A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAI, soaring and Olympic Games



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 17th 04, 03:54 PM
Ted W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:

1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)

2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd Olympic
wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA will
be in Duisburg, Germany.

The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's sports
might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
Olympics.

If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather will
not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
about revenue, period.

The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since Finland's
1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games in
Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with spectators.)

Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing games,
so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.

Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting, gliding,
free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be there
to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
sports closely.

More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org

-ted w.
"2NO"



"iPilot" wrote in message
...
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up

again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but

nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring

community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would

have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising

sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable

weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a

difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of

monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not

expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9

different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find

the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the

biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most

suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and

directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing

tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido




  #2  
Old August 17th 04, 08:18 PM
iPilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.


"Ted W" wrote in message
...
Any sport that wants to crack the Olympic shell must pass these two tests:

1) People must want to watch it, which means it must have a visual appeal
and must work on television. (Unfortunately, soaring might be the least
direct and television-friendly sport I can think of.)

2) It must demonstrate the above by successful participation in the
International World Games Association (IWGA), a collection of 30-odd

Olympic
wanna-bes that have their games every 4 years, one year after the Olympic
games. (Think of the IWGA as the Olympic "farm system".) The 2005 IWGA

will
be in Duisburg, Germany.

The IOC alway visits the IWGA to select which, if any, of the IWGA's

sports
might be suitable for inclusion as demonstration sports at the next
Olympics.

If a sport manages to get selected as an Olympic demonstration sport, it
must then pass the test of succeeding in an actual Games. Good weather

will
not be enough for soaring -- see (1) above. Like it or not, the Games are
about revenue, period.

The FAI has been working hard since the mid 1980s to get one of its
airsports into the Olympics. (Remember the "rings" freefall formation over
the opening ceremonies at the 1988 games.) Parachuting (4-way Formation
Skydiving and Accuracy Landing) has been an IWGA participant since

Finland's
1997 games, and was the largest spectator ticket seller at the 2001 games

in
Akita, Japan. (The Accuracy Landing event is very popular with

spectators.)

Alas, the IOC elected not to include parachuting in the 2008 Beijing

games,
so the FAI will be without a representative for at least 8 more years.

Interestingly, the 2005 IWGA will feature "Air sports: parachuting,

gliding,
free flight (hang gliding, paragliding)". It might be worth a visit to the
FAI and IGC web sites to what form "gliding" will take at Duisburg. I'm
certainly looking forward to watching the results up close -- I'll be

there
to support the parachuting events, but will be following the other air
sports closely.

More can be found at the IWGA web site: http://www.worldgames-iwga.org

-ted w.
"2NO"



"iPilot" wrote in message
...
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up

again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but

nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring

community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would

have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising

sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable

weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a

difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of

monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not

expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9

different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find

the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be

the
biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the

most
suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and

directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with

racing
tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido






  #3  
Old August 17th 04, 09:03 PM
scurry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.


Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn
  #4  
Old August 18th 04, 08:54 AM
iPilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class. Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics - never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete (I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.


Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn



  #5  
Old August 18th 04, 06:41 PM
Jack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

iPilot wrote:

1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.


Interesting thought: the "Old Morality" of the SGS 1-26 is a hindrance?
I would have thought honesty would be considered one of its best features.

As far as "aged" goes, I am twice as old as my 1-26E.


Jack
  #6  
Old August 18th 04, 11:14 PM
Tony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment

can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just

bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it

was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex

aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they

wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to

launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.

Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different

monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any

foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter

design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings

available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of

competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a

techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -

never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete

(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not

know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring

needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We

have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.


Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004


  #7  
Old August 19th 04, 01:15 AM
Bob Korves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.

His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win. The rules are too tight to win
otherwise. With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
expense.

We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
clever engineering design.

There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
-Bob Korves

"Tony" wrote in message
...
"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport

to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors

performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the

'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke

watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is

no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch

as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in

equipment
can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just

bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it

was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex

aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when

they
wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible

to
launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.

Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different

monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any

foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter

design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings

available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of

competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a

techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the

Olympics -
never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can

compete
(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do

not
know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed

soaring
needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We

have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're

just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to

me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in

the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only).

If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004




  #8  
Old August 19th 04, 02:24 AM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Korves wrote:
I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.

His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win.


Bad example: Formula V is MUCHMUCHMUCH cheaper than CanAm cars! You
can't even buy an engine for a CanAm car for the price of a Formula V.
Sheez! They use PLENTY of dyno time in that class. You don't need to own
a dyno to do well in Formula V, just rent some time on one, or take it
to a track during the testing period and use some simple instrumentation
to accomplish the same thing. Because of the restrictive rules, spending
a lot of money gains you very little, unlike the less limited classes
where spending a lot of money gains you quite a bit.

Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I raced Formula V (in
which case they would no longer be very restrictive rules), it's a
relatively cheap class because the cars are light and low powered, so
the engine and tires hold up well. The small size of the cars and the
high minimum weight requirement makes makes their construction simple
and cheap.

The rules are too tight to win
otherwise.


You can spend a pile of money, but in Formula V, one properly done pass
using the "draft" behind another car totally outweighs that money. Been
there, done that, watched it happen many times.

With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
expense.


Absolute nonsense. The cost of a quality team to come up with this
"cleverness in design" is enormous, and the cost of maintaining these
cars that truly live on the edge of destruction each race is enormous.
Check the decals on a CanAm car and Formula V to see the kind of
sponsorship it takes to field one of those cars competitively. Millions!
There is simply no comparison with Formula V. I think you have totally
misunderstood the situation.

We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
clever engineering design.


Does an ASW 28 cost less than a PW5? Of course not! Does the "clever
engineering" of the ASW 28 give it a big edge in it's class? No way! Get
real: what an less restricted class does is make everyone pay big bucks
for a craft that isn't any better than the competitors, unless he has
shells out even bigger bucks. You could build a PW5 that cost twice what
the "off the shelf" models cost, but it would be impossible to measure
the improvement over one owned by a pilot that spent some time and much
less money to tweak his plain old PW5.


There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
-Bob Korves


And span is expensive! That is why the restricted classes in many fields
appeal to people: people with ONLY skill can afford the equipment that
lets them demonstrate that skill. I can easily afford a Formula V, but I
don't think I'd want to spend the money to do well in the next step up,
which was Formula Ford, and maybe still is. It cost ("back then") twice
or three times as much to run a Formula Ford than a Formula V, and the
Formula Atlantic cars were way above that.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #9  
Old August 19th 04, 08:12 AM
iPilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Finally one person who thinks the same way. Are we two the only people in soaring who think in a
terms: "what to do in order to get soaring to olympic games" instead of "which ways we do not apply"
which seems to be common here?

BTW. I didn't compare monoclass soaring to F1 racing. I compared soaring in its current form
(relatively loosely defined classes) to F1. For me it seems actually that F1 is far more restricted
rules wise than any glider class out there besides WC (but of course - it's not a monoclass by far).
Money makes the difference there.

I totally agree with you in other areas.

"Tony" wrote in message ...
"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to

achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment

can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just

bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it

was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex

aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they

wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to

launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.

Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different

monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any

foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter

design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings

available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of

competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a

techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -

never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete

(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not

know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring

needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We

have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.