If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Well. It's not true.
"RULES of the INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS 2004 Edition" say following in Part B "RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS BOATS" "Purpose of the Measurement Rules 1.1.1The Finn is a One-Design Class. 1.1.2 (74-1.1) (OR-1) The object of these rules is to establish a class of boats which is one-design in all matters which affect basic speed. The rules shall be interpreted in this spirit." One-Desgn Class!!! Not some loosely specified standard class. Basically the rules in Finn class are so strict that to transfer those to gliders class you get the planes which have: Same lenght Same width Exactly the same aerodynamic exterior of the fuselage Exactly the same profile and the layout of the wing and the control surface. Mostly the same materials in use. Once again from Finn rules: "Defining the hull shape requires use of a measurement jig to check length distances of the hull. The jig should be used during measurements at major championships and preferred for the first measurement of a boat, particularly at builder's premises." In case of soaring it compares to measuring the fuselage or wing profile in . Have you heard about that anywhere? In most places the permitted materials are listed. If you are familiar with our standard class rules, it's a completly different philosophy alltogether. "Kevin" wrote in message ... Most people think that all the Olympic sailing classes are one design, which simply isnt true. The most competitive class, the Finn, is similar to our 15m or Std class with designs within a rule. Kevin Chrisnter 2c |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
iPilot wrote:
I don't buy that argument. 1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship, you can hardly find any fatman. Actually, in order to win, one has to mantain full concentration in long flights during hot days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good physical form. Partly for same reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league. I was a military pilot, and I remember we had some hefty (to put it mildly) fighter guys who looked like they would have a coronary just hiking the four flights of stairs from 2nd deck to the flight deck on the carrier. We'd do semi-annual PT, and they were pitiful. Watching them do sit ups was like a scene from "Free Willy". Yet these same guys could strap on an ejection seat and fly 12 hour missions with multiple refuelings, some hi-G dog fighting, lots of hanging on the blades, followed by a night trap. And they were *good*, which is why the Skipper looked the other way as to their weight. So in short, I have some data points that say you don't have to be fit. You do have to be tough, though. Toughness is a different thing, in my experience. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
iPilot wrote:
I do not think that soaring competes badly in this regard towards sailing, shooting and horse raiding. Here, all this time I thought that horse raiding was a criminal act. Now, I find out it's a sport :-). Tony V :-) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
SAILING NOT PHYSICAL? You obviously have no familiarity with sailing small
hot boats. Take as a good example, the Finn class, where sailors, who use their body weight 'hiking' (suspending themselves out over the side of the boat by sitting on the deck with their feet tucked under straps, and leaning out 'til horizontal), to offset the force of the wind that seeks to heel (roll) their boat, wear sweatshirts to soak up additional weight by immersing them in the water. Each time the wind changes, they must scamper across the boat while adjusting the sails and then get their weight out on the other side. It is very gruelling! Studies at McMaster University Medical Research, focused on the physical condition of sailors and its effect on their performance, found that fatigue decreases the ability to concentrate and make decisions on where to go, strategically and tactically, - not unlike soaring. For more detail, start at http://www.finnclass.org/ "iPilot" wrote in message ... I don't buy that argument. 1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship, you can hardly find any fatman. Actually, in order ta win, one has to mantain full concentration in long flights during hot days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good physical form. Partly for same reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league. 2. All shooting activities (incl. archery, clay pigeon shooting, pistol and rifle events) in olympics require far less physically from athletes. The same applies to Equestrian disciplines where physical health does not make the difference. The same applies to sailing. Regads, Kaido "nafod40" wrote in message ... iPilot wrote: It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again. While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot. Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo GameCube? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
the Olympic Games is parachuting. Robert iPilot wrote: 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc. His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win. The rules are too tight to win otherwise. With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge expense. We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules. Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for clever engineering design. There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span." -Bob Korves "Tony" wrote in message ... "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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP-
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. SNIP Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine racers might say the same thing about there sport...and it could very well be true. But translating that to outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane races...I suspect the general TV viewing population might find it a tough sale. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Korves wrote:
I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc. His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win. Bad example: Formula V is MUCHMUCHMUCH cheaper than CanAm cars! You can't even buy an engine for a CanAm car for the price of a Formula V. Sheez! They use PLENTY of dyno time in that class. You don't need to own a dyno to do well in Formula V, just rent some time on one, or take it to a track during the testing period and use some simple instrumentation to accomplish the same thing. Because of the restrictive rules, spending a lot of money gains you very little, unlike the less limited classes where spending a lot of money gains you quite a bit. Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I raced Formula V (in which case they would no longer be very restrictive rules), it's a relatively cheap class because the cars are light and low powered, so the engine and tires hold up well. The small size of the cars and the high minimum weight requirement makes makes their construction simple and cheap. The rules are too tight to win otherwise. You can spend a pile of money, but in Formula V, one properly done pass using the "draft" behind another car totally outweighs that money. Been there, done that, watched it happen many times. With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge expense. Absolute nonsense. The cost of a quality team to come up with this "cleverness in design" is enormous, and the cost of maintaining these cars that truly live on the edge of destruction each race is enormous. Check the decals on a CanAm car and Formula V to see the kind of sponsorship it takes to field one of those cars competitively. Millions! There is simply no comparison with Formula V. I think you have totally misunderstood the situation. We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules. Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for clever engineering design. Does an ASW 28 cost less than a PW5? Of course not! Does the "clever engineering" of the ASW 28 give it a big edge in it's class? No way! Get real: what an less restricted class does is make everyone pay big bucks for a craft that isn't any better than the competitors, unless he has shells out even bigger bucks. You could build a PW5 that cost twice what the "off the shelf" models cost, but it would be impossible to measure the improvement over one owned by a pilot that spent some time and much less money to tweak his plain old PW5. There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span." -Bob Korves And span is expensive! That is why the restricted classes in many fields appeal to people: people with ONLY skill can afford the equipment that lets them demonstrate that skill. I can easily afford a Formula V, but I don't think I'd want to spend the money to do well in the next step up, which was Formula Ford, and maybe still is. It cost ("back then") twice or three times as much to run a Formula Ford than a Formula V, and the Formula Atlantic cars were way above that. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|