![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In my opinion, it is simply not possible to have fair competition in a
single task group with Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other. I have done a lot of task setting in British Regionals and Nationals. UK Nationals are OK from the point of view of spread of glider performance because they are run as Open, 15m and Standard. Gliders of low performance within these classes are generally not entered (although they could be, of course, as long as the pilot is eligible to enter at Nationals level in accordance with BGA rules). BGA-approved Regionals are handicapped and so you could say that they are run to the equivalent of Club Class rules. It has always been acknowledged that handicapping only works fairly over a reasonably narrow band of glider performance. The question is, "what is a resonable band of handicaps". My own view is, certainly 10%, possibly 20%, but no more than this. The greater the handicap spread in a single task group, the more anomalies will arise. Glider handicaps should reflect average theoretical cross-country speeds (Sporting Code para 7.4), and perhaps a better name for them would be "speed indexes". However, with a large number of entries in a competition, you can split the gliders into two (or more) task groups based on handicap. Each group has a different task for the day, generally the higher performance group being sent further (unless they had an enormous task the previous day). This is what we have done at Lasham for many years and is not only fairer to the pilots but also makes the job of the Task Setter more straightforward. The Task Setter can optimise different tasks for the glider performance and pilot ability that he knows he is dealing with. In my experience this works well, certainly a lot better than trying to set one task for a huge diversity of glider performance and pilot ability. For instance, on one of my task setting days at Lasham I sent the UK Open Class nationals (38 gliders) on a 450 km task, Regionals Group A (16 gliders) 400km and Regionals Group B (20 gliders) 325km. Start lines for these three task groups were separated for safety reasons but the finish directions were similar to prevent crossing tracks. Regionals "A" was the high-performance group with gliders from Nimbus to Discus. Regionals "B" had gliders from DG300 to Astir. The split between A and B at BGA Speed Index 104% was made by the organisers when the glider entries were in and the handicap range could be seen. Finally, some quotes from the Sporting Code for Gliding: "7.4 HANDICAPPING. If handicapping is to be used, its purpose shall be to equalise the performance of gliders as far as possible. The handicap figures used shall be directly proportional to the expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions for the competition concerned. The handicap shall be applied directly to the speed or distance achieved, for finishers to the speed only, for non-finishers to the distance only. Competitors completing the task shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not completing the task shall not be given more than full distance points." "7.7.6 Club Class. The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest levels .... The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the range of handicap factors agreed for the competition .... A Club Class championship shall be scored using formulas which include handicap factors. Ian Strachan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
this is exactly what I've been saying for years....and why.if you have a
glider that can compete fairly in the FAI Classes you should fly it there......and not in sports class (USA) tim wrote in message oups.com... In my opinion, it is simply not possible to have fair competition in a single task group with Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other. I have done a lot of task setting in British Regionals and Nationals. UK Nationals are OK from the point of view of spread of glider performance because they are run as Open, 15m and Standard. Gliders of low performance within these classes are generally not entered (although they could be, of course, as long as the pilot is eligible to enter at Nationals level in accordance with BGA rules). BGA-approved Regionals are handicapped and so you could say that they are run to the equivalent of Club Class rules. It has always been acknowledged that handicapping only works fairly over a reasonably narrow band of glider performance. The question is, "what is a resonable band of handicaps". My own view is, certainly 10%, possibly 20%, but no more than this. The greater the handicap spread in a single task group, the more anomalies will arise. Glider handicaps should reflect average theoretical cross-country speeds (Sporting Code para 7.4), and perhaps a better name for them would be "speed indexes". However, with a large number of entries in a competition, you can split the gliders into two (or more) task groups based on handicap. Each group has a different task for the day, generally the higher performance group being sent further (unless they had an enormous task the previous day). This is what we have done at Lasham for many years and is not only fairer to the pilots but also makes the job of the Task Setter more straightforward. The Task Setter can optimise different tasks for the glider performance and pilot ability that he knows he is dealing with. In my experience this works well, certainly a lot better than trying to set one task for a huge diversity of glider performance and pilot ability. For instance, on one of my task setting days at Lasham I sent the UK Open Class nationals (38 gliders) on a 450 km task, Regionals Group A (16 gliders) 400km and Regionals Group B (20 gliders) 325km. Start lines for these three task groups were separated for safety reasons but the finish directions were similar to prevent crossing tracks. Regionals "A" was the high-performance group with gliders from Nimbus to Discus. Regionals "B" had gliders from DG300 to Astir. The split between A and B at BGA Speed Index 104% was made by the organisers when the glider entries were in and the handicap range could be seen. Finally, some quotes from the Sporting Code for Gliding: "7.4 HANDICAPPING. If handicapping is to be used, its purpose shall be to equalise the performance of gliders as far as possible. The handicap figures used shall be directly proportional to the expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions for the competition concerned. The handicap shall be applied directly to the speed or distance achieved, for finishers to the speed only, for non-finishers to the distance only. Competitors completing the task shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not completing the task shall not be given more than full distance points." "7.7.6 Club Class. The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to take part in contests at the highest levels .... The only limitation on entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within the range of handicap factors agreed for the competition .... A Club Class championship shall be scored using formulas which include handicap factors. Ian Strachan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Carrying flight gear on the airlines | Peter MacPherson | Piloting | 20 | November 25th 04 12:29 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
One Design viability? | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 41 | December 10th 03 03:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Contest dates? 2004 18m nats / 15m nats/ sports class nats | John | Soaring | 0 | September 4th 03 05:37 AM |