Chris-

Some good data you generated on that post. If the
idea pushing the one design concept is: 'More racing
generates more interest in the sport of soaring,
which causes our numbers to grow'-maybe it is time
to revisit that concept.



At 14:48 29 November 2003, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
Stewart,

I came to the conclusion many years ago that sailplane
racing is
expensive, no two ways around it. You can reduce the
cost by racing
older gliders in the sports class at local venues,
but if you want to
improve, you'll have to bite the bullet. A national
contest costs
about $4K to attend and takes two weeks of precious
vacation. To get
good, really good, you'll need to fly at least one
national contest
and two to three regional contests (typically about
$2K) attended by a
significant number of Category One pilots. There's
four to five weeks
of vacation. Then you'll want to spend every available
weekend racing
with your Category Two and One friends. To do this
effectively, you'll
need a glider within 5 percent of theirs.

That's the level of commitment you are competing against.
Many of the
pilots you'll compete against at a National contenst
have more than 50
nationals under their belts. So when you get right
down to it, owning
a glider under 40:1 won't allow an inexperienced pilot
to grow fast
enough to keep his interest. There are some notable
exceptions, but
they are, after all, exceptions. I've noted in our
club that it's only
when pilots get into better gliders (LS-6, ASW-20,
Ventus, and up)
that their cross-country skills really take off since
they can now
stay in contact longer with more skillfull pilots --
that is, they are
afforded the opportunity to learn.

The PeeWee just isn't suited to learning racing skills.

BTW, others point to sailing as an example of the viability
of a one
type class. The World Class was built on this concept;
however, there
are so few glider pilots that we cannot hope to replicate
the support
infrastructure that leads young sailors into these
classes, and
defines a path to grow out of them into other classes.
I've seen over
a hundred little sailboats at a time tearing around
a variety of
harbors, piloted by kids from 10 to 50, with almost
as many support
and spectator boats. We just don't live in that world.



Stewart Kissel wrote in message news:...
With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the
annual PW5 thread had=
reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and
one design racing an=
d thought I might post this. I started thinking about
this topic in the =
summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's
pulling two brand-new=
looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a
trip to a national cont=
est. From my location in Colorado and then license
plates on the caravan=
, it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every
right to spend their=
hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but
watching $200K+ roll=
ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing
aspect of our sport.

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete,
and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless
of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low
cost 'one design'? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA.
One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to
be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation
time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would
take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different
models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship
somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently
can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up
the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design
racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that
is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought
I would write this o=
ut. =20