I have to admit I feel really depressed by the whole situation, to the extent that my sleep is affected. That is pretty pathetic on a global scale, since the people of, say, Haiti, have more to be depressed about, but what to do – this is what I do and what defines me, so when it is “broken” it is a small wonder that it affects me.

It has often been said that when you are racing Serial Class wings, in Serial Class comps, mistakes are very expensive since you can’t really catch up again once you get left behind. So far, this has been based more or less exclusively on empirical “evidence”, i.e. pilots who have tried to do it have failed, and most haven’t really been able to nail why. Now the number one Number Cruncher among us, Tom Payne, has actually gone through the hassle of crunching the numbers, and has come up with a mathematical explanation that looks like it holds – I am, with his permission, publishing Tom’s writings, and his graphs, here below.

This has important implications for competitions, since it means the Serial Class initiative rewards gaggle flying even more than what was already the case. I don’t think that is a good development, as it will lead to larger, more congested gaggles, to even more tasks being decided in the final glide, and in the second order it will put more emphasis on top speed in the EN D designs we’re going to see in the future. In the mean time it also gives an advantage to heavy pilots, and pilot who don’t mind tweaking their speed systems (at the expense of fairness). Further, gliders designed with top speed as their overruling parameter do NOT belong in the EN D class – that class should be much more about good, predictable behaviour at all times, coupled with plenty of usable performance.

I have this horror vision of our sport turning into something like the pro road cycling; if you aren’t cheating (doped, in their case) you don’t need to bother showing up. On that note I’d also like to emphasize that the more rules we add, the more we benefit the cheaters – the “by-the-rule” crowd will either be corrupted, or go away.

I believe anyone scientifically minded could take the .kml files from the Superfinal last week and get even further proof of this theory; when I was watching it certainly didn’t look like anyone going alone had any success – this isn’t purely down to Serial vs. Open Class, but the trend is there. Pilots who are known and respected for their independent nature (how about Yassen, or André Rainsford?) did terribly in the comp, although André is adamant that this was just because he flew like a plonker – he doesn’t realise that the odds were stacked against him. Please note that I’m not saying the winners were the followers, I think Petsch is a great pilot and I’m really happy for him, and I know from eye-witness accounts that Josh actually flew the gaggle less than most, so you CAN beat the odds, but as always with odds, the odds are you won’t…

So back to Tom’s text, and his graphs, if I can work out how to add them here:

“Hi All,

We’ve talked about this before, but I finally sat down and did the maths. We all know from experience that it’s harder to catch up when racing Serial Class, and I argued that this made Serial Class racing more about gaggle flying and less about leading out and trying different options. Here’s the proof.

The first figure is the polar curves that I’m using. They’re estimated but hopefully not too inaccurate, and I’m treating the EnZo as a speed-limited R11 with only about 0.1 less glide performance.

The second figure shows the speed to fly for different thermal strengths, assuming no wind and no sink between the thermals. What is very obvious is that as soon as the thermal strength is about 2.3m/s then Mantra M4 and EnZo pilots should be flying at full speed. In contrast, R11 pilots should only push full speed once the thermals are 4m/s or stronger. In practice, and assuming good racing conditions, this means almost every glide in Serial/EnZo racing should be done pulley-to-pulley.

Figure three shows the theoretical maximum speeds around the course (assuming pure climb-and-glide) for the different classes. This is purely a function of the thermal strength and the glider’s polar curve. Once the speed to fly is full speed then you can only get around the course by climbing better (you can’t gain time on the glides because everybody is flying full speed).

Figure four demonstrates why it’s harder to catch up on Serial Class/EnZo wings than on Open Class wings. Assume that by flying through the gaggles your average climb rate is 50% better than the lead gaggle’s, e.g. if the lead gaggle are getting 2m/s climbs then you’re getting 3m/s, etc. The time it takes you to catch them is directly proportional to the absolute difference in speeds. Figure four shows this difference in speeds for different thermal strengths.

