![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:28:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
The fun, ease and simpleness of IGC WILL attract more pilots. Specifics, please. I haven't studied the IGC rules, and neither have most American pilots. What are the essential differences that are going to make this class a winner? So far, I think I've got: 1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting. 2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs. 3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start. 4. Much more emphasis on ATs. 5. Score everything according to FAI rules. What did I miss? -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() So far, I think I've got: 1. *No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting. 2. *No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs. Actually, under IGC rules, each contest gets to make its own list, depending on the gliders available. So "use IGC rules" and "further restrict the US club class list to the list used in Argentina" are separate requests. 3. *No speed or altitude limits prior to the start. Actually, you can put in speed limits and altitude limits. What you can't do is the US 2 minute under altitude limits, the US start out the top, the US credit for distance rules or our cylinders It has to be a line. So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out of the clouds. People have given up on speed limits, because you can't tell in the cockpit what the speed will read out on see you later. At Uvalde after days of harangue they gave up and used unlmited altitude, which meant half the field started in wave on a few days. At Szeged most of the gaggle circled around in the cloud before the unlimited altitude start. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot. 4. *Much more emphasis on ATs. A rule mandating the fraction of AT and TAT. Uvalde sent them off in to thunderstorms on ATs because they didn't want to use up the mandated fraction of TAT which they might need on even worse days to come. An interesting unintended conseqence of putting in a mandated fraction of task types. 5. *Score everything according to FAI rules. Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then mass gaggles to a huge landout. The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very different tactical game. Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot more often btw. John Cochrane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() So, with altitude limits you get VNE dives to the line. Sometimes out of the clouds. Fun stuff. Advocates have a point, if you want to go do this stuff at the worlds, practicing at home will help a lot. 8.7 LIST OF APPROVED PENALTIES, page 34 Cloud flying: 100pts first offense, day disqual - second offense, Disqualification - max penalty. The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very different tactical game. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot more often btw. John Cochrane Keep in mind we are not proposing changing existing US Classes. We are hoping to create a new racing class and positive experience NOT available in the US. It is ONE class. Give US pilots a choice. Seeing how the petition is developing, it's clear a strong voice is growing. I think the picture painted above about IGC rules is a bit DRAMATIC. I certainly didn't experience that in Prievidza 2010 WGC. I think safety and successful tasking varies according to contest management. That is no different in the US. Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to learning to play these games? Interesting comment. Besides a refreshing alternative do you think this new class could serve as training for US Team pilots? Sean Franke |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:08:34 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
5. *Score everything according to FAI rules. Which feature a much more aggressive transition from speed to distance points than US rules. If nobody makes it home, it's 1000 distance points. Under FAI rules you make almost no points if you're the only finisher, as it's all become distance points. You get clobbered if you're the only landout. This is one of the big reasons that FAI rules lead to long start gate roulette, leaving when it's hopeless, then mass gaggles to a huge landout. The tactical implications of the FAI scoring formula are subtle and deep. There are several analyses of the required strategies floating around the US team. If we go there, be prepared to play a very different tactical game. Advocates have a point: if you want to learn to play this game it takes years of practice. The question for US pilots: do the 99% of you who are not going to the worlds really want to invest a lot to learning to play these games? You're going to be landing out a lot more often btw. Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in? Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:22:44 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
Points to ponder. Anyone else who has flown FAI rules want to weigh in? Evan Ludeman / T8 One guy's experience. Club WGC- Gawler 2001. 8 contest days. I was one of about 3 who finished at the contest site all days. About 20% had to use remote finish provided as loacl accomodation for weather at the site. Estimate of total completions is about 90%. Club WGC- Musbach 2001. 9 contest days. 2 days had 100% land outs. Other 7 days had about 80% finishes. Tasking was(and still is) designed such that you either go fast or you land out. Scoring is more forgiving for land outs than in US where we task for minimal land outs, admittedly by commonly flying shorter tasks. But- sometimes it pays not to finish because of the way the scoring system is set up. It really helps to have someone on the ground tell you whether to finish or land across the street. FWIW, I would contest, based upon my personal experience, claims made that the IGC experience is either simpler, or safer. As to fun- I had the time of my life. UH US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As to fun- I had the time of my life.
