Again I want to emphasize my personal Thank You to the rules committee for officially sanctioning the Club Class concept here in the U.S.A. This is a complicated issue and I am certain that much thought and discussion has been spent addressing this issue.

I, for one, do not have a problem making limited additions and subtractions from a club class list of gliders. OR, conceptually, to/from a range of handicaps. Lest it escape anyone's notice, it was our conception of "Club" Class/"Modern" Class split of US Sports Class that was named as such and proven out in Moriarty, NM back in 2010. Yes, we cut off particpation of the upper end of the handicap range. But we did so to make for better racing.

My, and I think other's, big problem is with the opening of the RANGE of handicaps allowed. It is too broad to really offer the benefits of Club Class as seen around the world.

What has proven so popular around the world, and there is absolutely no evidence to say it will not work as well here in the US, is the idea of "limited handicap racing". This is, in fact, what you're trying to do with Std Class by limiting the benefits of handicapping to .95.

Defining the US Club class as something roughly around the Range of the IGC concept WILL bring older, less costly ships into the competition scene - many of them in the hands of good, dedicated pilots.

The currently proposed conception of Club Class has not been tailored to aim at getting these ships into the competition scene. Sure is it easy to parrot the "run what ya'brung" line to promote the "racing fairness" of US Sports Class as a vibrant competition class, but it is not enough to entice many into the game. A fairer, more tailored racing experience for a limited range of older ships can do that.

It is the the Limited Handicap Range that makes Club Class work so well. By opening up the range you dilute the benefits you are hopefully trying to capture - good, fairer handicapped racing.

Thank you again for your work on this contentious issue.

Tim McAllister EY