SRA Poll

I would like to thank the people responsible for putting together the SRA
Poll. A lot of work for sure.
I do take issue with item 3.0 and 3.1, Club Class
First 3.0 states that the WGCs Club Class List is too unstable and
excludes too many ships in widespread use in the US. The whole idea of a
Club Class is to have a class of gliders based on similar performance, not
on how many different gliders are being flown in this country. I also find
the statement "the WGC Club Class List is unstable" questionable. The
IGC has a very specific list of gliders allowed in the WGC. It is
published on line. Why not use what the rest of the world uses. If we want
to compete with the rest of the world we need to do as they do.
3.0 further states that if a Club Class were to be implemented it would be
a "Major Change" and it would be implemented gradually.
The way it is stated:
1st year- Demonstration contest by waiver
2nd year-Regionals and super regional contest
3rd year-Nationals Contest
4th year-The US team would use it for WGC
3.1 then ask-Should we proceed with the introduction of a Club Class "as
described above".
To me this is a two fold question;
1. Do you favor a Club Class?
2. Do you want to wait 4 years to fully implement the Club Class?
Some people may want the Club Class to begin right away. After all the
IGC already has the rules in place. Other countries have had a very
successful Club Class for years! Why do we have to vote for a Club Class
"as described above"? Why can't we vote for a Club Class in one or two
years.
Please note that if you vote YES to 3.1 you vote to have a Club Class but
you also vote to a 4 year wait for it to be fully implemented.
Why should we have to wait 4 years if we want a Club Class. I encourage
you to vote "yes" but also write in the "other issues" area that you
vote "yes" with the stipulation that we do it ASAP! The IGC has the
rules, gliders, handicaps, etc already in place. We can use the format of
the last WGC and move forward.
These are my thoughts only. Thanks, 5 Ugly LS1-F

On Sep 17, 9:23*pm, Sam Giltner wrote:
I would like to thank the people responsible for putting together the SRA
Poll. A lot of work for sure.
I do take issue with item 3.0 and 3.1, Club Class
First 3.0 states that the WGCs Club Class List is too unstable and
excludes too many ships in widespread use in the US. The whole idea of a
Club Class is to have a class of gliders based on similar performance, not
on how many different gliders are being flown in this country. I also find
the statement *"the WGC Club Class List is unstable" questionable. The
IGC has a very specific list of gliders allowed in the WGC. It is
published on line. Why not use what the rest of the world uses. If we want
to compete with the rest of the world we need to do as they do. *
3.0 further states that if a Club Class were to be implemented it would be
a "Major Change" and it would be implemented gradually.
*The way it is stated:
1st year- Demonstration contest by waiver
2nd year-Regionals and super regional contest
3rd year-Nationals Contest
4th year-The US team would use it for WGC
3.1 then ask-Should we proceed with the introduction of a Club Class "as
described above".
To me this is a two fold question;
1. Do you favor a Club Class?
2. Do you want to wait 4 years to fully implement the Club Class?
* Some people may want the Club Class to begin right away. After all the
IGC already has the rules in place. Other countries have had a very
successful Club Class for years! Why do we have to vote for a Club Class
"as described above"? Why can't we vote for a Club Class in one or two
years.
Please note that if you vote YES to 3.1 you vote to have a Club Class but
you also vote to a 4 year wait for it to be fully implemented.
Why should we have to wait 4 years if we want a Club Class. I encourage
you to vote "yes" but also write in the "other issues" area that you
vote "yes" with the stipulation that we do it ASAP! The IGC has the
rules, gliders, handicaps, etc already in place. We can use the format of
the last WGC and move forward. * *
These are my thoughts only. Thanks, 5 Ugly LS1-F

The biggest problem I see is that the "Sports" class has become the
alternate year contest for those pilots that don't want to travel
across the country to fly in their respective classes.

If the rules committee would move to create an East and West Nationals
for each class, the Club class would have a much better chance to be
what it is in Europe. Not everyone owns a current racer and a club
class ship ;-).

So far the rules committee seems to be stuck in the past of cheap gas,
people with lots of vacation time and love to drive for days to get to
a Nationals. They will say we have a problem with numbers at
contests, but staunchly refuse to think outside the box.

