SGP vs. Normal Racing

I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
been aired once or maybe twice!

The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.

However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
use of the SGP format?

We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.

I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.

In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.

The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
less safe??

Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:30:12 PM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
been aired once or maybe twice!

The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.

However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
use of the SGP format?

We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.

I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.

In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.

The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
less safe??

Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

I think the SGP format is great for the big boys - get 15 world class guys and you have something really interesting. Just like the Red Bull Air Race, the Indy 500 ............. experts only and a limited known driver pool. It is exciting to watch experts get close to the edge and really sad when the edge bites back.

The issue will be / if it is not already a issue..... too many gliders, too many inexperienced skilled pilots ..... i.e. FL?....... Sorry but I do not think the format can be expanded past the very top guys in the world without a huge problem.

My 2 cents, since I am on a lunch break

WH

the points system in SGP is definitely different. As you may have seen from my final day interview in Orlando last year, I had not really given that aspect much thought. However, the volatility works both ways. You can easily lose a few points or gain a few points by being just a minute or two slower/faster. So while the percentages are cruel I'm not sure that the end result is really that much different.

I'm sure someone who is more interested in putting pencil to paper will be along soon to correct me

My 2c:

SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for spectators, 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 participants to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SGP have a lot more crashes. Car racing is designed for spectators and crashes are part of the attraction. Professional hockey is designed for spectators, who like the occasional fight.

Regular soaring contests are designed primarily for the enjoyment of the participants, especially at the national level. You gain only the respect of your peers for a few months if you win. It is designed for participants to enjoy soaring, and not just a highly tactical game that happens to involve gliders. A wide participant sport properly has a much greater emphasis on safety.

John Cochrane

SGP race is for sure more exciting to watch than the "normal" race. It is also riskier than the "normal" race. The risk and excitement go hand in hand.. Just check the YouTube, where the number of views attracted by a sport (or any other an activity) is highly correlated with its mortality rate. Wingsuit flying 5 feet away from the cliff wall will always be hard to beat by anything anyone can do in a glider, short of crashing it in a spectacular and cinematographically well documented manner.

To me the main question is this: Has SGP attracted more sponsors and a larger audience to our sport? I would argue that the short answer is no. If that is so, then shouldn't we (IGC?) reconsider the whole idea? Racing gliders is already one of the most dangerous sports out there and I don't think that adding more adrenalin to the formula is wise by any measure.

Branko
XYU

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:30:12 PM UTC, Jim White wrote:
I have bailed out of the hard deck thread as I think that all opinions have
been aired once or maybe twice!

The hard deck discussion started out following the dreadful accident in
Chile and was an attempt to discuss making all competition safer.

However, when I think around the subject, isn't the real issue about the
use of the SGP format?

We have adopted and developed SGP in order to make the sport more exciting.
Not just for pilots but also the wider public who may find the racing more
interesting and might be encouraged to enter our sport.

I suggest that by doing SGP racing we have also made racing less safe
because the format fundamentally changes the risk / reward balance.

In normal racing if you were 3 minutes behind the leader you came in with
980 points instead of 1000 and could catch up the next day. In SGP 3
minutes could well mean 0 points and you are out of the game.

The question I raise is this: have we made gliding less safe by making it
more exciting, or have we made gliding more exciting by deciding to make it
less safe??

Anyone remember the 1975 film Rollerball?

Back in the late 80s I wrote a letter to Sailplane and Gliding advocating an F1 GP style glider racing format with what (IIRC) I referred to as "placing points" instead of the 1000 point system. The major point I emphasised at the time was that the distribution of points did not have to follow the then used F1 scheme of 10,8,9,7 etc. The choice of point distribution could have a powerful effect on the nature of the competition; in a field of 20 competitors, at one extreme, giving 100 points for a win and one less for every place thereafter would make for a very noncompetitive atmosphere whereas towards the other extreme 10,8,9,7,6,4,3,2,1 would make for an extreme competition at the top end and little reward or incentive at the other end. F1 figured have since then tailored their points to affect the result/reward incentive.

(A very eminent competition pilot was given right of reply and kindly explained why GP style flying was not a good idea.)

I have greatly enjoyed watching the GP series over the years but when it was introduced I was surprised at the points distribution chosen and am even more surprised that it hasn't been modified to reduce the incentive to risky flying at the top end increase both the reward and the discrimination of skill level at the lower end.

I agree that the SGP style of GP racing is likely to be more dangerous than normal competitions, but it's possible to run GP race without using the SGP rules which mitigates at least part of the difference in risk between the 2 formats.

We recently held a GP comp for early first gen plastic (club class) gliders in Australia that was a very successful and safe event - no gliders were damaged. Our rules differed from the SGP in a number of key ways :

1) Much higher start altitude - SGP wish to make a spectacle of the start, but the side effect is that most gliders end up together in the first thermal, at a lowish altitude - possibly one where there isn't time to get out if there is a coming together.

2) Less Serious, Less Start Bunching - At an SGP where there is a lot at stake, the competitors tend to start in the same piece of air where there is an advantage (downwind first leg, line of CU, etc). This didn't happen as much at our event. We also switched during the event to a start line length that was effectively unlimited, spacing gliders out further.

3) Variable Turnpoint Sizes - We accepted gliders one bracket either side of the Australian Club Class handicap of 1.0. This includes Libelles, Jantars, Hornets, Cirruses, Astirs, etc. To make up for the slight difference in performance between these aircraft the turnpoint radius differs so the Standard Libelle (lower end of performance) turns several kilometres before the Jantar.

4) We split competitors into 2 groups - To make the start (and first climb) less busy, we seeded pilots into 2 groups that changed every day after scores were tallied. The largest group was 13, but we had 26 aircraft competing.

5) We weren't in the mountains...

GP racing is definitely more palatable to the public, but included in public is crews, wives, husbands, kids, etc - Bringing them to a competition where there are shortish tasks, easily understood scoring, meaningful in-flight tracking, and no hours of prestart jockeying makes it easier to convince them to attend next year.

http://f1gp.com.au/

Nick Gilbert.

Although GP racing is a spectacle for the public, and yes I would prefer a little higer start, I find it more enjoyable to fly and more social amongst the pilots than the high pressure WGC atmosphere. Flown about five qualifying comps in Australia and the Sisteron and Varese finals. The experience of following those pilots in the mountains was awesome. I did have to put personal limits on myself to bug out if I was concerned even if right behind someone!
Tom Clafffey.

What is interesting on this subject is that nobody has stated why they feel
that SGP is less safe than the "standard format" competition.

SGP puts an emphasis on racing, rather than distance. It essentially uses
the best part of the day to go as fast as possible.

The reference to the tragic accident in Chile, I do not believe is relevant
to the SGP format, it was mountain flying accident.

Flying in the mountains carries additional risk, risk that is mitigated by
an experienced mountain pilot.

So….. take the SGP out of the mountains, how is it more dangerous. I do
not believe it is.

I have not flown an SGP, but do have several hundred hours in the French
alps.

As an aside, I personally would not fly any comp in the mountains, but that
is due to my expertise level. Would I in five years’ time with more
mountain experience? Who knows.

At 09:09 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
What is interesting on this subject is that nobody has stated why they
fee
that SGP is less safe than the "standard format" competition.

I guess the IGC do. The SGP rule book limits the entry to 20 gliders
compared to 50 in normal racing format.