FAI, soaring and Olympic Games

Well. It's not true.

"RULES of the INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS 2004 Edition" say following in Part B "RULES AND
INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINN CLASS BOATS"

"Purpose of the Measurement Rules
1.1.1The Finn is a One-Design Class.
1.1.2 (74-1.1) (OR-1) The object of these rules is to establish a class of boats which is one-design
in all matters which affect
basic speed. The rules shall be interpreted in this spirit."

One-Desgn Class!!! Not some loosely specified standard class.

Basically the rules in Finn class are so strict that to transfer those to gliders class you get the
planes which have:
Same lenght
Same width
Exactly the same aerodynamic exterior of the fuselage
Exactly the same profile and the layout of the wing and the control surface.
Mostly the same materials in use.

Once again from Finn rules:
"Defining the hull shape requires use of a measurement jig to check length distances of the hull.
The jig should be
used during measurements at major championships and preferred for the first measurement of a boat,
particularly at builder's premises."
In case of soaring it compares to measuring the fuselage or wing profile in . Have you heard about
that anywhere?

In most places the permitted materials are listed.

If you are familiar with our standard class rules, it's a completly different philosophy
alltogether.


"Kevin" wrote in message ...
Most people think that all the Olympic sailing classes are one design,
which simply isnt true. The most competitive class, the Finn, is
similar to our 15m or Std class with designs within a rule.
Kevin Chrisnter 2c

iPilot wrote:
I don't buy that argument.

1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship, you can hardly find any
fatman. Actually, in order to win, one has to mantain full concentration in long flights during hot
days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good physical form. Partly for same
reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.

I was a military pilot, and I remember we had some hefty (to put it
mildly) fighter guys who looked like they would have a coronary just
hiking the four flights of stairs from 2nd deck to the flight deck on
the carrier. We'd do semi-annual PT, and they were pitiful. Watching
them do sit ups was like a scene from "Free Willy".

Yet these same guys could strap on an ejection seat and fly 12 hour
missions with multiple refuelings, some hi-G dog fighting, lots of
hanging on the blades, followed by a night trap. And they were *good*,
which is why the Skipper looked the other way as to their weight.

So in short, I have some data points that say you don't have to be fit.

You do have to be tough, though. Toughness is a different thing, in my
experience.

iPilot wrote:
I do not think that soaring competes badly in this regard towards sailing, shooting and horse
raiding.

Here, all this time I thought that horse raiding was a criminal act.
Now, I find out it's a sport :-).

Tony V
:-)

iPilot wrote:

1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Interesting thought: the "Old Morality" of the SGS 1-26 is a hindrance?
I would have thought honesty would be considered one of its best features.

As far as "aged" goes, I am twice as old as my 1-26E.


Jack

SAILING NOT PHYSICAL? You obviously have no familiarity with sailing small
hot boats. Take as a good example, the Finn class, where sailors, who use
their
body weight 'hiking' (suspending themselves out over the side of the boat by
sitting on the deck with their feet tucked under straps, and leaning out
'til horizontal), to offset the force of the wind that seeks to heel (roll)
their boat, wear sweatshirts to soak up additional weight by immersing them
in the water. Each time the wind changes, they must scamper across the boat
while adjusting the sails and then get their weight out on the other side.
It is very gruelling! Studies at McMaster University Medical Research,
focused on the physical condition of sailors and its effect on their
performance, found that fatigue decreases the ability to concentrate and
make decisions on where to go, strategically and tactically, - not unlike
soaring.

For more detail, start at http://www.finnclass.org/
"iPilot" wrote in message
...
I don't buy that argument.

1. If you look at the recent winners in any soaring title championship,
you can hardly find any
fatman. Actually, in order ta win, one has to mantain full concentration
in long flights during hot
days and long competitions. Therefore one has to be in a very good
physical form. Partly for same
reasons why no fatman can win in top car racing league.
2. All shooting activities (incl. archery, clay pigeon shooting, pistol
and rifle events) in
olympics require far less physically from athletes. The same applies to
Equestrian disciplines where
physical health does not make the difference. The same applies to sailing.


Regads,
Kaido


"nafod40" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it
up again.

