At 00:16 07 October 2010, Iain Murdoch wrote:
At 23:23 05 October 2010, John Cochrane wrote:
I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US
contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...s/barnaby.html

John Cochrane


Excellent thinking all round, especially on defining when points are
given
and withheld on safety grounds.

Just one thought that when it comes to sorting out the confusion of
classes, that we ought to include manufacturers in the discussion.
They have long lead times and high development costs. Handicapping a
reduced number of classes (which is a good incentive for pilots who
don't
have the latest hardware) would remove the designers incentive to push
the
technology.
Hopefully new class rules would retain some incentive to apply the
latest
in aerodynamics and structures but with a greater emphasis on value for
money at all performance levels.
They should also give manufacturers stability over time to recoup their
costs.
I like to dream about 70:1 but I also want to be able to afford 50:1.
Performance does broaden one's horizons.



Just had an idea!
To retain a sense of spectacle and for the sake of pilots who enjoy low
finishes;
Have a finish line at 1000', 1 mile out from the airfield, and then give
a bonus out of 20 points for a low pass and safe circuit as awarded by a
panel of judges on the ground. Strictly Gliding?

(Thinking about it, pilots should be required to do a clearance turn
before diving to gain speed.)