Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Peter,

I've been lurking here and seriously considering where I stand with your proposal of combining STD and CLUB class at the Nationals. Initially, I favored having STDs join with 15M since I fly a very competitive Discus 2A which can do well as demonstrated this year by myself at Montague. I also love flying with the very best 15M competition pilots who are in the ASW-27s, Ventus 2's and ASG-29's. But, then... your argument for combining STD with CLUB has merit. Over the last 24hours I've been reviewing all the arguments and definition of exactly what CLUB class means from the Handicap (HC) perspective.

One thing is very clear to me. STDs need to be pooled with another class to add more competitors of similar performance. I'm not in favor of combining STD with 18M.

Still forming my pros/cons and making notes before posting here. More to come as a chew on the issues...

Walt Rogers WX

Standard could pool both with club and 15 meter. Modern standard will be part of club. The only real issue is whether standard gets a handicap in 15 meter, and along with that whether older 15 get one too. Maybe a lower limit for handicapping as was done in standard. Then you can fly your d2 in sports, club, or 15!
John cochrane

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:10:24 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Standard could pool both with club and 15 meter. Modern standard will be part of club. The only real issue is whether standard gets a handicap in 15 meter, and along with that whether older 15 get one too. Maybe a lower limit for handicapping as was done in standard. Then you can fly your d2 in sports, club, or 15!

John cochrane

That eventuality would be great for both older 15m and older Standard as well as Club - and makes competitive flying more affordable for more people in more classes. See my post on handicapping for Std and 15m. For limited range handicapping wind/thermal handicapping could work very well.

For the price of a new 18m glider, competitors perhaps deserve the purity of no handicaps! Handicaps would kill Open class development like Concordia.

Second generation improvements in the handicap scheme (class by class) would be a major enabler for contest affordability, though it doesnt address the time issue (core to the replacement pilot issue)

2T

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP
John:

Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?

Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.

If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.

The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today

If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.

Tim EY

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:56:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP

John:



Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?


Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.

If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.

The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today

If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.

Tim EY

I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.

First cut, it seems like a Club Class focused on 1.02 (Std Libelle) to 0.91 (the last production generation of standard) would capture a lot of the very large and popular racing capable fleet. I know that higher handicap gliders like older Schreders are included but honestly I don't see those showing up in numbers. It seems like there is little to gain from having very large handicaps in club class from a size of fleet/participation perspective so that may be the far more productive place to reduce the range of handicaps. It turns out that including modern standard class - extending to Discus 2 versus stopping at Discus a or ASW-24 expands the handicap range by only 0.01, whereas including a bunch of older gliders below the standard Libelle expands it by 0.05 or more. I need to get the numbers, but I'm guessing that there are a lot more active glider pilots wanting to race at the Modern Standard side of the equation than those with Sisus and HP-11s and the handicap range required is 1/5 as wide - or less. I expect you get many more capable pilots on the higher performance end, but it doesn't appear to be at all an issue of the handicap expansion - at least based on the data.

I think the idea of creating an OLC format for very low performance gliders may indeed make a much more accessible entry at the low end rather than trying to include them in Club Class were you could get a lot more vibrant competitive participation by moving 1% up in performance to give an outlet for Modern Standard gliders - and get a solution for the east/west travel problem. This presumes that you are interested in increasing competitiveness of Club rather than restricting it for a VERY small increment in handicap range.

As to the Std/15M range - it looks like 0.92 to 0.87 gets you most of the latest generation Std and 15M plus some older 15M. That seems like a good critical mass of installed base of gliders.

I'd be very interested to see what a lift strength and wind handicap adjustment would look like for FAI classes, Peter. I'd say let's take a look.

9B

Roger that - already starting to work on it.

Please remember that LS8 and D2 ARE on the US club class list already - per my response to Tim. (worse performance than an ASW20a)

2T

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:24:54 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:56:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:



SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP



John:







Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?





Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.



If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.



The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today



If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.



Tim EY



I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.