While soaring is a sport, and it is competitive, I have a real hard time

viewing the participants as athletes. If you can sit in a lounge chair
for hours on end, playing Nintendo with a joystick, you've got the
athletic stamina and dexterity to be a gold medal soaring pilot.

Why isn't chess an Olympic sport? Or playing Doom on a Nintendo
GameCube?

I am a gliding fanatic, but I think that the most suitable air sport for
the Olympic Games is parachuting.

Robert

iPilot wrote:
It's been under discussion for several times, but I want to bring it up again.

There have been several pro's and con's towards soaring in Olympics, but nobody argues that it'd
rise the popularity of the sport. So it is important for soaring community. Therefore my question is
following:

Wich way is soaring worse than sailing?

None of the cities that have organised Olympic games in the past would have any geographic troubles
on organising soaring competitions (Moscow had troubles with organising sailing competition which
had to be held in Tallinn - 900 km away).
None of the latest summer games that I remember have had such miserable weather that the competition
would have to be left unheld.

The main argument against soaring is the fact that equipment can make a difference here. Well. Here
is the challenge for igc. They have to face that their first trial of monoclass failed and they have
to try again. This time with relatively high-performing, yet still not expencive standard or 15m
class design.

As a matter of fact I don't believe that sailing deserves to have 9 different classes on Olympics
and soaring none. I personally think that FAI has failed bigtime to find the concensus amongst all
air sports to get air sports represented on Olympic games. It shall be the biggest argument towards
Olympic Commety - there's no air sports in Olympics nowadays. And the most suitable sport would be
soaring because it's competitive, not so dependent on equipment and directly measurable. Making
soaring TV-friendly shall not be a problem as well today. And with racing tasks only allowed on
olympics it shall be understandable for general public as well.

How can we do it?

Regards,
Kaido

"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the 'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in equipment
can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when they
wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible to
launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the Olympics -
never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can compete
(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do not
know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed soaring
needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only). If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.

His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win. The rules are too tight to win
otherwise. With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
expense.

We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
clever engineering design.

There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
-Bob Korves

"Tony" wrote in message
...
"soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a techical sport
to
achieve IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics - never happens"

What's the different between racing sailplanes and sailboats - apart from
water and air? Both require technical and tactical skills. A monoclass
sailplane/sailboat comparison with F1 is invalid as competitors
performance
in F1 is largely differentiated by the car.

I also think that with todays technology and some imagination, the
'gliding
is not a spectator sport' argument is weakened. Sure it is not lke
watching
F1 go round a circuit where they pass by every two minutes, but there is
no
reason why each glider could not be equipped to broadcast live video, GPS
co-ords, and telemetry, and the gaggles could be followed by helicopters
also broadcasting live.

Sailboat racing is not always exactly gripping neck-to-neck stuff but I'm
sure that a big gaggle would be as interesting for many viewers to watch
as
a few sailboats rounding a buoy.

To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting, challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.





"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Beacuse otherwise it's a tehnical sport where money invested in
equipment
can make a difference and
this is what is avoided generally by IOC. The examples you made are just
bad. Reasons? WC is flawed
in design philosophy and class requirements. I do not really see who it
was made for - pilots who
hav necessary skills to compete have the skills to fly more complex
aircraft than the oversimplified
WC design. 1-26 is morally and physically aged and US only.

Last but not least. Sailing wouldn't be represented in Olympics when
they
wouldn't have made
monoclass rules long time ago. And I do not think that there's possible
to
launch 3 different glider
monoclasses from day one. BTW monoclass does not equal single class.
Monoclass is a class where only
one particular glider (like PW-5) is allowed to participate. 3 different
monoclasses in olympics
would be super, but i do not believe that it is achievable in any
foreseeable future. Maybe we shall
have monoclasses based on one standard class design and one 18 meter
design. Maybe just to declare
one current design from both classes a standard and make the drawings
available to everyone (that
doesn't answer the cost needs however).

There's nothing wrong with current FAI classes. Just the principles of
competition are different. In
it's current form soaring is a form on technical sport. And to expect a
techical sport to achieve
IOC accept is the same as to expect F1 racing to make it to the
Olympics -
never happens.