UH US Club Class Team 2001(7th)/2002(15th) UH: Yes, going to WGC is the experience of a pilot's lifetime. But would you have had any less fun if it had been conducted under US rules? Back to the point, though. We don't need to argue this stuff in the abstract! Put on some IGC rule super-regionals. Please! There has been so much talk about this, let's do it! Let pilots, organizers, and scorers try it, figure out how it works, learn the tactics, and see if they like it. But that we have to ask these questions does somewhat suggest that plopping IGC rules on a national contest next spring might be a tad ambitious. John Cochrane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I encourage you to review the rules. IGC is LESS complex,simpler and easier to understand. IGC rules are 15,091 words long compared to 25,804 (US rules).
http://www.fai.org/igc-documents Go to Sporting Code Section 3 Annex A 1. No 1-34s, etc. so we don't have to worry about low performance gliders when task setting. YES 2. No LS-6s, Venti and ASW-20Bs&Cs. No LS-6 or Venti. ASW-20B&Cs HAVE BEEN allowed. They are specifically excluded in Argentina at the next WGC. 3. No speed or altitude limits prior to the start. Altitude limits are up to CD discretion, similar to US Rules. 4. Much more emphasis on ATs. YES. There are ONLY Racing Tasks (AT) and Assigned Area Tasks. 50/50 seems to be the philosophy. 5. Score everything according to FAI rules. YES. See scoring calculations on page 31 & 32 of FAI SC3a rules. Sean Franke |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at 825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the UK. Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably less. Richard Walters The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg incurs a handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading difference but it's accounted for in the handicap. Copied from current handicap list: "The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC Reference Mass. If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference mass it can be considered as operated within legal mass limits. Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot will have to provide documentation to prove that his glider is still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be increased by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in no case exceed 38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no case exceed 1,09." Sean Franke |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sean,
My understanding is that pilots that fly under the "normal" weight for their glider type, do not get a handicap reduction. So instead they fly with lead bars to get to the normal weight. Or they fly light ( real light in the case of Sarah Arnold) and give up an unfair advantage. Are you proposing allowing lead ballast? Richard Walters At 00:13 28 November 2012, wrote: On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote: Let's not forget what I consider the most unfair IGC CC rule of all- no actual weight based handicapping. So if I fly a Discus b at 825 pounds and BB flies a Discus a at 700 pounds, we fly with the same handicap. I would have a one pound PSF wing loading advantage, which would be helpful anywhere but the maybe the UK. Big, heavy guys take note. I weigh 100 kg. BB considerably less. Richard Walters The reference weight for Discus a & b is 367 kg. Every 10 kg incurs a handicap increase of 0,005. Yes, there can be a wing loading difference but it's accounted for in the handicap. Copied from current handicap list: "The handicap is based on the performance at the New IGC Reference Mass. If a glider is flown at a mass not exceeding this reference mass it can be considered as operated within legal mass limits. Where a glider is flown at a higher mass by necessity, the pilot will have to provide documentation to prove that his glider is still operated within legal mass limits and the handicap will be increased by 0,005 for each 10 kg or part thereof that the glider exceeds the reference mass. However the wing loading may in no case exceed 38 kg/m2. In addition the handicap may in no case exceed 1,09." Sean Franke |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Club Class Nationals | 5 ugly | Soaring | 37 | September 24th 10 03:27 AM |
US 15 Meters Nationals and Region V South Club Class | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | March 12th 09 03:59 PM |
Establishing Club Class/Too Many Nationals/Not Enough Competitors | Tim[_2_] | Soaring | 14 | October 2nd 08 03:34 PM |
AUS Club Class Nationals Overall Results | Mal | Soaring | 0 | January 27th 06 09:55 AM |
UK Open Class and Club Class Nationals - Lasham | Steve Dutton | Soaring | 0 | August 6th 03 10:07 PM |