Attention US Standard Class Pilots

On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:
On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom wrote:





The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
the highest wing loading.

The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
anyone to be able to win.

The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.

Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
chance to win.

Tom Knauff

The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
any handicapping system can provide.
This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try.
UH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 10, 1:59*pm, Andy wrote:
On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:



On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom wrote:

The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
the highest wing loading.

The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
anyone to be able to win.

The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.

Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
chance to win.

Tom Knauff

The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
any handicapping system can provide.
This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try.
UH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry hit the wrong key. No response intended,

On Feb 10, 4:01*pm, Andy wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:59*pm, Andy wrote:





On Feb 10, 8:05*am, wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:42*am, Tom wrote:

The problem with glider racing has been technology improving the
product, making anything less than the latest (most expensive) glider
uncompetitive. This has limited the field to those who have the money
and desire to always have the best, or in some cases the glider with
the highest wing loading.

The Seniors contest proves it can be done. *It is over-subscribed and
everyone (over 55) *is welcome - bring what you got, (no water
ballast, 20 meter limit) and you fly with a handicap that permits
anyone to be able to win.

The Sports class tries to do this, however, span / wing loading wins.

Sports Class handicaps combined with span-limited contests might
attract many more pilots because they would actually have a realistic
chance to win.

Tom Knauff

The proposed Standard class test of limited handicapping directly
addresses the issue of "latest" technology and associated costs as a
negative factor in participation. "Current" gliders and one generation
back gliders will be able to compete on as level a playing field as
any handicapping system can provide.
This more than doubles the number of "competitive" gliders.
So far feedback to me has been strongly in favor of giving this a try..
UH- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry hit the wrong key. *No response intended,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We missed your insight!
UH

On Feb 10, 9:58*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
SNIP

For once I agree with John Cochrane - differences in pilot skills are
likely to outweigh any small differences in sailplane handicap. *I
have a very fine sailplane, but consistently fly 5% to 10% slower than
my better colleagues. *The only effect the proposed rule might have is
to encourage participants who might have been discouraged by a
perceived handicap disadvantage.

My suggestion to handicap pilots (like we do horses in races) has been
universally laughed at!

Mike

I am very encouraged by the civility and thoughtfulness of this
conversation.

Mike:
I just do not see how handicapping the pilot would ever work out in
our sport, especially with handicapped (gliders, as exists now)
classes. Maybe I just don't see the light.

If we handicapped pilots instead of gliders, then even the "best"
pilots, in any older glider, MUST to fly very well/brilliantly EVERY
DAY to make up for any lack of performance in handicapped racing (i.e.
Sports, Club, etc.). Do Gary Ittner, Ran Tabery, Karl Streideck, Bill
Reuhle, etc. always read the weather, the terrain, the "air" correctly
100% of the time? So then if they make a mistake or two, they then
have to come up with perfection beyond what is even their typical
greatness delivers to make up for what the glider will not give them.
Or is the implication that the "best" pilots would never be caught
competing in anything less than the most current generation equipment?
Or is the implication that a Karl Streideck, for example, in a ASW-27
would tie a Karl Streideck in an ASW-20 and Karl Streideck in an
ASW-15 each and everyday of competition? everywhere in the US?

Don't they reasonably handicap golfers because the course, the clubs,
and pretty much everything except gusts of wind and are the same for
everyone, each and every day. The difference is inthe golders stregth,
fitness, "eye", etc. Is flying different models of gliders in a very
dynamic environment in any way analogous to golfing? Can I make my
older glider better than it is in reality by anything I do other than
possibly my decisionmaking?

As an aside, does anyone know how or if auto racing numerically
handicaps either cars or drivers in auto racing? I believe they only
handicap by weight and power output (all things to do with the car -
not the driver)

Maybe we should be looking at making the current glider handicapping
regime better. Especially in this age of data loggers and computer
scoring, isn't it just a matter of writing code to crunch the abundant
data we have at hand each day? (Flame shield on - I am NOT a computer
guy). Why for example do we not adjust glider handicaps for the
achieved average climb rate on each particular contest day like they
do in S Africa (and other places - I believe)? Throw in windicapping
and I would think that we would have a VERY refined handicap system
that sought to eliminate the most dynamic part of our sport (the
weather) from the performance equalization equation. Then let the
pilots go at it and actually see whop the better pilot is in real word
flying, rather than assiging a pilot a handicap.

