Soaring not compatible with modern society?

Dave, Why do you speak of the "little engines" in a negative way? They are part of the way you can greatly reduce your risk of landing out. Yes, landing your expensive composite glider in a farmers field is "idiotic". I agree! I was a hang glider pilot for 35 years before taking up sailplanes. Many of us were. Every HG XC flight has a landout at the end, usually in some field. But HG are way less expensive, fold up easily and weigh ~75 lbs. So landouts are not much of a problem. Sort of like the Grunu Baby you mention, I imagine, without a trailer.
The big problem with entry into our sport is the huge amount of money required. Face it, this is a rich man's sport! Any young person with a desire to soar to the clouds these days can do so for just a few thousand dollars with a paraglider or hang glider. No license, no trailer, no crew required. For them, the choice has already been made by their financial situation. Sailplanes are in their distant future (maybe).

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
Well I think there is a simpler explanation. In the past
sailplanes were cheap and did not have "little engines", if you
flew cross country you sometimes ended up in a field.
Now it's very different: firstly sailplanes are vastly more
expensive and secondly many have those "little engines",
thirdly todays sailplanes are much heavier and land much
faster. Landing a Grunau Baby is not the same experience as
landing a Nimbus 4.
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?
The accident statistics clearly show how many field landing
accidents result in damage. I don't think it's anything to do
with personal risk; lots of people still rock climb, mountaineer,
sail, ski, sky-dive etc. They don't set off on each trip with the
expectation of a vast bill from their local repair shop!
Dave Walsh

Money being the barrier to enter the sport of soaring is complete bull****. Money is an easy scapegoat. We have hull insurance to cover the cost of replacing a broken glider. A tow costs less than a lift ticket and depending upon where you go sometimes a daily lift ticket is twice as expensive. On average, many people ski 10-15 times a yea'r. This is probably the number of times the average glider pilot will fly in a year. What about golf? Money st bicycles cost $3-8k. Look at the number of people racing stock cars at the local track. Most will drop $10-20k each year. No, sponsors don't pick up the tab at the local level. Look at the number of RVs on hecroad on any given day. A motor home costs more than a modern sailplane. Clubs are a cost effective watt I fly but they can be inconvenient. People with discressionary time have a lot of disposable cash. Most choose to spend it on activities other than flying a sailplane.

Soaring is not expensive. Soaring is inconvenient and has a very thin slice of conditions when it can be enjoyed. Landout s are an adventure and most great soaring stories revolve around some iteration of a landout. Off airport landings, even when safe, are inconvenient. As a society we abhor inconvenience and go to great length it avoid it. Little motors help avoid the inconvenience of landouts and finding towpilots or the inconvenience of paying our tow fees.

As the soaring population ages we also become more risk adverse. Electronic gadgets seem to make us feel better about taking risks. The aging population also wants more certainty so we rely upon gadgets to help reinforce our decisions of risk management.

In general I agree with Gregg's opinions and find them refreshing even if they only serve to spark debate and make us think a bit.