Benalla

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models.
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.59.40 UTC+2 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models.
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

LS6 drivers in my airfield had LS10 options bought and were anticipating the new glider. Then nothing happened for 5 years, they grew tired of waiting and ordered ASG29's instead. Same thing happened everywhere. LS10 was killed because factory could not deliver it.

On 17/01/2017 07:42, krasw wrote:
maanantai 16. tammikuuta 2017 18.59.40 UTC+2 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:
On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:52:01 AM UTC-8, John Bojack J4 wrote:
Lowly (and only) LS-10 has taken a 9th and a 7th flying amongst all the latest super new models.
Too bad DG doesn't bother to place some top world-class pilots in a few more LS-10's.

Rick Walter's (RIP) won the pre-worlds in a LS-10 when it was first on Market. I was always surprised that the LS-6 drivers did not buy the LS-10. At a fit 200 pounds I just could not close the canopy though, (Longer torso, broad shoulders). I too thought DG should put a few top pilots in their LS-10 years ago.

LS6 drivers in my airfield had LS10 options bought and were anticipating the new glider. Then nothing happened for 5 years, they grew tired of waiting and ordered ASG29's instead. Same thing happened everywhere. LS10 was killed because factory could not deliver it.


It was unfortunate timing that all LS10 development stopped for multiple
years due to litigation surrounding LS going out business and being
taken over by DG. By the time that was resolved and work restarted the
ASG29 was available and established and the LS6 owners had moved on.
Couple that with the LS10 not getting exposure with multiple top pilots
in comps it always remained as a niche product. As another poster
mentioned it seems to have been quietly dropped from the product range.

--

Nick Hill

During the LS meeting in Ludwigshafen in 2015, a DG representative said that in case multiple orders are received, they are considering producing some more LS10. It is not commercially reasonable to produce just one or two gliders of a type per year. Apparently there has not been enough demand since then.

Best,
Christoph

Overall the 17th looked like a great day at the races.

The lone Nihonjin is doing very well. GO MAK!
Matthew and the fellow we call "Ace", too.
Perhaps the EB29s showed their worth? Watched EB leave B3, AG et al in the dust just short of the first turnpoint.
The V3 has really come into the picture. WO and 3V leading the day. 3 more in the top 10.
I know very little about sailplane racing. The collision days were a complete turn-off.
But days like yesterday...
Jim

Perhaps start an LS10 thread?

Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:51:07 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!


Sean, I was watching you on the tracker yesterday. Why did you go so deep in the last turn area? Doubtless I am missing something, but it appeared you could have just touched the west edge of that area and had enough altitude to get to the finish. I believe you would have been over 5 hours if you had?

7T: I'm sorry to hear of your heartbreaking landout, especially from such a good position. Time to show great sports psychology and go win tomorrow!

It's a great example of the IGC rules issue: Only landout, a few km short: 330 points. Only finisher, everyone else a few km short: they get 999 points. Now you know why "stick with the gaggle" is so vital in IGC scoring. Better to land out with the gaggle than to take any risk in order to be the only finisher.

US scoring isn't perfect either. It also switches from speed to distance points in a complex way depending on landouts.

Heres my current best suggestion:

points = (day devaluation factor) max ( 1000 x speed / winner's speed, 750 x distance / winner distance)

the day devaluation factor doesn't matter here. What matters is speed vs. distance points. And the key -- they are fixed, irrespective of the number of landouts.

So, only finisher gets 1000, 1 km landout gets 750. Only landout gets 750. The incentive to be lone wolf goes way up.

It works as now if you're really slow. If you are below 75% of the winner's speed, you get 750 points for finishing. You always get the better of speed and distance.

And real simple too. People might (gasp) actually understand their score! And strategy. No more need for team captains to report landouts to tell you if it's a speed day or distance day.

it gets rid of some other IGC idiosyncrasies too, like the occasional incentive to deliberately land out.

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:51:07 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Yeah sorry guys, blew it yesterday. Long story. Was almost at 133kph, needed a 3 knot climb to maintain that for 1500 feet. Anything higher would have increased speed so a 900 day was close but...no cigar. These guys here are incredible. Just happy to be here and experience the pace they set.

My point on rules is that we need to be careful. Our rules in this environment would not diffuse gaggles much (IMO). That said, I agree with John C, John G and Rick Scheppe that our rule system is more inviting to not flying in gaggles.

My example yesterday (only land out) was a great example of why FAI scoring rewards reducing risk by staying in touch with the gaggle or others. I flew almost entirely alone and was isolated at the end of the flight. Even though I made it to the mountains which are the best late day lift source, they were. It working and I was doomed. Also, now behind, few points scenarios allow a major catch up.

So I want US scoring to make it into FAI. But not the tasking!

Focus on the current race, Sean. Plenty of time for the US System distraction when you get home!

And, yeah. Those guys you are racing are REALLY GOOD!

Steve Leonard

Winning a day against those guys is quite an accomplishment.

Racing is making decisions based on estimated probabilities. As BB points out, scoring affects those decisions because it skews the upside/downside payoffs. Limited upside and huge downside equals risk averse behavior to maximize total score. Landouts and devaluation are one way this happens but speed points are another.

Example - The prior race day I stayed up late watching the final leg. Early on that leg you were basically tied for fastest speed with the pilot who ultimately won the day - and about 10 km behind him. It seems that you were both ahead of the main gaggle. It wasn't clear if there were tracker-less gliders with either of you - you looked to be alone. The ultimate winner seemed to connect with better lift and maintained speed while you lost about 6kph. In a straight proportional speed scoring system you'd have scored 940 points, but IGC scoring spreads the speed points out about 2x versus straight pro-rata points allocation so you ended up with 888 I think, or almost double the points gap.

Another reason why people are well-advised to stick with the gaggle unless they are highly confident (high estimated probability) they can maintain any "lone wolf" advantage.

People back here are pulling for all you guys.

9B