First cut, it seems like a Club Class focused on 1.02 (Std Libelle) to 0.91 (the last production generation of standard) would capture a lot of the very large and popular racing capable fleet. I know that higher handicap gliders like older Schreders are included but honestly I don't see those showing up in numbers. It seems like there is little to gain from having very large handicaps in club class from a size of fleet/participation perspective so that may be the far more productive place to reduce the range of handicaps. It turns out that including modern standard class - extending to Discus 2 versus stopping at Discus a or ASW-24 expands the handicap range by only 0.01, whereas including a bunch of older gliders below the standard Libelle expands it by 0.05 or more. I need to get the numbers, but I'm guessing that there are a lot more active glider pilots wanting to race at the Modern Standard side of the equation than those with Sisus and HP-11s and the handicap range required is 1/5 as wide - or less. I expect you get many more capable pilots on the higher performance end, but it doesn't appear to be at all an issue of the handicap expansion - at least based on the data.



I think the idea of creating an OLC format for very low performance gliders may indeed make a much more accessible entry at the low end rather than trying to include them in Club Class were you could get a lot more vibrant competitive participation by moving 1% up in performance to give an outlet for Modern Standard gliders - and get a solution for the east/west travel problem. This presumes that you are interested in increasing competitiveness of Club rather than restricting it for a VERY small increment in handicap range.



As to the Std/15M range - it looks like 0.92 to 0.87 gets you most of the latest generation Std and 15M plus some older 15M. That seems like a good critical mass of installed base of gliders.



I'd be very interested to see what a lift strength and wind handicap adjustment would look like for FAI classes, Peter. I'd say let's take a look.



9B

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:34:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Roger that - already starting to work on it.

Please remember that LS8 and D2 ARE on the US club class list already - per my response to Tim. (worse performance than an ASW20a)

Yup - I have a bunch of US glider fleet size data that i could map to the handicap range i you need it. It seems that you get more fleet expansion per percent of handicap range on the Club side (compared to IGC Club) than on the 15m side, but both seem feasible IF you can crack the ballast issue for 15m.

9B

I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.


Numbers on gliders here

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ticipation.pdf

It's amazing how many raceable gliders there are, that don't race. Our problem is not lack of gliders, it's lack of pilots who want to race them

John Cochrane

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:


I was looking and the handicaps by glider model and have started looking at the FAA registration database to see where the fleet size is.





Numbers on gliders here



http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ticipation.pdf



It's amazing how many raceable gliders there are, that don't race. Our problem is not lack of gliders, it's lack of pilots who want to race them



John Cochrane

Many of the "modern" Std class ships have been bought from racers, who originally imported them for competition, by recreational pilots who wanted good performance and low age (good gelcoat). Many of these(most?), likely won't come play in contests, or maybe an occasional convenient regional.
My observation supports John's in this respect.
UH

Tim

LS8 and D2 and ASW28 are already withing the handicap range of US club and ON the club class list.(they are slightly *worse* (dry) than an ASW20 which IS on the IGC list) and you arent trying to throw ASW20s out are you? ASW24's and D1's are also OK and also only just below the ASW20 handicap.

Stick with the handicap range of the IGC list and LS8/D2 are still within the range - V1 and LS6 are a different matter - but the horse has already bolted years go on that one (before my time)

Club gets stuck with the biggest range of handicaps because it must *by definition* include the widest range of gliders.

2T

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:56:21 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:10:24 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

SNIPModern standard will be part of club. SNIP

John:



Why, exactly, WILL (my emphasis) Modern Standard be part of Club Class?



Your statement seems to make this a non-negotiable point.



If the point if making handicapped racing better racing by reducing the spread of handicaps, why must Club get stuck with the biggest, and arguably semi-unworkable, handicap range, while the folding into 15m of Modern Standard and Last Generation 15m is not on the table.



The handicap range between current 15m gliders and Modern Standard (plus the last generation of 15m) is surely much more tight than the handicap range between modern standard (and last generation 15m) and the Libelle - let alone the upper limit of, say, a 1-26, as written into the US Club Class definition today



If we go to handicapped racing as the main experience in sailplane racing, we need to make it work so that everyone has or feels like they are getting the best racing experience possible. This si done by narrowing, not broadening the handicap ranges.



Tim EY