new Soaring article

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

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.

why do they need to be merged? The 1-26 Championships are organized
by the 1-26 Association and have been and I suspect always will be
limited to 1-26's. I can see though that a future US 13.5 meter
nationals would peacefully co-exist with the 1-26 Championships. In
fact, if you all could make that happen for the 2012 1-26 contest at
TSA I'd appreciate it. Leah fell in love with the 1-26 guys at the
conference and we're penciled in to take at least one Cherokee down
there to fly as guests. But if I could instead fly 13.5 meter
nationals and still have the fun of hanging out with the 1-26 gang
that would be even better

A very well written and though provoking article as always.

Aside from the dollars there is a complexity issue that is largely
ignored. It used to be that glider pilots stood around and discussed
speed-to-fly, cloud selection and what the hay fields looked like near
the first turn. We now stand around and talk about file protocol, baud
rates, IGC formats and screen brightness. My point is there is another
barrier aside from funds, the complexity or hassle barrier in which
technology has changed the flavor of our sport.

I cannot help but think about the hero's of our sport in the USA (Dick
Johnson, AJ Smith, Dick Schreder, Karl Striedieck, Dick Butler, George
Moffat and their ilk). Would they be attracted to modern soaring?
Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
as well as bestowing great benefit.

A8

On May 13, 10:15*am, Alpha Eight wrote:

Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
as well as bestowing great benefit.

A8

As someone who's joined the sport in the last 5 years and who started
flying competitively, I think the answer to your question is No.

First, most of the technology out there now (as well as many of the
items John talks about) are intended to help the pilot _understand_
the natural forces and maximize their use. As long as we fly un-
powered aircraft, we're dependent upon Nature and therefore must be in
tune with it.

Let me put it another way: Do we begrudge a farmer who uses a tractor
to plant and harvest his crops? Is he less of a farmer than someone
who does everything by hand? He still must understanding planting and
growing and harvesting...

Also, I'd like to point out the fact that technology means something
different to folks my age or older (and I'm "only" 33), when compared
to the younger set. 21 year-olds in the USA are old enough to drink,
vote, and fight in wars... AND THEY DON'T KNOW A WORLD WITHOUT THE
INTERNET. The world-wide web became popular before they were in
_kindergarten_. The first computer operating system they probably
worked with was Windows 98. Not only does this younger group not know
what a typewriter is, they vaulted past monochrome monitors, dot-
matrix printers, DOS, floppy-disks of all kinds, pre-USB connectors
and their sometimes-byzantine drivers, etc. Technology has come a
long, long way in a very short time. It is hard on those of us who
lived through it; but easy on those who came along afterwards.

Ignore the value-judgement of whether social & technological trends
are "good" or "bad" for a moment, and take note of how innately
comfortable they are with technology, and what an everyday component
of their lives its become. New technological developments (in or out
of the cockpit) will not be as much of a shock to them as it is to
most of us. It will also be less-distracting to them, and they will
be able to better-integrate avionics into their training because of
their familiarity with technology.

Note that I'm not predicting the kids of tomorrow will be super-
smart. Just as most people today don't know how their car engine
works or how their electric appliances work around the house, the kids
of tomorrow may not understand how their fancy tech works down at the
microchip level. The point is that technology will be at the point
where they won't *have* to - it just works. The good news is that
these same children of tomorrow will still have to understand what the
technology is trying to do (like detect a thermal); and that means
they'll still have to understand Nature and her fickle ways. It is up
to us, their fellow humans, to show them that this knowledge is
beautiful and valuable.

--Noel
P.S. I also don't like the costs of top-end competitive flying. But
you don't try to win a Formula 1 competition in a street car (even a
high-end street car). The "average joe" who wants that sort of
experience can do so relatively inexpensively through things like the
SCCA Road-racing or Autocross (Solo 2) programs. NASCAR fans can
participate in their local short-track racing for a fraction of the
cost of a Winston/Nextel cup car. And in the soaring world we have
the Sports/Club class - as well as the OLC - to fulfill the lower-
budget area. I find it funny how my pilot friends complain about
their particular sailplane not being competitive and wanting the class
rules to change; whereas my race-car driving friends simply buy a
different car. :-)

On May 13, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

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.

This is basically what the Arizona Soaring Association has been doing
in it's local contest series for many years. "Classes" are based on
handicapped glider performance AND pilot skill, with the A class for
the serious racers in basically FAI-class gliders, the B class for
less experieced pilots or lower performance gliders (think Club
class), and if needed, a C class for 1-26s, 2-33s, PW-5s, etc. Tasks
are set accordingly, with B being perhaps 80% of the A task, and C
again 80% of the B class, or whatever is reasonable for the gliders
competing.

This has worked great for longer than I have been racing!

And a feature is that if you win the B class races for the year, you
automatically have to move up to A class!

Kirk
66