On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:06:53 AM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:51:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:21:26 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:



Sports class "as is" with club class means a huge hole out of the



middle, and the sparrowhawk competing with no other gliders between it



and an ASW27. That just doesn't work.







It will continue to work as it has in the past. Holes in the middle, low end or high end are irrelevant to an all inclusive Sports Class. If rules and tasking are unchanged then you will get the SAME result, regardless of sailplane mix. It has worked in the past. It will continue to work the same way in the future.







We haven't had 50 pilots at sports



nationals in club gliders ever. First you show up and race, then we



talk about how to tweak the rules.







Too many Club Class pilots feel like we have been there and done that. We were told build and fly a super regional. We did. We were told do it again. We did. Where does it end? Current RC "Club Class" resembles NOTHING of want was built and flown in the super regionals.







The Mifflin experiment gives about 95% of what you wanted -- limited



handicap range allowing more gaggle flying and assigned tasks / long



MATs.







Stating "95% of want you wanted" is completely inaccurate. Cutting the handicap list down the middle isn't limited handicap range. It certainly doesn't make it Club Class. AT can't happen if just ONE low performance glider shows up. MAT's were EXCLUDED from the super regional. MAT's are no substitute for AT. Besides the RC label "Club Class", which obviously has no resemblance to a real Club Class, I don't think we have anything.







If that works, attracts 25+ gliders. If



you and the 50 signatories stay home, the game is up.







I predict the 50 signatories will either stay home or participate at the same level IF the current RC proposal goes into effect. It's insane to expect a different result unless you change. Do you really think those who want a genuine Club Class will market and recruit for a US rules based mass handicap contest labeled "Club Class"? Come on, let's get real.







F2 took Region 6 from 10 pilots to 40 through his marketing efforts. He was excited and motivated. Do you really think he will do the same for the RC's "Club Class"? What about others including me? What about those already staying home?











If full-on FAI rules are in fact so immensely attractive, and people



really are staying home from Mifflin because they can't stand the



thought of a beat up 20B or sparrowhawk sharing the grid with them,



and they're dying to reprogram their instruments to kilometers to



practice for the worlds...



John Cochrane











No one is suggesting leaving out the ASW20B or mandating kilometers. We should keep in mind Guy's post "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."







Sean Franke (HA)



You're basically making the case that "Sports Class Sucks" due to the impossibly wide handicap spread. I don't disagree (but I don't make policy). FWIW, I've always thought that Sports at the Nats level was a waste of time for just this reason and I never go. I've flown a couple of narrow handicap range regional contests that included (at most) LS-4s to 18 m ships. That worked pretty well imo and I'd do it again.



Cutting the middle out of Sports makes the problem more glaring, but I do concede the point that it doesn't fundamentally change anything. I've known all along that 27s and better are not meaningfully competing in any way with 1-34s and Ka anythings and I have always thought it silly to put them on the same scoresheet at the *Nationals* level. Regionals are a different story. I fully support an entry level / less intimidating sports class at the regional level.



One 20B guy's take (i.e. mine): If I go to Mifflin I'll fly modern. I'll do that because I think I'll like the tasking better and I learn more chasing faster gliders.



Btw: no one likes the MAT. I've seen it called creatively and well once or twice, but more often it creates a huge luck factor (choose your own turnpoints) or turns a beautiful soaring day into an annoying rat maze of 20 and 30 miles legs (long MAT).



From what I can see of the numbers, we would need to include Venti (a/b/c), LS-6s and 20B/C in order to make an "FAI" club class viable in the Eastern US, and probably Western as well. I am merely curious: is this a deal breaker for you? What about winglets? At the beginning of the thread, the objective very clearly conveyed was "FAI rules without exception", now we appear to be having an actual exchange of ideas. I suggest we leave Mifflin 2013 out of the discussion for the moment. Looking for more common ground here.



Evan Ludeman / T8

I think Guy Byars statement carries wisdom and direction. "The trick is to preserve the spirit and the simplicity of the FAI rules, but at the same time make them a bit more palatable to US pilots."

ASW 20 B and C are excluded at the current WGC. B and C's have not been excluded in the past. There certainly is no reason to exclude ANY 15 meter ASW 20 from the US Club Class.

Winglets are already allowed in FAI Club Class with a handicap penalty.

There has been discussion on Ventus 1 and LS 6. I see the argument both ways. I don't believe including those gliders will make the Club Class necessarily more successful. We already have momentum to make the FAI US Club Class the most popular racing class. Keep in mind we have people ready to market and grow the class. F2 grew Region 6N from 10 pilots to 40. It's reasonable to expect significant FAI US Club Class growth. We are not just pulling gliders from the Sports Class roster.

We are proposing starting a new class, not excluding them (V1 and LS6)from an existing contest. So here is the question: Should V1's and LS6 stay in Sports Class under US Rules or be allowed in the new FAI US Club Class? I'd like to hear comments.

Sean Franke (HA)