The ME formula was used for many years, but it was used to compare results
across classes for team selection, not handicaps. ME would apply the formula to
produce a team solution and then some "wise" heads would critique and then ME
would "adjust" the factors and produce a new set of results. Eventually an
answer was agreed. The most subjective objective process.
Handicaps were formulated by another member (? Brown?) who spent a lot of
personal time reviewing polar curves and calculating thermal characteristics to
calculate the "right" handicap. The concept was good but Unfortunately, the
polar curve data was from many sources and therefore no consistency. The first
club class I went to the pilots spent the whole two weeks arguing about
handicaps.
We then invited another group of wise heads to use their experience and invent
some handicaps. Since that time, there have been very few issues with
handicaps. It is not an exact science.
At Gawler we now use Pilot handicaps also , which is even less scientific, but
good fun. A little retrospective adjustment resolves any errors.
Terry
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/03/2013, at 8:10 PM, <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Peter,
> That is an interesting suggestion! I wonder if it could be practically (and
> fairly), done?
>
> Re "poor" task setting, I tend to think that your objection 'having to start
> early/finish late" is actually as a general principle, just the opposite - at
> a National level and probably a State level too, this is what good tasking
> should be all about! In general, the task setting at most competitions, on
> most reasonably soarable days, is far too conservative. {Everybody, please
> carefully note those two provisos - "most" & "reasonably"!}
>
> Having said that, I tend to agree with your last paragraph, which then gets
> back to the question I raised in my first paragraph above.
>
> The points noted by Matthew Scutter, in his email below, are all reasonable
> too. Emilis Prelgauskas in a recent posting on this site, talked (amongst
> other things), about some of the problems facing the gliding movement in this
> country, including a gradual loss of knowledge held collectively by the
> membership, and knowledge (mostly), lost to the current Board and those
> administrating the GFA system. Once upon a time - I think it was just around
> the time of the introduction of computers into gliding scoring - a guy called
> Murray Evans (Murray-Evans?), came up with a system that related everybody's
> performance back to their glider polar, and the results for the day were then
> "corrected". The system was tried once, and promptly abandoned, as being
> unworkable - which was fair enough at the time. The first and possibly major
> problem then, was obtaining realistic polars, for the gliders competing.
> Number crunching (laughable today), was also a problem, as I recall. In my
> view, it might now prove profitable to revisit the principles of the ME
> concept, and check their workability in the current hi-tek environment.
>
> Ann Woolf - given the tremendous (mind boggling?) - work that you have done
> on compiling the electronic AG data base - could I please call upon you to
> put the article(s?), that appeared in Australian Gliding, on this web site,
> for the perusal and comment of a latter generation of glider pilots?
>
> Gary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nimb...@internode.on.net
> To: aus-soaring
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 6:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Boring
>
> How about letting the previous generation 20m gliders fly in 15m class where
> the handicaps are much closer as compared to current generation open class.
>
> The other factor that gives the higher performance gliders an advantage over
> the previous generation gliders when there is a large handicap spread is poor
> task setting.
> This occurs when racing tasks are set that force the lower performance
> gliders to fly in weaker conditions by having to start early or finish later.
> Where there is a significant spread in handicaps then racing tasks should not
> be set.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> Sent from my HTC smartphone
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Matthew Scutter" <yellowplant...@gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
> <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
> Subject: [Aus-soaring] Boring
> Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 12:29
>
>
> Ron,
> Because the handicaps have practical limitations as gliders have
> different performance characteristics in different weather, which
> handicaps can't take into account.
> The handicaps are probably fair for a Cirrus and an ASG29 on a 3kt
> day, but they certainly aren't on a 12kt day.
> This seems to be the general consensus - in normal weather, the
> handicaps are close to the technical optimum, but in strong weather
> the higher performance gliders have an advantage.
> Technical ways to 'solve' this have been postulated for years,
> different handicaps for different weather etc, all of which sounds to
> me like too much work.
>
> How we solve it now is grouping the gliders in relatively similar
> performance classes.
> If higher performance gliders have an advantage in stronger weather,
> it makes sense they should not be able to come 'down' a class and fly
> with lower performance gliders.
> Whether it should work the other way depends on whether you believe
> that lower performance gliders have an edge in weaker weather.
> Personally I think the lower performance gliders do have an edge in
> survival weather, but that is almost entirely negated because we get
> less weak weather than strong, and we don't set tasks in survival
> weather (how often is a day cancelled for being too strong? ;) )
>
> I think the cause of this discussion is that while STD class is mostly
> populated with top-of-the-line STD class ships, 15M class is largely
> previous generation gliders - so many STD class pilots (particularly
> those in previous generation STD class gliders, myself included), feel
> we're flying closer to our 'effective' performance class in 15M.
>
> tldr; The system is a 'good enough' compromise.
>
> -matthew
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Ron <resand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think you missed the point . If the handicaps are so good what does it
> > matter whether the span in 100 metres or if it has flaps?
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/03/2013, at 6:48, <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> > It is because they have flaps, of course!
> > However if you invert the question, Standard Class gliders may fly in 15 m
> > (Racing) Class.
> > Gary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ron Sanders
> > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Boring
> >
> > Dear Adam,
> > i agree with you!!
> > And i note that there was not one reply to your far more interesting posted
> > question " if the handicaps are so good why aren't fifteen metre flapped
> > gliders allowed in Standard class?"
> >
> > The priorities are not in the right order.
> > RS
> >
> > On 5 March 2013 20:16, Adam Woolley <go_soar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I went soaring today (well a circuit), it was awesome!
> >>
> >>
> >> WPP
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5651 - Release Date: 03/05/13
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5652 - Release Date: 03/06/13
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