"scurry" wrote in message
...
iPilot wrote:
Your fist point is achievable and in theis regard soaring can
compete
(I
don't say it currently does) with many other sports. At least I do
not
know
anyone who wants to watch 8days of constant swimming.

Your second point is good information, but in order to succeed
soaring
needs
to have a successful monoclass before and PW-5 just isn't that. We
have to
get our own things ok before we jump to the IWGA. Otherwise we're
just
another wannabies.

Why a single class? To say its needed for the Olympics implies, to
me,
that there is something wrong or unfair with current FAI classes. Any
racing is expensive, so I don't buy that as a valid argument. Lots of
people race Standard and 15 m class all over the world, the FAI has
experience with it, and one class racing doesn't occur naturally in
the
international soaring world (WC is contrived, and 1-26 is US only).
If
gliders are to be raced in the Olympics, our best bet is to propose a
class that's already established, with gliders already racing.

Shawn




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

SNIP-
To promote our sport we need to be positive, and to
exploit technology and
creativity to present it to viewers as the exciting,
challenging and
adrenalin pumping sport that it is.
SNIP

Without sounding too snide, I would think submarine
racers might say the same thing about there sport...and
it could very well be true. But translating that to
outsiders is a different issue. Face it, if most
soaring pilots are not interested in watching sailplane
races...I suspect the general TV viewing population
might find it a tough sale.

Bob Korves wrote:
I have a friend who raced all sorts of things -- 50cc Grand Prix
motorcycles, Formula V, CanAm, etc.

His observation, which is perhaps counterintuitive, was that the tighter
rules a class has, the more expensive it is to win. For instance, he said
that with Formula V, a class designed to be simple and cheap, if you don't
have a chassis dynamometer you cannot win.

Bad example: Formula V is MUCHMUCHMUCH cheaper than CanAm cars! You
can't even buy an engine for a CanAm car for the price of a Formula V.
Sheez! They use PLENTY of dyno time in that class. You don't need to own
a dyno to do well in Formula V, just rent some time on one, or take it
to a track during the testing period and use some simple instrumentation
to accomplish the same thing. Because of the restrictive rules, spending
a lot of money gains you very little, unlike the less limited classes
where spending a lot of money gains you quite a bit.

Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I raced Formula V (in
which case they would no longer be very restrictive rules), it's a
relatively cheap class because the cars are light and low powered, so
the engine and tires hold up well. The small size of the cars and the
high minimum weight requirement makes makes their construction simple
and cheap.

The rules are too tight to win
otherwise.

You can spend a pile of money, but in Formula V, one properly done pass
using the "draft" behind another car totally outweighs that money. Been
there, done that, watched it happen many times.

With CanAm, which had bigger and faster cars but was a wide open
class WRT rules, cleverness in design could easily win the day without huge
expense.

Absolute nonsense. The cost of a quality team to come up with this
"cleverness in design" is enormous, and the cost of maintaining these
cars that truly live on the edge of destruction each race is enormous.
Check the decals on a CanAm car and Formula V to see the kind of
sponsorship it takes to field one of those cars competitively. Millions!
There is simply no comparison with Formula V. I think you have totally
misunderstood the situation.

We might keep this concept in mind with regard to glider class rules.
Actually the FAI classes have pretty simple rules which leave room for
clever engineering design.

Does an ASW 28 cost less than a PW5? Of course not! Does the "clever
engineering" of the ASW 28 give it a big edge in it's class? No way! Get
real: what an less restricted class does is make everyone pay big bucks
for a craft that isn't any better than the competitors, unless he has
shells out even bigger bucks. You could build a PW5 that cost twice what
the "off the shelf" models cost, but it would be impossible to measure
the improvement over one owned by a pilot that spent some time and much
less money to tweak his plain old PW5.


There will always be someone with more money. Platypus says "There is a
substitute for span, it is called skill. But you can buy span."
-Bob Korves

And span is expensive! That is why the restricted classes in many fields
appeal to people: people with ONLY skill can afford the equipment that
lets them demonstrate that skill. I can easily afford a Formula V, but I
don't think I'd want to spend the money to do well in the next step up,
which was Formula Ford, and maybe still is. It cost ("back then") twice
or three times as much to run a Formula Ford than a Formula V, and the
Formula Atlantic cars were way above that.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA