A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 17th 14, 09:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,124
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:18:11 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:04:59 PM UTC-7, wrote:



We probably need to discuss whether the objective is to limit the handicap range for more head to head racing or limit the range of pilots flying in Club Class.



If the objective is the first then the most productive thing to do is limit the low end of the performance range which really drags down tasking and is where almost all the spread in handicap is. If the objective is to exclude talented pilots then keep the modern standard class gliders out - there are a lot of very good pilots with no place to race right now. The facts don't support that those gliders should be excluded based on technical performance without ballast - quite the contrary. Data people - look at the data..



I expect IGC will include these ships in pretty short order so that may not be a good place to hang one's hat either.


I was not suggesting removing the "current" Std ships that are in the range.. I was commenting that I don't think they are advantaged.
I was suggesting cutting off the low performance end, probably at 1.02(Std Libelle) or so to try to make AT tasking reasonable, which it is not under the current "temporary" arrangement where Club has been co-located with Sports while it grew into viability.
Hopefully talented pilots will want to fly all the classes we have.
UH
  #22  
Old July 17th 14, 11:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:44:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I was not suggesting removing the "current" Std ships that are in the range. I was commenting that I don't think they are advantaged.

I was suggesting cutting off the low performance end, probably at 1.02(Std Libelle) or so to try to make AT tasking reasonable, which it is not under the current "temporary" arrangement where Club has been co-located with Sports while it grew into viability.

Hopefully talented pilots will want to fly all the classes we have.

UH


Sorry UH - I replied to your post, but the comment was actually in response to earlier posts. I agree with you - a sensible handicap range of 0.915 (Discus CS) to 1.02 (Libelle) makes a lot of sense. Excluding gliders within that range does not appear to be based on any fact-backed logic that I can determine.
  #23  
Old July 17th 14, 11:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,965
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

For those wondering where the young pilots are, look at the club class score sheet. Much lower gray hair ratio here than usual.
  #24  
Old July 17th 14, 11:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Exclude talented pilots? Now there's a morally bankrupt concept......


If the objective is to exclude talented pilots then keep the modern standard class gliders out - there are a lot of very good pilots with no place to race right now. The facts don't support that those gliders should be excluded based on technical performance without ballast - quite the contrary. Data people - look at the data.




  #25  
Old July 18th 14, 12:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Sean wrote: "D2 racing a 25 mile radius area task against a Libelle or Sarah's ASW-15? Seriously? Whats the point of that? How is that any different than Sports class? Look at the tasks they are flying this week actually. Might as well be OLC."

With tough conditions on both Day 1 and 2 that included high cirrus cutting off thermal activity in a large portion of the task area and a cloud base of approximately 3,000' AGL at task opening, the TATs assigned by the task committee enabled competitors to complete tasks on two very tough days. With landouts ranging from a Lak-12/ASG-29 to an Apis/Libelle speeds from the low 20s to mid 40s, it has been rough. If better weather presents itself, an AST would be possible in Club Class with the range of sailplanes flying.
  #26  
Old July 18th 14, 12:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Use of the multiple turn MAT is a nice alternative to AST if the lift and terrain support it. Keeps most pilots in sight of each other versus the TAT, yet allows differences in pilot skills and planes to fly slightly different task if needed. You can go home at any point after minimum distance or fly a few additional turn points if you are flying fast.

TT
  #27  
Old July 18th 14, 01:53 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:04:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
SNIP
This just in Clubbies- 2015 Club is at Hobbs with the 18's and at Wurtsboro in 2016 as a stand alone. mark your calendars.

UH/OH


What are the dates for Hoobs 2015? and Wurtsboro 2016?

EY

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.