new Soaring article

On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley

On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:





One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair


Sounds good to me Hank, I'll get to working on 13.5 meter tips for the
Cherokee!

Hi John,

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it.

Do you have a list of references? I am particularly interested in
what is described in the section "New Varios and Dynamic Soaring."
The hardware for the vario you describe could probably be built for
$500 in parts. I'd love to see any papers or other documentation on
the state-estimation techniques that would use the information from
those sensors to make a more sensitive vario.

-Lyle


On May 11, 6:36*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
Title: "GizmoFuture." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in thefuturefor Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
can't wait for July,

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/gizmo.html

John Cochrane

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Let me echo that in case previous comments weren't clear. 13.5 m
gliders including PW5 are great little machines, and we need to find a
good home for them in contest soaring. The one-class PW5 format didn't
prove popular enough to be viable, so we all need to think of a
viable class going forward. Like Hank said, expect a lot of polling
this question. The IGC may make decisions on class definition,
handicapping and water that aren't the best tradeoff for US contests.

For the US, one big question is how much to merge 13.5 and 1-26
classes -- necessarily with handicaps. I'm sure that will be a big
topic of discussion at the upcoming 1-26 and 13.5 contest.

As I see it, the other viable option is to form a handicapped class
for all gliders below club class performance. If the "13.5" class
could include, say, the KA6 and ASK21, then everyone would have a
place to compete. If we have a club class and a 13.5 meter class, the
KA6, ASK21, etc. have nowhere to go. But there is always a tradeoff
between participation and purity, so owners of these gliders have to
think about what they'd like.

There's nothing like a vague "lack of support from the SSA" to get UH
and me all riled up! What do you want?

John Cochrane

For the US, one big question is how much to merge 13.5 and 1-26
classes -- necessarily with handicaps. I'm sure that will be a big
topic of discussion at the upcoming 1-26 and 13.5 contest.

why do they need to be merged? The 1-26 Championships are organized
by the 1-26 Association and have been and I suspect always will be
limited to 1-26's. I can see though that a future US 13.5 meter
nationals would peacefully co-exist with the 1-26 Championships. In
fact, if you all could make that happen for the 2012 1-26 contest at
TSA I'd appreciate it. Leah fell in love with the 1-26 guys at the
conference and we're penciled in to take at least one Cherokee down
there to fly as guests. But if I could instead fly 13.5 meter
nationals and still have the fun of hanging out with the 1-26 gang
that would be even better

A very well written and though provoking article as always.

Aside from the dollars there is a complexity issue that is largely
ignored. It used to be that glider pilots stood around and discussed
speed-to-fly, cloud selection and what the hay fields looked like near
the first turn. We now stand around and talk about file protocol, baud
rates, IGC formats and screen brightness. My point is there is another
barrier aside from funds, the complexity or hassle barrier in which
technology has changed the flavor of our sport.

I cannot help but think about the hero's of our sport in the USA (Dick
Johnson, AJ Smith, Dick Schreder, Karl Striedieck, Dick Butler, George
Moffat and their ilk). Would they be attracted to modern soaring?
Have we lost some of the beauty of flying in which ones understanding
of nature not technology makes the glider go fast and far? The march
of technology is undeniable and unstoppable but travels with some cost
as well as bestowing great benefit.

A8

On May 13, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:

As I see it, the other viable option is to form a handicapped class
for all gliders below club class performance. If the "13.5" class
could include, say, the KA6 and ASK21, then everyone would have a
place to compete. If we have a club class and a 13.5 meter class, the
KA6, ASK21, etc. have nowhere to go. But there is always a tradeoff
between participation and purity, so owners of these gliders have to
think about what they'd like.

This is basically what the Arizona Soaring Association has been doing
in it's local contest series for many years. "Classes" are based on
handicapped glider performance AND pilot skill, with the A class for
the serious racers in basically FAI-class gliders, the B class for
less experieced pilots or lower performance gliders (think Club
class), and if needed, a C class for 1-26s, 2-33s, PW-5s, etc. Tasks
are set accordingly, with B being perhaps 80% of the A task, and C
again 80% of the B class, or whatever is reasonable for the gliders
competing.

This has worked great for longer than I have been racing!

And a feature is that if you win the B class races for the year, you
automatically have to move up to A class!

Kirk
66

On May 13, 9:25*am, wrote:
On May 13, 12:20*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:









On May 12, 6:32*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. * In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. * Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). * If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, *to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

John Cochrane

John Cochrane

Class designed by committee when other options were clearly evident.

Although the 13.5m class would embrace several orphaned designs,
including the PW5, support from the SSA is not there.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is not correct- The topic of 13.5M is heavily on the agenda for
the RC this Fall.
One issue has been the lack of clarity on what the class definition
will be at the world level. As of the last
IGC meeting, this is now defined.
The topic of what this class will be in the US will likely be one of
the most important ones on this year's
pilot poll.
Current, VERY preliminary thinking would define as 13.5M max span,
handicapped, likely no water. This would be
the most likely to get best participation.
Anyone with input is encouraged to provide comments to the RC.
UH
RC Chair

Thanks for the update. That wasn't the sense I got in January.

Frank

At 00:32 13 May 2011, John Cochrane wrote:

They did, give them credit. The IGC created the world class, in
response to this sentiment. It was exactly your "sunfish" class. And
pilots around the world resoundly rejected it. They voted with their
wallets, and 18 meter gliders, mostly with motors, are the only things
selling right now. Not even standard or 15m are selling.

It is a great theory. It was tried. And it failed.

Sounds like we're back to the standards of motor racing.
As the saying goes, "Speed costs money. How fast can
you afford to go?"

Jim Beckman