Some observations on the effect of U.S. glider handicaps on SC Nationals

I think the statisticians would say that you are running into the "rule
of small numbers"; ie. with such a small sample it's hard to make any
reliable generalizations. To put it a different way, how many pilots
are capable of winning a nationals at any given contest (leaving aside
ships for a minute)? Realistically, maybe 1/3 of the competitors are
truly national caliber; the others are there to prop up the bottom of
the scoresheet. I'm sure others would argue that the number of
potential champions is lower .

So, let's say that there are 10 folks on average in a SC nationals who
have the potential to win. So, the unadjusted probability is 10% that
someone like Manfred will win under this scenario. Now, throw in the
fact that certain guys seem to win contests again and again (I'll use
Gary Ittner as an example in the 15M, flying his "old" Ventus C against
all of the new ASW-27s and V2s as a for instance). So, the
probability for the "rest of us" is really pretty small. The fact
that 2 true Club Class ships have won in the last 10 years means that
they are statistically over-represented and the handicaps need to be
revised in favor of the more modern ships :-))))

Well, as my Mammy used to say, "Be careful what you wish for, cuz you
just might git it!". I was hoping that my rabble-rousing would generate
some thoughtful discussion, and apparently I'm getting my wish! ;-).

Yes, I agree that my data base is woefully small. However, more than
about 10 years of data kinda defeats the purpose of the argument
anyway, as the gliders and the pilots will have evolved significantly
over that time . Actually it was just this paucity of data that caused
me to focus on HF as the poster child for SC (my apologies to Manfred),
as this is the clearest case I can see where a very good pilot in an SC
ship has difficulty competing against very good pilots in ASW-XXs
(where X is greater than 20 or so). BTW, regarding the probabilities
you mentioned, it would seem that if Manfred's per-contest probability
was on the order of 0.1 and he competed in more than 5 or 6 nats, he
should have (in the sense that anything over 0.5 is 'likely') won one
by now.

Seriously, I think a couple of other posts all alluded to the fact that
there are some good reasons why the current handicap system in the US
is a compromise. If you really want to get under the numbers, create a
simple model in a spreadsheet. Under average Eastern conditions (say a
course of 150 miles with 300fpm average lift), you can calculate the
time to climb and the time to cruise using the published polars. The
7% handicap (actually more like 7.5%) the LS3 has over the ASW-27 is
VERY significant. However, get the cruise speeds up with either
ridges or strong thermals, and the newer gliders have an advantage.

I have a basic problem with the above modeling approach, and that is
that I find it difficult to believe that a 25 year old glider can still
achieve its published polar (assuming it ever did), no matter how well
prepared. I borrow from my power background, where aircraft
performance numbers are routinely inflated by the manufacturers and are
just as routinely missed by the actual aircraft. However, newer
aircraft do come closer than older ones, pretty much regardless of
type. Having said that, I really don't know if Manfred's LS-3 can
still achieve its numbers (maybe it even exceeds them now!).

I thought the South African model described earlier is interesting, as
it tries to use the actual results to deterimine the day's handicap.
On the other hand, some folks will find it difficult to accept that
the results are adjusted so dynamically...

Ah, the handicapped bowling league approach. I actually think this
might be a viable approach, in that it tends to make it easier for a
newcomer to do well (but, maybe this is yet another thing I should be
careful about wishing for...)



As far as the LS-3 swap, I'll take a different tack. I'll see what I
can do to line up an LS-4 to go head-to-head with you. Loser each day
buys the beer :-))

Oops! You have clearly mistaken me for someone willing to put his
glider (or at least his beer) where his mouth is! ;-). However, given
the fact that I will almost certainly never be able to afford anything
better, and that I do plan to fly it in our SC Nats next year - bring
it on! ;-))))

Frank (X3)

Frank wrote:
I think the statisticians would say that you are running into the "rule
of small numbers"; ie. with such a small sample it's hard to make any
reliable generalizations. To put it a different way, how many pilots
are capable of winning a nationals at any given contest (leaving aside
ships for a minute)? Realistically, maybe 1/3 of the competitors are
truly national caliber; the others are there to prop up the bottom of
the scoresheet. I'm sure others would argue that the number of
potential champions is lower .

So, let's say that there are 10 folks on average in a SC nationals who
have the potential to win. So, the unadjusted probability is 10% that
someone like Manfred will win under this scenario. Now, throw in the
fact that certain guys seem to win contests again and again (I'll use
Gary Ittner as an example in the 15M, flying his "old" Ventus C against
all of the new ASW-27s and V2s as a for instance). So, the
probability for the "rest of us" is really pretty small. The fact
that 2 true Club Class ships have won in the last 10 years means that
they are statistically over-represented and the handicaps need to be
revised in favor of the more modern ships :-))))

Well, as my Mammy used to say, "Be careful what you wish for, cuz you
just might git it!". I was hoping that my rabble-rousing would generate
some thoughtful discussion, and apparently I'm getting my wish! ;-).