To put this better into context, figure five shows the time taken in minutes to catch up one kilometre, assuming you’re climbing 50% better than the lead gaggle. It clearly shows that it’s easier to catch up on Open Class gliders, especially in strong conditions.

This means that the penalty for trying something and it not working out is much greater on Serial Class/EnZo gliders. This is a strong incentive to stay in the gaggle on Serial Class/EnZo wings.

Finally, I look at the options for the leaders. The shortest distance between turnpoints is of course a straight line, and taking a non-direct line is only worthwhile if you can find stronger lift that allows you to fly at a higher speed such that the extra speed more than compensates for the extra distance that you fly. Say it’s 10km to the next turnpoint, and there is stronger lift that is not on the direct course line. If I have to fly an extra 1km to go via that stronger lift then my course speed has to be at least 1/10 = 10% higher than those taking the direct line. The faster I can fly relative to the speed of the straight line route, the further off the straight line that I can explore and the more options I have. See how Ulli beat Stephan Morgenthaler in the penultimate task of the Superfinal for an example.

Assume that you can find climbs that are 50% better than those on the direct line. Figure 6 shows how much extra area you can cover. What this demonstrates is that Open Class racing maintains a wide choice of options even in strong conditions, whereas Serial Class/EnZo racing has both fewer options, especially in good conditions. The inflection points in the graphs correspond to the thermal strengths at which speed to fly is full bar.

Take-home points from the analysis for people wanting to do well in Serial Class/EnZo competitions are:

• You can still catch up and explore different options in weak conditions,
• Once the thermal strength is 2.3m/s, fly full bar,
• Mistakes are expensive – fly conservatively,
• As the thermals get stronger, it is less and less worthwhile to deviate from the straight line to the next turnpoint – don’t stray too far from the straight line,
• Skills to work on are climbing well, working the gaggle, and flying at full speed. Decision making is much less important,

Regards,

Tom

Share on Facebook

On Friday last week the PMA and the four testing houses had a round table meeting, originally to discuss the use of folding lines during testing, but because of the initiative from the SHV to stop testing of EN D wings (triggered by Alain Zollers accident while testing one of the comp-wings-come-END) this subject was also discussed. From the view of the PG community, the result of that part of the meeting was very disappointing. Basically the PMA and the testing houses (the former disappointingly, the latter understandably) decided to wash their hands and let the market sort it out. Many had hoped that the PMA would stand up and assume some sort of leadership in these very troubled times, alas they did nothing of the sort, saying only that the testing houses must remain neutral and if a wing passes EN D tests then it is an EN D wing (sounds logical enough when one writes it like that – I wish it was the whole story). I agree that the testing houses cannot solve this mess – they’re running a business – and the manufacturers cannot solve it on an individual level, but I was rather hoping that the PMA would bite the bullet and at least propose a way forward.

As things stand today, anyone with a serious interest in competition will have bought 2 wings in the last 12 months, and now must buy a third one. Of these 3, the first one will have been extraordinarily nice to fly as long as one didn’t push it too far, the second one will have been a useless slug in comparison, and a slug that needed a cat’o nine tails and other tools from the Inquisition to get going through the skies, and the third one, coming now, will have the worst of both worlds – it’ll be a comparative slug, but without the comparative passive safety of the first slug. This is called progress.

To make matters worse there are already signs that the problem will be exported to the next class down, since many current EN D pilots are becoming homeless in the newly defined EN D class – “defined” in this case meaning defined by the wings that populate the class – and manufacturers will likely be trying to cater for these pilots with hot new EN C designs. That is, for all intents and purposes, the worst outcome (did I say that before?) of the clusterfuck that the CIVL initiated in July FOR THE MARKET IN GENERAL. So far the troubles have been contained in the relatively sparsely populated comp and EN D class, but now they are moving into the denser classes (absolutely no derogatory pun intended!)

I’m sorry to be witnessing all this. Oh and by the way, I got a message from a fellow comp wing aficionado flying the classic EN D wings in the Winelands Open in Porterville this week – “These f*cking things SUCK!!” Couldn’t have put it more eloquently myself

BTW thanks to Yann for a message via FB. The reason why I don’t think that splitting the EN D class is any help is that the work in the Task Force has shown me that there isn’t any sensible way to split the EN D class. It all boils down to subjective parameters, and nobody wants to use subjective parameters for this sort of thing. I do NOT subscribe to any attempt to split the classes based on A/R, span or anything like that – PG design is much more subtle than that.

Mads S

Share on Facebook

As longtime followers of this blog will know I had a long hard think about comps in general, and CAT1 comps more specific, as I was driving home from Spain this past (European) summer. Among other things I had a vague feeling that there was something ‘wrong’ with the new breed of wings, but the more I think of it the more I become convinced that what was in reality ‘wrong’ was our perception of how to fly it.

While discussing all these things in Lisboa last weekend it suddenly dawned on me that IF we were to approach the full speed full-frontal in the same way the hangies approach the tuck, then maybe we’re on to something – you MAY actually get it flying again, but in general it means a reserve ride. That proposition has been known and widely accepted in hanggliding for years, and any hangglider pilot knows to keep airspeed when in bad air.

Similarly, any pg pilot knows to be wary of too much airspeed in bad air, but the apparent stability of the new designs meant this wasn’t respected in Piedrahita – not by all anyway. The tragic events made it clear that the new wings are particularly intolerant of that approach – just as hanggliders are intolerant of low airspeed in turbulence. But if you stick to the basic rule then by all accounts the new wings are far MORE stable (dare I say “safe” in an unsafe sport?) than what we were used to before, just as todays hanggliders are less demanding to fly than the 1st generation Rogallos (for want of a better analogy).

The trouble is, having a dangerous low speed has less impact on a race than having a dangerous high speed. So it seems clear that we still may see a fair few reserve deployments, perhaps even more than what we consider reasonable at this stage in time. But let me start by reassuring you that no matter what happens, actually getting it out is infinitely better than NOT getting it out. I actually don’t subscribe to the view that any reserve ride is an accident that just didn’t happen this time – I think this is a counter-productive approach to it. I think we should strive to reduce the occasions when a reserve deployment is needed, but I also think we should strive to increase the reserve deployment frequencies at meets – off the top of my head I can think of very many friends who would have been here today, if they had only deployed their reserves, but aren’t.

I have only today let yet another genie out of the bag in the CIVL working group – I have proposed to reinstate the Open Class. To me it seems that the current mess, where we almost agree that we need to split the Serial Class into two even before we have seen the wings that are the result of the short-sighted ban on the Open Class, is enough to warrant a step in that direction. There seems to be general consensus in the Working Group that the EN D class is now too broad for its own good (even if it wasn’t before) but try as we may we haven’t been able to come up with a sensible definition of the differences. This is some of the reason for my proposal, other arguments here:

• Easy to distinguish from certified classes – nobody flies an Open Class wing “unaware”
• Very easy on the part of comps organisers – either the wing is certified, or it is not, so basically no stress in defining classes
• No great drama policing the class – it being Open, there is no need to police anything (I’m speaking of the ‘pre-Comps Class’ Open Class, the Good Ol’ Days if you will)
• Excellent safety record in most meets, albeit not in CIVL Cat 1 meets
• Competitive wings for all sizes of pilots, not only for Medium ones
• Great R&D laboratory for the designers
• INFINITELY more fun to fly than classical EN D wings (I haven’t flown the new breed of 2-liner EN D wings so can’t comment on these)

The direct trigger for this proposal was the fact that we in the Working Group seem to be going in circles – and nobody seemed to make the connection to the apparent ungovernable aspect of our sport. But I think that as long as we’re working without a functional definition of what a paraglider IS, then it is probably not possible to make distinctions in terms of what it DOES.

Anyway, enough about these matters now – I just hope some day we’ll get to fly these amazing new wings again, without the stress of trying to find out which class each one fits in, and without the cheating that will go with the EN D only course of action. As my last post made clear I would have been just as happy to not even have been here in the first place, but there is no doubt that now that Luc has worked his magic on the way paragliders are built most of us wouldn’t want to go back to the pre-R10 days.

Share on Facebook

[edit on Nov. 23.: As expected, this WAS indeed controversial. As you can see below there are quite a few comments, and also one from Luc Armant. I have been in touch with Luc on Skype and we agree now that there is certainly no ill intent on his part, or the part of his team - I didn't think there was either, but perhaps that isn't as visible in the original blog entry as it could have been. For a full discussion, be sure to read all the comments and counter-comments below the blog entry]

It is the purpose, indeed the duty, of any company board of directors to maximise the profit they generate for the owners of the company, be they shareholders or direct owners. In this respect, our business is clearly no different from any other, even if some seem to think so.

Ethics don’t have a role to play in this equation at all, not at Shell, not in banking, not in paragliding. I personally dislike that part, and like to tell myself that this is one of the reasons why I’m not yet super rich, in spite of being super clever (!)

One major operator in our business has recently managed to more or less single-handedly kill off the class of wings that I enjoy flying, and subsequently kill off the comps that have filled my life with pleasure since 1994. This operator has made STACKS of money doing it, thus fulfilling their obligation to the shareholders. Their latest move is going to do the same – make stacks of money for the shareholders, AND kill off the rest of the comp scene. Although I personally prefer to fly the new breed of EN D wings heralded by the advent of the latest product from this major operator, I don’t think they are a good direction for the sport to take – as discussions on the PG Forum are already showing, people cannot interpret this middle ground thing. Either it is an EN D wing, or it is not.

[edit Nov. 23.: Luc assures me that the whole thing hasn't made anyone stacks of money - I struggle to see how selling a few hundred of one's top of the line product a few years in a row can avoid doing that, but if Luc says so then I will believe him - so the money motive seems to fall]

But no one FORCES anyone to introduce new products. The industry has in the past done an excellent job of self-control in the EN D class, making wings with decent performance-to-passive-safety ratio. That is now officially a thing of the past. For me personally, as a person who didn’t get much kicks out of the classic Serial Class wings, and one who doesn’t pay for my wings, the new development is obviously great news – I get to fly the wings I like again, and it isn’t really my problem that I have two obsolete comp wings in the basement. For the rest of the poor sods out there, having to choose between spending great sums AGAIN or being uncompetitive, it just isn’t fair. Plus the rich but poor in insight will obviously crash and get killed on these new wings, even more so than before.

All this will lead to the CIVL wanting to ban the EN D class from comps, as predicted. And then the same will happen in the EN C class. And then even I can’t see where we can go. All because the purpose of a capitalist institution is to maximise profits for the owners.

BTW as you will have worked out I don’t subscribe to the “if we don’t do it someone else will” justification. Which, again, is one reason why I’m not rich.

The CIVL Task Force has just lost its leader. Greg Knudson rightly decided that if there wasn’t a chance of saving the Open Class anyway, why should he bother spending time and energy on making the dumbest decision in the history of pg comps go down better with the crowds? I fully agree with him, but I’ll hang on in there all the same since the process interests me and I haven’t been appointed the head honcho so I have less at stake on a personal level. But I actually applaud Greg and his integrity in saying if he can’t do what he set out to do with his acceptance of the task then better bugger off.

At this stage my main worry is that all this turbulence is going to cause people to give comps a miss in the coming season, until all the dust has settled. Since I have just made bids to hold the Nordic Open 2012 it is pretty important to me that I can count on pilots to actually show up. I think splitting the field up into real and fake EN D wings may well be a viable route, and one that I will be giving careful consideration in the coming weeks.

Share on Facebook