Club Class vs. Sports Class

OK, so I made a long post in one thread about competition classes...
5U started another thread about the Rules Committee and I was really
tempted to respond to Karl's comments there; but I didn't want to
hijack the topic. So I'll post this in a new topic instead:

I'm a low-time glider pilot (though I've had a number of 300+km
flights this summer), and a newcomer to competition in gliders.
However, I have extensive experience with competition in various forms
of Auto-Racing. I've seen what works and what doesn't, and have
helped establish rules for successful classes (such as the wildly
popular "SpecMiata" class).

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Glider Competition yet, so I'm
not going to try to fix anything I don't fully understand - but I'd
like to make a few observations about the Club Class vs. Sports Class
issue:

1) I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. Its especially
helpful for new people to competition to have a straightforward class
that allows someone to show up with almost ANY glider and be legal to
compete. Handicapped classes do this (even if the system isn't
perfect and the playing-field isn't 100% level).

Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
meet this requirement, though. Excluding fancy aircraft does not
automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. A rich
ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
competition? By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
determine your skill-level either!

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, and
trying to "rig" the rules or classes to give newcomers a better shot
at winning is just plain backwards! Competition is about people doing
their best; not about coddling people or giving them a special
advantage that throws the rest of the competition out of whack.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we throw new pilots "to the sharks"
and make them feel helpless. But we should find ways to make the
competition fun for them, and encourage them to STRIVE to get better
and rise to the top over time. No one expects rookie basketball
players to be better than NBA All-Stars. No one expects every first-
year QB to put up Brett Favre passing-numbers. No one expects
newcomers to the PGA to out-shoot Tiger Woods. Yet in all of these
venues, the first-timer AND the old-veteran compete on the same court
or the same course or in the same stadium; often head-to-head with
each other. Even though we aren't paid to be on TV like these other
sports, we're a legitimate sport that requires both talent and skill;
and people should expect that they have to work to become #1 just like
these "Pro Athletes" have to.

Like I said, if people are concerned about the newbies going up
against the top competitors, then the focus should be on how to make
the newcomers feel good and get rewarded for their attempts to get
better. "Rookie" awards, "Most Improved" awards, and active
encouragement by the veterans are all ways to do this. Newcomers
should also be encouraged to compare their standings (unofficially) to
other first-timers, not just the entire field. And I'm sure there are
many more ideas that folks can come up with...

3) If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly
rewards a particular make/model, then they need to speak up (in a
reasonable tone of voice), present good evidence, and go through the
proper channels to try to get the handicap reviewed and revised. NOT
just for that one "troublesome" make/model, but for the entire field.
In auto-racing we would do this for certain handicapped classes every
1 - 3 years. Of course, when looking at results you always have to
try to take pilot skill into account, in addition to the raw
performance of a glider. This makes the handicapping tricky and a bit
of an art-form; but it can be done.

Finally: The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
playing-field 100%, or to give everyone a "good chance to win".
There's just no way to be perfect with such a diverse group (both with
cars and gliders, _and_ with varying levels of pilot skill)! A good
handicapping system should give folks with similar skill-levels a
"legitimate shot" at finishing in a similar position on the
leaderboard despite flying different equipment. A good measure of a
handicap is to imagine the perennial top-10 competitors shuffling into
different gliders - if you think they could still finish at the top of
the group, then the handicap is doing its job.

Anyone think I'm way-off-base here?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel

On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
OK, so I made a long post in one thread about competition classes...
5U started another thread about the Rules Committee and I was really
tempted to respond to Karl's comments there; but I didn't want to
hijack the topic. *So I'll post this in a new topic instead:

I'm a low-time glider pilot (though I've had a number of 300+km
flights this summer), and a newcomer to competition in gliders.
However, I have extensive experience with competition in various forms
of Auto-Racing. *I've seen what works and what doesn't, and have
helped establish rules for successful classes (such as the wildly
popular "SpecMiata" class).

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Glider Competition yet, so I'm
not going to try to fix anything I don't fully understand - but I'd
like to make a few observations about the Club Class vs. Sports Class
issue:

1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. *Its especially
helpful for new people to competition to have a straightforward class
that allows someone to show up with almost ANY glider and be legal to
compete. *Handicapped classes do this (even if the system isn't
perfect and the playing-field isn't 100% level).

Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
meet this requirement, though. *Excluding fancy aircraft does not
automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. *A rich
ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
competition? *By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
determine your skill-level either!

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, and
trying to "rig" the rules or classes to give newcomers a better shot
at winning is just plain backwards! *Competition is about people doing
their best; not about coddling people or giving them a special
advantage that throws the rest of the competition out of whack.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we throw new pilots "to the sharks"
and make them feel helpless. *But we should find ways to make the
competition fun for them, and encourage them to STRIVE to get better
and rise to the top over time. *No one expects rookie basketball
players to be better than NBA All-Stars. *No one expects every first-
year QB to put up Brett Favre passing-numbers. *No one expects
newcomers to the PGA to out-shoot Tiger Woods. *Yet in all of these
venues, the first-timer AND the old-veteran compete on the same court
or the same course or in the same stadium; often head-to-head with
each other. *Even though we aren't paid to be on TV like these other
sports, we're a legitimate sport that requires both talent and skill;
and people should expect that they have to work to become #1 just like
these "Pro Athletes" have to.

Like I said, if people are concerned about the newbies going up
against the top competitors, then the focus should be on how to make
the newcomers feel good and get rewarded for their attempts to get
better. *"Rookie" awards, "Most Improved" awards, and active
encouragement by the veterans are all ways to do this. *Newcomers
should also be encouraged to compare their standings (unofficially) to
other first-timers, not just the entire field. *And I'm sure there are
many more ideas that folks can come up with...

3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly
rewards a particular make/model, then they need to speak up (in a
reasonable tone of voice), present good evidence, and go through the
proper channels to try to get the handicap reviewed and revised. *NOT
just for that one "troublesome" make/model, but for the entire field.
In auto-racing we would do this for certain handicapped classes every
1 - 3 years. *Of course, when looking at results you always have to
try to take pilot skill into account, in addition to the raw
performance of a glider. *This makes the handicapping tricky and a bit
of an art-form; but it can be done.

Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
playing-field 100%, or to give everyone a "good chance to win".
There's just no way to be perfect with such a diverse group (both with
cars and gliders, _and_ with varying levels of pilot skill)! *A good
handicapping system should give folks with similar skill-levels a
"legitimate shot" at finishing in a similar position on the
leaderboard despite flying different equipment. *A good measure of a
handicap is to imagine the perennial top-10 competitors shuffling into
different gliders - if you think they could still finish at the top of
the group, then the handicap is doing its job.

Anyone think I'm way-off-base here?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel

Well stated.
UH

On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
meet this requirement, though. *Excluding fancy aircraft does not
automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. *A rich
ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
competition? *By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
determine your skill-level either!


--Noel

Hi Noel,

A good post, and if I could just add one piece of context here to
consider. The reason for establishing handicap "sub-classes" such as
the club class is that there is such a diverse range of performance
out there in gliders that it becomes impossible at some point to run a
"race" in the traditional sense. An extreme example that is oft-
cited is the "1-26 vs. Nimbus argument." It's pretty clear that on
a day with strong winds and widely spaced thermals, no amount of
handicapping will make the 1-26 even remotely capable of getting
around a course that might be a walk in the park for the Nimbus.
Even with turn areas and MATs, there are some days when the required
performance is more than the 1-26 can muster (not that some 1-26
drivers aren't game for the challenge).

On a similar note, there is a big difference in the tactics of flying
when you can more-or-less stay with the pack than when you can't.
It's reasonably well accepted that, on balance, flying with a good
gaggle will get you home faster than struggling on your own. So, if
you don't have a pretty good chance of staying in contact with others,
you're really not participating in the same game.

It all sort of boils down to what we are trying to achieve. If we're
having a "fun race" where the handicapping should work more often than
not, then it's probably okay to have a very wide range of ships. But
if you are looking for a race with a reasonably level playing field,
then I suspect that sub-classes based on a range of handicaps is the
only way to go.

P3

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

I encourage everyone to realize that, when considering the matter at
hand, we realize it does not necessitate an "either/or" conclusion:
Sports Class and Club Class can coexist. The support of a Club Class
here in the U.S. is NOT ipso facto the death of Sports Class.

Alternatively, it may actually invigorate grass roots participation.

Ray Cornay
LS-4 RD

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, 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

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

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, 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