Club Class vs. Sports Class

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.

Todd -

This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
I completely disagree with you on this. I used to make the same
argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
winning. And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
like collectible card games where more money can make a big
difference...

But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
that makes someone's budget irrelevant. And many of the attempts to
do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.

I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
- but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
competing on a shoestring! :-P

The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. People love to make
comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is
COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. If
you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. If
you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
can get out of doing more with less... But screwing up the majority
of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. If
they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
doing what it is supposed to do.

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? Does the handicap take that into account? No! There are
plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
and have plenty of participation... These "unfair" sports haven't
stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?


The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
changing and never exactly identical. That's one of the reasons this
sport is so challenging, afterall! So how do you come up with
standards or metrics on something like that? And don't think that it
only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? Or a
DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? How
finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
end up making the rules as a result?

I return to my original argument: You handicap to give folks in
various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. And
you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
before handicapped classes).

Take care,

--Noel

On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.

Todd -

This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
like collectible card games where more money can make a big
difference...

But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.

I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
- but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
competing on a shoestring! :-P

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.

The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?


COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If

I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.

you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
doing what it is supposed to do.

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?

There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
will improve your score through equipment limits. One design sailboat
classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
$10,000 purchase price.


The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
end up making the rules as a result?

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. Allowing any glider into the
scoring, (Nimbus vs 1-26) breaks the simple handicap system.


I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
before handicapped classes).

Take care,

--Noel


Todd Smith

On Sep 23, 1:29*pm, toad wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:





On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.

Todd -

This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
like collectible card games where more money can make a big
difference...

But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.

I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
- but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
competing on a shoestring! :-P

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.

The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?

COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If

I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.





you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
doing what it is supposed to do.

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?

There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
will improve your score through equipment limits. *One design sailboat
classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
$10,000 purchase price.







The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
end up making the rules as a result?

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.



I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
before handicapped classes).

Take care,

--Noel

Todd Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think I could support a system that, as a practical matter,
exclued pilots from being able to compete in a regionals becasue of
the kind of glider thay own. Nimbuses fly in Sports typically because
there is no Open Class offered and they guys who own SparrowHawks and
Russias, well, Sports is all they've got.

In my experience the ships out at the edges of the handicap list only
rarely end up at the top of the scorsheet over the course of a
contest. The guys with high handicaps are likely to be at a big
disadvantage on one or more days and the guys with really low
handicaps generally have trouble beating the field by that much,
between gaggle flying and tasking for the average glider that makes it
hard to break away by a lot on a consistent basis. The only case I can
recall, the Twin Astir this year, Nick did an extraordinary job of
flying. Was it enough to beat KS on the basis of pure piloting? - I
dunno, but I didn't hear a lot of complaining and there were plenty of
races between much more closely matched gliders down the scoresheet
where I'm sure the handicap made the difference in placing.

Honestly, if I got beat in a contest by an ASK-14 it tip my hat to the
pilot - handicap or not. That's gutsy.

9B

On Sep 23, 5:17*pm, wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:29*pm, toad wrote:





On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.

Todd -

This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies:
I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same
argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily
for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at
winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment
industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things
like collectible card games where more money can make a big
difference...

But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program
that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to
do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the
whole sport or competition that they were designed to help.

I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair
- but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to
force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage
than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually
competing on a shoestring! :-P

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money.

The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make
comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?

COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If
you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices
and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If

I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying
friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff.

you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget,
then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you
can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority
of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can
theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong.
Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the
middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If
they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is
doing what it is supposed to do.

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are
plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful
and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't
stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in
skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots?

There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that
will improve your score through equipment limits. *One design sailboat
classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a
$10,000 purchase price.

The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always
changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this
sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with
standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it
only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers...
My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a
worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days?
Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a
DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How
finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you
end up making the rules as a result?

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.

I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in
various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And
you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the
weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even
before handicapped classes).

Take care,

--Noel

Todd Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think I could support a system that, as a practical matter,
exclued pilots from being able to compete in a regionals becasue of
the kind of glider thay own. Nimbuses fly in Sports typically because
there is no Open Class offered and they guys who own SparrowHawks and
Russias, well, Sports is all they've got.

In my experience the ships out at the edges of the handicap list only
rarely end up at the top of the scorsheet over the course of a
contest. The guys with high handicaps are likely to be at a big
disadvantage on one or more days and the guys with really low
handicaps generally have trouble beating the field by that much,
between gaggle flying and tasking for the average glider that makes it
hard to break away by a lot on a consistent basis. The only case I can
recall, the Twin Astir this year, Nick did an extraordinary job of
flying. Was it enough to beat KS on the basis of pure piloting? - I
dunno, but I didn't hear a lot of complaining and there were plenty of
races between much more closely matched gliders down the scoresheet
where I'm sure the handicap made the difference in placing.

