Discipline
Paragliding XC
What do we want ?
- A one-design class similar to sailboats
- Updated every four years on the olympic cycle
- Open design so all manufacturers can produce it
- does not interfere with the EN Certifications
- Size compensation build into (i.e. thicker lines for larger sizes) OR have three sizes and score winners for each size group (max ballast 10kg)
- Updated every four years on the olympic cycle
- Open design so all manufacturers can produce it
- does not interfere with the EN Certifications
- Size compensation build into (i.e. thicker lines for larger sizes) OR have three sizes and score winners for each size group (max ballast 10kg)
How do we achieve that ?
- redefine CCC
- have a expert panel decide or have a test year and then take the winner/most popular design
- orientate on other sports that race in regatta style one design (kitefoil, sailing, touring cars (NASCAR)
-
-
- have a expert panel decide or have a test year and then take the winner/most popular design
- orientate on other sports that race in regatta style one design (kitefoil, sailing, touring cars (NASCAR)
-
-
Issue category :
Comments
I'm Glad you mentioned it. Luc Armant sometimes arrive to the same conclusion. Altought very counter intuitive at first I believe it is a solution to consider seriously. Main drawback is politics, transparency and model choice...
It has pros (obvious) but also cons (not so obvious)
For one, it would stifle development, "why bother develop something better if everybody will obligatory compete with the 'one design' "...
Then, whose glider is going to be the "one design"? Someone will be the selected, the rest of the manufacturers will be reduced to simple "sewer"....
Development would remain for XC and out of the comp scene indeed. We would fly legacy machine. May not be very appealing I admit if machines keep improving fast.
I like to fantasize about monotype myself, sometimes.
One of interesting solutions I heard was: pilots vote for new glider every 2 years. You still can compete on the previous years' models, so no strict monotype, but kind of.
Yes agree to all. But do we want a pilot championship or manufacture championship? Or a mix?
Look at kite foil racing - development halted for three/four years but now the new cycle has started and all the manufacturers are at it again, including small companies. Everyone had three years to optimise. It's also more sustainable tbh...
Also, with current CCC the development is also not progressing very fast (current models, variants between 3-5 years old?)
Also - who's got the best sewers might actually give some credit to those who enable this form of flying at all. And might matter for the market after all.
In reply to Yes agree to all. But do we… by Philipp Bethge
Formula Kite racing its not one-design either in kites or in foils, it "might" look one design because on the 2020-2024 cycle one brand was clearly superior to the others, so everyone was using the best kite.
In reply to Formula Kite racing its not… by Pedro Marcos
Yes absolutely right. But still they operate in cycles and in a very dynamic, modern technological environment (foils) and were okay with freezing development.
How does this help with the problem of different glider sizes and pilot weight?
Shouldn’t we focus on making this sport fair before we fantasize about new formats.
In reply to How does this help with the… by Reza
Having whatever ballast compensation is doable with monotype too. Here we are solving headache of class designers and institutions. Defining a CCC, a sport class is no easy thing
The Enzo is 10 years old. Not much in the way of design improvements for CCC anyway. If one-design was accepted, the compensation for wing sizes could be baked in somewhat. Right now, in addition to weight differences, we have performance differences by glider manufacturer.
Design improvements might actually get better because designer companies could work together and share certification costs of the final design... which as I undertstand is a pretty big part of the cost.
Here’s how a one-design comp class could actually work:
Every 2–3 years, all the major brands submit one CCC wing.
A test panel flies them all — same speed target, same performance zone — and the one with the best full-bar stability, recovery, and handling gets picked as the official race wing for that cycle.
Next cycle, every manufacturer can compete again.
Pros:
🔹 Ends the speed race that keeps pushing gliders right to the edge of instability.
🔹 Makes results about pilot skill, not who bought the latest wing.
🔹 Safer — everyone flies the same model, so we get clear data and smarter task design.
🔹 Cheaper — no need to upgrade every season.
🔹 Manufacturers still compete — just for the next 2–3-year slot, based on stability and build quality, not sketchy speed.
🔹 Huge prestige for the brand that wins (“Official CCC Cup Wing”).
Cons (realistically):
⚠️ Some brands will push back — they lose yearly releases.
⚠️ Less variety; everyone flies the same platform.
⚠️ Needs transparent selection (independent testers, public results).
⚠️ Innovation slows slightly in speed, but accelerates in safety and predictability.
Bottom line:
It doesn’t kill innovation — it redirects it.
Instead of chasing more speed every year, brands compete to make the fastest glider that’s still rock-solid at full bar.
That’s how we make comps safer without killing the race.
Would it be one design for the wing only? Or harness too?
Colin, I actually think we should include the harness too, not just the wing.
If the goal is to make comps safer and more balanced, every 2–3 years manufacturers could submit both a wing and a harness. The committee then picks the combo that gives the best mix of speed, stability, comfort, durability, and protection.
Manufacturers would still compete hard for that slot — because whoever wins gets guaranteed sales for the next few years. That’s huge motivation to innovate in the right direction. Instead of chasing more performance and cutting corners on safety, they’d start building smarter — stronger impact zones, better reserve access, improved visibility, or even harness tech that detects a cascade and auto-deploys a reserve below a certain altitude.
It would also remove the incentive for pilots to move to low-drag harnesses that compromise protection. Everyone would be flying the same high-safety platform, so no one gains by risking more.
The committee could also decide to choose the safest or most balanced harness, not necessarily the most efficient one. That gives room for innovation focused on protection and usability — things that actually save lives — instead of who can make the least draggy one.
And since everyone’s on the same setup, we’d finally get clean, symmetrical safety data — where injuries happen, how fast reserves deploy, what protection zones work best. That feedback would directly improve the next generation.