What is Purpose of Sports Class Nationals?

I would much prefer a Sports Class in America that
resembles the Club Class in Europe. The other posters
to this thread who also support this have stated the
reasons.

My one additional reason: I've had my LS1-d for over
10 years and expect/hope to keep it for many more.
It is a great ship and it's a perfect Club Classer.

Personally, I'm not ready for a Nats. I suck and I
fly too slow. But it would be fun to fly against other
'club classers' at the regional, not just a National.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d 'W8'

Frank wrote:

In America, the 2005 handicaps (the latest list I could find) we

Std Cirrus 1.000
LS3 0.953
LS4 0.950
ASW28 0.925
LS8/15 0.925

So, given the current handicap system, allowing 0.925 handicaps would
have the effect of negating the entire idea.


My .925 quip was tongue-in-cheek; I buried the :-) as part of a
parenthetical. I basically think the floor should be LS4 or maybe
another antique like the ASW-24 (that thrown in as a barb at my friend
JB ) :-)))

Certainly there is no incentive to drive forever and spend $2K or so to
compete in a contest where there is no chance of winning. Who knows
how that would change if there actually was a chance. We won't know
until we try. In any case, the SSA supported a 2006 World Class
Nationals with only 9 gliders present, and I suspect I could get 9 SC
pilots to commit to a meet where they are assured there will be only
?SC gliders in a 0.95 to 1.1 or so range.

I used to be a teaching pro in tennis years back. It was funny how some
guys would always come in and buy the latest racket, have me fiddle
around with new strings, etc. They were sure that "if only" they had
the better equipment, they'd be competitive. Year after year, the
same guys won the championship, no matter what the equipment. We're
all potential champions until we put our talent where our mouth is.
To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that say they don't
come to the Sports Class nationals because they would have no chance of
winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look back, a well flown
Libelle won in 2005 and a well flown K6 would have won in 2004
(excepting his Day 5 landout, Stevenson had a huge lead at Ionia).
Also, I'll note that I count 10 (of the 27) gliders at Ionia falling
within the sports class range if you include the ASW-24 (otherwise I
think it was 8).

To some extent, my position on participation from this "latent" group
of true Club Class pilots is "I'll believe it when I see it." The
idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals for a couple of
years seems to have a lot of merit.

P3

Papa3 wrote:
Frank wrote:

Year after year, the
same guys won the championship, no matter what the equipment. We're
all potential champions until we put our talent where our mouth is.
To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that say they don't
come to the Sports Class nationals because they would have no chance of
winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look back, a well flown

To some extent, my position on participation from this "latent" group
of true Club Class pilots is "I'll believe it when I see it." The
idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals for a couple of
years seems to have a lot of merit.

Yes, I agree on both points. No one really knows what will happen if
we try a Club Class Championship within the normal SC Nats, but based
on the popularity of this class in Europe, I for one have high hopes.

IMHO we still need to adjust the U.S. handicapping system to reflect
actual results over the last few years, but maybe that deserves its own
thread ;-).

Frank (X3)

P3

The 'Club Class' is popular in the UK and Europe. It
allows you to buy, borrow or hire an elderly low value
glider such as a Libelle or a Standard Cirrus and be
competitive. Actually the UK Club Class Nationals are
usually extremely competitive and normally attract
several current or ex World Champions.

It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
than those with the deepest pockets.

Handicapped competions only work well if there is a
fairly small handicap range - and the handicaps are
accurate. The Standard Cirrus has been consistently
successful in the Club Class over the years and there
have been some murmerings about its handicap. However
the best pilots chose to fly this type if they can
because of its reputation of success, so there may
be a chicken and egg situation. I am a very average
competition pilot and owning one doesn't seem to help
me very much!

The powers that be seem to be letting more and more
higher performance types into the Club Class. You may
get to a point where it is not worth flying the older
types. If you a flying a Libelle or an Astir, all the
handicap in the World won't help you to glide across
large dead areas, or prevent you from running out of
day attempting a task set to test the pilots of higher
performance gliders.

Derek Copeland

At 11:48 30 June 2006, Frank wrote:

Papa3 wrote:
Frank wrote:

Year after year, the
same guys won the championship, no matter what the
equipment. We're
all potential champions until we put our talent where
our mouth is.
To some extent, I feel the same way about folks that
say they don't
come to the Sports Class nationals because they would
have no chance of
winning. Try it and see. I mean, if you look
back, a well flown

To some extent, my position on participation from
this 'latent' group
of true Club Class pilots is 'I'll believe it when
I see it.' The
idea of running it within the Sports Class nationals
for a couple of
years seems to have a lot of merit.

