FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

+1.

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.







T8



Evan:



The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:



SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!



This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.



Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.



It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.



I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."



Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.



EY

Thanks... yep, right there on the info page (facepalm).

However, that *is* unique. You can race a 1-26 in open class if you like. But you aren't going to get any consideration in tasking.

T8

Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C
models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better
performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care
of those differences.

It would help fill out contest rosters.

Regards
Rick Walters

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)

By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.
Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.
Please read what I wrote.
UH

On Friday, December 7, 2012 6:30:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C

models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better

performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care

of those differences.



It would help fill out contest rosters.



Regards

Rick Walters

There was no distinction between ASW-20 A,B,C in previous WGC. The carve out comes into play for Argentina where the ASW-20 could be an interesting glider of choice. They have been acceptable in the past and I see no reason to exclude B & C (15 meter) in US Club Class.

Winglets are allowed with a 0.01 handicap penalty not to exceed 1.09 combined handicap.

Sean Franke (HA)

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:19:37 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:

3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)



By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.

Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.

Please read what I wrote.

UH

UH, I understand the concept. However, a MAT is NO substitute for AT. Everyone fly's the SAME course in AT. Slower or lower performance gliders cutting turn points is not flying the same course.

Sean Franke (HA)

On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:10:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:19:37 PM UTC-8, wrote:

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:19:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:



3- Allowing lower performance gliders is important from a practical point of view. The 2-33 scare is just that. But why not let Sparrowhawks and such come play? UH A SGS 2-33 is possible but SGS 1-26 is more likely. However, let's use the 2009 Sports Class Nationals as and example. There was an ASW-28 and ASK-14. Both are considered Club Class gliders under the RC proposal. How is a CD going to set a reasonable AT with such a disparity in performance? Sean Franke (HA)







By utilizing the long MAT concept the you refuse to discuss.



Everybody starts pretty much at the same time like AT. They fly the same course, except the low performance gliders skip the last turn so they don't land in a field. It is proven and it works.



Please read what I wrote.



UH



UH, I understand the concept. However, a MAT is NO substitute for AT. Everyone fly's the SAME course in AT. Slower or lower performance gliders cutting turn points is not flying the same course.



Sean Franke (HA)


Let's pick it apart. You and UH are both right on significant points.

Long MAT and AT have significant similarities. They do feel similar (not by any means identical) for guys of roughly equal performance. The fast guys still win.

They also have significant differences. The legs are shorter on a long MAT.. 180 mile long MAT has a bunch of 20 - 30 mile legs. Maybe the first two can be reasonably long on a good day. AT might be two turnpoints. Result is that the fleet tends to stay closer together on the MAT, there's just less room for deviation on a short leg. It feels different too in that you are (usually) going to get farther from home on the AT, see more terrain and you aren't going to be over the same terrain repeatedly, as can often happen in a long MAT. Some of this can be dealt with by determined and creative task setting.

The races get very different if we task such that you have to fly fast until the end of the day to finish the course. Is this what you want to do? It's probably the way to make the Nats a better training & selection tool for WGC. If we do that, the gig becomes a lot more work, a lot more aggravation for the landees and a lot less barbeque and camaraderie at the airport.

Evan Ludeman / T8

42 have signed the petition FAI Rules for the US Club Class Nationals

See: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/262/8...out-exception/

Thank you George

Sean Franke (HA)

I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest..

I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules.

Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.

-John

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:29:22 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:
I had a look at the SSA Contest results, and I can't tell if mixed rules (US and FAI) were tried at the super regional held in Moriarty last year. If (1) the Club Class FAI petition succeeds, and (2) the contest organizer changes his mind, then Mifflin might be the first mixed rule Nationals contest.



I may have missed it, but I don't believe anyone has asked the pilots flying Sports Class at Mifflin in May 2013 how they'd feel about flying under US rules while another Class at the same contest was flying under FAI rules..



Speaking for myself, I'm not eager to be in such an experiment. In my view there are chances for things to go wrong, and I'd prefer that mixed rules flying be tried somewhere else, without me participating.



-John

I'm curious John, what conflicts do you see with Sports Class? The same start and finish can be used. The difference is a narrower handicap range, only AT and AAT and scoring formula. How does that effect a US rules based Sports Class?

Sean Franke (HA)