Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Thanks Emilis,
It has not been my experience that the Competition Organisers attempted to
exclude or discourage me because of my glider. The reaction has generally
been encouraging, sympathetic, sometimes bemused.
My observation has been that over the past 7-8 years the performance of
competing pilots has become better and more consistent and that has
generally resulted in a reduction in the time spent thermalling. Under
those conditions the handicap of the lower performance glider does not
seem to compensate.
I agree that it is not possible to set a handicap for all conditions. Nor
would it be desirable for older (eg wooden gliders) to have such a good
handicap that every one wanted to compete it one. We have the Vintage
gliders for that.
I agree that it could just be me.
Peter Champness
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:12 PM, emilis prelgauskas emi...@emilis.sa.on.net
wrote:
As the sport moves from generation to generation, it is easy for corporate
knowledge to be diluted and even lost as young administrators think they
know, when actually they haven't got a clue.
The traditional wisdom has been for decades, that it is not possible for
sailplanes to be usefully compared in a handicap form.
While it might be ok in other racing sports, we just don't do that sort
of thing here.
In the 1980s this went through a reexamination (Peter Rigby et al) in
concert with parallel experience evolving in Europe. There a 2 knot thermal
was used as an average thermal strength across a contest period and its
weather variability.
For the Australian situation, a stronger average was used, plotting each
sailplane type from its polar across thermals 1 to 9knots.
Other issues presented themselves in applying the thinking in actual use:
- strong winds adversely affected the ability of the lower performance
sailplanes to make upwind turnpoints (at all or before the sun sets)
- days of widely spaced thermals or tracks across changed weather patterns
could shoot down lower performance sailplanes
- as sailplane performance increases, the ability to climb ahead while
lower performance sailplanes must used traditional McCready 'circle to
climb, then glide' and the effect on widening the possible achieved ground
speed
- ditto for different generations of ballast carrying capability
Responding to this resulted in other racing task formats being used (which
is a separate conversation) in some sailplane gatherings.
Meanwhile the US Hal Lattimore system sought to compare achieved climb
rates around a task and rank sailplanes from their polar curves. This was
used successfully in places such as Horsham Week.
The vintage movement deliberately went to a 'favour the lower performance'
approach in its proficiency flight model.
At that scale, the handicap numbers become multiples of 1.00.
The new traditional wisdom became that sailplanes can only be compared in
a handicap form within a 10% spread of performance.
Other inputs under conversation are - do you use the manufacturer's
(possibly optimistic), the competitor's ('the spar caps are showing, the
wing profile has twisted' possibly pessimistic), or independently tested
(DVLR, Johnson, etc.) polars; particularly when there is no single source
for all types represented.
The synopsis becomes that different intent, form and administration of
handicaps arise in different parts of the sport.
When biggest chequebook take all is the goal, handicaps are unnecessary.
When the fleet gets older with fewer new airframe inflows, organisers of
events get to choose by the style of format they adopt:
- how many entries they get
- how 'serious' the contest will be
- what market segment they are seeking to attract, and how satisfied their
customers will be.
The start of the thread may have been triggered by the experience that
organisers may only want shiny new plastic to participate.
This is nothing new. That was policy (3 decades ago) at one time to
formally reject entries of types less than a set performance level within
the event rules. And if that didn't work, to defame the pilot's ability
('you'd be flying a better sailplane if you were up to it'); or to a
belittle the participating performance.
And thus participant numbers continue to decline.
On 17/02/2013, at 7:08 AM, Plchampness wrote:
Thanks,
Peter Champness
Yours
Peter Champness
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net
wrote:
Handicaps are determined by a committee appointed by the Sports
Committee of
GFA.
It is currently chaired by Tobi Geiger, and other members include Bruce
Taylor, Hank Kauffmann and Peter Temple. This information I found quite
easily on the GFA website :)
I am sure they would be willing to consider any input and information
that
will enable them to improve the handicaps.
Cheers
Tim
__**_
Aus-soaring mailing list
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Great e-mail Emilis,
What I'd like to see is a 1.00 handicap for each class. ie, ASW27 = 1.00 for
15m class; Quintus/JS1C = 1.00 for open class; etc
That way we could handicap for the narrow band in each class more accurately.
Then, on top of that, give an unfair handicap to say a Discus/LS8 for competing
in 15m class for example - to encourage people to fly in their respective class.
Eg, at this present time, a LS8 can compete in 15m class - but a ASW27 can't
compete in STD class. If the handicaps are fair, why not?!
SeeYou,
WPP
On 17/02/2013, at 14:12, emilis prelgauskas emi...@emilis.sa.on.net wrote:
As the sport moves from generation to generation, it is easy for corporate
knowledge to be diluted and even lost as young administrators think they
know, when actually they haven't got a clue.
The traditional wisdom has been for decades, that it is not possible for
sailplanes to be usefully compared in a handicap form.
While it might be ok in other racing sports, we just don't do that sort of
thing here.
In the 1980s this went through a reexamination (Peter Rigby et al) in concert
with parallel experience evolving in Europe. There a 2 knot thermal was used
as an average thermal strength across a contest period and its weather
variability.
For the Australian situation, a stronger average was used, plotting each
sailplane type from its polar across thermals 1 to 9knots.
Other issues presented themselves in applying the thinking in actual use:
- strong winds adversely affected the ability of the lower performance
sailplanes to make upwind turnpoints (at all or before the sun sets)
- days of widely spaced thermals or tracks across changed weather patterns
could shoot down lower performance sailplanes
- as sailplane performance increases, the ability to climb ahead while lower
performance sailplanes must used traditional McCready 'circle to climb, then
glide' and the effect on widening the possible achieved ground speed
- ditto for different generations of ballast carrying capability
Responding to this resulted in other racing task formats being used (which is
a separate conversation) in some sailplane gatherings.
Meanwhile the US Hal Lattimore system sought to compare achieved climb rates
around a task and rank sailplanes from their polar curves. This was used
successfully in places such as Horsham Week.
The vintage movement deliberately went to a 'favour the lower performance'
approach in its proficiency flight model.
At that scale, the handicap numbers become multiples of 1.00.
The new traditional wisdom became that sailplanes can only be compared in a
handicap form within a 10% spread of performance.
Other inputs under conversation are - do you use the manufacturer's (possibly
optimistic), the competitor's ('the spar caps are showing, the wing profile
has twisted' possibly pessimistic), or independently tested (DVLR, Johnson,
etc.) polars; particularly when there is no single source for all types
represented.
The synopsis becomes that different intent, form and administration of
handicaps arise in different parts of the sport.
When biggest chequebook take all is the goal, handicaps are unnecessary.
When the fleet gets older with fewer new airframe inflows, organisers of
events get to choose by the style of format they adopt:
- how many entries they get
- how 'serious' the contest will be
- what market segment they are seeking to attract, and how satisfied their
customers will be.
The start of the thread may have been triggered by the experience that
organisers may only want shiny new plastic to participate.
