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