FAI (IGC) rules for US Club Class Nationals - Petition

On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.

[...]

I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?



The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.



Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.

T8

On Friday, December 7, 2012 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 7:27:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:



Keep in mind it's the RC who proposed changing structure of the already-scheduled Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin.



[...]



I can tell you there have been super-regional FAI like Club Class run successfully. I flew a Club Class regional last year in Moriarty. With the exception of FAI scoring formula everything else was in FAI format. We ran it, did it, it's done. How many more do you want?







The RC is proposing their own version of Club Class. Why is the RC not following its own policy of proving it in a regional first? Why is the RC not allowing FAI US Club Class to take it to the next level? We have proven the concept successful in regional contests.







Sean Franke (HA)



Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

1. Tasking
2. Handicap range

Sean Franke (HA)

Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.



T8

Evan:

The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:

SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!

This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.

Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.

It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.

I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."

Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.

EY

+1.

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:44:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Okay, help me out here, please. What changes are the RC making to the CC Nats that depart so radically (and apparently, objectionably) from the CC you ran at Moriarity? I'm not seeing it.







T8



Evan:



The CC we ran at Moriarty was defined as follows:



SSA Handicaps .935 - 1.05 (if my rememberance is correct), Plus Ventus (15m), LS6 (15m), ASW-20 (15m). And that was it!



This was done to capture many HP's at the higher end and to capture the 304CZ's at the lower end, plus ASW-20's that are allowed at worlds, AND adding V1's and LS6's per the request of members of the RC.



Importantly, it did not allow for the current crop of Std Class ships (D2, LS8, ASW-28. They still have their class. And it did not allow for any of the 1.05 and up ships either. The Sparrowhawks, Russias, Apis, have their own class coming too.



It is the RANGE expansion by the RC that is very much at odds with the historical practice of CC around the world - and at Moriarty.



I can hear the argument coming my way now: "but we do not tell anyone to go away in any other class..."



Well yes we do. Open ships can't race in 18m or 15m class, 18m and 15m can't race in Std Class. Defining a class is about defining it with boundaries so as to make the racing better. Otherwise we just end up with Sports Class that is bifurcated and one part of it is called Club Class.



EY

Thanks... yep, right there on the info page (facepalm).

However, that *is* unique. You can race a 1-26 in open class if you like. But you aren't going to get any consideration in tasking.

T8

Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C
models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better
performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care
of those differences.

It would help fill out contest rosters.

Regards
Rick Walters

On Friday, December 7, 2012 6:30:09 PM UTC-8, Richard Walters wrote:
Can someone explain why the IGC does not allow ASW20B&C

models in CC WGC? Granted the B&C are slightly better

performing, and some have winglets, but handicaps can take care

of those differences.



It would help fill out contest rosters.



Regards

Rick Walters

There was no distinction between ASW-20 A,B,C in previous WGC. The carve out comes into play for Argentina where the ASW-20 could be an interesting glider of choice. They have been acceptable in the past and I see no reason to exclude B & C (15 meter) in US Club Class.

Winglets are allowed with a 0.01 handicap penalty not to exceed 1.09 combined handicap.

Sean Franke (HA)