Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team Selection Policy Changes

On Sep 19, 4:10*am, Bob wrote:
First, to address Tim’s post, I personally know 2 of the top 7 pilots
in the 2010 WGC and one was the winner! To say these guys spent a lot
of money on their Libelles (Libellie?) is not correct. They do spend a
significant amount of sweat equity in their ships. All three are
immaculate!

SNIP

Bob:

I did not mean to imply that the investment in a club class ship is
always in $$$'s to get the absolutely best whiz-bangs into/on it. But
how much is your time worth? I am sure those pilots put a value on all
that sweat equity :-)

Rather, the barrier to entry (i.e. buying the glider/instruments/
trailer) for a Club Class ship in the first place is MUCH less than
with any other class.

Why not encourage that here in the USA!

EY

THis is an excellent analogy. However, I am sure some onthe rules
committee are thinking _ "these two sports share nothing at alll and
how can you even make this point.

The point is MAXIMIZING FAIR COMPETITION by way of strategic thinking
in the rules process.

EY


On Sep 19, 6:52*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 17:53 18 September 2010, Mike wrote:



There are excellent pilots that win in their classes. Let them remain
there doing their best, and if they want to fly Club Class, let them
buy a Club Class ship.

Isn't this a lot like the situation in NASCAR, where there is the premier
series (Sprint Cup, I think it's called) and a secondary series
(Nationwide series). *The tendency lately has been for the top drivers in
the Sprint series to show up to race (and win) in the Nationwide. *Some
people think this is good, because they get to see the hero drivers win
more races, while others think it's bad because it takes the incentive
out of what was sort of meant to be a feeder series to develop talent for
Sprint Cup. *It also takes away the prize money that the Nationwide
drivers really need.

Anyway, I'm not a NASCAR fan myself (but I have friends who are rapid on
the subject) but I think NASCAR has perverted (opinion, others would just
say changed) the meaning of the secondary series.

Jim Beckman

Here, Here!

Thanks for the thoughts Sean.

EY
2004, 2006 US Team - Club Class


On Sep 19, 10:16*am, hotelalpha wrote:
Any pilot flying a non-conforming Club Class glider in the Sports
Class should be assumed as not wanting to fly the WGC in the
Club Class. *After all, as the rules stand today if you really want
to fly the WGC then buy or borrow a Club Class glider. *I sold my
Ventus 2c and bought a Club Class glider.

YOU SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CLASS YOU WANT TO FLY.

Allowing higher performing sailplanes to be Club Class eligible will
put US pilots at a greater disadvantage. Hindsight is 20/20. *Had I
been allowed to qualify for the US Team in a Ventus 2c I would have
been unprepared flying the WGC. *I would not have placed as well.

If the proposed rules are adopted then strategy will change for those
who want to be on the US Team. *Flying a true Club Class glider
in the Sports Class will be too risky. *Yes, there are conditions
where
Club Class handicaps are impossible to beat. *However, most contests
have days which favor handicaps from better performing gliders. *The
best bet will be bringing a modern Standard Class glider. *The
handicap isn't horrible but they stand a better chance in conditions
Club Class gliders would end up in a field.

We have enough pilots flying Club Class gliders in the Sports Class.
We NEED a US Club Class Nationals. There is no reason to select
a separate Club Class venue. *The best solution is to score the Club
Class within the Sports Class. Have a separate Club Class score
sheet.
Declare a Club Class National Champion. We have enough pilots to
do this now.

I sincerely hope the US Team Committee and Rules Committee will
preserve and leave the Club Class intact.

Sean Franke
2010 US Team - Club Class

On Sep 22, 4:22*am, Tim wrote:
Or choose to "slum it" and find//borrowfly a PW-5 because of how it
looks. At the 2006 WGC's the winner of World class was often as fast
or darn near the Club Class gliders, in cluind the one flown by many
time world champ Sebastian Kawa.

PW-5's are out there and waiting to be flown, come on out "hot shots"

I recall when one of our NZ hot shots borrowed a PW5 for the PW5
nationals and totally blitzed the rest of the field.

It may not be the world's best glider, but any lack of good flights is
much more the ability of the people usually flying them than the
ability of the glider itself.

Tim
Thanks, and your right, the "sweat equity" in these Libelles makes
them priceless!

I hope the US can get "SEPERATE" Club Class comps. Maybe all those
club gliders can start showing up with sub 25 year olds flying.
Hint...make club class contests happen during the summer holidays so
students can attend. We have 3 under 20 somethings planning on
attending their first contest next year! Woohoo!

Bob

Dear Mr. Godfrey and other interested persons,

I'd like to address some of your points regarding the proposed U.S.
Club Class team selection process, if I may:

The way I understand the matter at hand is it has been proposed that
someone should be able to gain team points towards being selected to
the U.S. Club Class team by competing in U.S. Sports Class while
flying a non-Club Class glider.