Handicapping the tools of the trade seems like a more realistic way to
promote handicap competition.

AND...

.... to other "Haters" of giving a handicapped Standard Class at US
Nationals:

If the current handicap system is "perfectly fine" for purposes of
equalizing (not necessarily perfectly) competition performance in
Sports Class, as I have often heard. Where is the harm in extending it
to Standard Class in an attempt to get participation up and make for
better racing? And if the idea of letting the Std guys to fly in 18m
Class with a completely random 4% bump will make for "fair" and
"equalized" racing, then why the heck would the idea of handicapping
gliders of like span, like wing-geometry, and restricted to adjoining
generations of said gliders, be such an abomination???

Standard class, while very much like, but not exactly like 15m Class,
is a class worth keeping good racing going in if the itnerest is
there. It is dynamic at the international level, and there sure are a
lot of new AND last generation standard class ships here in the US.

We need to be looking very carefully at promoting "equal opportunity
racing", within defined performance ranges, for everyone who wants to
particpate, rather than arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand and
axing classes that do not suit our personal competitive values.

Thank you RC for taking this step to see if close range/generation
handicapping can revitalize Standard Class here in the US!

Tim McAllister EY

Let's not start the old sports class and 1-26 vs. nimbus 4 debate.

The proposal is to allow a small range of handicaps within standard
class.

Most of the "club class didn't get home on day x" stories, or the
similar "nimbus 4 couldn't get through the big blue hole that ka6
didn't have to cross" stories involve gliders of very different
performance range flying together, in the very rough-and-ready system
of sports class.

That is largely addressed in club class, in the mixed FAI regional
classes, and in the standard class proposal, by having races in which
gliders of very similar performance fly together with handicaps.

That does not mean this is an easy decision. Handicaps add noise, even
if just a little noise and a 3% handicap range. Some pilots might try
the strategy of sticking with the gaggle and winning on handicap.
Pilots who made a big investment in a new glider find that investment
doesn't pay off. Balancing the pilots who want to fly given the new
handicap for their older gliders are pilots who may not fly because
they don't like the whole handicap thing. There is a chance that a guy
in an LS4 can win the standard nationals and get sent to the worlds.

I like the handicap proposal, because I don't see a way out of our
participation decline. The alternative may be canceling nationals hwen
not enough pilots show up. And this has been a great discussion.

But let's keep it on point and not go back and revisit sports class.

On Feb 10, 9:25*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Let's not start the old sports class and 1-26 vs. nimbus 4 debate.

The proposal is to allow a small range of handicaps within standard
class.

Most of the "club class didn't get home on day x" stories, or the
similar "nimbus 4 couldn't get through the big blue hole that ka6
didn't have to cross" stories involve gliders of very different
performance range flying together, in the very rough-and-ready system
of sports class.

That is largely addressed in club class, in the mixed FAI regional
classes, and in the standard class proposal, by having races in which
gliders of very similar performance fly together with handicaps.

That does not mean this is an easy decision. Handicaps add noise, even
if just a little noise and a 3% handicap range. Some pilots might try
the strategy of sticking with the gaggle and winning on handicap.
Pilots who made a big investment in a new glider find that investment
doesn't pay off. Balancing the pilots who want to fly given the new
handicap for their older gliders are pilots who may not fly because
they don't like the whole handicap thing. There is a chance that a guy
in an LS4 can win the standard nationals and get sent to the worlds.

I like the handicap proposal, because I don't see a way out of our
participation decline. The alternative may be canceling nationals hwen
not enough pilots show up. And this has been a great discussion.

But let's keep it on point and not go back and revisit sports class.

I was wondering if the following has been considered?: Allow any
Standard Class glider to enter the Standard Class Nationals. Use a
Handicap system to level the playing field so that that Nationals
would be a true test of the skill of the pilot. Then used the non-
handicapped results to select the Team Members for the World
Championships. This approach would allow many more pilots and many
more sailplanes to participate and have a chance at becoming the U.S.
National Champion AND still ensure that the U.S. Team would consist of
the best Pilot/Sailplane that would allow the Team to be competitive
on the World stage. Just a thought from a dummy that doesn't even have
an A Badge.

