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

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-6, wrote:
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

FAI SGP format ain't the only way to run a Grand Prix style race. A few years ago, a series of GP format races sports class races were run out of Seminole Lake Gliderport. That's flat-as-a-table Florida,for all y'all from outside the USA. I was lucky enough to be able to participate in one GP weekend. Great fun. About 10-12 pilots. I saw no safety problem with the start. We started at an altitude that would be unremarkable for any regular contest.. We were more or less line abreast. We could all see each other and all going in more or less the same direction. Very cool to see. Lots of cu's that day so the fleet spread out pretty quick as each went their own way searching for a faster path through the air. We were all anxious to get away from the group, so gaggling was not an issue. I saw hardly anyone out on course, but somehow I would meet up with the same pilots at the turns. Very interesting that we took different paths but ended up so close. Most of the group arrived at the last turn more or less together. Then it was a drag race to the finish. We had a minimum finish height, just like any other sports class race, so one got too low. There was still enough lift to sustain, so entering the pattern and landing was a relaxed affair. I'd say that particular GP experience presented no more risk, or even less risk due to the low number of racers, than the average sports class contest day.

I'd say the lesson is that the GP format can be fun and safe as long as one adapts it to the local conditions.



WB.

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

At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
spectat=
ors, 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 participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SGP

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
standard format comp?

At 13:14 07 February 2018, Justin Craig wrote:
At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed fo
spectat=
ors, not for participants. Well, it is designed for participants who wan
the fame of winning something in front of a lot of spectators, but it i
not
designed to be a wide-participation version of the sport, or for
participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such, it is quite sensible that SG

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than
standard format comp?


Because the risk reward equation is different and that drives different
behaviours by encouraging the taking of more risk.

I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


On 2/7/2018 6:14 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
At 18:45 06 February 2018, John Cochrane wrote:
"SGP is a sport designed to be exciting to watch. It is designed for
spectat=
ors, 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 participa
nts to enjoy cross country soaring. As such,it is quite sensible that SGP

have a lot more crashes".

Wrong....The SGP is designed for both participants and spectators.

Please elaborate on why you think it is "is quite sensible that SGP
have a lot more crashes". What an absurd statement.

Let’s not confuse the format with the mountains.

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it no less safe than a
standard format comp?



--
Dan, 5J

At 16:36 07 February 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
I think the statement, "it is quite sensible" means that it is more
likely, given the format of the race compared to traditional sailplane
contests, to have more frequent incidents.Â* In that interpretation I
would not call it an "absurd" statement.


But my question is why do people feel there is / will be more accidents in
an SGP?

As mentioned already, take the mountains out of the equation.

The SGP is limited to 20 gliders. In a normal comp a class could have 50 or
so gliders. So the start / gaggeling is not the an issue.

I do not know hat, if any accidents there have been at SGP races outside of
the mountains?

When the format of the race is discussed, is that because its a floatilla
start? Lets be specific if having a reasoned debate.

The discussion started as "hard deck" and has moved on the SGP. These
threads started as a reult oftheSGP in Chile.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of those in these two
threads have flown an SGP.

From what I can tell, pilots that have love them. If they dont, they don't
have to go back.

The SGP is proving to be a real success in many ways and I think it would
be sad if a few "arm chair" pilots run them down in a public forum, without
having even competed in one.

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-8, Justin Craig wrote:

Wrong...

Please elaborate...

Take the mountains out of the equation, why is it...?

I'll take "sealioning" for a thousand, Alex.