Racers & Fans
> > > > The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> > > > Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> > > > racing/Rules & Process.
> > > > Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> > > > UH
> > > > H Nixon
> > > > SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair
>
> > > Sad the suggestion and issue of an East/West Nationals was given so
> > > little interest by the committee.
>
> > > From the informal poll by 5 Ugly it was favored by nearly 2/3 of the
> > > respondents, I guess our rules committee knows best.
>
> > >http://www.5ugly.blogspot.com/
>
> > > East Coast-West Coast Nationals: (50 voters)
> > > Support: 64%
> > > Against: 36%
>
> > > From the minutes:
>
> > > "64 Consider East/West Nationals
> > > According to BB’s review, typically less that 3-4 pilots cross the
> > > Miss to go to nationals on the coast.
> > > Based on this, pilots are already essentially doing this. Lots of
> > > practical problems. This would have to be
> > > coordinated with the US Team committee for team selection. What would
> > > be the effect on overall contest
> > > participation. Who’s the national champion? If combining classes was
> > > necessary for adequate
> > > participation, would we have combined-class East and West champions?
> > > This would be a very large
> > > change from the way we’ve operated Nationals traditionally. It doesn’t
> > > appear that there is a problem of
> > > sufficient magnitude to justify such a change.
> > > No change."
>
> > > Only 3 to 4 pilots crossing the Mississippi each year, but *it doesn't
> > > appear to be an issue; at least for the rules committee.
>
> > > They raised lots of questions (same ones we have seen before to
> > > protect the current system), but did not appear to be interested in
> > > finding any answers or even looking for them.
>
> > You gotta be ****in me.......... So, 50 voters on 5U's page, of which
> > 32 (64%) (which is less that 5% of all the seeded pilots in the US)
> > now requires all of us to make major changes in our present system?
> > They have really studied our present system and understand the
> > design? *Who were these 32 voters? *Have they even been to a regional
> > or national event? *How long have they even been in our sport?
> > Ok, you got me, as your really gotta be ****in me................. 711.
>
> Tom,
>
> No one says we "have" to change it, but many of us would like for it
> to be explored. *For you the current systems works fine, for others
> the weeks, miles and cost required to race in our respective classes
> is a limiting factor in participation. *As JJ said the question is how
> do we get participation in contests to a level to make them
> sustainable. *Providing a good site and great competition makes a site
> more attractive to pilots. *Providing the incentive of national level
> points makes it even more attractive.
>


Tim, it has been explored before, thats why the present system. In
order for our contest's to work, as JJ said, we need racers, which we
don't have. Not many can afford these plastic toys and the time to do
it. This is like me wishing I could be an F1 racer. Attractive is for
the beach, not for rising up the ladder of life without being tested.
Whats limiting is bucks, skill and basic gut level determination,
along with desire and recognition. As Yager would say, if ya had the
"right stuff" you would of been their.


> Contests have evolved in the US over the last forty years, so saying
> "it has always been that way, why change it?" is not a valid
> argument. *Forty years ago we had one class, today we have at least
> seven.
>

I never said why change it. I said you gotta be ****in me, and that
was based on your 50 voters from 5U's blog. These voters could have
been from a Monday nite mud slinging babyboomers contest for all we
know.

> I think having contests in each half of the country has the potential
> to increase numbers and racing skills for the entire country. *We
> won't know until we have a good discussion about it. *So far I have
> not seen a real discussion on the topic. *I have been approached and e-
> mailed by many people that are interested in a change. *While the one
> survey is not a large representation, it is a start to say there is
> interest in the idea.
>

There is well thought reasoning behind regional and national events.
Just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean they haven't
discussed it. You really don't think these rule committee guys go to
their meeting, pay for their travel expenses and take time from their
families just to undermine our sport do you?

> We already combine classes at contests so why would it be so hard to
> imagine contests in the east and west that allows the top 20 to 30
> seeded pilots in each class to participate and earn national team
> points. *We would likely be able to get 60 to 65 planes to make a
> contest worthwhile. *If we consider reducing the contest to 7 days we
> will likely find more sites willing to host the contest and more
> pilots willing to participate.
>

The Catagory I pilots in the USA are less than 50. If we had a
Catagory 1 pilot race, it wouldn't even fill up or beak even for the
organizers.
Reducing the contest to a shorter period would possibly reduce the
flying days to 3 or 4. With 10 days, at least our National champion
has earned that title. A true test of skill envolves many areas. Slam,
bam, thank you mam, doesn't belong in the test of a National Champion.
Your not suggesting we bring down the rung of the ladder to allow more
to rise?? Are you??

> I am not set on any particular set of charges, but I would like to see
> the number of participants and the level of competition improved in
> the US. *I don't think using Sports class in alternating years is a
> good substitute for flying in Std, 15m or 18M classes.
>

If your not set on any particular set of charges???? Well, turn in
your visa and get american express.................

> I am glad that BB has been willing to start thinking about the idea
as
> a representative of the SRA Rules committee and look forward to a
> thoughtful discussion that tries to look at the advantages and
> disadvantage of the possibilities as well as addressing the concerns
> about how a National Champion is selected (or if we need a national
> champion). *The current system is not very good for team selection.
> It is based only on finish postion in a single class. *Look at any of
> the classes and team selection is based on only a few that are willing
> to travel.
>

Trust me on this, it has been well thought out way before bouncing BB
came along. Love ya, John.

The current US Team selection deals with seeding scores, not where you
place.
All catagory rankings deal with seeding scores and entry into
contests. Your seeding score is your score divided by the winners
score. The US Team selection is based on a 52/48 percent which looks
back over the course of the last 3 Nationals. Its been designed so you
don't have to travel accross the country to get a shot at a slot.
Those that do travel accross the country do wish to increase their
skills and realize that when they do go to the World's its not for a
club med vacation. These are the folks that I know. Thats why I said
ya gotta be **** me...............

> http://soaringweb.org/US_TEAM
>
> In 15M only John Seaborn has flown in the last 3 contests out of 98
> pilots on the list.
>
> Many of the pilots that have talked to me have been around the sport a
> long time. *My first contest was about 1989 and my first nationals was
> 1992 if I remember correctly. *It is easy to get in a game of who has
> been here longer, etc, but the real question is what is best for the
> sport long term.
>
> Tim
> TT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since you have come forward, put these names together, along with the
emails, send a petition around and then get in touch with your
director. Form a committee to study this. Show leadship, step forward
and get it done, as no one is stopping you from exploring your
ideas.... but I will add again....you gotta be ****in me..........
711

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 10:54*am, wrote:
> Hello Racers & Fans
> The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> racing/Rules & Process.
> Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> UH
> H Nixon
> SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair

This seems as good a place as any to say THANKS to all you RC guys.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 7:17*am, wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:54*am, wrote:
>
> > Hello Racers & Fans
> > The minutes of the 2008 meeting of he SSA Competition Rule
> > Subcommittee are now available on the SSA web site under Sailplane
> > racing/Rules & Process.
> > Draft rules changes for review and comment will be available 12/22/08.
> > UH
> > H Nixon
> > SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair
>
> This seems as good a place as any to say THANKS to all you RC guys.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Amen - I think most of us feel deep gratitude to those who give back
to the sport so generously.

A little debate is a good thing, and I know most glider pilots like a
LOT of debate.

As a first principle I'd like to see us set out clearly what the
objectives are, then we can try to assess to what extent various
proposals are likely to meet those goals.

I can think of a number of goals:

1) I think the first goal is to choose a national champion - if you
put aside the seeding implications (which I'll address later), this is
mostly a "bragging rights" issue. Ideally, you'd want to beat as many
top pilots as possible for those rights to have the most value. For
the sake of argument, imagine if we had 3, 4, 6, or 12 "nationals"
every year in each class to try to give everyone a "shot" at being a
"sub-national" champion. The more you divide it up, the less the title
means.

There is also the issue of participation. There is an argument that if
you hold more "sub-nationals" you will attract more national-caliber
pilots to those contests. This may be true, but the question is where
will they come from? My guess is they will come either from "out of
class" nationals being held in their region or regional contests. I
doubt that national-caliber pilots will be induced to fly an
additional contest - but you could survey people to see what they'd be
likely to do under specific alternative Regional/National/Sub-National
contest configurations.

2) Another goal is to select a national team. Someone will have to
remind me of the specifics of how seeding points versus nationals
placing are used in deciding this. To the extent that we rely mostly
on seeding over the past three years and there is reasonable "out of
class" opportunity to compete, then I don't think dividing up
nationals helps much. If you are flying 15-meter and have the option
to fly 18-meter (tips or not), then you get three shots in three years
if the nationals are "out of synch" and either 2, or 4 shots if they
are "in-synch". Lastly, to the extent that we want to have multiple
nationals per class it inevitably leads to some comparability problems
- which nationals had the stronger field, etc.

3) A third goal is to maximize the opportunity for pilots to compete
against the top pilots in the country. East-west nationals would
likely lead to competing against a smaller number of the best pilots
in-class in your region since cross-class entries would mostly go
away. You would probably bring in some pilots who would otherwise fly
in regionals, but at the expense of regionals.

4) Lastly, we use contests to award seeding points for a number of
purposes. Fragmenting the nationals would likely up the "luck factor"
of someone winning, or doing well in, a national championship due to
the smaller field. It would also likely compress the seeding list
simply because you have twice and many contests with a 100 factor -
irrespective of the strength of the field.

One issue I see is that the seeding system awards points irrespective
of how strong the the field is. In well-attended contests this isn't
usually a problem, but we increasingly see small fields, especially at
regionals. I think what I might favor (and I've mentioned this before)
is setting the maximum seeding points at any regional contest based on
the overall size and strength of the field. You might go as high as,
say 98 points, so the nationals still have a draw for the very best
pilots to travel or compete "out of class" in a nationals in-region. I
think this is consistent with the intent of super-regionals without
necessarily having to declare one as "super" explicitly. You could
still reserve 50% of the first 10 or 20 slots for some combination of
in-region and newbies, but you would up the value of doing well
against top-seeded pilots for those contests that can attract them.
This is in some ways analogous to what they try to do in college
football, where "strength of schedule" matters in national ranking.
Honestly, I think a lot of the proposals to fragment the nationals or
classes simply makes for awarding more and more trophies of less and
less value.

9B

[Tuno]

64% support for a bad idea is still a bad idea. I'm glad the RC went
with what's right and not what's popular.

2NO