New Class for US Nationals

Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.

Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.

By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time

....see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:43 AM UTC-6, gliderstud wrote:
Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.



Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.



By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time



...see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

Stud, you are so awesome! If I had a daughter, I wanted her to have your kids. I particularly like your shy modesty, never bragging about accomplishments or the superhuman difficulties you have overcome.
You must be much beloved by your peers and even your adversaries.

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:35:54 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:51 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:30:59 AM UTC-5, RW wrote:



On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:42:07 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote: RW: you're setting new standards of incoherence here After 98% of racing pilots voted for club class gliders drivers to be considered for US Team, 98%? I'd like to see that poll. I write the poll and read the results annually. We haven't had 98% on the proposition "should the sky remain blue?" I believe it was 2006 racing pilots pool ! After majority of pilots(is this better for you John,or maybe 97%,why exact number is soo important ?)voted for "only club class glider pilots" to be considered for US Team. John, you are just angry. RC asked this question and in following years deviated from it quietly, against majority of racing pilots wish.. If this was your decision, I would like you to step down. I'm sick of your reinventing wheel and continuous changing rules, also treading experience racing pilots as kids. RW







The question in 2006 Poll was "Should the Club class team be selected only from pilots flying Club class gliders?" The response was 65% yes and 35% no. The USTC used this guidance to put that requirement in place.



Before quoting statistics RW, maybe you should look them up.



I would note that you seem to be the angry guy, not John.



UH



Your job was not to violate wish of 65% racing pilots.

This pool was asking all pilots (PW5, 1-26,Open and 18M ect.)

Use your imagination.

Or if its hard, lets ask all pilots : should we quit Open Class Nationals if we get less than 10 real open class entrants?

How many of pilots fly Sports, how many Club ?

Is this number releasing you of your violation ?

I told you before publicly at 2007 Sports Class Nationals in Cesar Creek RC meeting :

Don't ask question if you not gonna like the answer!

If you don't want to serve 65% of all racing pilots , who do you represent ?



RW
Hank and John,
I regret I followed you to the level of personal attacks.
I'm taking everything back.
We clearly sidetracked of the main point:
RC would not dare to modify, let say IGC 18 M Class definition,
please respect IGC definition of the Club Class !
RW

RC would not dare to modify, let say IGC 18 M Class definition,
please respect IGC definition of the Club Class !
RW =20

Exactly there is an FAI/IGC Club class - it has defined parameters - so why
go reinventing it? LS6/Ventus is not in this definition - maybe at some
point they will be? but for now let them fly your non-FAI sports class. Why
is this so difficult for you to do - when the rest of the world is
reasonably happy with it. I don't see you trying to redifine other FAI
classes.

Congratulations to the Rules Committee. Two classes with enough participation will improve the Sports Class make it more enjoyable. This change is certainly better than the current format.

My concern is that once we start another hybrid US racing class there will be little hope of establishing a pure FAI racing class. I have heard of US pilots choosing not to participate in US contests because of current rules..

I would like to see establishment of the only US FAI racing class - The US FAI Club Class.

There are many domestic choices for those who disagree with FAI rules and tasking philosophy. The new class would possible attract racing pilots who are "left at home" because they disagree with US contest rules and format. It would also be a fantastic way to prepare US pilots for international competition.

I believe there is significant demand for a pure FAI Club Class here in the US. I urge the RC to consider this option before moving forward to a two class Sports Class.

Sean Franke

Thank you to the US RC for giving consideration to and now moving forward to adopt Club Class for rightful inclusion among the competitive classes that may compete for their own U.S. National Championship. This is a step in the right direction from the "powers that be". However, as UH implies, the devil will be in the details.

As we enter into this age of handicapped racing taking over the competitive landscape I have a couple points I wish the RC to consider as the creation of a US Club Class moves forward:

1) Can we please, please, please stop using the term "FAI Class" vs. Club Class, World Class (I know it is now dead), 13.5m Class, etc. All racing classes, as defined by the FAI, are FAI Classes. This continual distinction continues to emphasize that there is a divide (real or perceived) between those that are and those that are not. Any "class" recognized by the FAI IS a legitimate racing class.

2) If we are experimenting with handicapping Standard Class to improve its attendance and competitive landscape, then why is our Club Class being opened up to the current Std Class gliders (D2, LS8, ASW-28)? It would seem to me that an emphasis should be put on saving existing classes where possible.. Or is this decision in recognition that Std Class is about to be dissolved? If you are giving the D2, LS8, and ASW28 drivers this new opportunity (in addition to their own class), then please expand the handicapping of Standard Class to let even older std class gliders fly the Std Class Nationals!

3) Further, if the effort is being made to find a competitive place for everyone, then why not open 15m Class to handicapping so that the current generation std class ships have a competitive home?

I continue to believe that as we consider the fundamental re-organization of racing classes, we should be aggressively looking to condense the number of classes, while affording everyone Maximized opportunities to pursue their racing goals. Handicapped racing offers us this hope.

I would propose that the following be carefully considered in the longer term: Long-Wing Class (Open/18m/20-m), Short-Wing Class (15m/Standard), Club Class (Vintage/Classic Short-Wing Racers), Sports (Everybody like we encourage now - for fun and learning).

This assumes that 13.5m class will not go anywhere... but maybe it will.

I fervently want to see the new US Club Class be defined by the handicap range (with negotiations around the edges) of the IGC Club Class. Restricted Handicap racing is a terrific feature of Club Class around the world. IMHO, this proposal opens the class up to too broad a handicap range and dilutes the racing it encourages around the world.

The proposal, as presently defined in UH's email, runs the risk of giving the appearance of offering Club Class backers what we want, without really doing so. I would like to be provided with a clear, stated rational for why the definition of Club Class is NOT made according to the IGC definition - and not just the old one that "sports class is our only successful class, and therefore it should be sacrosanct".

RC, if we are beginning a fundamental reorganization of sailplane racing in this country, let us begin by adopting a class (Club Class) that IS defined and successful around the world, and then start to craft other changes based on this model of restricted handicap racing.

Sincerely,
Tim McAllister EY

Originally Posted by gliderstud

Without looking into any facts or dates (therefor I can join in the rant) I could safely say the Ventus Ca driver in question hasn't been on the RC for at least 4 years. The Ventus Ca has been on the club class list since the list began, I think, but I am not going to look into the actual facts. The Ventus Ca driver that seemed to kick so much butt at the Parowan contest in question was taking care of the Ventus Ca for a friend in Holland (the Ventus Ca is currently in Holland). The former Nimbus 3 driver sold the Nimbus 3 (a very sad day for Nimbus 3 driver), at 750kg, crazed gelcoat, no gap seal, missing mylar, still seemed to beat the newer gliders... This should show that its about the driver not the glider....With that in mind, when said Nimbus 3 driver switched to become a Ventus Ca driver (due to the lack of owning a Nimbus 3) the odds were good that such driver was going to do well regardless of what he was driving.

Ventus Ca driver had a 3-headed monster, plus 2 kids (1 teething), so I don't know how many more distractions (was the most fun driver had had at a contest in a long time) one such driver should give other drivers to pass him on the score sheet... But if the excuse of Ventus Ca driver bringing an unfair glider to a contest helps you sleep at night...then okay by Ventus Ca driver, as Ventus Ca driver has still been to more WGC's than you.

By the way a lite Ventus Ca doesn't do any better than a heavy ASW-20...just saying...but you never heard the Ventus Ca driver complain, he just flew better to offset handicap. Ventus Ca driver doesn't think its real racing anyway...Open class is the only real sailplane racing...everything else is just fodder to pass the time

....see you all in Mifflin....driving something in club class, if all the distractions (minus 3-headed monster) can make it.

Have you thought about a career as a comedian? Best laugh I've had for a while. Agree about the empty Ventus. I fly a Nimbus3D as well as my little Ventus a and it's easy to be beaten by better pilots despite having higher performance gear. Keep up the good work Garret

Colin

Bravo guys!

Now you club class guys need to show up and make it a success!

I am looking for a club class glider now. Thanks!

Sean - F2

Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not?

2C

On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:14:37 PM UTC+1, Kevin Christner wrote:
Tim, Thanks for your thoughts. Am I the only one confused about why a higher performance LS-6 would be allowed in the "Club" class while the theoretically lower performance LS-8 is not? 2C

Cuz we LS6a/b drivers don't got no fancy draglets - uh - winglets?

How more classic can you get?

Gonna need to bring a lot of cheese to the contests to go with all the whine...

66