18m Nationals weight restriction at Seminole

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:47:40 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
First, make no mistake:
Higher WEIGHT gliders at this site are a real problem.
In addition to length issue, the runway is soft sandy grass.
Gliders with high weights and sometimes smaller tire footprint, well...

Grand Prix rules say equalize all wing loading, based on the highest
minimum wing-loading. For Florida Grand Prix that's me at 9.5 lb/ft2.

I suggested we do the same for 18m nationals; this was not the decision taken.
In any case Florida weather is VERY unlikely to reward higher wing-loadings!
This is not Hobbs!

Stop fussing and come on down Andrzej!

Dave, unfortunately I am not going to endorse this decision with my participation. To me it is a fairness issue. Have this rule implemented on the west coast and I will not argue on the east coast this rule clearly favours some gliders over others.

Andy -

One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

Thanks!

Lou

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
Andy -

One option you didn't list is a "dry contest". Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

Thanks!

Lou

Thanks Lou,

I apologize, that did come up and was considered. It created the most disruption of all the options. The goal was to minimize the amount of change from a contest with no weight restriction.

Andy

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-5, MNLou wrote:
One option you didn't list is a "dry contest".
Just curious as to why that wasn't explored.

That would be quite unfair to gliders with a low minimum wing-loading...

Of course with my machines I wouldn't know about low wing-loading ;-)

Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 5:42:37 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage
to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

Only if we have pretty strong weather. Let's hope, but...
I'm not going to complain too much about being limited to 9.5!

The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8

--
Dan, 5J

Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

Andrzej,

That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
that proposal.

Dan

On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
Andrzej,

That sounds quite fair to me but this is the first time I recall hearing
that proposal.

Dan

On 3/10/2018 10:06 AM, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
The one thing about all of this that sticks in my mind is Andy's
original post where he listed as one of the determinants, "sandy grass
runway".Â* Did everyone forget that?Â* Higher weight with a fixed tire
footprint means sinking deeper into the ground resulting in higher
rolling friction (drag).Â* And don't fortet the limited field length,
fixed tug power...Â* It makes perfect sense to me.

On 3/9/2018 3:42 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Andy: AK has a legitimate gripe. At Seminole, he had the expectation of flying at rough parity for reasons he's laid out and that any reasonable E. Coast pilot concurs with. An 1150 gross weight limit gives a significant advantage to the 29s and JS-3s **in this environment** that does not exist otherwise.

AK: I agree with Dave, you should go fly.

Rules Committee should reconsider this.

T8
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, no one disputes that the take off weight needs to be limited for this location.
Establishing the maximum weight for a safe take off and then determining the weight for each type of a glider to establish a common wing loading for all participants would be the only fair way to resolve this problem. In such case no one would fly above the safe weight and everyone would be allowed to fly at the same maximum wing loading to ensure a fair contest.
In this case a small minority got screwed by the organizer and a few pilots who pushed for this arrangement. No wonder contest participation is dropping.

--
Dan, 5J

That was the original proposal before some folks decided to change it.