World Championship gliders

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:31:34 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess...) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?



If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.



Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.



In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.



If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider...all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.



In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.



The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.



I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.



One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.



Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc.. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.



Sean

Of course a massive shift to a one design glider costs the same to the participants as a massive shift to a new competitive glider.

Even in one design yacht racing, some boats seem to be faster than others whether is it newer sails, a 3 sigma light hull, or whatever. That's why the fairest racing is done in collegiate, where in many regattas crews rotate boats every race of the series. Bringing a "hot" or tweaked boat then gives you no advantage. Somehow I don't see that being agreed to in soaring....

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:43:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.


After seven days, the highest ranking for a slim fuselage glider in 18m is 20th. The top 19 are all "wide fuselage" gliders -- either ASG-29 or JS-1.




Tom Knauff

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:00:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:31:34 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess...) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class.. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?







If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.







Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.







In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.







If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider...all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.







In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.







The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.







I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.







One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.







Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.







Sean



Of course a massive shift to a one design glider costs the same to the participants as a massive shift to a new competitive glider.



Even in one design yacht racing, some boats seem to be faster than others whether is it newer sails, a 3 sigma light hull, or whatever. That's why the fairest racing is done in collegiate, where in many regattas crews rotate boats every race of the series. Bringing a "hot" or tweaked boat then gives you no advantage. Somehow I don't see that being agreed to in soaring.....

maybe we need to adopt a claim rule like the hometown dirt track does with IMCA hobby stocks and the like. If we think you've been tweaking a bit too much on your (insert glider here), I get to buy it!

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
[...] it is obvious [...]

Well played sir. Wind 'em up, watch 'em go. Very amusing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years. Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.

Originally Posted by Sean Fidler

True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years. Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.

That may well prove to be the case but the Ventus 2 first won a worlds in 1995 (15m) and still figures prominently even today. There have been incremental improvements for sure but it's fundamentally the same glider.

Colin

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:43:42 AM UTC-6, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.



A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.



Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.



Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.



I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?



Tom Knauff

It's the Indian, not the Arrow!!
Glen

I stand corrected. 10-20 years. Impressive that the V2 has been competitive for so long. Regardless of specific competitive lifespan of each design, at current its only a matter of time before each design gets leapfrogged (and made obsolete in 15/18 or even standard). If the strength of the economy or popularity of the sport improves (often linked) under the current model, the pace of new designs leapfrogging eachother would increase significantly.

Do we really need a new 15 meter glider with 1-2% more performance (Duckhawk goal)? Do we really need a new 18 meter glider with 1-2% more performance which makes everything else on the market basically obsolete (Ventus 3)? Perhaps the leap in performance could be even more than 2%?

I am happy buying a new 29 or V2, ESPECIALLY IF I knew that it was going to be competitive for a long period in the future. But right now, buying a new 29 or V2 is unwise until we know what the Ventus 3 is capable of doing.... I actually wanted to buy a new glider at the beginning of this season and passed.

This current marketplace and international organization mindset in the sport of soaring is very interesting...

The only fact is that the sport is slowly shrinking, new glider sales are slowing and new glider prices are rapidly increasing. Hmmm, where have I seen this before?

Sean



On Thursday, August 7, 2014 4:02:07 AM UTC-4, Ventus_a wrote:
Sean Fidler;887505 Wrote:

True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years.

Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.



That may well prove to be the case but the Ventus 2 first won a worlds

in 1995 (15m) and still figures prominently even today. There have been

incremental improvements for sure but it's fundamentally the same

glider.



Colin









--

Ventus_a

Hi Glen, I agree but only to a point. Its a bummer knowing that you are in a glider that is "slightly" less performance than the others. For example, if a guy in a a model beats a b model in a contest by 1 point, does he really feel that he has won? Or a 29 vs a 27 in 15m? Is the 29 better?

One design would level this and make a better sport of it!

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:54:50 AM UTC-4, glen wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:43:42 AM UTC-6, Tom Knauff wrote:

I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.







A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.







Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.







Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.







I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?







Tom Knauff



It's the Indian, not the Arrow!!

Glen

I think we could address a number of concerns by moving to a one design competition format utilizing the Schweizer 2-33A sailplane. Each competitor would be towed aloft and once everyone was airborne, the contest would begin. Competitors would be scored based on Altitude Gained after the start, Time Aloft after the start and then the Accuracy of their Spot Landings upon return. All of the competitors would need to remain within sight of the Glider Field so that spectators would be able to watch and enjoy the competition..

This would provide a level playing field, a format which involves the spectators which will help promote the sport, eliminate far away land-outs and retrieves, provide aspiring soaring students an attainable type of competition that they could soon participate in. I think, in some ways, it may provide a true test as to who the BEST glider pilot really is.