You said, "[one point] ...I just can't get is 'the glider makes the winner' in a handicapped class."

A discussion about the merits of handicapping aside, I think the point
you're trying to make is that a good competition pilot is a good
competition pilot no matter the glider. If so, a good jockey is a
good jockey and the horse doesn't mater? C'mon! The capability of
the racing glider is a factor just as is the capability of the race
horse is a factor.

You held, "So many very good pilots are being excluded from the club competition simply because of the glider they are flying."

Hell's Bells! Lots of very good pilots are, in essence, excluded from
flying in anything but Sports/Club because of *not* owning, say, a
ASG-29. That's just reality.

The converse reality is that an ASG-29 is not a FAI Club Class
qualified glider; therefore, someone competing in an ASG-29 cannot
earn Club Class points--Ipso Facto!

You state, "Our most experienced and accomplished team pilots generally agree that whatever disadvantages exist if you compete in a club class ship after winning in a say 27 or 29 are far outweighed by the smaller pool of pilots from which the team can be drawn."

This contention implies that pilots who are consistently effective
within U.S. Club Class cannot possibly be as capable as those greater
number of accomplished pilots who don't routinely fly Club Class
qualified gliders.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I suspect someone is pushing to
change the rules in order to broaden their own opportunities by
encroaching upon the opportunity of others.

You say, "...I believe that the new approach moves us from excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much more inclusive."

Do you realize that within this statement also lies an inferred
presumption that Club Class pilots are not "some of our best pilots"?

How is the financial consideration any different between:

-Your example of someone owning an ASG-29 but can't afford any other
glider and therefore can't compete/can't be competitive in both 18m
and Club Class, and

-Someone who can afford to own and operate a LS-4 but not also an
ASG-29 and therefore can't be competitive/can't compete in both Club
Class and also 18m Class?

In either case owning two gliders is not possible.

I dare offer that the U.S. team selection process should not take such
a dubious concern into consideration

You contend, "We all want a fair and inclusive competition environment that attracts increased participation and develops pilots that are competitive at the worlds."

"Fair" and "inclusive" are not necessarily complimentary--like so many
things it depends on one's point of view. Club Class is exclusive by
definition. 18m, on the other hand, is exclusive by reality. How can
one be "fair" and not the other?

And as already been pointed out, if the intent is to truly achieve
inclusivity then similar logic demands we allow Sports Class
participants to gain points towards the U.S. World Class team as
well.

Heck, why have classes at all?

In my opinion, any attempt to make U.S. Club Class more "inclusive" to
the benefit of non-Club Class competitors, regardless of intent or
desire, is nothing more than quibbling the system to the detriment of
bona fide Club Class participants who have just as much expectation to
become U.S. team members as does anyone else competing and earning
team points *within* their respective class.

Thanks for allowing me to express my thoughts on the matter.

Sincerely,

Ray Cornay
U.S. Club Class proponent

For further consideration on the matter:

You say, "...I believe that the new approach moves us from excluding some of our best pilots based on finances and becomes much more inclusive."

WHEREAS the State of Georgia has a residency requirement in order to
qualify for an elected position within the Georgia government,

WHEREAS the State of Alabama has a residency requirement in order to
qualify for an elected position within the Alabama government,

WHEREAS Alabama's residency requirement is not inclusive to the
citizens of Georgia (regardless of the reciprocal reality),

WHEREAS many of Georgia's best politicians cannot afford to own a
house both in Georgia and Alabama,

WHEREAS Georgia politicians contend it isn't fair that they cannot
become an elected official in Alabama simply because they can't afford
to own two homes (despite owning a house in Georgia and thus are able
to run for office in Georgia),

WHEREAS there are more Georgia politicians owning a house in Georgia
than Alabama politicians owning a house in Alabama,

WHEREAS houses in Georgia are better than houses in Alabama, thus
politicians in Georgia are better than politicians in Alabama,

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED by the Georgia legislature that any
vote a Georgia politician receives during an election for a Georgia
office shall simultaneously apply towards being elected to a
commensurate position within the government of the State of Alabama.

Good grief!

Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.

-Joh

On Sep 23, 8:00 am, Ray Jay wrote:
For further consideration on the matter:

[Lots of blah, blah de blah clipped ]

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVED by the Georgia legislature that any
vote a Georgia politician receives during an election for a Georgia
office shall simultaneously apply towards being elected to a
commensurate position within the government of the State of Alabama.

Good grief!

On Sep 23, 9:24*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.

So you agree the outcome of the U.S. soaring teams would be the same
despite changing the selection process. Thanks for the affirmation!

Evidently I must add the term delusional to my list...

-John

On Sep 23, 9:38 am, Ray Jay wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:24 am, jcarlyle wrote:

Poor example. What with the sucky weather, the woeful education and
inbreeding, the outcome would be identical in either case.

So you agree the outcome of the U.S. soaring teams would be the same
despite changing the selection process. Thanks for the affirmation!