FAI, soaring and Olympic Games

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

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

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

"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

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

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

You are right, Eric. Bad example. I should be smart enough to not talk
about sports that I am not really familiar with. Nonetheless, that is how
my very experienced friend explained it to me.
-Bob Korves

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
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.
(snip)
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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