Yes, I agree on both points. No one really knows what
will happen if
we try a Club Class Championship within the normal
SC Nats, but based
on the popularity of this class in Europe, I for one
have high hopes.

IMHO we still need to adjust the U.S. handicapping
system to reflect
actual results over the last few years, but maybe that
deserves its own
thread ;-).

Frank (X3)

P3

Papa3 wrote:
Derek Copeland wrote:

It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
than those with the deepest pockets.


Really, I think this is the key point. I wholeheartedly agree with
the statement that what we want to do is identify the best pilots.

Interesting in this context that you cannot be selected for the US club
class world team if you have ever competed in an FAI worlds. A number
of reasons are given for this rule, but picking the best pilots is
clearly not one of them.

John Cochrane

BB wrote:
Papa3 wrote:
Derek Copeland wrote:

It is good for identifying the best pilots, rather
than those with the deepest pockets.


Really, I think this is the key point. I wholeheartedly agree with
the statement that what we want to do is identify the best pilots.

Interesting in this context that you cannot be selected for the US club
class world team if you have ever competed in an FAI worlds. A number
of reasons are given for this rule, but picking the best pilots is
clearly not one of them.

John Cochrane

The reason for excluding FAI class pilots was to open the field for
new, up and coming pilots coming up throught the Sports/ "Club" class
environment. It is true that this MAY not pick the best pilots we have
in the US, but it does open the doors to some new blood.

Other observations about some of these posts:
Nobody has noted that tasking if Sports is to be set based upon the
capabilities of the core (essentially the club class range) gliders.
"Properly" tasked, this means that the low performance gliders(1.15 and
below) may not get home every day and the high performance gliders will
be forced to use the entire available area which is a huge
disadvantage. With the increase in cylinder size on TAT tasks to 30
miles, more flexibility has been added in an attempt to keep tasks fair
and doable.

I completely disagree that Club class flying is some kind of a
different world from FAI class. It is true that a pilot needs to
recalibrate a bit but this is not as big a deal as it is implied. 30-40
hr in the previous 3 months is about what I have found is needed. If
you have done it before, it is a fraction of this.

A concern I have is exclusion. Let's say we have an up and coming pilot
who bought an ASW-24 or Discus because he or she wants to be within
perfomance range of current Std class and wants to learn in Sports and
Std. By the suggested by some range, this person would be excluded in
the selection scheme because the glider is a percent or so "too good".
This concept would force pilots to skip the opportunity to learn both
ways.

It should also be noted that many of the same names seem to come out
near the top, even as the gliders they fly change.

It should also be noted that just "knocking the bumps off" and putting
some good instruments in an old club class glider will not make it
truely competitve. Most of these ships need a lot of work to bring them
up to their potential. The gliders that the top guys flew at the 2002
WGC in Musbach were as well prepared as any in any class in the world.
This was obviously done at either significant expense or at least, a
ton of labor.
Dave Stevenson has thrived in our Sports class by putting in this kind
of effort. Almost nobody else has even tried.

These posts are very worthwhile.

Hank Nixon UH
Regular Sports Nationals competitor
Club Class WGC team '01 and '02
SSA RC Rules Subcommitte Chair

Hi frank,

So where do I fly my Duo in a contest? I tried to get a 20 m contest
going in the Western US to no avail. Tom Knauff tried to get one going
a couple of years ago. IMHO the reason that the Duo wins is that some
guys are just a lot better than I am. I love to fly and love to fly
contests. With that said, it also needs to be said that, we really
don't have a Sports Class Nationals, we have a Handicapped Nationals!
Frank wrote:
Wow - I've certainly come to the right place for informed responses to
my post! ;-). Replying to all previouis posts:

Thanks to 'gliderstud' (what a handle) and John Seaborn for the links
to ongoing discussions in this area - I read both carefully.

I'm still having problems with the stated purpose for the SC Nats vs
what is actually happening. Here in the U.S. we have a Std Nats, a 15m
Nats, an Open/18m Nats, a World Class Nats, and the SC Nats. In 2005,
the number of gliders entered we Std 23, 15m 47, 18m 22, Open 10,
World 13, SC 48. In 2006 so far, the SC Nats hosted 55 and the World
Class hosted 9. My point is, I don't believe there is any danger in
not havning enough SC pilots and gliders to show up to make a National
contest field if the high-priced glass is excluded, and the SSA has
already repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to support a National
Constest for a relatively small number of entrants. Regarding the
quality of the competition, I think it would be much more fun to have a
fighting chance to finish in the top half of the field than to be
doomed from the start to the (very) low end of the scale. It is my
personal belief that the reason pure SC pilots *do not* come to the SC
Nats is because they know they can't possibly win or even place well
(The Harris HIll SC Nats where Tim McAllister won in his Libelle was a
freak event - I was there and the weather was terrible - we set
records for the number of landouts. If the weather had been at all
reasonable, Tim would probably not have done as well).

