Re: All gliders competitive all the time

Eric said, "A small regional might decide on three classes, meaning
"handicap
spread": Class 1 =0.5 to .9, Class 2 = 0.91 to 1.1, Class 3 = 1.11 to
2.
A big regional might go for four. National contest bands might be set
by
SSA each year after negotiations with the regions putting on a
Nationals. Got lots of sites that want a Nationals? Set up narrow
bands.
Only a few? Set up wider bands."

An excellent idea!

I suggest that we eliminate the distortion caused by "building to
class", and simply let the market figure out what kind of glider people
are willing to pay for. All contest classes would be like the Club
Class, and each country could pick the number of classes, and the
performance spread in each, that worked best for them. No more "Meter"
classes, no more Sports Class, no one design class, even no more Club Class.

A small regional might decide on three classes, meaning "handicap
spread": Class 1 =0.5 to .9, Class 2 = 0.91 to 1.1, Class 3 = 1.11 to 2.
A big regional might go for four. National contest bands might be set by
SSA each year after negotiations with the regions putting on a
Nationals. Got lots of sites that want a Nationals? Set up narrow bands.
Only a few? Set up wider bands.

The manufactures would then build gliders of different sizes,
performances, and costs, much like the automobile market, but every
owner would know his glider was competitive in a class when he bought
it, and even 20 years later, it would still be competitive in a class.

I was saying stuff like this 25 years ago. Maybe it's time has come!

The developers are just trying to recoup their R&D costs with high
prices the 'early adopters' will pay.  Electronic tech drops in price
as manufacturers climb their learning curve.  Bet:  5 years from now
short range thermal detectors will cost < $2500.

LIDAR developers probably have little knowledge they can contribute to
reducing glider production costs - that's another group of people
altogether.

Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high
costs.  If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among
scores of designs in each class, unit costs will be high because
production runs will be short.  Short production runs mean gliders are
essentially hand built at high cost.

The key to reducing glider costs is to increase the number of units in
a production run by reducing the number of designs we expect
manufacturers to produce.  A good step in that direction would be to
reduce the number of competition classes.  I suggest the 18M class
plus a handicapped club/sports class for everything else.

Soaring friends,
   I called the company and confirmed it is $149,500.00 dollars for
this wind/thermal detector.  They are very aware of the sailplane
community and are in the planning stages for a smaller and cheaper
units for us.  The sales guy said for my to stay tuned because it will
be coming.  It is all very exciting but overwhelmingly expensive.  I
have a hard enough time trying to explain to my wife the value of a
$75K euros JS1 revelation dream ship a saw at the convention. I
haven't even mentioned that the trailer and instruments are extra and
the poor euro/dollar exchange rate.  I see the great value but she is
very very skeptical.  As every man knows, the guy code clearly states
that better-faster-nicer-cooler is always more fun!   I'm sure this
thermal detector at $150K would not go over well with the misses.  At
least the Eta guys set the bar quite high for an expensive ship and I
can always use them as an example of what a really expensive ship
might cost.  Hey dear, this $250k ship with a thermal sensor is 75%
cheaper than the million the Eta guys paid.  What a deal!
  Maybe future technology should not be so focused on significant
increases in performance but significant decreases in manufacturing
cost and construction time.  How many pilots might have sprung for the
JS1 listed at $30-$40K which would be more similar to the cost of my
car or boat and not more like my $150K house.  The cost of new ships
is cooling the sport and possibly a few marriages!  Enough of my
ranting, lets just go fly and enjoy because I feel very privileged to
be one of the few in the world who knows what it is to soar!
John Ackerson O.D.

I agree, 300M is enough to win the worlds. Imagine f you always knew
which way to turn! And people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands
of dollars / euros to do that.

I wrote a "contest corner" on some thoughts about how thermal
detectors will change things -- mostly for the better

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/thermal_detectors.mht

John Cochrane

I would disagree a bit.

300M would probably deliver more than 50% of the expected benefit of a
remote thermal sensor.  There will be diminished returns at longer
ranges since thermals will dissipate (or be later in their life cycle)
by the time you could get there.

This particular unit is designed for years of service atop windmills
but nonetheless indicates the underlying science is valid.  Tech
always gets smaller and cheaper with time.  Give it a few years.

Yes, but....

http://catchthewindinc.com/files/images/RLU_240pix_Width.png

- 300 m range isn't all that much, OK for centering, not for locating
a thermal
- given its form and volume, the sensor will cut your glide angle by
half if you place it on your glider (and at 50 pounds, play hell with
your weight and balance)
- I think the vertical wind information will be hidden by the relative
wind
- I couldn't find the listed price, but they suggest leasing one;
sounds rather costly...

Can measure vertical wind aka thermal

[catchthewindinc.com]