Does the FAI think its April 1st?

At 15:21 03 October 2017, Tango Whisky wrote:
Le mardi 3 octobre 2017 15:39:20 UTC+2, krasw a
=C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
tiistai 3. lokakuuta 2017 16.30.50 UTC+3 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
=20
1. Let's make a fancy computer software and calculate
handicaps
bas=
ed on old crappy idaflieg measurements (304 vs. Mosquito!) and
weather
mode=
l.
=20
What exactly would be crappy with the Idaflieg
measurements?
=20
I have no other explanation to 304 vs. Mosquito handicaps. Do
you?

The Idaflieg measurements involve a massive effort (calibrated
reference
sa=
ilplane, towing both sailplanes early morning high up multiple
times, lots
=
of customized measurement electronics and software)and are the
most
accurat=
e measurements of glider polars you will ever get.

What you then do with the results is another story (which neither
bothers
n=
or interests me).

Trouble is sailplanes rarely compete in the smooth morning air!

More axe work at the bottom of the handicap list. Asw19 and cirrus handicapped the same? A light szd-55 with the same handicap as a libelle. And the us wants to adopt this handicap list?

If this change ends up reflected in the us rules I might have to go get a real job again so I can afford to double or triple my investment in the sport so I can stay competitive...

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
At 11:57 03 October 2017, Muttley wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
http://www.fai.org/igc-our-sport/handicaps

So many misplaced handicaps its a joke. Whoever came up with
this
list was clearly smoking some illegal substance at the time.

May be you should read this first

http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

Document on how they arrived at the changed Handicaps


Read it - 'commonsense gone out of the window' - some of the
anomalies on the list are ludicrous. SZD55 and Crystal less handicap
than an LS4, when they are at least equal to the Discus (some would
say marginally better)? 304 less than Mosqiuto. Mosqiuto higher
handicapped than Mini Nimbus - it's the same wing LS7 handicap
way less than ASW24 etc, ASW19 same as a Cirrus, LSIF higher
than ASW19 and Cirrus etc.etc.

Notice lack of US built gliders that would be in the 'performance
range' for club class not included.

SZD55, Crystal and to lesser extent LS7 seem big winners in this.

Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their
trolley', and that seems the consensus of most experienced pilots so
far.

Perhaps M. Rohde-Brandenburger owns an ASW-19? Holy c r a p.

I'm busy filling out US rules poll. Among the questions (paraphrasing): "Should we harmonize US rules with FAI?" My answer (also paraphrasing): yes, but not until the FAI adopts less stupid rules.

This, unfortunately, is a step in the wrong direction!

Evan Ludeman / T8

Sorry but whoever came up with this handicap list is 'off their trolley'...

I have heard a similar complaint about every handicap list published in the past 30 years.

Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."

I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 21:44:52 UTC+3, Tango Eight wrote:
Our IGC rep sez: "That handicap list is getting un-published, today."

I hope he wasn't puttin' me on.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Still not un-published, I see.

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:57:45 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
May be you should read this first
http://static.skysight.io/hc.pdf

To quote from that document: "It is supposed, that a slower glider is faster and a faster glider is slower...".

OK, OK, that quote (from section 3.3) is out of context... But really, the document spells out the theory. If you don't like the results, point out where the theory is incorrect. There are many possible issues, for example:
* the measured or estimated polars may be incorrect - commenters on this thread seems to focus on that
* the weather model (which is not assuming calm morning air!) may be bad, in the sense of being not representative of real flying conditions
* the weather model may be OK but the flying model is bad, in the sense that winning competitors don't fly like the MacCready model, rather follow "energy lines" etc
* the arbitrary taking of the square root to reduce the handicaps' spread may be silly - and this after all the nice theorizing? But this step does not change the rank ordering of the handicaps.

Personally, I think that the weather and task conditions on different days give the various gliders different relative performances, and thus cannot be summarized by one fixed "handicap" number for each model. (If that wasn't the case, nobody would ever fly without full ballast.) Nevertheless, mild handicapping is better than no handicapping at all. And it's all for fun.. And since I fly a glider with performance that is much lower than the low end of "club class", I find the strength of the feelings over these minute differences somewhat amusing. But note I am not defending this specific set of handicaps.

The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single sailplane (representing type with production run of 300+), in this case done mostly in 70's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes worth of first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider types. No one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and generation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer generation would not have better performance. Now we have a list that has examples of both of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in the method is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling includes use of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys get there soon.

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single
sailplane
(re=
presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done
mostly in
7=
0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes
worth
of=
first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider
types.
N=
o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
gener=
ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer
generation
woul=
d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has
examples of
both=
of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in
the
metho=
d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling
includes use
=
of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys
get there
=
soon.


Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?

At 13:49 07 October 2017, krasw wrote:
The whole idea of taking one single measurement of one single
sailplane
(re=
presenting type with production run of 300+), in this case done
mostly in
7=
0's technology, for handicap calculation is wrong. We have dacedes
worth
of=
first hand experience flying wingtip to wingtip with these glider
types.
N=
o one in their right mind would say that gliders of similar class and
gener=
ation have widely different handicaps, and gliders of newer
generation
woul=
d not have better performance. Now we have a list that has
examples of
both=
of these anomalies. That is pretty solid proof that something in
the
metho=
d is seriously wrong. The highest level of computer modelling
includes use
=
of common sense to estimate sanity of results. I hope these guys
get there
=
soon.


Ditto - why does the IGC handicapping committee or its chairman
not see this? Was there any consultation with competitors this
new handicap list? Would have been the polite thing to do?