This is nothing new. That was policy (3 decades ago) at one time to formally
reject entries of types less than a set performance level within the event
rules. And if that didn't work, to defame the pilot's ability ('you'd be
flying a better sailplane if you were up to it'); or to a belittle the
participating performance.
And thus participant numbers continue to decline.
On 17/02/2013, at 7:08 AM, Plchampness wrote:
Thanks,
Peter Champness
Yours
Peter Champness
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net
wrote:
Handicaps are determined by a committee appointed by the Sports Committee of
GFA.
It is currently chaired by Tobi Geiger, and other members include Bruce
Taylor, Hank Kauffmann and Peter Temple. This information I found quite
easily on the GFA website :)
I am sure they would be willing to consider any input and information that
will enable them to improve the handicaps.
Cheers
Tim
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To
[Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Does anyone know how handicaps are determined? It seems to me that as gliding knowledge advances, there is a tendency for thermally time to be reduced. As a consequence I think that the lower performance gliders are at an increasing disadvantage as they have less chance to pass up,weaker thermal and face a larger disadvantage if sink is encountered. Yours Peter Champness ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Handicaps are determined by a committee appointed by the Sports Committee of GFA. It is currently chaired by Tobi Geiger, and other members include Bruce Taylor, Hank Kauffmann and Peter Temple. This information I found quite easily on the GFA website :) I am sure they would be willing to consider any input and information that will enable them to improve the handicaps. Cheers Tim Tra dire e fare cè mezzo il mare -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Plchampness Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:45 To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Subject: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Does anyone know how handicaps are determined? It seems to me that as gliding knowledge advances, there is a tendency for thermally time to be reduced. As a consequence I think that the lower performance gliders are at an increasing disadvantage as they have less chance to pass up,weaker thermal and face a larger disadvantage if sink is encountered. Yours Peter Champness ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6100 - Release Date: 02/12/13 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Thanks, Peter Champness Yours Peter Champness On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net wrote: Handicaps are determined by a committee appointed by the Sports Committee of GFA. It is currently chaired by Tobi Geiger, and other members include Bruce Taylor, Hank Kauffmann and Peter Temple. This information I found quite easily on the GFA website :) I am sure they would be willing to consider any input and information that will enable them to improve the handicaps. Cheers Tim Tra dire e fare c’è mezzo il mare -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Plchampness Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:45 To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Subject: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Does anyone know how handicaps are determined? It seems to me that as gliding knowledge advances, there is a tendency for thermally time to be reduced. As a consequence I think that the lower performance gliders are at an increasing disadvantage as they have less chance to pass up,weaker thermal and face a larger disadvantage if sink is encountered. Yours Peter Champness ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6100 - Release Date: 02/12/13 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
As the sport moves from generation to generation, it is easy for
corporate knowledge to be diluted and even lost as young administrators
think they know, when actually they haven't got a clue.
The traditional wisdom has been for decades, that it is not possible
for sailplanes to be usefully compared in a handicap form.
While it might be ok in other racing sports, we just don't do that
sort of thing here.
In the 1980s this went through a reexamination (Peter Rigby et al) in
concert with parallel experience evolving in Europe. There a 2 knot
thermal was used as an average thermal strength across a contest period
and its weather variability.
For the Australian situation, a stronger average was used, plotting
each sailplane type from its polar across thermals 1 to 9knots.
Other issues presented themselves in applying the thinking in actual
use:
- strong winds adversely affected the ability of the lower performance
sailplanes to make upwind turnpoints (at all or before the sun sets)
- days of widely spaced thermals or tracks across changed weather
patterns could shoot down lower performance sailplanes
- as sailplane performance increases, the ability to climb ahead while
lower performance sailplanes must used traditional McCready 'circle to
climb, then glide' and the effect on widening the possible achieved
ground speed
- ditto for different generations of ballast carrying capability
Responding to this resulted in other racing task formats being used
(which is a separate conversation) in some sailplane gatherings.
Meanwhile the US Hal Lattimore system sought to compare achieved climb
rates around a task and rank sailplanes from their polar curves. This
was used successfully in places such as Horsham Week.
The vintage movement deliberately went to a 'favour the lower
performance' approach in its proficiency flight model.
At that scale, the handicap numbers become multiples of 1.00.
The new traditional wisdom became that sailplanes can only be compared
in a handicap form within a 10% spread of performance.
Other inputs under conversation are - do you use the manufacturer's
(possibly optimistic), the competitor's ('the spar caps are showing,
the wing profile has twisted' possibly pessimistic), or independently
tested (DVLR, Johnson, etc.) polars; particularly when there is no
single source for all types represented.
The synopsis becomes that different intent, form and administration of
handicaps arise in different parts of the sport.
When biggest chequebook take all is the goal, handicaps are unnecessary.
When the fleet gets older with fewer new airframe inflows, organisers
of events get to choose by the style of format they adopt:
- how many entries they get
- how 'serious' the contest will be
- what market segment they are seeking to attract, and how satisfied
their customers will be.
The start of the thread may have been triggered by the experience that
organisers may only want shiny new plastic to participate.
This is nothing new. That was policy (3 decades ago) at one time to
formally reject entries of types less than a set performance level
within the event rules. And if that didn't work, to defame the pilot's
ability ('you'd be flying a better sailplane if you were up to it'); or
to a belittle the participating performance.
And thus participant numbers continue to decline.
On 17/02/2013, at 7:08 AM, Plchampness wrote:
Thanks,
Peter Champness
Yours
Peter Champness
On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Tim Shirley
tshir...@internode.on.net wrote:
Handicaps are determined by a committee appointed by the Sports
Committee of
GFA.
It is currently chaired by Tobi Geiger, and other members include
Bruce
Taylor, Hank Kauffmann and Peter Temple. This information I found
quite
easily on the GFA website :)
I am sure they would be willing to consider any input and information
that
will enable them to improve the handicaps.
Cheers
Tim
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Folk, All ballasted to the gills..personally I am not interested in the Open Class handicap discussion as I don.t think the intent is to balance across such a great divide as Nimbus 2 3 and 4 let alone an ASW20 with ballast to get equivalent competitiveness. Sports class handicaps is where this matters because of the stated intent to provide an even playing field and these are dry, so comparisons when so called good pilots flew are meaningless. 19/20m gliders dry fly at circa 30kg/m they were never intended to fly on an average Aussie day at anything less than full, Other stats would be interesting like the average thermal strength for the competition period each day and how that has changed over time as we have changed tasking, compensated for the average weather conditions for that year. Now there is a real statistical challenge for someone :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 19/08/2011, at 3:49 PM, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com wrote: At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15MStd 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
In Club/Sports the two are in different classes, and in Multiclass even if classes are combined then Open flies with 18m and 15m flies with Standard. A Nimbus 2 and an ASW20 can never compete under current rules. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 19/08/2011 3:49, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15MStd 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Tim Sorry but I beg to differ on that one. Open Class means exactly that. An ASW20 and a Nimbus 2 can both happily compete in Open Class. They probably cant win but they can compete. ROSS _ From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley Sent: Friday, 19 August 2011 11:00 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps In Club/Sports the two are in different classes, and in Multiclass even if classes are combined then Open flies with 18m and 15m flies with Standard. A Nimbus 2 and an ASW20 can never compete under current rules. Cheers Tim tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare On 19/08/2011 3:49, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15MStd 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
While comparing speeds of late 70s comps, bear in mind that at this point in time competition glider sealing techniques were not what they are today. Watch an older racing film (Zulu Romeo, Sun Ship Game) and listen to the howling noise when a glider finished. A friend rebuilt an ASW12, profiled the wings, sealed everything, got the aftermarket flap mod to work, improved cockpit comfort, and he in that glider was hard for anyone to keep up with. The 12 actually exceeded factory specs by 4 or 5 points of L/D.And Gerhard calls it a mistake of my youth. Jim From: Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:24 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: Year Place Open 15M Std 77 Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79 Cunderdin 97.1 (.99) 96.6 (.91) 87.8 80 Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall 108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 The figures in brackets are the percentage speed differences between the classes (Open-15m and 15m-Std). I only used winners speeds (I'm not that much of a masochist and anyway winners speed is all that is often available) but I have researched before and found a good deal of consistency in the spread of speeds, so it is probably still a fair comparison. In all those contests Open and 15 metre flew the same task - though of course the start gate opening would have been different. Nimbus 2's won every contest in Open Class, 15M were shared (Pik 20, Mini-Nimbus and ASW20) and in Standard Class Hornet, Cirrus and Jantar shared the honours. Differences seem larger when speeds are higher, in favour of Open Class - which would question the lead-sled theory - and the difference between Open and 15 Metre is generally less than between 15 metre and standard. I found only a couple of individual days when a 15 metre winning speed was higher than an Open class winning speed, and when that happened it was by a whisker. You were definitely better off with long wings, and probably still are. Untitled Document Cheers Tim tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare On 19/08/2011 10:40, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 01:06 AM 19/08/2011, you wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom Would someone please dig up the results from say the Renmark Nationals(Cirrus and Hornet in Standard class vs Nimbus etc in Open), the following year at Narromine and Benalla 79-80 and Waikerie 80 - 81(15m classes and at Narromine in 77-78 the 15m and Open flew the same tasks - 15M was in Open class too), Narromine 81 - 82(LS4 came on the scene) and see how these terrible old gliders went when flown by good pilots, please? Just use the speeds of the people from first down to 90% of the winning score. Then we can all bleat from a position of knowledge. Probably less fun, though. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
True according to the rules, but according to my records ASW20's have only ever flown against Nimbus 2's when forced to by class combinations, and that was before the introduction of the 18 metre class. If an ASW20 and a Nimbus 2 entered the Open Class in the multiclass nationals today, they would be flying at the same handicap. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 19/08/2011 11:30, Ross McLean wrote: Hi Tim Sorry but I beg to differ on that one. Open Class means exactly that. An ASW20 and a Nimbus 2 can both happily compete in Open Class. They probably can't win but they can compete. ROSS _ *From:*aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] *On Behalf Of *Tim Shirley *Sent:* Friday, 19 August 2011 11:00 PM *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps In Club/Sports the two are in different classes, and in Multiclass even if classes are combined then Open flies with 18m and 15m flies with Standard. A Nimbus 2 and an ASW20 can never compete under current rules. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 19/08/2011 3:49, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15MStd 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com http://www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
I fully agree with Gary and Mike D the handicaps for the 19 20m gliders need
improving for these gliders to be competitive in open class
With respect to the current generation of 18m gliders the handicaps for flying
these in open class should be such to discourage this from happening or ban
them from open class.
At the 2010 multi class flying my nimbus 2, I was told by my European
competitor flying a 18m glider in open class that I was flying really good but
if I wanted to be competitive I needed to upgrade to a 18m hot ship !
Peter
Sent from my HTC
- Reply message -
From: Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au
To: apos;Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.apos;
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2011 11:20
Hi Gary Mike DAs promised I have asked the Handicap Committee to review your
comments regarding the current handicaps. Firstly, Re Mike Durrant’s comments,
the handicap Committee takes handicap complaints seriously, they assess the
gliders performance and polar carefully and usually err in favour of the
complainant. It was a surprise to the committee to hear that there is a
problem with the Jantar 19 and they have committed to review all of these older
open class sports handicaps for the next season. This should ideally address
any issues with the Nimbus 2 that Robert Hart raised also. Secondly with regard
to Gary Stevens’ comments, the Committee wants it to be known categorically
that they address all pilot requests without bias. ( One of the committee
members in fact, I couldn’t improve the ASW20B handicap, even though he
believed it needed adjusting, until he had sold his own ASW20B to avoid this
implication of bias). The handicap review took into account ALL submissions
made by pilots and reviewed ALL the aircraft on the MultiClass and Club and
Sports Class Handicap Lists. This was a comprehensive review which went back
to absolute basics of the handicaps and rebuilt them from the ground up. The
technical data, international experience and handicaps, aircraft age,
differences in technology, and local soaring conditions were all taken into
account. The results of the review are encompassed in the current handicaps now
published on the GFA website. Best regards, ROSS From:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Ross McLean
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 10:44 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Gary Mike DThanks for your emails,
very much appreciated. I have referred them to the Handicap Committee for
discussion and will respond back to this forum with their thoughts and comments
asap.As Bruce is still returning from Uvalde (with a very heavy 18m 1st Place
winner’s trophy) it may take a few days but I will get back to you.ROSS From:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 8:50 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'tom claffey'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Ross,I understand that the HC was
reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or correct anomalies resulting from
incorrect original input data, new data, manufacturer's changes to designs, and
such like, rather than making radical changes. In a volunteer organisation, it
is not surprising that such anomalies can and do occur, and indeed you and your
Committee (and those that have gone before you), have generally done a good job
under sometimes (no doubt), trying circumstances. I applaud your recent
earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in the case of seemingly
erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members are not mind readers,
after all! Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed
update, on all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if
any), that the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review? If
the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known? I do appreciate that a written report
to the Australian Gliding Fraternity may involve some/a lot of work on your
