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

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-7, Christopher Schrader wrote:
I support grouping them together where it makes sense so we have roughly 3-4 healthy, well-attended Nationals taking into consideration what I said about 20M being a training ground for pilot development be it prominent Juniors or other up-and-coming racers. Other "fun" Sports Class contests like the Seniors for example may be marketed as 2nd tier national-level contests called "Championships" where I'd expect the Top 10 pilots will still be in a close competitive battle for the podium.

- Chris Schrader

That suggests contests being hosted together that don't overlap classes.
But how?

Some complications:
JS1C can race in 18m and Open.
Ventus 2/3, JS3 or ASG29 can race in 18m or 15m.
Discus 2 or ASW28 can race in Standard or Club.
LS8 or Discus 2 can race in Standard or 15m.

Perhaps:
Club and Sports can be hosted together with no overlap.
Standard and 18m can be hosted together with little overlap.
15 and Open can be hosted together with little overlap.
1-26, 13.5m and 20m 2-seater can be hosted together with no overlap.

How likely would there be too few or too many entries in any of those?

If we were trying to bring more people into soaring and hope most get into XC and some end up racing, more fun meets should be hosted. Call them camps, pre-regionals or whatever you like. And invite two-seaters to all regionals, for reasons already stated.

To me the Juniors and Club Class are the most important, and both SSA and FAI seem to have lost the plot for Club Class. Young or otherwise new or limited funds pilots need a place to fly their (typically less than $20k) glider. It's hard enough for them to hang around with a bunch of old farts without the contests or handicaps messing with them.

Caveat:
Not a competition pilot. My involvement is limited to coaching XC, and contest crewing.
Jim

I don't understand how a glider gets "grandfathered" in. When Sandhill Soaring Club (my home club), purchased an Open Cirrus and I noticed the rules had changed eliminating the 17.7 Meter Open Cirrus from the list of Club Class approved ships in the USA (but not the 16.6 Meter Std. Cirrus), I called UH and was told the Open Cirrus had been eliminated from the class in an effort to align the rules with FAI. Hank can correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the gist for the change in the rules (even though the Discus 2 and ASW-28, who are not FAI Club Class approved gliders for WGC purposes were "approved" gliders under US Rules). To me the rule making is inconsistent.

While I didn't agree with the assessment considering Discus A/B/CS, ASW20's, 304CZ, were permitted to fly FAI Club Class (and in the USA Discus 2 were being permitted to fly Club Class too), I'm just one pilot; I don't deserve special consideration.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree with Phil's statements; we should stick to the spirit of taking old, inexpensive gliders of similar performance, and give them their own racing class. To adulterate the class by allowing for Discus 2, and at the same time prohibiting Open Cirrus and Kestrels makes no sense to me. While the theoretical best L/D of the Cirrus gives it long legs (a nice feature for beginners), the polar of the Cirrus at high speed isn't much better than the Std. Cirrus. There's simply no way it can keep up with the likes of Discus CS, ASW-20, ASW-24, let alone an ASW-28 or Discus 2 being flown by a skilled racing pilot.

On another note, the transition from an Open Cirrus to LS-4 for purposes of fielding a competitive US Team is probably less significant than Discus 2 drivers downgrading to the same at WGC.

From a Growth & Retention standpoint (I speak for myself here), I operate under the presumption that the health of Club Class is closely tied to the future of soaring in the United States and the more contest pilots we recruit to Club Class the better off our sport will be. Thus creating barriers to entry to Club Class doesn't make any sense to me. Moreover, as Juniors move into adulthood, and Millennial newcomers make their way into our clubs, "Club Class" offers both individuals and club-members (and partners of small consortium), with access to these older ships, the most economical entry point into sailplane racing and sailplane ownership.

For those reasons, I say let Discus 2 drivers demonstrate their talent by competing against others flying the same state-of-the art FAI Standard Class gliders that were designed to compete at the Worlds in Standard Class. Let pilots flying club class ships and those of similar age, performance, cost, etc. fly Club Class.

Several individuals and clubs have asked my opinion of the Cirrus, and while I have nothing but great things to say about it for pilots transitioning to high-performance on a budget - I think it makes a wonderful club ship (it handles beautifully), I have to warn them that sadly, any pilot who aspires to fly Club Class Nationals with it won't be permitted to compete. Moreover, its handicap in Sports Class is thought of by many to put pilots at a significant disadvantage to other ships (I believe there are RAS threads going back at least 2 decades om this subject).

I really can't add more to what Phil said, accept that I'm inclined to host a Formula 1.0 GP style contest in 2020 or 2021, and just hope the rules committee will re-consider their decision to eliminate older 17m ships from Club Class.

Respectfully,

Chris Schrader (flying Chicken Noodle)



On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:12:05 PM UTC-4, Phil Chidekel wrote:
One alternative would be to expand Club Class beyond the FAI definition to include motorgliders, longer wingspans and a wider range of handicaps. Then we could retire Sports Class because it would be totally redundant.

Some people seem to not like keeping Club Class close to the FAI definition. Others seem to want to keep Club Class pure to the FAI definition (no recent generation Standard Class ships, for example). How far afield should we go in expanding Club?

Discuss.

Andy Blackburn
9B

I fly a Glasflügel 401 Kestrel (which has 17m wings). It was "grandfathered" into club class last year, after it was neglected to be removed from the list when the club class was restricted to a span of 15m.

In my opinion, the purpose of the club class is to take old, inexpensive, and accessible gliders and make them competitive in a racing class. The club class should stay true to this spirit.

The Kestrel fits in the [American] club class handicap range. So does the Open Cirrus. My Kestrel might be worth $15k, and there are numerous Open Cirri listed for under $10k. Despite this, neither of these gliders can compete. Apparently an extra two meters of wing is a bigger advantage than another 25 years of airfoil/structural design evolution found on the Discus 2 or ASW-28.

I can immediately think of two US clubs that own Open Cirri, but these clubs can't send these gliders to compete in the club class nationals. I know of zero US clubs that own an ASW-28 or a Discus 2.

As I see it, we should either adopt the FAI club class definition and conform to the rest of the world, or expand our definition to be more inclusive. I'm not sure where span/motor restrictions came from. These seem like arbitrary and unnecessary limitations, particularly because the spirit of the club class has already been lost when gliders designed in 1967 that cost $10k are racing against gliders designed in 1997 that cost $70k.

To be clear, I'm fine with the new stuff remaining in the class. However, given that the list is already completely whack, there is *no* basis to limit the rest of us from having fun, too.

Rant over. I'm extremely grateful to UH for letting me borrow his ASW-24 to compete this year. But it feels wrong to be going to the club class nationals with something 20 years newer and 2-3 times more expensive than the poor Kestrel who gets left behind.