I guess if I had one of the latest ships, the money to travel
thousands of miles and plenty of vacation time I wouldn't want to
change the rules either so that others might be able to compete with
me at the nationals.

I am still waiting for any response form the rules committee on why we
can't change the current system and why they are happy letting the
numbers decline each year and do nothing to change it.

The biggest problem I see is that the "Sports" class has become the
alternate year contest for those pilots that don't want to travel
across the country to fly in their respective classes.

If the rules committee would move to create an East and West Nationals
for each class, the Club class would have a much better chance to be
what it is in Europe. *Not everyone owns a current racer and a club
class ship ;-).

So far the rules committee seems to be stuck in the past of cheap gas,
people with lots of vacation time and love to drive for days to get to
a Nationals. *They will say we have a problem with numbers at
contests, but staunchly refuse to think outside the box.

I guess if I had one of the latest ships, the money to travel
thousands of miles and plenty of vacation time I wouldn't want to
change the rules either so that others might be able to compete with
me at the nationals.

I am still waiting for any response form the rules committee on why we
can't change the current system and why they are happy letting the
numbers decline each year and do nothing to change it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've been thinking about this for a while. I put the numbers together
and you're right. Typically about 3 pilots cross the Mississippi to
attend contests at Cordele, Mifflin, Montague, or Ephrata. Everyone
else either flies sports, or shifts up a class -- standard in 15, 15
in 18, 18 in open.

On the one hand, most pilots seem happy -- they seem to far prefer
flying in slightly wrong class rather than dragging all the way across
the country -- so what's the problem
On the other hand, clearly it's less than optimal, and the structure
of our contests isn't meeting what pilots want -- national-level
competition within a 2 day drive.

It's also an issue for US team selection. Take a look at the current
rankings

http://soaringweb.org/US_TEAM

you can see that US team selection picks from a very small pool of
pilots who actually show up in the same class for 2-3 years in a
row.

It's not that easy. Multiple nationals in each class means even
smaller contests, unless you merge classes with handicaps which is an
anathema to most FAI class pilots. US team selection would then have
to aggregate at least across multiple contests, and better yet across
classes. That's not that hard either, but it changes deep-set
traditions.

So, at least one rules commitee member is thinking hard about this
issue.

The poll is open, so it's a good time to tell the RC how you feel.

John Cochrane
BB

I do take issue with item 3.0 and 3.1, Club Class
First 3.0 states that the WGCs Club Class List is too unstable and
excludes too many ships in widespread use in the US.

This reflects the US team decision not to use the WGC list, so blame
them. We were trying to briefly explain their logic. It certainly
makes no sense for the US to start a club class using a different list
than the US team!

But I think they made a good decision. The list changes depending on
when the next worlds is. So, you buy a glider to be in club class and
then 2 years later it's not on the list? We can't do that. Go look at
the list
http://www.ssa.org/UsTeam/ustc%20pdf...2008%20(2).pdf
which shows which gliders are on both lists. Do you think it's viable
to run a club class in the US that excludes the ASW20, Schweitzer
1-35, etc?

3.0 further states that if a Club Class were to be implemented it would be
a "Major Change" and it would be implemented gradually.

Let me explain the thinking a bit. A new class has to be popular to
survive. Pilots have to like flying it. There have to be regionals,
and enough pilots to show up at nationals to justify ground crew,
towplanes, and so forth.

If the only reason the class is there is a special restricted way to
get on a world team, the class is not likely to be viable. 2/3 of the
last sports nationals flew gliders that didn't qualify for team
points. 90% of pilots at sports obviously don't give a hoot about
world team points. If it's just about team points, and nobody realy
likes flying the class, we get another 10 glider class.

The RC is usually happy to let people try new classes and other
contest concepts by waiver. The 20 meter dual class got to try that
way. That seems like a good precedent for starting new classes. Try
it; if pilots come and like flying in this format, you demonstrate
it's viable. If it's a huge success, we can ramp up the implementation
schedule. If you can't get anyone to show up without handing out
world team points, it's probably not such a great idea. So in our
discussions this seemed like the right way to proceed.

