new Soaring article

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:
yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

On May 12, 4:19*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

I think "allow" is the operative word. One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

Probably kind of hard to swallow coming from a guy with an LS8 and a
brand new ClearNav, but believe me, the conversation around the dinner
table certainly gravitates to "So, what was in that box from [insert
name of soaring instrument supplier here] that arrived via UPS more
often than I'd like..."

P3

One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

BB, man, you are behind the times. All this is here now and for a few
bucks you become a real sailplane racer. Yes sir baby, you download
Condor, you buy TA's new book(he'll even sign it), and stay at home.
You can compete against Frank and you will shortly learn that thermals
are just a key stroke away. Ya, you can fly all day, all nite, any
weather, from one to thermal to another and see where they are all
at. You can even go around the sink and see how low the bottom of the
lift band really is. Make your own weather and even race anywhere you
want in the world. Heck, you can now drink your favorite beverage,
settle back and if it doesn't go as plan, go to your bed and not be in
a tent. No need for Flarm, no need to even look out, as your just a
key stroke from racing again. You can talk all you want, with who ever
you want on Skype, while your racing or not, all for free. No
unsportslike conduct or lost of points to fear.
You can even become mother goose and lead all them duckings around. Be
grateful BB, I am saving you big bucks. You no longer will feel the
agony of defeat, the thrill of victory, or them low saves you been
doing lately. No more outlandings or your trailer getting hit, as it
did in Szeged. NO MORE AIRLINE FOOD. NO MORE TSA.
Since you will be playing Condor now, I problay won't be seeing you at
the 18's, so have a nice summer, ya hear...............

On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley

On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:





One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair


Sounds good to me Hank, I'll get to working on 13.5 meter tips for the
Cherokee!

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Let me echo that in case previous comments weren't clear. 13.5 m
gliders including PW5 are great little machines, and we need to find a
good home for them in contest soaring. The one-class PW5 format didn't
prove popular enough to be viable, so we all need to think of a
viable class going forward. Like Hank said, expect a lot of polling
this question. The IGC may make decisions on class definition,
handicapping and water that aren't the best tradeoff for US contests.

For the US, one big question is how much to merge 13.5 and 1-26
classes -- necessarily with handicaps. I'm sure that will be a big
topic of discussion at the upcoming 1-26 and 13.5 contest.

As I see it, the other viable option is to form a handicapped class
for all gliders below club class performance. If the "13.5" class
could include, say, the KA6 and ASK21, then everyone would have a
place to compete. If we have a club class and a 13.5 meter class, the
KA6, ASK21, etc. have nowhere to go. But there is always a tradeoff
between participation and purity, so owners of these gliders have to
think about what they'd like.

There's nothing like a vague "lack of support from the SSA" to get UH
and me all riled up! What do you want?

John Cochrane

On May 13, 9:25*am, wrote:
On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:









On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Thanks for the update. That wasn't the sense I got in January.

Frank