On Feb 10, 6:04*pm, Tim wrote:

As an aside, does anyone know how or if auto racing numerically
handicaps either cars or drivers in auto racing? I believe they only
handicap by weight and power output (all things to do with the car -
not the driver)


Tim -

Allow me to chime in, as a former auto-racer (NASCAR, SCCA Solo II,
SCCA Solo I, SCCA Club Racing, SCCA Club Rally, International
Conference of Sports Car Clubs, brief manager of a racecar-building
shop in Memphis, TN). :-)

The most common/abundant use of Handicapping that I know of is in
Autocrossing (SCCA Solo II).
In autocrossing, cars are grouped into classes according to their
performance or common characteristics. These are not set-in-stone;
some are derived by finding a bunch of cars with similar HP and
weight, other classes are defined by common characteristics (economy
grocery-getters get lumped into a class, low-HP 2-seat convertibles
tend to get lumped into one or two classes, etc). These classes are
regularly reviewed and if one model of car is consistently beating all
the others by a large margin, the classes may get re-shuffled or that
particular car may get bumped into a class that turns in faster lap-
times, on average.

On top of that, a series of "advanced" classes have arisen around the
PAX handicap. Each year this handicap is derived from examining an
abundance of race results from the past few years. The best lap-time
for a couple of top finishers in each racing class are compared to the
fastest car (regardless of class) that ran the same course on the same
day. Results are filtered for weather changes (wet pavement) and
other anomalies. This data is assumed to be statistically significant
and relatively driver-agnostic over a large sample (around 500 events
with 100-200 competitors at each event, plus about 1200 competitors at
the National Championships each year). The average % difference in
finishing times between each class is then used to come up with an
index factor to apply to each class. This - theoretically - lets any
two cars compete and the vast majority of the difference in their
handicapped lap-time will be due to differences in driver skill.

But they have the same "issues" we have with the Sports Class:
First, not all cars in a class are considered equal; so each year
people "head-hunt" for the best car to buy in a particular class, to
give them an advantage regardless of any handicap (the difference is
that cars are generally much more-affordable and more readily-
available than gliders; even though they depreciate faster).
Second, you compound the issue by handicapping the class and not the
individual cars - people try to find a "hot" car in a class with a
"soft" index (so they maximize their handicapping advantage).
Finally, autocross courses - like glider tasks - change every day.
The rules behind course-layout are pretty flexible and are often
constrained by the racing site. So sometimes you get a course that
has long straightaways and big sweeping turns (favoring "muscle-y"
cars). Other times you get tight courses with lots of slaloms and
hairpins (favoring the 90's Mazda Miatas, which are among the most-
maneuverable, best-balanced, and best-handling cars of all time).
This is roughly analogous to those "weak weather days" that favor the
18M or Open Class ships...

IMHO, some things about glider tasks and weather may forever elude a
handicapping system (or, at least one that humans can comprehend) - I
mean, how can you have a system that handicaps a 1-34 and a Discus-2
equally well on a day with closely-spaced thermals; yet still works
when you're jumping 20+ miles between isolated sections of wave on a
day with NO thermals? On the first day, the difference between your
Max L/D isn't the issue - its the high-speed section of your polar.
On the second day, the difference *is* your Max L/D and the 1-34 just
might not be able to make the jumps! Do you declare a whole separate
course/task for the 1-34 and judge him/her completely separately from
the rest of the pack?

The bottom line is that the current handicapping for gliders isn't
perfect; but its pretty darn good. On an average day with an average
course, it corrects a good portion of the imbalances. For those few
days with outlying conditions, I think you just have to shrug your
shoulders and sigh. Baseball has rain-delays, and we have our issues
with mother nature as well! :-P

--Noel

I certainly don't have a problem with what's proposed below. As I
said in my earlier post - a lot of the questions about Nationals
revolves around the intended _goal_ of the contest. What's more
important: Trying to find the best pilot? The pilot who can fly top
equipment the best? The pilot most likely to win in a WGC (and
therefore should be selected to the US team)? There's not necessarily
a wrong answer; but consensus is needed in order to adjust the contest
appropriately.

