On May 12, 4:19*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

I think "allow" is the operative word. One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

Probably kind of hard to swallow coming from a guy with an LS8 and a
brand new ClearNav, but believe me, the conversation around the dinner
table certainly gravitates to "So, what was in that box from [insert
name of soaring instrument supplier here] that arrived via UPS more
often than I'd like..."

P3