part, but I think that in the past, the reasons for some (no doubt necessary),
changes have not been explained - either adequately, or at all, and led in some
quarters, to ongoing resentment to seemingly biased decisions, by the
Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is possibly suggesting this - tongue in
cheek of course! .Gasp!} In this day and age transparency is everything. I
await your response with interest. Gary- Original Message - From: Ross
McLean To: 'tom claffey' ; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in
Australia.' Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PMSubject: Re: [Aus-soaring]
Aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
On 18/08/11 11:26, Ross McLean wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. Ross I haven't noticed many ASW20's flying in open class, so I really don't see the relevance of that comment. What I do see is that there is (apparently) only 1% difference between the 1960's aerodynamics of the Nimbus 2 and the 1980's aerodynamics of the ASH26 (even allowing for the significant difference in span). Furthermore, the Duo DIscus (again 1980's aerodynamic technology) now has a 2% *advantage* over a Nimbus 2 (and virtually the same span). I truly do not understand. I would REALLY love to see how these are calculated - is the formula published? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
JUST FLY FASTER ! From: gstev...@bigpond.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net CC: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:16:48 +1000 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Robert It wasn't a gratuitous statement honestly. I was just trying to show that the relationship between the Nimbus and the equivalent age 15 Metre hasn't changed. The ASW20 is from the same era as the Nimbus 2 and the ASG29 is the same era as the Nimbus 4. Plus Open Class is just that, there is nothing preventing an ASW20 competing in Open Class then or now. The problem facing the handicappers is that the Nimbus 2 technology is over 40 years old (1971 first production Nimbus 2) and the ASG29/JS1 is state of the art 21st Century aerodynamics technology. An awful lot of advancement has occurred in aerodynamics and composite technology in 40 years. Add to that the condition of the airframe, wing surface, seals, flexibility, weight and so on, you can begin to see the scale of the problem one is presenting to the handicappers. It is the equivalent of trying to make Jack Brabham's 1971 Formula 1 race car competitive with the current Red Bull F1 race car, it just can't be done effectively. Nothing personal or derogatory to yourself or the beautiful Nimbus 2 aircraft is intended at all. Best regards, ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:46 PM To: Ross McLean; Soaring in Australia Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 18/08/11 11:26, Ross McLean wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. Ross I haven't noticed many ASW20's flying in open class, so I really don't see the relevance of that comment. What I do see is that there is (apparently) only 1% difference between the 1960's aerodynamics of the Nimbus 2 and the 1980's aerodynamics of the ASH26 (even allowing for the significant difference in span). Furthermore, the Duo DIscus (again 1980's aerodynamic technology) now has a 2% advantage over a Nimbus 2 (and virtually the same span). I truly do not understand. I would REALLY love to see how these are calculated - is the formula published? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom From: Mike Durrant durr...@gmail.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Back in the 80s I remember flying GOD in Nationals at Waikerie where we started as soon as we could and finished most days at dusk just squeezing home over the fence.long time since I have flown those kind of tasks.once you cruise all day above 80 give me a ASW 20...it's the combination of tasking and the polar envelope you are using that has changed...IMHO Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 19/08/2011, at 1:06 AM, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom From: Mike Durrant durr...@gmail.com To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
And hit the ground earlier :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 10:20 PM, Mark Goodley markgood...@hotmail.com wrote: JUST FLY FASTER ! From: gstev...@bigpond.com To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net CC: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 22:16:48 +1000 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Mike and All, If you really want to buy one, I have HDY (15/16.6m configurations), with many extras ready to go, with a fresh Form 2, at around $60,000! Google Mike Maddock's site at Maddog Composites, and check out Trading Post for basic details and a photo. If this appeals, either email me or give me a call on 03 5352 4938. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Mike Durrant To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia. Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Give me the ASW20 any day :-) Best Regards, Mike Durrant VH-FQF On 18/08/2011, at 11:26 AM, Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au wrote: Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
On 18/08/11 23:47, Ross McLean wrote: The problem facing the handicappers is that the Nimbus 2 technology is over 40 years old (1971 first production Nimbus 2) and the ASG29/JS1 is state of the art 21^st Century aerodynamics technology. An awful lot of advancement has occurred in aerodynamics and composite technology in 40 years. Ross I thought the point of handicaps was specifically to address the above issue. The condition of the aircraft is not something that should concern the handicappers - they should just assume the aircraft is 'as new' (or as best fettled) and compare with other 'as new' gliders. Is there a formula being used to calculate handicaps factoring in such things as max/min wing loading and polar? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
At 01:06 AM 19/08/2011, you wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom Would someone please dig up the results from say the Renmark Nationals(Cirrus and Hornet in Standard class vs Nimbus etc in Open), the following year at Narromine and Benalla 79-80 and Waikerie 80 - 81(15m classes and at Narromine in 77-78 the 15m and Open flew the same tasks - 15M was in Open class too), Narromine 81 - 82(LS4 came on the scene) and see how these terrible old gliders went when flown by good pilots, please? Just use the speeds of the people from first down to 90% of the winning score. Then we can all bleat from a position of knowledge. Probably less fun, though. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15M Std 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 The figures in brackets are the percentage speed differences between the classes (Open-15m and 15m-Std). I only used winners speeds (I'm not that much of a masochist and anyway winners speed is all that is often available) but I have researched before and found a good deal of consistency in the spread of speeds, so it is probably still a fair comparison. In all those contests Open and 15 metre flew the same task - though of course the start gate opening would have been different. Nimbus 2's won every contest in Open Class, 15M were shared (Pik 20, Mini-Nimbus and ASW20) and in Standard Class Hornet, Cirrus and Jantar shared the honours. Differences seem larger when speeds are higher, in favour of Open Class - which would question the lead-sled theory - and the difference between Open and 15 Metre is generally less than between 15 metre and standard. I found only a couple of individual days when a 15 metre winning speed was higher than an Open class winning speed, and when that happened it was by a whisker. You were definitely better off with long wings, and probably still are. Cheers /Tim/ /tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/ On 19/08/2011 10:40, Mike Borgelt wrote: At 01:06 AM 19/08/2011, you wrote: In the late 70s were 15M speeds faster than open class speeds? I think Malcom Jinks and Tony Tabart would disagree! Tom Would someone please dig up the results from say the Renmark Nationals(Cirrus and Hornet in Standard class vs Nimbus etc in Open), the following year at Narromine and Benalla 79-80 and Waikerie 80 - 81(15m classes and at Narromine in 77-78 the 15m and Open flew the same tasks - 15M was in Open class too), Narromine 81 - 82(LS4 came on the scene) and see how these terrible old gliders went when flown by good pilots, please? Just use the speeds of the people from first down to 90% of the winning score. Then we can all bleat from a position of knowledge. Probably less fun, though. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
A little earlier (1974) but lots of good Nimbus 2 vs. Std. Cirrus data here: http://www.ssa.org/usteam/adobe%20pdf/1974%20WGC.pdf ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
At 03:24 PM 19/08/2011, you wrote: Well, I can't help much but here goes. I don't have any results from Narromine 1978, and I have points results but no speeds from Waikerie 81. Average winners speeds were: YearPlaceOpen15M Std 77Renmark 112.9 (.94) 106.6 (.97) 103.5 79Cunderdin 97.1 (.99)96.6 (.91) 87.8 80Benalla 114.4 (.97) 110.8 (.93) 102.5 Overall108.1 (.97) 104.7 (.94) 97.9 Thanks, Tim. I wasn't there but they were still talking about the great weather at Renmark the next year at Narromine. Cunderdin was low and blue with broken thermals so the Open class may have been at a disadvantage in the climbs at times. The Benalla contest was a good mix of weather and these results would seem to show that the Open Class gliders of the day, mainly Nimbus 2s were a bit better than the ASW20 etc. Maybe the feeling that they aren't as good is because of the pilots nowadays? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Ross,
I understand that the HC was reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or
correct anomalies resulting from incorrect original input data, new data,
manufacturer's changes to designs, and such like, rather than making radical
changes.
In a volunteer organisation, it is not surprising that such anomalies can and
do occur, and indeed you and your Committee (and those that have gone before
you), have generally done a good job under sometimes (no doubt), trying
circumstances.
