A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 14, 05:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:56:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP


John:



Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?


Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.

If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.

The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today

If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.

Tim EY


I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.

First cut, it seems like a Club Class focused on 1.02 (Std Libelle) to 0.91 (the last production generation of standard) would capture a lot of the very large and popular racing capable fleet. I know that higher handicap gliders like older Schreders are included but honestly I don't see those showing up in numbers. It seems like there is little to gain from having very large handicaps in club class from a size of fleet/participation perspective so that may be the far more productive place to reduce the range of handicaps. It turns out that including modern standard class - extending to Discus 2 versus stopping at Discus a or ASW-24 expands the handicap range by only 0.01, whereas including a bunch of older gliders below the standard Libelle expands it by 0.05 or more. I need to get the numbers, but I'm guessing that there are a lot more active glider pilots wanting to race at the Modern Standard side of the equation than those with Sisus and HP-11s and the handicap range required is 1/5 as wide - or less. I expect you get many more capable pilots on the higher performance end, but it doesn't appear to be at all an issue of the handicap expansion - at least based on the data.

I think the idea of creating an OLC format for very low performance gliders may indeed make a much more accessible entry at the low end rather than trying to include them in Club Class were you could get a lot more vibrant competitive participation by moving 1% up in performance to give an outlet for Modern Standard gliders - and get a solution for the east/west travel problem. This presumes that you are interested in increasing competitiveness of Club rather than restricting it for a VERY small increment in handicap range.

As to the Std/15M range - it looks like 0.92 to 0.87 gets you most of the latest generation Std and 15M plus some older 15M. That seems like a good critical mass of installed base of gliders.

I'd be very interested to see what a lift strength and wind handicap adjustment would look like for FAI classes, Peter. I'd say let's take a look.

9B
  #2  
Old July 17th 14, 05:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Roger that - already starting to work on it.

Please remember that LS8 and D2 ARE on the US club class list already - per my response to Tim. (worse performance than an ASW20a)

2T

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:24:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:56:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:




SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP




John:








Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?






Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.




If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.




The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today




If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.




Tim EY




I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.



First cut, it seems like a Club Class focused on 1.02 (Std Libelle) to 0.91 (the last production generation of standard) would capture a lot of the very large and popular racing capable fleet. I know that higher handicap gliders like older Schreders are included but honestly I don't see those showing up in numbers. It seems like there is little to gain from having very large handicaps in club class from a size of fleet/participation perspective so that may be the far more productive place to reduce the range of handicaps. It turns out that including modern standard class - extending to Discus 2 versus stopping at Discus a or ASW-24 expands the handicap range by only 0.01, whereas including a bunch of older gliders below the standard Libelle expands it by 0.05 or more. I need to get the numbers, but I'm guessing that there are a lot more active glider pilots wanting to race at the Modern Standard side of the equation than those with Sisus and HP-11s and the handicap range required is 1/5 as wide - or less. I expect you get many more capable pilots on the higher performance end, but it doesn't appear to be at all an issue of the handicap expansion - at least based on the data.



I think the idea of creating an OLC format for very low performance gliders may indeed make a much more accessible entry at the low end rather than trying to include them in Club Class were you could get a lot more vibrant competitive participation by moving 1% up in performance to give an outlet for Modern Standard gliders - and get a solution for the east/west travel problem. This presumes that you are interested in increasing competitiveness of Club rather than restricting it for a VERY small increment in handicap range.



As to the Std/15M range - it looks like 0.92 to 0.87 gets you most of the latest generation Std and 15M plus some older 15M. That seems like a good critical mass of installed base of gliders.



I'd be very interested to see what a lift strength and wind handicap adjustment would look like for FAI classes, Peter. I'd say let's take a look.



9B


  #3  
Old July 17th 14, 06:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:34:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Roger that - already starting to work on it.

Please remember that LS8 and D2 ARE on the US club class list already - per my response to Tim. (worse performance than an ASW20a)


Yup - I have a bunch of US glider fleet size data that i could map to the handicap range i you need it. It seems that you get more fleet expansion per percent of handicap range on the Club side (compared to IGC Club) than on the 15m side, but both seem feasible IF you can crack the ballast issue for 15m.

9B
  #4  
Old July 17th 14, 04:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes


I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.


Numbers on gliders here

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ticipation.pdf

It's amazing how many raceable gliders there are, that don't race. Our problem is not lack of gliders, it's lack of pilots who want to race them

John Cochrane
  #5  
Old July 17th 14, 05:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:


I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.






Numbers on gliders here



http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ticipation.pdf



It's amazing how many raceable gliders there are, that don't race. Our problem is not lack of gliders, it's lack of pilots who want to race them



John Cochrane


Many of the "modern" Std class ships have been bought from racers, who originally imported them for competition, by recreational pilots who wanted good performance and low age (good gelcoat). Many of these(most?), likely won't come play in contests, or maybe an occasional convenient regional.
My observation supports John's in this respect.
UH
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.