SGP vs. Normal Racing

At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
spectat=
ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who want
the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it is
not
designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SGP

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
standard format comp?

At 13:14 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed fo
spectat=
ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who wan
the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it i
not
designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for
participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SG

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than
standard format comp?


Because the risk reward equation is different and that drives different
behaviours by encouraging the taking of more risk.

I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


On 2/7/2018 6:14 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
spectat=
ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who want
the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it is
not
designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such,it is quite sensible that SGP

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
standard format comp?



--
Dan, 5J

At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
an SGP?

As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.

The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.

I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
the mountains?

When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.

The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
threads have flown an SGP.

From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
have to go back.

The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
having even competed in one.

SGP is wonderful for the sport of soaring. It is exciting to watch and draws non-pilot spectators, in theory. We need more sport promotion and a the SGP series is a format that is exciting for spectators and pilots. If it is not your cup of tea fine, many don't want to drag race gliders, but this is an opportunity to get corporate sponsors, TV deals, fans... If SGP could get a bit more media coverage I believe it could really grow in audience which will ultimately help the numbers in our sport grow!

As for SGP vs "Normal racing" why debate? You can fly as safe a contest as you want, be it SGP or not.

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:15:06 AM UTC-8, Justin Craig wrote:
At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
an SGP?

As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.

The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.

I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
the mountains?

When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.

The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
threads have flown an SGP.

From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
have to go back.

The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
having even competed in one.

Two things and then I'll try to stay out of this:

Racing is more dangerous than not racing.Â* Look at RATES not NUMBERS.Â*
Compare NASCAR racing to the daily commute.Â* Of course there are more
accidents in daily driving but the RATE is way higher in racing.Â* So
which is more dangerous?Â* Reading all the comments indicates to me that
a lot of proponents for more rules either just don't get it or they
simply want to have the last say in rule making.

Just because someone has a different opinion does not make him an
armchair pilot.Â* I've been flying gliders for over 30 years with over
550 hours just in the last two years.


On 2/7/2018 10:07 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.ÂÂ* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.

But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
an SGP?

As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.

The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.

I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
the mountains?

When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.

The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
threads have flown an SGP.

From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
have to go back.

The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
having even competed in one.


--
Dan, 5J

Aspects of a SGP that are great for spectators but not the greatest for safety:

As mentioned, starting everyone at the same time.

Scoring formula that gives you a whole place if you beat the other guy by one meter. And no more credit if you beat him by a lot.

This produces strategies much like sailboat racing. You don't have to go fast, you just have to beat the other guy. So if you can, get an energy advantage and cover, then dash to the finish. And argue about the last meter.

All landouts are the same.

From the reports, the last day in chile the pilots stuck in a big gaggle and kept pushing lower and lower over poor terrain. That makes sense strategically.

In the past, scoring finishes at zero altitude led to some very spectator-friendly finishes, but not exactly pilot friendly. Interestingly SGP has put in some altitude minimums in the interest of safety that remain controversial in regular US racing.

To its credit, starting everyone at the same time means start late, catch the gaggle and sit there will not work.

For pilot enjoyment, grand prix starts -- including allowing pilots to leave early if they choose to do so -- plus regular scoring might cut down on start roulette and leeching, without the incentives of win by a meter scoring. Granted it would be a lot less fun for the spectators who now want to see if Sebastian will or will not keep that meter or two ahead of Tilo.

Not a criticism really,

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 12:16:57 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:

To its credit, starting everyone at the same time means start late, catch the gaggle and sit there will not work.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=sd5lfB-MsKc

Well, I am now again amazed that we have so many armchair experts who know so much yet have never flown an SGP qualifier or World final. Simply amazing.

The above video at (a cough) 2:57 or so, shows me, #711(applause please) as being in last place (which 7T happily announce's) @ the 2017 Orlando SGP qualifier.

Yet, I go on to win the day. (Thank you, applause, please). As a old man just had to say that! The start is really not a major concern(its a fairly long start line and folks are spread out). Out on course, the group does try different ideas. We all know thermals cycle and have watched those below or above climb up or slip away). Also, a small different spot on the ridge does matter for best lift. Listening to a couple of guys announce what the pilots are doing or thinking out on the course is no different than announcers on Nascar or the NFL. Spector appeal is what they are trying to sell! They aren't seeing what the pilots are and really have no idea what the guys are thinking!

Now, about this being a spectator sport. Over the last 8 World finals for the SGP, the live views have remanded constant at around 9,000 live views per final. You can also check the YouTube views for daily grid interviews, etc. Knowledge will bring wisdom which may better educate one's views. Needless, unfounded, radical extreme rants do not foster nor promote our sport.

The last 2 days in Vitacure I didn't fly and sat in the restaurant watching the big screen. Thier were plenty of chairs available. If you check the pictures on my blog, you can see the dining room for the chairs. On the finishes, well less than a hundred or so folks (remember there was an airshow to attract interest) were outside watching.

Appears "fake news and views" has now made an appearance on RAS(again). OMG, Wait a minute, Pelosi lives in your district( hell, she's still ranting on), now I understand! :))).

Best. Tom #711.

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-8, Justin Craig wrote:

Wrong...

Please elaborate...

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it...?

I'll take "sealioning" for a thousand, Alex.