But that's why there is a comments section. Tell us what you think.

Disclaimer: just my opinions here, not an official rules committee
statement.

John Cochrane
BB

On Sep 18, 9:54*am, BB wrote:

I've been thinking about this for a while. *I put the numbers together
and you're right. Typically about 3 pilots cross the Mississippi to
attend contests at Cordele, Mifflin, Montague, or Ephrata. Everyone
else either flies sports, or shifts up a class -- standard in 15, 15
in 18, 18 in open.

On the one hand, most pilots seem happy -- they seem to far prefer
flying in slightly wrong class rather than dragging all the way across
the country -- so what's the problem
On the other hand, clearly it's less than optimal, and the structure
of our contests isn't meeting what pilots want -- national-level
competition within a 2 day drive.

It's also an issue for US team selection. Take a look at the current
rankings

http://soaringweb.org/US_TEAM

you can see that US team selection picks from a very small pool of
pilots who actually show up in the same class for 2-3 years in a
row.

It's not that easy. Multiple nationals in each class means even
smaller contests, unless you merge classes with handicaps which is an
anathema to most FAI class pilots. US team selection would then have
to aggregate at least across multiple contests, and better yet across
classes. That's not that hard either, but it changes deep-set
traditions.

So, at least one rules commitee member is thinking hard about this
issue.

The poll is open, so it's a good time to tell the RC how you feel.

John Cochrane
BB

John,

Thanks for the comments.

On the one hand, most pilots seem happy -- they seem to far prefer
flying in slightly wrong class rather than dragging all the way across
the country -- so what's the problem

I am not sure they are happy, but it is what we do to race within a
reasonable distance and cost. I for one would prefer to race in my
class each year. Just to drive across country now is very expensive.
Assume 15 mpg for a tow vehicle and 3000 miles coast to coast. It is
nearly $1600 in fuel and an other $1500 or more for hotels and $1000
for contest fees.

It's not that easy. Multiple nationals in each class means even
smaller contests, unless you merge classes with handicaps which is an
anathema to most FAI class pilots.

I am not sure the contest will be smaller. Look at Parowan, it has
become a super regionals drawing pilots from all of Region 9 (NM, CO,
AZ, and UT) and many from Regions 11 and 12, basically the Western
US. Why are they there? Great soaring, but also because it will be
one of the most competitive contests outside a nationals (and often
more competitive than some nationals). Look at the 15M class this
year. Two national champions and one runner up in the field.

It is also a serious contest with 7 days of racing if possible and
tasks that are called on national standards rather than regionals.
The tasking usually gives the FAI classes the same task so that you
are flying with forty or more ships in "one" class.

Is a seven day regional really different from a nine day nationals?
Other than it can be done with one week vacation rather than two or
more.

US team selection would then have
to aggregate at least across multiple contests, and better yet across
classes. That's not that hard either, but it changes deep-set
traditions.

I think we are way past time to look at this. I have flown ships form
all classes except World Class and there is very little difference in
racing a Std, 15M or 18M ship. The Opens do require a slightly
different set of skills but the others are essentially the same. We
could combine the rankings and let the top pilots select or bid for
the class they represent in the worlds. Our current system is
weighted to those that fly one class every year and not looking at
there performance across several classes or regionals. Pilots such as
Gary Ittner and Bill Elliott have low rankings in some classes even
though they have won a nationals.

So, at least one rules committee member is thinking hard about this
issue.

John, thanks for thinking about this. I see a very strong desire to
race among many pilots, but the time and cost of going to a nationals
is limiting the development of pilots at that level. I learn a great
deal from each contest and wish there were more in the west to fly
in. Next year 18M and Parowan are the same time ;-( and I can't fly
my Ventus in the Std. Class.

Tim Taylor
TT

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:21:12 -0700 (PDT), BB
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/UsTeam/ustc%20pdf...2008%20(2).pdf
which shows which gliders are on both lists. Do you think it's viable
to run a club class in the US that excludes the ASW20, Schweitzer
1-35, etc?

