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

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 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha wrote:

I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.

If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
If so they aren't on the IGC list). Moreover, the number of
competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.

The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
with a Standard Cirrus.

One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. This
approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.

9B

What is the purpose for the suggested rules change?

I would hope the overall plan would be to send a team of American
pilots over to a WGC to fly in Club Class, and bring back trophies.
It's been a long time since that happened.

It seems to me y'all must be thinking our best pilots, the ones that
have a chance to bring back medals from the WGC, fly only the latest
designs out of Germany and South Africa and that great flying ability
will translate over to the Club Class glider.

What is the proof to this?

Seems like if the whole idea is to build an American team that will
win in Club Class, then I would think you need to start with pilots
dedicated to Club Class and build on them. I don't expect it to be
done in a year or two. It would be a long term process.

Or, maybe you're thinking about the financial side of the WGC. It
probably costs a lot of money to go to the WGC and maybe within the
contingent of club class pilots in America, there's none or very few
that have both the flying skills and the money to make it to the U.S.
Team and participate in a WGC and come home a winner.

Are we looking for pilots who: 1) Can afford to go to the WGC; and 2)
Have shown flying skills and the ability to win in the newest types of
gliders?

We need to see that American pilots can win at the WGC in Club Class.
Will these proposed rule changes move us towards that goal?

If so, please explain!

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha wrote:

I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.

If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.

The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
with a Standard Cirrus.

One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.

9B
Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
class list. These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
list have none. The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
included. The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
C notation on the handicap list:
http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070

Bob Faris

On Sep 19, 10:59*am, Bob Faris wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy wrote:



On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha wrote:

I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.

If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.

The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
with a Standard Cirrus.

One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.

9B

Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
class list. *These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
list have none. *The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
included. *The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
C notation on the handicap list:http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070

Bob Faris

Okay - I thought there was a suggestion that the US should abide by
the IGC definition. In that case you'd get the results I described (10
pilots, 5 with seeding above 90). If you broaden the definition of
Club Class you will get more competitors qualifying, which I believe
is the main issue here.

If we all agree that the US definition should be broader than IGC to
be more inclusive then the only thing to be decided is how much
broader. If the current US Club Class definition includes the
original 15M Ventus and LS-6, those ships have a handicap of .899,
versus .88 for current generation 15M ships. Why you'd include a
Ventus and exclude an LS-8 or D-2 with a handicap of .925 is beyond
me.

So under the proposal we're really talking about not much of a
difference versus the current rule in terms of performance range, but
a big difference in the level of competition in terms of the number of
pilots qualifying - like more than 2 times as many.

I'd support including non-motorized gliders with handicaps down to .
875 as qualifying for Club Class for the WGC team. I don't think you
gain much by including current generation 18M ships and it starts to
stretch the performance range.

9B

On Sep 19, 12:50*pm, Andy wrote:

Over the last two years Open and Standard Class have
averaged 12 -13 pilots at the Nationals. World Class
has averaged 7 pilots.

How would 10 Club Class pilots by IGC definition
be any different? Should we start thinking of ways
to bring non-qualifying gliders into the Open, Standard
and World Class so there is a greater pool of pilots?

I believe there is enough support to have an independent
Club Class within the Sports Class. We can't expect
the Club Class to grow in the US until it gets proper
recognition. We have already deviated from IGC standards.
Further deviation may do more harm than good.

Sean Franke

On Sep 19, 12:50*pm, Andy wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:59*am, Bob Faris wrote:



On Sep 19, 10:32*am, Andy wrote:

On Sep 19, 8:16*am, hotelalpha wrote:

I think it's a reasonable suggestion to score Club Class within Sports
Class, but I'm not convinced that the current definition of Club Class
is the best way to choose pilots for the WGC team.

If you look at the 2010 Sports Nationals the number of gliders
competing that appear on the IGC handicap list is 10 (14 has been
quoted here but I can't find 14 - were you counting LS-6 or PIK-20E?
If so they aren't on the IGC list). *Moreover, the number of
competitors with seeding above 90 flying Club Class gliders was only
5. By the expanded list of gliders being suggested the number of
qualifying contestants would more than triple to around 35.

The current Club Class handicaps run as low as .91 for an ASW-20. The
expanded list would go to .88 if we included current 15M and .855 if
we included current 18M. In contrast Open Class glider handicaps run
around .75. A handicapped system is imperfect by its very nature. If
you want a perfectly level playing field restrict the range of
handicaps to 1.0 only - then you can choose for the WGC team the one
pilot who manages to show up to two consecutive Sports Class nationals
with a Standard Cirrus.

One alternative proposal would be to include current generation 15M
and Standard Class gliders, but not 18M and not motorgliders. Many non-
motorized 18M gliders flying in the US have 15M tip options. *This
approach would still expand the number of competitors significantly
while expanding the range of handicaps by only 3%.