I applaud your recent earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in the
case of seemingly erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members are
not mind readers, after all!
Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed update, on
all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if any), that
the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review?
If the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known?
I do appreciate that a written report to the Australian Gliding Fraternity may
involve some/a lot of work on your part, but I think that in the past, the
reasons for some (no doubt necessary), changes have not been explained - either
adequately, or at all, and led in some quarters, to ongoing resentment to
seemingly biased decisions, by the Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is
possibly suggesting this - tongue in cheek of course! .Gasp!}
In this day and age transparency is everything.
I await your response with interest.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Ross McLean
To: 'tom claffey' ; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Hi Tom
You are correct and no it hasn’t changed. The Handicap committee members
have currently:
· One JS1 – previously LS8, ASW 22, Ventus 2CX, ASW 19b. In all of
which he has won National Competitions. Just won the 18m pre-Worlds in an
ASG29. (I think it is the pilot not the a/c)
· One ASG29 - previously an ASW20 and a long history before that
· One LS4
· And one member has a fleet of 11 aircraft including Discus, Discus
2, Ventus b 16.6, Duo Discus and Nimbus 4DM
I think there is enough cross manufacturer experience in that committee to be
able to produce a well balanced and knowledgable result.
Cheers, ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of tom claffey
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:45 PM
To: n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au; Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Really? I thought the handicap committee had an LS4, a JS1 and an ASG29, has
it changed?
Tom
--
From: Nigel Andrews n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
What, no comment on adjusting the handicap to make it worthwhile for those
who don't have an ASG29 or JS1 to come to a comp and compete in their
Ventus's? I am sure the ASG29 owners would expect the same when the next
generation of 18 metre overtake them. Funny thing is the handicap committee
has two ASG owners. Leave it as it is and just have the same guys trying to
beat each other.
Nigel Andrews
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
--
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Folk,
Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF
(LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you
could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask
that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on
empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that
class be reviewed.
The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the
loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders
given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given
our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of
the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders.
Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the
relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are
a joke...based on my personal experience.
Maybe we need a class just for the older Open Class gliders...many
of then are sitting in trailers.maybe the Vintage guys could run
a comp for them, as many of them are over 30 years old now :-)
Best Regards,
Mike
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:49 PM, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
**
Hi Ross,
I understand that the HC was reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or
correct anomalies resulting from incorrect original input data, new
data, manufacturer's changes to designs, and such like, rather than making
radical changes.
In a volunteer organisation, it is not surprising that such anomalies can
and do occur, and indeed you and your Committee (and those that have gone
before you), have generally done a good job under sometimes (no doubt),
trying circumstances.
I applaud your recent earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in
the case of seemingly erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members
are not mind readers, after all!
Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed update,
on all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if any),
that the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review?
If the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known?
I do appreciate that a written report to the Australian Gliding Fraternity
may involve some/a lot of work on your part, but I think that in the past,
the reasons for some (no doubt necessary), changes have not been explained -
either adequately, or at all, and led in some quarters, to ongoing
resentment to seemingly biased decisions, by the Committee. {Is it possible
that Nigel is possibly suggesting this - tongue in cheek of course!
.Gasp!}
In this day and age transparency is everything.
I await your response with interest.
Gary
- Original Message -
*From:* Ross McLean ross...@bigpond.net.au
*To:* 'tom claffey' to...@yahoo.com ; 'Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.' aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Hi Tom
You are correct and no it hasn’t changed. The Handicap committee members
have currently:
**· **One JS1 – previously LS8, ASW 22, Ventus 2CX, ASW 19b. In
all of which he has won National Competitions. Just won the 18m pre-Worlds
in an ASG29. (I think it is the pilot not the a/c)
**· **One ASG29 - previously an ASW20 and a long history before
that
**· **One LS4
**· **And one member has a fleet of 11 aircraft including Discus,
Discus 2, Ventus b 16.6, Duo Discus and Nimbus 4DM
I think there is enough cross manufacturer experience in that committee to
be able to produce a well balanced and knowledgable result.
Cheers, ROSS
** **
*From:* aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] *On Behalf Of *tom claffey
*Sent:* Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:45 PM
*To:* n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au; Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
*Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
** **
Really? I thought the handicap committee had an LS4, a JS1 and an ASG29,
has it changed?
Tom
** **
--
*From:* Nigel Andrews n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au
*To:* aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
*Sent:* Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:32 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
What, no comment on adjusting the handicap to make it worthwhile for those
who don't have an ASG29 or JS1 to come to a comp and compete in their
Ventus's? I am sure the ASG29 owners would expect the same when the next
generation of 18 metre overtake them. Funny thing is the handicap committee
has two ASG owners. Leave it as it is and just have the same guys trying to
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Michael, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits, plastic with wood ? I dont think so..surely you can compete in club class with the old asg29's and ventus types cant you ? have a nice day regards JR ( no offence was intended during the writing of this email)___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Gary Mike D
Thanks for your emails, very much appreciated. I have referred them to the
Handicap Committee for discussion and will respond back to this forum with
their thoughts and comments asap.
As Bruce is still returning from Uvalde (with a very heavy 18m 1st Place
winner’s trophy) it may take a few days but I will get back to you.
ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 8:50 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'tom claffey'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Ross,
I understand that the HC was reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or
correct anomalies resulting from incorrect original input data, new data,
manufacturer's changes to designs, and such like, rather than making radical
changes.
In a volunteer organisation, it is not surprising that such anomalies can and
do occur, and indeed you and your Committee (and those that have gone before
you), have generally done a good job under sometimes (no doubt), trying
circumstances.
I applaud your recent earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in the
case of seemingly erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members are
not mind readers, after all!
Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed update, on
all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if any), that
the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review?
If the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known?
I do appreciate that a written report to the Australian Gliding Fraternity may
involve some/a lot of work on your part, but I think that in the past, the
reasons for some (no doubt necessary), changes have not been explained - either
adequately, or at all, and led in some quarters, to ongoing resentment to
seemingly biased decisions, by the Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is
possibly suggesting this - tongue in cheek of course! .Gasp!}
In this day and age transparency is everything.
I await your response with interest.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Ross McLean mailto:ross...@bigpond.net.au
To: 'tom claffey' mailto:to...@yahoo.com ; 'Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.' mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Hi Tom
You are correct and no it hasn’t changed. The Handicap committee members have
currently:
· One JS1 – previously LS8, ASW 22, Ventus 2CX, ASW 19b. In all of
which he has won National Competitions. Just won the 18m pre-Worlds in an
ASG29. (I think it is the pilot not the a/c)
· One ASG29 - previously an ASW20 and a long history before that
· One LS4
· And one member has a fleet of 11 aircraft including Discus, Discus 2,
Ventus b 16.6, Duo Discus and Nimbus 4DM
I think there is enough cross manufacturer experience in that committee to be
able to produce a well balanced and knowledgable result.
Cheers, ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of tom claffey
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:45 PM
To: n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au; Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Really? I thought the handicap committee had an LS4, a JS1 and an ASG29, has it
changed?
Tom
_
From: Nigel Andrews n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
What, no comment on adjusting the handicap to make it worthwhile for those
who don't have an ASG29 or JS1 to come to a comp and compete in their
Ventus's? I am sure the ASG29 owners would expect the same when the next
generation of 18 metre overtake them. Funny thing is the handicap committee
has two ASG owners. Leave it as it is and just have the same guys trying to
beat each other.
Nigel Andrews
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps, and other heavy subjects
Thanks Ross. Yeah winning the trophy is a heavy cross to bear, but I guess
Bruce will cope! Incidentally I liked Butch's alternative take on winning -
keep a low profile this year, and then come from nowhere and win. Lets hope
that Bruce, and other Aussies can repeat the performance next year, when ALL
the big boys will be there. I note most of the Europeans were keeping their
'hand in at the European Championships in Lithuania. Of course totally
different conditions there, to those that can be expected in Uvalde, Texas next
year - hot to very hot, mostly good to great lift - if the thunderstorms hold
off, and sometimes very blue conditions, all of which should suit Bruce and
the rest of the Aussie team. Given that these conditions will actually
eventuate again in Uvalde next year, and the fact that the Aussies went to the
trouble of being in Uvalde this year and reportably learnt heaps, means that
they should have a preparation edge on the Europeans: and of course this will
be enough in itself to carry them over the line, if everything else is equal
!!??
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Ross McLean
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Gary Mike D
Thanks for your emails, very much appreciated. I have referred them to the
Handicap Committee for discussion and will respond back to this forum with
their thoughts and comments asap.
As Bruce is still returning from Uvalde (with a very heavy 18m 1st Place
winner’s trophy) it may take a few days but I will get back to you.
ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 8:50 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'tom claffey'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Ross,
I understand that the HC was reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or
correct anomalies resulting from incorrect original input data, new data,
manufacturer's changes to designs, and such like, rather than making radical
changes.
In a volunteer organisation, it is not surprising that such anomalies can and
do occur, and indeed you and your Committee (and those that have gone before
you), have generally done a good job under sometimes (no doubt), trying
circumstances.
I applaud your recent earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in
the case of seemingly erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members
are not mind readers, after all!
Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed update, on
all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if any), that
the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review?
If the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known?
I do appreciate that a written report to the Australian Gliding Fraternity
may involve some/a lot of work on your part, but I think that in the past, the
reasons for some (no doubt necessary), changes have not been explained - either
adequately, or at all, and led in some quarters, to ongoing resentment to
seemingly biased decisions, by the Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is
possibly suggesting this - tongue in cheek of course! .Gasp!}
In this day and age transparency is everything.
I await your response with interest.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Ross McLean
To: 'tom claffey' ; 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in
Australia.'
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Hi Tom
You are correct and no it hasn’t changed. The Handicap committee members
have currently:
· One JS1 – previously LS8, ASW 22, Ventus 2CX, ASW 19b. In all of
which he has won National Competitions. Just won the 18m pre-Worlds in an
ASG29. (I think it is the pilot not the a/c)
· One ASG29 - previously an ASW20 and a long history before that
· One LS4
· And one member has a fleet of 11 aircraft including Discus,
Discus 2, Ventus b 16.6, Duo Discus and Nimbus 4DM
I think there is enough cross manufacturer experience in that committee to
be able to produce a well balanced and knowledgable result.
Cheers, ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of tom claffey
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 1:45 PM
To: n.andr...@andrewselectronic.com.au; Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Really? I thought the handicap committee had an LS4, a JS1 and an ASG29
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Dear Harry I have the greatest respect for you and for your achievements and generosity towards the gliding movement over the years and I am sure this view is shared by the majority of us. Thank you for your email below and thank you for your submission to the NCC re the handicaps between 18m and Open class. Your paper was indeed taken into account by the Handicap Committee when they reviewed the handicaps for this coming season and as you have acknowledged some changes have been made to address this issue as a result. Whether or not I personally believe that a V2 is comparable to an ASG29 or a JS1 is largely irrelevant as I don’t fly any of them and I have no influence over the Handicap Committee decisions. My comments were very much tongue in cheek anyway. What I do know is that the Handicap Committee take their role extremely seriously and invest a great deal of time, experience and effort, into ensuring the handicaps they produce are in line with world standards and are aligned towards the soaring conditions found in Australia. I have seen at first hand just how seriously they undertake their responsibilities and we are privileged to be able to call on such a dedicated and experienced group. With regards to your comments about 18m class handicaps being all the same, it is largely correct, the HPH304/18m and LAK-17/18m have a 0.01 advantage but I assume you are referring to the V2CX/ASG29/JS1/LS10/DG808 which all have the same handicap. They in fact have the highest handicap possible in multiclass, equivalent to the Nimbus 4DM and ASW22BLE. To drop the V2CX down by 0.01 to an equivalent handicap to the HPH304/LAK-17 would not be an accurate depiction of its performance. I will regard your last 4 questions as somewhat rhetorical. Regards, ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of harry medlicott Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 10:08 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi Ross and others, I have always, whether in sport or in business, been very reluctant to pursue a course from which I will personally benefit. However now, with my eightieth birthday well and truly in sight feel that reccomendations as to handicaps can be made without anyone pointing the finger and shouting self interest. Possibly offending my friends has also been a consideration. If you truly believe that the V2 is comparable with the ASG 29 and probably the Js1 then you are about the only one in the world wide gliding community to think that way. Even Schempp Hirth who make them recognise the act and made a V2 with a different A fuselage and market it as their competion glider. See You give a 4% difference between the gliders. Published sink rate data shows a 6% advantage to the ASG 29 at high speed fully ballasted. Australia has only a small pool of pilots with the skills, gliders, financial support and testosterone to compete internationally. You could count them on your fingers whereas western europe has 30 times more pilots than us and vastly more of international standard. Look at the results of european competitions and you will see which gliders are best and by how much. I made a submission last year relating to handicaps which is attached. The first part dealt with open class and that the latest 18 metre gliders, flying with wing loadings of up to 55 kg.per sq metre were more than a match for older open class gliders restricted to about 45 kg. per sq. metre, particularly as most competition days are flown in the strong part of the day. This made the older design open class gliders uncompetitive and could well damage the future of open class, particularly as it appeared that pilots with overseas aspirations were entering open class to better their chances of team selection. I note some handicap changes have been made to address this problem. In 18 metre class virtually all the gliders likely to compete have been given the same handicap. Is the intention to make 18 metre a non handicapped class? If pilots feel they have a diminished chance of succeeding due to handicapping abnormalities surely that will affect competition entries? Is the intention to encourage pilots with aspirations to import the best performing gliders? Is the intention of handicapping to put all competing gliders on an equal footing as far as possible or is it just to give those with a lesser performing glider a bit of hope? Regards, Harry Medlicott - Original Message - , From: Ross McLean mailto:ross...@bigpond.net.au To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps ___ Aus-soaring mailing list
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Robert I note that the Nimbus 2 has a handicap equivalent to an ASW20. The Nimbus 4DM has the same handicap as an ASG29. ROSS From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert Hart Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:46 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps On 17/08/11 21:14, Michael Durrant wrote: Folk, Having now had the oppurtunity to fly a competitive Std class glider FQF (LS8) after many years campaigning GOD (19M Jantar) in the one class you could fly (Sports Class) with any hope of a competitive result, I would ask that if there is any review underway of Sports Class handicaps that based on empirical evidence alone, the older Open/19M class gliders handicaps in that class be reviewed. The low wing loading benefit on very weak days does not compensate for the loss incurred on the average competition day in Australia for these gliders given the way the polar drops off at normal cruising speed, especially given our current tasking approach which rarely, if ever, tests the book ends of the day when there might be some advantage for these gliders. Given LS8/18 (0.895 handicap) performance on both strong and weak days, the relative handicaps applied to the Jantar 19M (0.910), Nimbus 2 (.90) etc are a joke...based on my personal experience. As a pilot of such a 30 year old open class glider, I would say that my experience of the handicapping across the board (ballasted and unballasted) for older gliders needs review. As I understand it, the handicaps are related almost exclusively to wing loading. Whilst this may well be a reasonable idea when the aerodynamics of the wings are very similar, this is not so when we are talking about intergenerational changes in aerodynamics. Even a passing perusal of the polars of recent gliders shows very significant performance gains of gliders from the 1980s, which have significant performance gains over the early glass ships such as the Nimbus 2. If the aim of handicapping is to try to create a more level playing field to allow the skill of the pilot to shine through, then this issue needs to be addressed. If that is not the aim of the handicapping system could someone please explain why we have a handicapping system at all? -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Gary Mike D
As promised I have asked the Handicap Committee to review your comments
regarding the current handicaps.
Firstly, Re Mike Durrant’s comments, the handicap Committee takes handicap
complaints seriously, they assess the gliders performance and polar carefully
and usually err in favour of the complainant. It was a surprise to the
committee to hear that there is a problem with the Jantar 19 and they have
committed to review all of these older open class sports handicaps for the next
season. This should ideally address any issues with the Nimbus 2 that Robert
Hart raised also.
Secondly with regard to Gary Stevens’ comments, the Committee wants it to be
known categorically that they address all pilot requests without bias. ( One of
the committee members in fact, I couldn’t improve the ASW20B handicap, even
though he believed it needed adjusting, until he had sold his own ASW20B to
avoid this implication of bias).
The handicap review took into account ALL submissions made by pilots and
reviewed ALL the aircraft on the MultiClass and Club and Sports Class Handicap
Lists. This was a comprehensive review which went back to absolute basics of
the handicaps and rebuilt them from the ground up. The technical data,
international experience and handicaps, aircraft age, differences in
technology, and local soaring conditions were all taken into account. The
results of the review are encompassed in the current handicaps now published on
the GFA website.
Best regards, ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Ross McLean
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 10:44 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Gary Mike D
Thanks for your emails, very much appreciated. I have referred them to the
Handicap Committee for discussion and will respond back to this forum with
their thoughts and comments asap.
As Bruce is still returning from Uvalde (with a very heavy 18m 1st Place
winner’s trophy) it may take a few days but I will get back to you.
ROSS
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 8:50 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.; 'tom claffey'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi Ross,
I understand that the HC was reviewing handicaps, mainly to update and/or
correct anomalies resulting from incorrect original input data, new data,
manufacturer's changes to designs, and such like, rather than making radical
changes.
In a volunteer organisation, it is not surprising that such anomalies can and
do occur, and indeed you and your Committee (and those that have gone before
you), have generally done a good job under sometimes (no doubt), trying
circumstances.
I applaud your recent earlier request to aircraft owners to contact you, in the
case of seemingly erroneous handicaps. You, and fellow committee members are
not mind readers, after all!
Can you/Will you/Are you now in a position, to give us a detailed update, on
all the glider types considered in the review, and the changes (if any), that
the Committee decided to instigate, as a result of the review?
If the review still has some way to go, when do you expect the Committee's
findings and decisions to be made known?
I do appreciate that a written report to the Australian Gliding Fraternity may
involve some/a lot of work on your part, but I think that in the past, the
reasons for some (no doubt necessary), changes have not been explained - either
adequately, or at all, and led in some quarters, to ongoing resentment to
seemingly biased decisions, by the Committee. {Is it possible that Nigel is
possibly suggesting this - tongue in cheek of course! .Gasp!}
In this day and age transparency is everything.
I await your response with interest.
Gary
- Original Message -
From: Ross McLean mailto:ross...@bigpond.net.au
To: 'tom claffey' mailto:to...@yahoo.com ; 'Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.' mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 95, Issue 49
Hi Tom
You are correct and no it hasn’t changed. The Handicap committee members have
currently:
· One JS1 – previously LS8, ASW 22, Ventus 2CX, ASW 19b. In all of
which he has won National Competitions. Just won the 18m pre-Worlds in an
ASG29. (I think it is the pilot not the a/c)
· One ASG29 - previously an ASW20 and a long history before that
· One LS4
· And one member has a fleet of 11 aircraft including Discus, Discus 2,
Ventus b 16.6, Duo Discus and Nimbus 4DM
I think there is enough cross manufacturer experience in that committee to be
able
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
McLean mailto:ross...@bigpond.net.au *To:* 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
The handicap generally is the wetware residing in the cockpit. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978 phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 email: mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
European handicaps are for weak weather. I flew a Nimbus4 last year in Szeged - on the practice days I had absolutely no problem passing Graham and David in their 18M gliders, If I had been in my 29 I MIGHT have been able to keep up! There is no perfect handicap system. Tom From: Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps Hi all, I support and applaud the work of the handicap committee who do a terrific job in difficult and contentious circumstances. Handicaps work by reducing performance differences measured according to competition results, because that's what they adjust - handicaps don't adjust the polar curves or wing loadings. This is an important point - handicaps should not be set on differences in wing loading or polars, because it would not necessarily change the performance in competitions in the same proportion. The setting of handicaps may determine who does and does not attend among the top group, but more importantly it has an effect on how many older gliders attend and in what numbers, because no one likes to be cannon fodder. One could be cynical and call it a marketing exercise. For example the handicappers probably won't give a Kestrel 17 a handicap such that it is likely to beat an ASG29 in 18M, or to have a Libelle 201 beat a LS8 in Standard. But in Club Class, well maybe the marketing strategy is different. No one would mind giving a Libelle pilot the trophy in that class, although these days the median performance in Club Class is closer to LS4 than Libelle. In 2011 Club Class was won by an LS1F, with a LS4 close behind, both flown by members of the Australian Team. Nothing wrong with those handicaps... In 2008 the 1985 model Discus A I now own (Harry will remember it as XQI) was flown to a win in the Multiclass Nationals, beating a bunch of LS8s and Discus 2s. It had a 1% handicap advantage, but also was flown by a top class pilot at his home club. Is 1% a fair handicap for a more than 20 year old glider against almost new opposition? Apparently it was too much in this case :) Those who prefer having no handicaps should remember that this is also a handicap system, except that the handicap is then the relative size of the pilot's disposable income. In the no handicap system it doesn't matter how good you are if you can't afford the latest and greatest. Perhaps though, the solution is to outsource the entire problem. There is a perfectly good DaEC handicap system in Europe, let's just use it - it will save a lot of keystrokes here, and hot air in pilots meetings. Then we can get back to something more interesting, like climate change :) Untitled Document Cheers Tim tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare On 18/08/2011 10:07, harry medlicott wrote: Hi Ross and others, I have always, whether in sport or in business, been very reluctant to pursue a course from which I will personally benefit. However now, with my eightieth birthday well and truly in sight feel that reccomendations as to handicaps can be made without anyone pointing the finger and shouting self interest. Possibly offending my friends has also been a consideration. If you truly believe that the V2 is comparable with the ASG 29 and probably the Js1 then you are about the only one in the world wide gliding community to think that way. Even Schempp