In all these contests except the SC Nats, all the gliders have
essentially the same performance, so it is (in theory) the best pilot
that wins. In the SC Nats it is essentially impossible to tell whether
the best pilot or the most expensive glass is most significant, because
the range of gliders is so broad. In 2005 and 2006, the best a pure SC
pilot and plane did was 6th overall (Manfred Franke in 2005 with an
LS-3), and in 2006 about 27th overall (Tim Wells in a Std Cirrus). In
both years, the SC National Champion was won by a pilot or pilots in a
Duo Discus, with other high-priced glass close behind.

Why don't we try eliminating the Duo's and the ASW27s and the ASG-29's
from the equation at the SC Nats, or at least adjust the handicaps so
their pilots have to fly a lot harder than they do now to win. Let's
try the experiment. How do we know how many pure SC pilots & gliders
will show up if we don't try? If it doesn't work, we can change it
back.

Frank(X3)

I don't know what Frank would say, but I say 'fly it
in Open Class.'

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d



At 17:42 04 July 2006, Mike I Green wrote:
Hi frank,

So where do I fly my Duo in a contest? I tried to
get a 20 m contest
going in the Western US to no avail. Tom Knauff tried
to get one going
a couple of years ago. IMHO the reason that the Duo
wins is that some
guys are just a lot better than I am. I love to fly
and love to fly
contests. With that said, it also needs to be said
that, we really
don't have a Sports Class Nationals, we have a Handicapped
Nationals!
Frank wrote:
Wow - I've certainly come to the right place for informed
responses to
my post! ;-). Replying to all previouis posts:

Thanks to 'gliderstud' (what a handle) and John Seaborn
for the links
to ongoing discussions in this area - I read both
carefully.

I'm still having problems with the stated purpose
for the SC Nats vs
what is actually happening. Here in the U.S. we have
a Std Nats, a 15m
Nats, an Open/18m Nats, a World Class Nats, and the
SC Nats. In 2005,
the number of gliders entered we Std 23, 15m 47,
18m 22, Open 10,
World 13, SC 48. In 2006 so far, the SC Nats hosted
55 and the World
Class hosted 9. My point is, I don't believe there
is any danger in
not havning enough SC pilots and gliders to show up
to make a National
contest field if the high-priced glass is excluded,
and the SSA has
already repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to
support a National
Constest for a relatively small number of entrants.
Regarding the
quality of the competition, I think it would be much
more fun to have a
fighting chance to finish in the top half of the field
than to be
doomed from the start to the (very) low end of the
scale. It is my
personal belief that the reason pure SC pilots *do
not* come to the SC
Nats is because they know they can't possibly win
or even place well
(The Harris HIll SC Nats where Tim McAllister won
in his Libelle was a
freak event - I was there and the weather was terrible
- we set
records for the number of landouts. If the weather
had been at all
reasonable, Tim would probably not have done as well).

In all these contests except the SC Nats, all the
gliders have
essentially the same performance, so it is (in theory)
the best pilot
that wins. In the SC Nats it is essentially impossible
to tell whether
the best pilot or the most expensive glass is most
significant, because
the range of gliders is so broad. In 2005 and 2006,
the best a pure SC
pilot and plane did was 6th overall (Manfred Franke
in 2005 with an
LS-3), and in 2006 about 27th overall (Tim Wells in
a Std Cirrus). In
both years, the SC National Champion was won by a
pilot or pilots in a
Duo Discus, with other high-priced glass close behind.

Why don't we try eliminating the Duo's and the ASW27s
and the ASG-29's
from the equation at the SC Nats, or at least adjust
the handicaps so
their pilots have to fly a lot harder than they do
now to win. Let's
try the experiment. How do we know how many pure
SC pilots & gliders
will show up if we don't try? If it doesn't work,
we can change it
back.

Frank(X3)

In article .com,
"Frank" wrote:



Well, they are supposed to improve low-speed handling and thermalling
performance by reducing induced drag, while not costing anything at the
high end of the speed range. I think they actually do improve
performance as advertised, but I don't have any hard data to support
this, other than the wind tunnel & flight data obtained in by the folks
who adapted the LS-8 winglets to the LS-4.

I would not think it possible to significantly improve the handling and
thermalling of the LS-4. It's already so close to perfect in those areas
that any improvement would be vanishingly small.

But hey, they *do* look cool! ;-).

Absolutely!


Frank(X3)