The IGC's handicap list is not totally stable. A major modification
was debated and partially adopted during the last IGC's general
meeting (see the result in the Sporting Code
http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/sc3a.pdf )
The highest performing gliders admitted since then, have a handicap
factor of 1.09 (ASW20 and Discus, when fitted with winglets), followed
by the same gliders (no winglets) and the ASW24WL, SZD55 (f=1.08).
Then the DG200/202 etc, down to the lowest level (f=0.96) where
there's a group made of VSO10, Club Libelle (fixed gear), Astir CS.

IMHO, the gliders in the list belong mainly to one generation: the
Wortmann profiled wings of he very late '60s and the '70s. The most
relevant exceptions being the Discus and the ASW24 only.

In Italy, we have thus made a few additions based on analogy: some
old, higher perfomance gliders like the Kestrel 17 (1.09), 19 (1.11)
and the Nimbus2 (1.13), with a handicap factor that we consider fair
and appropriate.
Of course, the pilots who really have a chance to be selected for the
national team have agreed to fly one of the gliders accepted also in
the IGC list. And, of course, gliders are weighed daily, to make sure
the IGC rule is respected (no water ballast).
Nevertheless, Club Class competitions are not a huge success in Italy.
As of today, the most populated classes for the Nationals are the 18m
and the Standard class.

Maybe you can find an appropriate factor for the 1-35 and others, as
well.

cheers!

Aldo Cernezzi
(formerly in the Italian rules committee)

On Sep 18, 1:01*am, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:23*pm, Sam Giltner wrote:





I would like to thank the people responsible for putting together the SRA
Poll. A lot of work for sure.
I do take issue with item 3.0 and 3.1, Club Class
First 3.0 states that the WGCs Club Class List is too unstable and
excludes too many ships in widespread use in the US. The whole idea of a
Club Class is to have a class of gliders based on similar performance, not
on how many different gliders are being flown in this country. I also find
the statement *"the WGC Club Class List is unstable" questionable. The
IGC has a very specific list of gliders allowed in the WGC. It is
published on line. Why not use what the rest of the world uses. If we want
to compete with the rest of the world we need to do as they do. *
3.0 further states that if a Club Class were to be implemented it would be
a "Major Change" and it would be implemented gradually.
*The way it is stated:
1st year- Demonstration contest by waiver
2nd year-Regionals and super regional contest
3rd year-Nationals Contest
4th year-The US team would use it for WGC
3.1 then ask-Should we proceed with the introduction of a Club Class "as
described above".
To me this is a two fold question;
1. Do you favor a Club Class?
2. Do you want to wait 4 years to fully implement the Club Class?
* Some people may want the Club Class to begin right away. After all the
IGC already has the rules in place. Other countries have had a very
successful Club Class for years! Why do we have to vote for a Club Class
"as described above"? Why can't we vote for a Club Class in one or two
years.
Please note that if you vote YES to 3.1 you vote to have a Club Class but
you also vote to a 4 year wait for it to be fully implemented.
Why should we have to wait 4 years if we want a Club Class. I encourage
you to vote "yes" but also write in the "other issues" area that you
vote "yes" with the stipulation that we do it ASAP! The IGC has the
rules, gliders, handicaps, etc already in place. We can use the format of
the last WGC and move forward. * *
These are my thoughts only. Thanks, 5 Ugly LS1-F

The biggest problem I see is that the "Sports" class has become the
alternate year contest for those pilots that don't want to travel
across the country to fly in their respective classes.

If the rules committee would move to create an East and West Nationals
for each class, the Club class would have a much better chance to be
what it is in Europe. *Not everyone owns a current racer and a club
class ship ;-).

So far the rules committee seems to be stuck in the past of cheap gas,
people with lots of vacation time and love to drive for days to get to
a Nationals. *They will say we have a problem with numbers at
contests, but staunchly refuse to think outside the box.

I guess if I had one of the latest ships, the money to travel
thousands of miles and plenty of vacation time I wouldn't want to
change the rules either so that others might be able to compete with
me at the nationals.

