On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
May be you should read this first
http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

To quote from that document: "It is supposed, that a slower glider is faster and a faster glider is slower...".

OK, OK, that quote (from section 3.3) is out of context... But really, the document spells out the theory. If you don't like the results, point out where the theory is incorrect. There are many possible issues, for example:
* the measured or estimated polars may be incorrect - commenters on this thread seems to focus on that
* the weather model (which is not assuming calm morning air!) may be bad, in the sense of being not representative of real flying conditions
* the weather model may be OK but the flying model is bad, in the sense that winning competitors don't fly like the MacCready model, rather follow "energy lines" etc
* the arbitrary taking of the square root to reduce the handicaps' spread may be silly - and this after all the nice theorizing? But this step does not change the rank ordering of the handicaps.

Personally, I think that the weather and task conditions on different days give the various gliders different relative performances, and thus cannot be summarized by one fixed "handicap" number for each model. (If that wasn't the case, nobody would ever fly without full ballast.) Nevertheless, mild handicapping is better than no handicapping at all. And it's all for fun.. And since I fly a glider with performance that is much lower than the low end of "club class", I find the strength of the feelings over these minute differences somewhat amusing. But note I am not defending this specific set of handicaps.