Yes, I agree that my data base is woefully small. However, more than
about 10 years of data kinda defeats the purpose of the argument
anyway, as the gliders and the pilots will have evolved significantly
over that time . Actually it was just this paucity of data that caused
me to focus on HF as the poster child for SC (my apologies to Manfred),
as this is the clearest case I can see where a very good pilot in an SC
ship has difficulty competing against very good pilots in ASW-XXs
(where X is greater than 20 or so). BTW, regarding the probabilities
you mentioned, it would seem that if Manfred's per-contest probability
was on the order of 0.1 and he competed in more than 5 or 6 nats, he
should have (in the sense that anything over 0.5 is 'likely') won one
by now.

Seriously, I think a couple of other posts all alluded to the fact that
there are some good reasons why the current handicap system in the US
is a compromise. If you really want to get under the numbers, create a
simple model in a spreadsheet. Under average Eastern conditions (say a
course of 150 miles with 300fpm average lift), you can calculate the
time to climb and the time to cruise using the published polars. The
7% handicap (actually more like 7.5%) the LS3 has over the ASW-27 is
VERY significant. However, get the cruise speeds up with either
ridges or strong thermals, and the newer gliders have an advantage.

I have a basic problem with the above modeling approach, and that is
that I find it difficult to believe that a 25 year old glider can still
achieve its published polar (assuming it ever did), no matter how well
prepared. I borrow from my power background, where aircraft
performance numbers are routinely inflated by the manufacturers and are
just as routinely missed by the actual aircraft. However, newer
aircraft do come closer than older ones, pretty much regardless of
type. Having said that, I really don't know if Manfred's LS-3 can
still achieve its numbers (maybe it even exceeds them now!).

I thought the South African model described earlier is interesting, as
it tries to use the actual results to deterimine the day's handicap.
On the other hand, some folks will find it difficult to accept that
the results are adjusted so dynamically...

Ah, the handicapped bowling league approach. I actually think this
might be a viable approach, in that it tends to make it easier for a
newcomer to do well (but, maybe this is yet another thing I should be
careful about wishing for...)



As far as the LS-3 swap, I'll take a different tack. I'll see what I
can do to line up an LS-4 to go head-to-head with you. Loser each day
buys the beer :-))

Oops! You have clearly mistaken me for someone willing to put his
glider (or at least his beer) where his mouth is! ;-). However, given
the fact that I will almost certainly never be able to afford anything
better, and that I do plan to fly it in our SC Nats next year - bring
it on! ;-))))

Frank (X3)
The LS-3 goes like stink out west. It's problem back east is that it
can't jettison the wing loading of it's 180+lb panels when the lift
gets wimpy.

http://tinyurl.com/jmkby
http://tinyurl.com/j8xth

27's do okay out west also
http://tinyurl.com/z6cfm
http://tinyurl.com/kvzfl
as do all manner of Ventii

You'll find a better sampling if you use the regionals results for the
past several years, but I doubt the conclusions will stand. Region 9,
1998, Gary Osoba won in a Woodstock again a wide variety of handicaps.

http://tinyurl.com/hzddc

Interestingly, there's an SSA Committee concerning SC handicapping.
http://tinyurl.com/fgfn4
Input and volunteers are always welcomed. Ask a member of any SSA
committee. The biggest problem is getting input.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

Frank wrote:


Well, as my Mammy used to say, "Be careful what you wish for, cuz you
just might git it!". I was hoping that my rabble-rousing would generate
some thoughtful discussion, and apparently I'm getting my wish! ;-).

I have a basic problem with the above modeling approach, and that is
that I find it difficult to believe that a 25 year old glider can still
achieve its published polar (assuming it ever did), no matter how well
prepared. I borrow from my power background, where aircraft
performance numbers are routinely inflated by the manufacturers and are
just as routinely missed by the actual aircraft. However, newer
aircraft do come closer than older ones, pretty much regardless of
type. Having said that, I really don't know if Manfred's LS-3 can
still achieve its numbers (maybe it even exceeds them now!).


That's a difficult line of reasoning to head down! If you read
Johnson flight tests over the years, you'll see that even factory fresh
ships sometimes don't live up to expectations. In addition, you'll
definitely find that a lot of 2-4 year old ships right now are
suffering from significant airfoil "issues." My strong belief is that
the variability in performance in a given model (e.g. "best" vs.
"worst" LS4s) far outweighs the margin of error with handicaps. If
someone is really serious about winning in SC, the first thing they
ought to due is to tune the heck out of their ship by sealing and
smoothing. Right off the bat, they'd probably gain 2-3% points
against the competition.

Anyway, a great thread with some very good ideas tossed out along the
way.

P3

So for the sake of what we do best in soaring...adding
complexity , the algorithm developed for Sports
Class might include:

1.) A weather component factored to reflect how various
ships perform by condition.

2.) A pilot handicap sort of like golf. Factor in
weight of pilot.

3.) A sealed and smoothed component to equalize the
unmaintained birds with those that have been cleaned
up.

4.) Maybe even assign an instrumentation handicap?
Big bonus for flying with sectionals and cameras.

Probably several other items I have overlooked

So for the sake of what we do best in soaring...adding
complexity , the algorithm developed for Sports
Class might include:

1.) A weather component factored to reflect how various
ships perform by condition.

2.) A pilot handicap sort of like golf. Factor in
weight of pilot.

3.) A sealed and smoothed component to equalize the
unmaintained birds with those that have been cleaned
up.

4.) Maybe even assign an instrumentation handicap?
Big bonus for flying with sectionals and cameras.

Probably several other items I have overlooked