Honestly, if I got beat in a contest by an ASK-14 it tip my hat to the
pilot - handicap or not. That's gutsy.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We all tipped our hats when Bill Batesole whupped everybody one day a
couple years ago
in his ASK-14. Good lift- not much wind- and he CREAMED us. Then he
fell back when he missed a ridge
gap crossing- Ah Well.
I took a quick look at what was flown in the last 12 Sports Nats.
Roughly 40% of the gliders competing were in the currently
contemplated group set by the USTC for "club class" team selection. 5
contests were won by club class gliders, 2 by long wingers (Duos) ,4
by current production ships(ASW-27(2) and LS-8(2), and 1 by a Foka.
It should also be noted that the rules specifically call for tasking
which is set based on the performance range of the "club" ships. The
low performance and high performance guys gotta take their chances.
FWIW
UH

Todd -

I like your last answer (about practical solutions) and it sounds like
we've got very similar ideas, so I don't want to be antagonistic
here... but a couple of minor bits of "food for thought" for everyone:

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

You talk about this and you talk about One-Design sailboat races.
Have you heard about the World Class Glider competitions or the 1-26
Association? :-)

I also wonder about that budget range... That would include an LS-6 or
an SZD-55, and I think those are pretty competitive machines aren't
they? How about an ASW-20 or an LS-4 or a Discus b/c? And if its
true from the post above about a Twin-Astir and an LS-3 winning
recently, then those are two concrete examples of a glider in the $20k
- $50k budget range that can win under the current system.

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?

The intention is to score the competition as fairly as possible within
reasonable bounds. My point is that at a certain level you just have
to understand that the guy in an ASK-14 is at a disadvantage no matter
what you do - and he can't expect to compete on a serious or high
level with that equipment. A lot of the arguments I hear about the
new handicap class is to "internationalize" it and allow for US Team
selection and all that jazz - that implies competition at a high
level, and I'm just making the point that high-level competition
demands good equipment. I return to my argument that trying to cater
to the minority with the worst equipment will be harmful to the
majority in the long run.

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.

Right, but there's no way to be inclusive and encourage all
participation and drive up numbers and attract new folks - yet exclude
specific ships or have ultra-complicated handicapping systems that try
to take too many factors into account.

BTW, one minor point: You use the term "fair scoring" several times.
I haven't even competed yet, but I've looked at the handicaps on the
web and they seem reasonably fair to me. My experience with auto-
racing is that the more complicated you make the handicap, the more
factors people point to and whine about being "unfair". It would be
great if we could come up with _perfect_ scoring (I think the better
term for what is desired) that only takes pilot skill into account...
But unfortunately I just don't think its practical.

....Will be interesting to see all of this play out!

Take care,

--Noel

On Sep 23, 5:28*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Todd -

I like your last answer (about practical solutions) and it sounds like
we've got very similar ideas, so I don't want to be antagonistic
here... but a couple of minor bits of "food for thought" for everyone:

Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I
want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable
chance of winning in.

You talk about this and you talk about One-Design sailboat races.
Have you heard about the World Class Glider competitions or the 1-26
Association? *:-)

I also wonder about that budget range... That would include an LS-6 or
an SZD-55, and I think those are pretty competitive machines aren't
they? *How about an ASW-20 or an LS-4 or a Discus b/c? *And if its
true from the post above about a Twin-Astir and an LS-3 winning
recently, then those are two concrete examples of a glider in the $20k
- $50k budget range that can win under the current system.

That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not
to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ?

The intention is to score the competition as fairly as possible within
reasonable bounds. *My point is that at a certain level you just have
to understand that the guy in an ASK-14 is at a disadvantage no matter
what you do - and he can't expect to compete on a serious or high
level with that equipment. *A lot of the arguments I hear about the
new handicap class is to "internationalize" it and allow for US Team
selection and all that jazz - that implies competition at a high
level, and I'm just making the point that high-level competition
demands good equipment. *I return to my argument that trying to cater
to the minority with the worst equipment will be harmful to the
majority in the long run.

I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a
simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the
scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system.

Right, but there's no way to be inclusive and encourage all
participation and drive up numbers and attract new folks - yet exclude
specific ships or have ultra-complicated handicapping systems that try
to take too many factors into account.

BTW, one minor point: *You use the term "fair scoring" several times.
I haven't even competed yet, but I've looked at the handicaps on the
web and they seem reasonably fair to me. *My experience with auto-
racing is that the more complicated you make the handicap, the more
factors people point to and whine about being "unfair". *It would be
great if we could come up with _perfect_ scoring (I think the better
term for what is desired) that only takes pilot skill into account...
But unfortunately I just don't think its practical.

...Will be interesting to see all of this play out!

Take care,

--Noel

Noel,

I seem to not be explaining myself well about the handicap system that
I want. I want a simple 1 number system like we currently use. But
that only works well when the handicap range is small. That's why I
would like the club class. I also would like the club class so that
the tasking could be set at the same level of difficulty as the
standard / 15m / etc classes. Currently sports rules specify easier
tasking than the other "big boy" classes.

I just recognize that we don't have the numbers to have both the
sports and the club class.

And there is a "perfect" scoring system. Have everybody fly the same
glider :-) No handicaps needed. Please do a groups.google.com
search on this group to see why the current world class didn't work
out so well the last time. Please do not discuss this in this
thread. Do the search, you'll see why.


