Performance World Class design proposal

Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.


"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

In article , iPilot
writes
Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.

How about the IGC Club Class, which already exists and can embrace the
soaring equivalent of Optimist, Dragon and Laser because it is not just
"one design" but compensates over a small performance bracket by
handicapping according to glider performance. You can certainly have a
viable IGC Club Class competition with PW5, Russia, K6, Skylarks and
gliders of similar performance. The organisers simply set the
performance bracket a bit lower than is normally done for Club Class
competitions (which rather sums up why the PW5 has not caught the
imagination of the world gliding movement).

It would appear that the world gliding movement is either too small or
too fragmented to embrace a successful one-design class. It might have
succeeded in the 1940 Olympics (which did not happen for obvious
reasons) with Hans Jacobs' great design, the Meise (also known as the
Olympia), but things have moved on since then. The Standard Class of
the 1950s was a great step forward in making gliders of reasonable cost
viable in competition up to the world level. It also spawned that fine
design the K6 and others. But it did not attempt to be a one-design
class and maybe that is why not only succeeded but is still with us
today. Is there a moral here that we should heed?

--

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre

Club Class will never make it to Olympics becuse of the coeficent system and
the fact that technical differences can still make the difference.


"Ian Strachan" wrote in message
...
In article , iPilot
writes
Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.

How about the IGC Club Class, which already exists and can embrace the
soaring equivalent of Optimist, Dragon and Laser because it is not just
"one design" but compensates over a small performance bracket by
handicapping according to glider performance. You can certainly have a
viable IGC Club Class competition with PW5, Russia, K6, Skylarks and
gliders of similar performance. The organisers simply set the
performance bracket a bit lower than is normally done for Club Class
competitions (which rather sums up why the PW5 has not caught the
imagination of the world gliding movement).

It would appear that the world gliding movement is either too small or
too fragmented to embrace a successful one-design class. It might have
succeeded in the 1940 Olympics (which did not happen for obvious
reasons) with Hans Jacobs' great design, the Meise (also known as the
Olympia), but things have moved on since then. The Standard Class of
the 1950s was a great step forward in making gliders of reasonable cost
viable in competition up to the world level. It also spawned that fine
design the K6 and others. But it did not attempt to be a one-design
class and maybe that is why not only succeeded but is still with us
today. Is there a moral here that we should heed?

--

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre

iPilot wrote:

Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.


Another difference with the Laser is that, as far as I remember, it was not
designed for Olympics, just as a modern sailboat with good performance and
state of the art design operated by a single person. The success of the design
later made it an Olympic class, not the opposite.

I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

I think that's a theoretical discussion.
The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.

And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
4 years ?! ...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"iPilot" a écrit dans le message de
...
I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

Once more. The reason, why PW5 failed was the fact that it's performance per money spent was dismal.
But the fact that it still got sold somewhat, talks that there is an interest towards monoclass.

If, for example we declare LS-4 a monoclass it'd have a huge number of gliders available already on
the market plus additional production.

And when it's good for a FINN sailor to buy a $20 000 boat for a one competition in 4 years, why it
shall be bad for a LS-4 pilot. National pride is going to open many currently closed pockets forl
gliding.



"Bert Willing" wrote in message
...
I think that's a theoretical discussion.
The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.

And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
4 years ?! ...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"iPilot" a écrit dans le message de
...
I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas