The scorer also won the regatta too! I'm not suggesting any inappropriate
behaviour but that was good fun too
Michael
On 07/03/2013, at 10:36 PM, Terry Home <terrycub...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