Todd
3S

At 19:47 23 September 2008, noel.wade wrote:

Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: Do you really think
that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? What
about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling-
ball? Does the handicap take that into account? No!

Actually, I think it *does* for bowling and golf. The handicap in both
cases is based on the prior performance record of the individual
competitor; if he's working with better equipment, that will show up as
better performance. Hard for me to see how the same approach could work
in racing gliders, but then again I know almost nothing about competition
- my very limited racing has been confined mostly to 1-26s. I *was* part
of a bowling team at work for a couple of years, though. Mostly we just
went bowling to drink beer and tell jokes. I've seen a lot of that going
on at glider contests, too.

Jim Beckman

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class.

Noel,

I am a long time sports class pilot, flying a Grob 102 and would love
a "club" class so that I would be scored more fairly, but I would miss
flying with my friends that have non-club qualifying gliders.

On balance, I would keep the classes combined.

2) *New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
can do well. *But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time,

But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win,
if they are flying the best at that contest.

3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly ...

The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the
weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a
small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport.

Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
playing-field 100%,

Yes the idea IS to level the playing field between different aircraft,
leaving pilot ability the determining factor. So that the better pilot
wins.

It is very hard to have any semblance of fairness when the rating
spread is as wide as a Nimbus 3 against a ASK 14.



--Noel

Thanks
Todd Smith
3S


Help me out here. As a prctical matter what are the alternatives?
Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you
look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of
the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir.
If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under
Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly? The Duos
would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL.
There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports,
usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably
they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too
intimidating.

Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes,
pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly
Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low-
performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which
only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more
importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO.

The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing,
but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir
wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding? And
if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a stretch to
me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the
scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders.
You could do it, but I don't think it solves a real-world problem.
Dividing up classes let's you give out one more trophy, but I doubt it
would very often be to someone who would have won if he'd been flying
a newer glider - or if everyone else had been flying one like his.

The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
compete no mattery what ship they fly.

9B

Oh, you want a practical answer ? Didn't know that ;-) My practical
answer is to leave the system alone :-) I have fun at the
contests. A club class score done "on the side" within sports might
be interesting, but the scorer already has enough work. We don't have
the number of participants to really split the class.


There are 2 conflicting desires he Inclusiveness vs Fair
scoring

Fair scoring requires limiting the types of glider so that the
handicap spread is small. Inclusiveness would allow any glider in
sports class.

The only real solution will be to double/triple the number of contest
glider pilots in the US. Then we can split the classes and have
enough people. No change to the racing rules will fix that issue.

Todd Smith
3S

On Sep 23, 4:11 pm, wrote:

Help me out here. As a pr[a]ctical matter what are the alternatives?
Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you
look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of
the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir.
If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under
Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly?

Non qualified Club Class gliders would still compete in Sports Class--
nothing changes.
Remember, this doesn't have to be an "either/or" scenario.

The Duos would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL.

"Open" Class = open to *any* glider.
Non-Club gliders are always "qualified" for Sports Class.

There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports,
usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably
they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too
intimidating.

No, they could still participate in Sports Class.

Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes,
pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly
Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low-
performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which
only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more
importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO.

Having to task a Sports Class event is a function of the performance
capability of the lowest performing glider, no matter what the highest
performing glider is and regardless of how many gliders are in
between.

Splits the field/less fun: Having to fly to the back of the TP area
on short tasks every day, no matter what, because the limitations of a
1-26/L-13/Twin Astir entrant must be considered in tasking all but
erases all else's enroute strategy options--now that's no fun.

The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing,
but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir
wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding?

Because a Twin Astir is not a WGC Club Class designated glider. If
the U.S. intends to send a Club Class team over to compete on the
world stage, why should not we chose that team from a process using
Club Class gliders under Club Class rules? Does it make any sense to
pick a dirt track champion to race F-1 in the Monaco Grand Prix?

And if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a stretch to
me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the
scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders.

Not "either/or"...Not "either/or""...Not "either/or""...Not "either/
or""...Not "either/or"…

A Sports winner and a Club winner. Different tasking, competing
simultaneously.
-The new guys can do Sports.
-The older guys wanting shorter tasks can do Sports.
-The guy who wants to give rides can do Sports.
-The guy in the hot ship can do Sports (though I really don’t think
that was the intent).
-The guy flying a kite can do Sports.
However,
-Those flying Club Class designated gliders who want to compete flying
more challenging courses against like aircraft (thus inducing a small
spread in handicap range) thereby making it a function of less the
plane and more the pilot, can--*and want*--to do Club Class.

Holding a Club Class race within a Sports Class event takes nothing
away from the Sports Class participants. On the other hand, forcing
Club Class gliders to the U.S. Sports Class intentions does, under
certain circumstances, take away from WGC Club Class intentions.

The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has
its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to
compete no matter[y] what ship they fly.

Granted. But I don't see how allowing those wishing to compete as a
Club Class takes anything away from Sports Class any more so than,
say. World Class or the 1-26 Ass'n takes away from Sports Class.

HIgh Thermals,

Ray Cornay
LS-4 RD