handicaps for one-offs?

Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?

"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
could have been his new '29.

On Feb 21, 9:27*am, Berry wrote:
Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?

*"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
could have been his new '29.

You may have noticed the "Neidrauer NG-1" has been added to the US
handicap list. This is a one off modified BG-12 that i bought last
year and hope to get flying this season. I asked David Stephenson the
same question and his response was that since it was BG-12 based he
would give it the BG-12 handicap for the first year and then modify it
as needed after that I suppose.

On Feb 21, 10:27*am, Berry wrote:
Hypothetical questions: Say a pilot wants to enter a regional
club/sports contest with a one-of-a-kind experimental not on the
handicap list. Would that ship be allowed to enter and how would the
ship be handicapped? What if the contest was a National?

*"WB" currently spending his weekends rolling a warm, inviting, but
restful "Blanched Almond" eggshell interior latex onto the walls of what
could have been his new '29.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year. It
is quite useful to NOT wait till the last minute.
UH

At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:
.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year.


Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.

Ian

On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant wrote:
At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:

.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year.

Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.

Ian

Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. The description used
to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".

That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
performance.

The end result seems to work something like this:

A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
both likes and has a favorable handicap
Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
years
Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
repeat until done.


Andy

On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant wrote:





At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:

.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year.

Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection..

Ian

Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".

That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
performance.

The end result seems to work something like this:

A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
both likes and has a favorable handicap
Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
years
Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
repeat until done.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
Foka??

Peter

On Feb 22, 11:53*am, vontresc wrote:
On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy wrote:





On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant wrote:

At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:

.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year.

Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.

Ian

Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results".

That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
performance.

The end result seems to work something like this:

A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
both likes and has a favorable handicap
Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
years
Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
repeat until done.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
Foka??

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep- The guy that is the head of the handicap subcommittee. We put the
fox in charge of the hen house.
Seriously, Dave has a great understanding of the factors that affect
the relative performance of the gliders we fly.
And- he has no dog in the fight.
UH

On Feb 22, 10:18*am, wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:53*am, vontresc wrote:



On Feb 22, 10:25*am, Andy wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:32*am, Ian Cant wrote:

At 16:42 21 February 2011, wrote:

.

A request to Hank Nixon, RC chair *with "some useful" information
about the glider get's the ball rolling.
We work with Dave Stevenson- Handicap subcomm chair on this kind of
thing a couple times a year.

Widening the question somewhat, is there an analytic process in
determining the handicaps [so that the 'useful information' can be
identified] or is it largely subjective ? *Many years ago CH published a
partial description of his engineering analyses to form handicaps; an
update on current methods would be of considerable interest. *Perhaps it
would make a good article for Soaring, or in John Cochrane's collection.

Ian

Yes, I'd like to see the full methodology too. *The description used
to contain a phrase like "and then adjusted based on contest results"..

That left some of us wondering how a handicap which is intended to
normalize sailplane performance can possibly be influenced by, or
derived from, contest results which depend strongly on pilot
performance.

The end result seems to work something like this:

A skilled pilot want to win a sports class Nationals
The pilot surveys the sailplane handicap list and finds one that he
both likes and has a favorable handicap
Pilot flies the glider in the Nationals and places well for a few
years
Handicap of the glider is adjusted based on contest results
Pilot picks a new glider with a favorable handicap
repeat until done.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Didn't someone do that a while back, and win Sports Class Nats in a
Foka??

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep- The guy that is the head of the handicap subcommittee. We put the
fox in charge of the hen house.
Seriously, Dave has a great understanding of the factors that affect
the relative performance of the gliders we fly.
And- he has no dog in the fight.
UH

Didn't someone once win the Sports Class Nationals in a Schweizer 1-34?

The formula is as followed:

Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
Give or take a .010.
Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
formulae above.
A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
confuse.
R

On Feb 22, 1:28*pm, hretting wrote:
The formula is as followed:

Kentucky crap shoot divided by Northern Alabama pig poop times #
Tennessee virgins square rooting that number carried to the power of
what ever number is hit on the dart board that day.
Give or take a .010.
Unless of course you added winglets and now you have a glider that
automatically gets a number in the .80 range adjusted with the
formulae above.
A 1-26 with winglets is equal to a Nimbus lll.
It's not an exact science, but it goes far in keeping the masses
confuse.
R

Key is the Tennesee virgins factor.
LOL
UH