So far, the consensus appears to be that increased participation and
an attempt to compare pilot skill (regardless of equipment, to a
limited degree) are a higher priority than some of these other factors
I've mentioned. As the potential beneficiary of any handicapping, I'm
totally happy with that. ;-D

--Noel
P.S. Sorry John, you posted your admonishment while I was typing up
my novel - if I'd seen your post I would've skipped that huge
explanation and left well enough alone!


On Feb 10, 6:36*pm, wrote:

I was wondering if the following has been considered?: Allow any
Standard Class glider to enter the Standard Class Nationals. Use a
Handicap system to level the playing field so that that Nationals
would be a true test of the skill of the pilot. Then used the non-
handicapped results to select the Team Members for the World
Championships.

I think we are caught between a rock and hard place regarding participation in the Standard Class Nationals. I personally don’t want to open it up with a handicap system, but practicality needs to be addressed. I am modestly in favor of it because I don’t want to see the STD Class Nats disappear..

The competition pilot pool is relatively stagnate (and aging). Prior comments on traveling to competition sites, vacation limitations, family situations have already been addressed. Younger people just don’t have the same interest in aviation that we did. They are involved in other fun things to do. Fewer are becoming glider pilots and only a small percentage will become competition pilots.

The reality is, competition pilots in the US have moved to higher performance ships. Not withstanding a handful of top US pilots who remained in STD, the bulk of the elite and upper tier competition pilots have migrated to 15 M years ago. Now, we see these pilots moving to 18 meter. Many are equipped with the ASG 29, which can allow huge flexibility on which contest to enter (Sports, 15M, 18M, and Open). A quick FAA inquiry shows a 2 to 1 ratio of Ventus 2's and ASW 27/ASG29's to LS8's and Discus 2's. New Discus 2's or LS8's entering this country are almost at a standstill. With most of the competition pilots favoring 15M or higher performance gliders, the pilot pool for STD class is dwindling fast. Then, to exacerbate the problem, we have overlapping competitions dates that eliminate some potential STD entries.

What is the long term answer? I really don’t know. I suspect anything will be a band-aid. Perhaps handicap the Standard Class. Have more contests in the middle of the US for easier access to pilots. How about specific sites for competitions? No overlapping dates. For example, Sports Class at Parowan, STD at Hobbs, Open at Uvalde, etc. Easier said than done. This may, I say may, increase participation, but it has a host of inherent problems. I fear this downward spiral won’t end anytime soon.

On Feb 11, 6:41*pm, wrote:
I think we are caught between a rock and hard place regarding participation in the Standard Class Nationals. I personally don’t want to open it up with a handicap system, but practicality needs to be addressed. I am modestly in favor of it because I don’t want to see the STD Class Nats disappear.

The competition pilot pool is relatively stagnate (and aging). Prior comments on traveling to competition sites, vacation limitations, family situations have already been addressed. Younger people just don’t have the same interest in aviation that we did. They are involved in other fun things to do. Fewer are becoming glider pilots and only a small percentage will become competition pilots.

The reality is, competition pilots in the US have moved to higher performance ships. Not withstanding a handful of top US pilots who remained in STD, the bulk of the elite and upper tier competition pilots have migrated to 15 M years ago. Now, we see these pilots moving to 18 meter. Many are equipped with the ASG 29, which can allow huge flexibility on which contest to enter (Sports, 15M, 18M, and Open). A quick FAA inquiry shows a 2 to 1 ratio of Ventus 2's and ASW 27/ASG29's to LS8's and Discus 2's. New Discus 2's or LS8's entering this country are almost at a standstill. With most of the competition pilots favoring 15M or higher performance gliders, the pilot pool for STD class is dwindling fast. Then, to exacerbate the problem, we have overlapping competitions dates that eliminate some potential STD entries.

What is the long term answer? I really don’t know. I suspect anything will be a band-aid. Perhaps handicap the Standard Class. Have more contests in the middle of the US for easier access to pilots. How about specific sites for competitions? No overlapping dates. For example, Sports Class at Parowan, STD at Hobbs, Open at Uvalde, etc. Easier said than done. This may, I say may, increase participation, but it has a host of inherent problems. I fear this downward spiral won’t end anytime soon.

I think another reason for declining participation in sailplane racing
is OLC. It does fulfill the competition demon somewhat-cheaply at
home.