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 <[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] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > 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