I am still waiting for any response form the rules committee on why we
can't change the current system and why they are happy letting the
numbers decline each year and do nothing to change it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The competition committee currently struggles to get enough organizers
to run 6 nationals a year. Your suggestion
is to make this 12 . This is highly unlikely to be supported by
contest organizers.
2 15 meter "national champions"- one "east", one "west". which is the
true NATIONAL champion? Who gets the world team slot?
I see your thinking, while trying to address a real problem, as
flawed.
I would challange you to support your assertion that the RC is happy
about declining participation. This is simply not true. It is
however , very true that there are no simple answers to these issues.
The Club class has the potential to increase participation by creating
a "special home" for that group of ships. It remains to be seen
whether this will increase participation of simply divide the sports
class, have one more set of prizes, more work for organizers and
scorers.
Lest anyone think that I oppose this new possible class, I do not. I
must demonstrate that participation can be expected to increase or all
it really does is make a class where guys don't have to compete with
KS.
Please provide your input as part of your poll response. These are
used as supporting documentation for the annual Rules meeting.
Thanks
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair.

On Sep 18, 8:02*pm, wrote:

- Show quoted text -

The competition committee currently struggles to get enough organizers
to run 6 nationals a year. Your suggestion
is to make this 12 . This is highly unlikely to be supported by
contest organizers.
2 15 meter "national champions"- one "east", one "west". which is the
true NATIONAL champion? Who gets the world team slot?
I see your thinking, while trying to address a real problem, as
flawed.
I would challange you to support your assertion that the RC is happy
about declining participation. This is simply not true. It is
however , very true that there are no simple answers to these issues.
The Club class has the potential to increase participation by creating
a "special home" for that group of ships. It remains to be seen
whether this will increase participation of simply divide the sports
class, have one more set of prizes, more work for organizers and
scorers.
Lest anyone think that I oppose this new possible class, I do not. I
must demonstrate that participation can be expected to increase or all
it really does is make a class where guys don't have to compete with
KS.
Please provide your input as part of your poll response. These are
used as supporting documentation for the annual Rules meeting.
Thanks
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair.

Hank,

I am sorry you feel my thinking is “flawed”. Unfortunately that
attitude appears to be doing little to reverse the trend of lower
numbers at US contests.

The competition committee currently struggles to get enough organizers
to run 6 nationals a year. Your suggestion
is to make this 12 . This is highly unlikely to be supported by
contest organizers.

I find it hard to believe we would need to hold twelve contests rather
than six. Combined classes such as std/15m, 18m/open, sports (club)/
world would show that we would need six or less for the entire
country. Also the ability to run combined nationals/regionals like
Region 11 and Sports this year again reduce the load.

Changing from a 9 day contest (actually 10 days, but we have a
mandatory rest day) to a seven day (Sunday to Saturday) would reduce
the workload for contest organizer and managers considerably. Is
there reason to hold a 10 day contest other than because we always
have?

2 15 meter "national champions"- one "east", one "west". which is the
true NATIONAL champion? Who gets the world team slot?

Do we need a National Champion? We can't have both an East and West?
I am sure we can come up with some system for a fly off if you really
feel we need just one.

The national champion doesn’t get the team slot today. It is a
composite score that gets the spot based on several years and multiple
contests. We move to a points system similar to what we have already.
It could be based on best three finishes from the last three years, or
any other method we decide is reasonable. I think the idea of using
the score from more than one class should also be considered. Those
that are really in contention for the team are likely to fly in both
east and west contests anyway.

I see your thinking, while trying to address a real problem, as
flawed.

Sorry Hank, I’m just outside the box. But, I only design and optimize
systems for a living.

I would challange you to support your assertion that the RC is happy
about declining participation. This is simply not true. It is
however , very true that there are no simple answers to these issues.

As Albert Einstein is reported to have said: "The definition of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results." The failure to act can only be taken as the RC not
addressing the issue. Any good scientist knows that to learn you must
run experiments, try new things. You may fail but at least you tried.
As the famous teacher Ms. Frizzle once said “Take Chances, Make
Mistakes, and Get Messy!”.

Please provide your input as part of your poll response. These are
used as supporting documentation for the annual Rules meeting.
Thanks
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommittee Chair.

It was several days ago and hopefully other will as well. I encourage
you to be a little less judgmental in your position and more open to
dialog and trying new things.

Tim Taylor (TT)