FAI, soaring and Olympic Games

It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido

One could make it more of a spectator sport by having synchronized soaring,
with loops, rolls and spins judged while synchronized, with points deducted
for less than perfect landings.

The new Sparrowhawk sailplane would be perfect for this event.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.713 / Virus Database: 469 - Release Date: 6/30/04

Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:

1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)

2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd Olympic
wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA will
be in Duisburg, Germany.

The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's sports
might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
Olympics.

If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather will
not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
about revenue, period.

The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since Finland's
1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games in
Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with spectators.)

Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing games,
so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.

Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting, gliding,
free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be there
to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
sports closely.

More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org

-ted w.
"2NO"



"iPilot" wrote in message
...
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up
again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would
have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising
sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable
weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a
difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of
monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not
expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9
different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find
the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the
biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most
suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and
directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing
tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido

Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.


"Ted W" wrote in message
...
Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:

1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)

2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd
Olympic
wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA
will
be in Duisburg, Germany.

The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's
sports
might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
Olympics.

If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather
will
not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
about revenue, period.

The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since
Finland's
1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games
in
Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with
spectators.)

Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing
games,
so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.

Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting,
gliding,
free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be
there
to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
sports closely.

More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org

-ted w.
"2NO"



"iPilot" wrote in message
...
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up
again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would
have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising
sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable
weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a
difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of
monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not
expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9
different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find
the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be
the
biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the
most
suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and
directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with
racing
tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido

iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn

Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class. Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics - never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn

iPilot wrote:

1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Interesting thought: the "Old Morality" of the SGS 1-26 is a hindrance?
I would have thought honesty would be considered one of its best features.

As far as "aged" goes, I am twice as old as my 1-26E.


Jack

"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment
can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they
wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to
launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -
never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete
(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not
know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring
needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
the same, IMHO.

For other would be Olympic events, see:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5746437

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

"Tony Verhulst" wrote in message
...

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but
nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring
community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

Because in sailing, you can "park" a bunch of boats, with the requisite
TV crews, along the couse line. People will be able to watch the event -
not so in soaring. Yes, I'm aware of the proposals to transmit GPS
coordinates of the competitors to be displayed in some fashion. It ain't
the same, IMHO.

For other would be Olympic events, see:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5746437

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING


The only way I can see soaring as a spectator sport is as a very technical
one. Not only would it require real-time GPS tracking, it would require on
board TV cameras on every competitor. Several camera aircraft would be
needed to follow the leaders plus a staff of color commentators to explain
why the pilot in 3rd place is taking a big chance by passing up that 5 knot
thermal in an effort to claim 1st place.

You couldn't do it real-time, you would have to cut away to another sport
while the drama develops. Most of it would be edited recaps of the last
hour or so of the action with color commentary. Long final glides just
aren't very interesting except to the pilot.

The rules would have to be vastly simplified so the audience could
understand them. Start gates, finish gates, simple speed triangles and
maybe even free distance would interest the audience.

On the other hand, soaring is a visually compelling activity. There are
very talented videographers who could produce stunning video clips that
would hold a very large audience.

The technology to do it just barely exists and it the cost would be
astronomical. However, do it right and you would have half a billion people
from around the world on the edge of their seats.

I've got a feeling that it will happen sooner or later.

Bill Daniels