9B

Actually, I left out one glider on my count of 14 and the actual
number of gliders eligible for Club Class WGC ranking points is 15.
In the US, since 2007, the list of gliders that can be used for Club
Class points is already expanded well beyond those on the IGC club
class list. *These include a number of two-place ships and the IGC
list have none. *The first generation Ventus as well as the LS-6 is
included. *The current US Club Class eligible ships are listed with a
C notation on the handicap list:http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=6242029070

Bob Faris

Okay - I thought there was a suggestion that the US should abide by
the IGC definition. In that case you'd get the results I described (10
pilots, 5 with seeding above 90). If you broaden the definition of
Club Class you will get more competitors qualifying, which I believe
is the main issue here.

If we all agree that the US definition should be broader than IGC to
be more inclusive then the only thing to be decided is how much
broader. *If the current US Club Class definition includes the
original 15M Ventus and LS-6, those ships have a handicap of .899,
versus .88 for current generation 15M ships. Why you'd include a
Ventus and exclude an LS-8 or D-2 with a handicap of .925 is beyond
me.

So under the proposal we're really talking about not much of a
difference versus the current rule in terms of performance range, but
a big difference in the level of competition in terms of the number of
pilots qualifying - like more than 2 times as many.

I'd support including non-motorized gliders with handicaps down to .
875 as qualifying for Club Class for the WGC team. I don't think you
gain much by including current generation 18M ships and it starts to
stretch the performance range.

9B


Over the last two years Open and Standard Class have
averaged 12 -13 pilots at the Nationals. World Class
has averaged 7 pilots.

How would 10 Club Class pilots by IGC definition
be any different? Should we start thinking of ways
to bring non-qualifying gliders into the Open, Standard
and World Class so there is a greater pool of pilots?

I believe there is enough support to have an independent
Club Class within the Sports Class. We can't expect
the Club Class to grow in the US until it gets proper
recognition. We have already deviated from IGC standards.
Further deviation may do more harm than good.

Sean Franke

Why wasn't there a Club Class Nationals in 2010? *It stands to reason
that if there is sufficient interest on the part of pilots of Club
Class equipment to compete for national team spots we'd be able to
sustain at least one contest per year to make it happen.

Andy-

The simple answer is that the "powers that be" do not want to dilute
the perceived stature of "Sports Class", and a Club Class Nationals is/
was not on offer from the Rules Committee in 2010 or any other year
past or present.

I still continue to view Sports Class as class of convenience for the
pilots flying the top ships (i.e. "If the Sports Nats is in my neck of
the woods or it is being held at a great contest site, then I'll go
fly it"). Whereas it is often THE ONLY choice for any decent racing
for anyone flying older glass. Give them/us a class!

This coming from a pilot who took his Libelle to Std Nats in 2001
(thank you Spratt-man for the nudge to do it...). I learned a ton, but
had no real chance to do really well. I took my Libelle to Standard
Nats because I could under the rules, but certainly not to "compete."

Will you begin taking your -27 to Sports Nationals around the country
with this change, or will you pick and choose your nationals based on
eliminating 2-3,000 mile one way haul to a central or east coast
nationals? Maybe this change will attract many more top pilots to
compete for Club Class Team spots by way of Sports Class, but I see no
facts in evidence to prove this.

Until the RC grows a pair and give club class pilots the choice of
flying a sanctioned Club Class Nationals once (or better twice, if
they are feeling very generous), we, as a community, will never have
ANY feeling for the viability of a Club Class Nationals in the U.S!

If the RC is afraid that Sports Class Nationals will die, then just
maybe the sport would be better served by that happening!I continually
see and hear many references to the "FAI Classes" vs. the Sports
Class. Like the 15m/Open/Std are the "real" classes and anything else
falls into the category of "Other."

Well, the facts of the matter is that the FAI Classes include "Club."
In fact supporting Club Class here in the US would expand the ranks of
FAI Racers - or is that the point of this proposed change to the team
selection and the refusal to sanction a US Club Class Nationals?

Just what if a Club Class nationals became a consistently
oversubscribed 60 glider contest likethey are overseas? Would that be
bad? Even if the Sports Nationals began to wither away? It may even
force some pilots of the newest ships to re-join their Nationals on a
consistent basis.

Let's try a Club Class Nationals, Susan and I will even consider
organizing it!

RC/USTC - PLEASE let the Club Class Develop in the US as it has AROUND
THE WORLD with the backing of the SSA and all that implies. Let's try
a US Club Class Nationals, Susan and I will even offer to organize it.

(Not yelling at you Andy, but rather for all to hear)

EY

On Sep 18, 6:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:
Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!

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"

EY

On Sep 18, 8:51*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:05*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On Sep 18, 7:33*pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:

Hey... I have an idea!! *This same technique should be use to determine the US World Class team. *It is a shame that so many good pilots are excluded from international World Class competition simply because they don't own a PW-5!!!

Let's make a pilot flying an open class glider eligible to qualify for
any team. Let's not exclude him from the 15 m or the 18 m class just
because he can not buy a second or a third glider. Poor guy needs all
the chances he can get to qualify.

Is the assertion then that handicapping does not in fact work?
QT

John:

If sports class handicapping works so well, then why not level the
playing field in all the classes by applying those handicaps in 15m,
Std, Open, and 18m.

I, for one, would ABSOLUTELY show up at the next Std Nationals in my
SZD-55.

Maybe others in last generation ships would as well and we would see
the FAI Classes grow to more sustainable numbers as a result.

EY