handicaps for one-offs?

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

On Feb 22, 11:41*am, wrote:
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

I had a pinch of that added to the epoxy I used to make the HP-24.
that and the winglets will make for a devastating handicap.

Brad

I had a pinch of that added to the epoxy I used to make the HP-24.
that and the winglets will make for a devastating handicap.

Brad

northern Alabama pig poop or Tennessee virgins?

On Feb 22, 12:28*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

Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?

66

On Feb 22, 4:23*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:28*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

Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?

66

Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?

On Feb 22, 2:09*pm, toad wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:23*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:



On Feb 22, 12:28*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

Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?

66

Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?

I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
thing.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:40 -0800, Craig wrote:

On Feb 22, 2:09Â*pm, toad wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:23Â*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:



On Feb 22, 12:28Â*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

Is square rooting the same as square dancing, only nekkid?

66

Do they wear clothes while square dancing where you are ?

I suspect our Aussie friends could fill us in on the square rooting
thing.

How common are Texas virgins anyway?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |