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"
<[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