Hirth who make them recognise the act and made a V2 with a different A fuselage and market it as their competion glider. See You give a 4% difference between the gliders. Published sink rate data shows a 6% advantage to the ASG 29 at high speed fully ballasted. Australia has only a small pool of pilots with the skills, gliders, financial support and testosterone to compete internationally. You could count them on your fingers whereas western europe has 30 times more pilots than us and vastly more of international standard. Look at the results of european competitions and you will see which gliders are best and by how much. I made a submission last year relating to handicaps which is attached. The first part dealt with open class and that the latest 18 metre gliders, flying with wing loadings of up to 55 kg.per sq metre were more than a match for older open class gliders restricted to about 45 kg. per sq. metre, particularly as most competition days are flown in the strong part of the day. This made the older design open class gliders uncompetitive and could well damage the future of open class, particularly as it appeared that pilots with overseas aspirations were entering open class to better their chances of team selection. I note some handicap changes have been made to address this problem. In 18
Re: [Aus-soaring] Handicaps
Hi all, Anita and Bruce Taylor asked me to post the following on Bruce’s behalf: From: akauffm...@bigpond.com [mailto:akauffm...@bigpond.com] Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 1:10 PM To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Subject: 18m gliders Hello. As you know, we are travelling at the moment, just downloaded 124 emails. Many from AusSoaring. Bruce has a quick reply for you. Hope to keep in touch by next week. Thanks for all the support regarding the Uvalde Team. We had a great bunch of Aussies competing, and they all did very well. We also had some excellent crew and I'm very excited for the whole team. Bruce is happy, of course, because he was flying well, and the conditions seemed to suit him. Let's hope for good weather next year too. Regarding handicaps: These comments are always worth a smile. But I’d like to publicly thank Ross for his support – it makes my job easier. Having flown in and against all these gliders, my first comment is this: If we just consider the gliders that appear regularly at competitions in Australia, I can say categorically that there is a greater difference between individual ASG 29’s than there is between each of the three types discussed. Some of the differences are due to manufacturing tolerances, but more significant is the care and attention to detail of the owners. If you wish to take the time to check profiles, ensure that seals are in perfect condition, keep the ballast tanks dried when not in use, polish all surfaces continually etc, etc, then you will be in a good position to take full advantage of the handicaps that are published. Each of these gliders have different strengths and weaknesses, some are folklore and some are real, but it would be a brave person to stand up and say that one is better or worse. It comes down to a matter of personal preference which type you would like to sit in, and I can only say that they all have enormous potential. With reference to the V2CX in particular, a quick count of the numbers entered in the past two world championships will show that the Ventus outnumbers the ASG 29’s by a factor of two to one! Are all those pilots competing at that level so blind? And as for what I might fly at Uvalde next year, I have no idea myself, so it should be difficult for anyone else to know. In any case, it really makes no difference... Cheers, BT ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] handicaps
Ross, Tim Tom between them reflect the range of views across the gliding community on handicapping. These beliefs have been around since the dawn of time. In a perfect world, to which some subscribe, indeed the individual's wallet should be the leveller. From the 1970s to the 1990s a separate part of the sport looked to handicaps as a way to encourage previous generations of gliders to mix. This continues today amongst vintage gliders, where the factors range across 300%; clearly not 'fair', but a visible acknowledgement; which does permit a Grunau to win on occasions. In the class sphere where gliders are within a 10% band, the handicaps are an attempt at fairness. The goal here is to have larger entry numbers than no.1 above would permit. As others have said, European handicaps are calculated on weaker soaring conditions across an event than is likely to occur in Oz. in the US, there are CH factors which differ east to west coasts. And so on it goes. That is why it is indeed helpful occasionally to include 'why are we doing this' in handicap committee reviews.. Different audiences will look for different expressions; all under a generic subject header of 'handicaps'. It might serve us well to start distinguishing between the half dozen different targets/reasons different expressions of handicapping exist. (In the horse world, if handicapping were perfect, all horses would cross the line abreast). ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] Handicaps - was ASG29 handicaps
Well recent experience seems to show that handicaps can work quite well under particular conditions. The Easter Regatta at Gawler featured a DG-1000 versus a Bergfalke 4 - the only two seaters in the regatta. The Bergy 4 won on the Saturday on handicap by a small margin. The DG-1000 pipped the Bergy 4 for second place by an even smaller margin on the Sunday on handicap. Both days had low wind (the illustrious Bergfalke outlanded on the Friday whilst valiantly trying to drive up wind on a windy day and the Monday was a no-fly day). There was some very expert task setting by Phil Ritchie (who confessed that he didn't believe in handicaps - but was seen industriously dusting down the DG-1000 prior to launch on the Sunday). Both Saturday and Sunday saw the Bergfalke and the plastic singles start and finish at about the same times. Sometimes these things work. sometimes they don't -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Gage Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2008 8:24 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] -ASG29 handicaps They tried something very similar in sailing in the late 80's early 90's - it was a very expensive failure for very similar reasons. They also tried multi-number handicaps for different conditions - again this failed as unless you get a uniform day, they are even worse than what we have now as 60%+ of pilots will object to the conditions chosen for scoring !! On 18/03/2008, at 10:43 PM, Tim Shirley wrote: Gary, Whether you disagree with the second point or not, the fact is that at the time it was one reason given by pilots for disliking the system. They didn't come to this opinion before they tried it, and you might be the same :) Believe me, it was adequately trialled! You should have been at the pilots meetings... In regard to resurrecting it, I'm afraid that the maths was horrendous. Murray Evans held a PhD in applied maths, I think. Also, using SeeYou scoring it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to program, because SeeYou expects a fixed handicap. So unless someone (not me) is prepared to write a scoring system from scratch, then I think we can consign the idea to history. Scoring isn't a walk in the park anyway, and layering this type of thing on top of it will not exactly help. Potentially, there are simpler approaches that might work - for example, some form of handicap adjustment based on a fixed factor like Strong, Average or Weak conditions, with each glider having effectively three different handicaps. Somehow you have to apply a different handicap on each day. Still hard to program, but a bit easier than all the curve fitting maths. I think it is easier to have a 2 week comp to even things out. Cheers Tim ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
