fairness

This one seems obvious. Fabien mentioned using more restricted sportive airspace on too large unlandable places.

My Suggestion: just Mark landable areas and have waypoints only for windsocks (really in place).

Why:
1) A landable place ist not always and ever landable. WHO guarantees, that a landable, ist safe?
2) I am not sure if a landable waypoint File is really a contribution to safety. In my experience it is safer to assess landing Options visually than to calculate reachable outlanding options from waypoint files. The latter allows the Pilot to Push the Limit more effecively, which does nit result in a safety gain.

Hello Robert

Good point!!

I suggest also, that the tasksetter published standard tasks in different weather situations where bomb-out fields are marked but also other potential dangers like powerlines, turbulent zones, etc.

Hey,
And this is what is already happening. MD usually talks about the available landings, difficult parts along the race, etc, etc...
When you are flying for the 1st time in a place, it is almost impossible to remember all the suitable landing fileds, no landing zones, power lines...
And during a briefing, most of the pilots are on their instruments, not paying much attention. After the briefing, never enough time to study properly the map if you have to take off in the 1st ones...

I think all landing fields, dangerous areas, etc... should be in the instruments (airpace, waypoints).

- NO LANDING zones definition : a zone not providing any suitable landing fields and not allowing a safe crossing (forest, valley, urban areas, airports, etc…) Every area should be treated case by case.
- Suitable landing definition : a flat field with no obstacles in entry that can allow a safe landing without wind (based on high performance gliders) Sailplane database ?
- Recommended landing fields : Suitable fields providing an easy access for retrieve, authorization from the farmer, windsocks, etc…

I believe it would be far better to mandate minimum frontal areas for competition harnesses (at each weight range/level), with the additional volume taken up with protection.

An "F1" style system whereby harness minima (protection levels and frontal areas for weight ranges) are set by a central technical safety committee (as part of CIVL, presumably?) would be a much better way of evening out performance, and also combats the issue of a race to reduce protection levels as they also have a tendency to reduce frontal drag area, and so risk homeostasis and natural competitive instinct combine to push designs ever more towards performance at the cost of lower safety.

This would allow for greater protection across all harnesses, and increasing protection volume with increase in weight, where total energy/momentum is also higher in the event of an incident.

I appreciate that this would make competition harness design slightly more complex, but in my opinion this type of aproach is necessary to avoid the trap of performance gains driving ever lower safety in design, something which has been seen in many other sports prior, and to which this solution is by far the most commonly successful approach.

It allows for innovation, but within a set of criteria guaranteeing better protection (and in this instance neatly also solving the performance vs weight issue that causes excessive ballast issues for smaller pilots).

If we choose equalizers, please consider harness size in the equations.
At least for the same "cigar" shaped harnesses, based on cross section / diameter.
Enzo M size I believe is flown with M to XL size harnesses, maybe even some S pilots ballast up to 110-115 kg.
It's unfair to have the same equalizer size when our harnesses are vastly different in cross-section/drag.

I already commented my idea under Bruce's post - i think instead of putting the foam around our lines it would be smarter to develop smart harness designs that allow adding protection and drag for bigger pilots. Here the same comment:

I’d like to return to a solution we had in the past — offering different harness sizes for pilots. There’s already a strong correlation between body weight and harness size, but we could take this further by developing harnesses that provide additional protection for heavier pilots.
Simply put: the heavier I am, the more protection I need installed under my seat plate. This approach would not only help balance the aerodynamic advantages of larger wings but also increase safety for heavier pilots, who experience higher impact forces due to greater energy in the system.
In the past, we had different harness sizes for bigger pilots, so this topic wasn’t much of an issue. However, since modern “submarine” harnesses have become similarly efficient across sizes, it has turned into a real concern.
From my point of view, the solution is straightforward: a smart harness design that allows adjustable protection — and possibly drag — depending on the pilot’s weight.

I totally agree with your point Jonas. The most stupid development is when we remove protector material from our harness to make less aero drag, and then add equalizer foams for more aero drag!

Why not just accept the bigger harness as part of the equalizer? Of course this needs some practical calculation, might only work for "cigar-shaped" harnesses, but at least it'd be better than what we have today.

Luc,

You think the "size equalizers" should be accompanied by rules limiting ballast, or you think that no pilot would want to fly a larger glider with a bigger size equalizer, so leave it to the "market" and it will avoid excess ballast without need of additional rules ?

And some female pilots do not have a good concept of CCC XXS gliders in terms of handling and behaviour, so they prefer to ballast up to XS or even S. Even a XXS glider implies +35 kg of equipment for very light pilots. Any ideas on this ?

Both the equalisers and the MRT of Bruce Goldsmith are attempting to address the same issue - and both great proposals.
The equalizers are based on wing size (Larger wings have advantages with aspect ratio and chord length) but don't address the larger form drag of larger pilot's upper torso, arms and head. So if you put a small guy on a large wing even with equalizers there will still be a pilot size advantage to the small pilot ballasted up? (Looking at the WPRS the highest placed pilots do seem to be small and ballasted up).
The MRT being weight based may solve this problem provided the weight is distributed proportionally - if the pilot is small with a big beer belly he would score better with equalizers.
I recommend using comp practice days to split the field in half with one half flying one of the systems and the other half without either system. Then the working group can build up some data about both systems and see which one is most accurately equalizing the field.

Rarely met anyone else flying an Enzo 3 XS in comps, so here’s my take after stepping down from the S (with ballast) following my crash in 2020.

Flying an XS Enzo 3 is far more demanding than flying the S. Those who claim that smaller wings turn more easily and offer an advantage should think again — depending on the day and the airmass, flying a smaller wing can be absolutely exhausting.

The benefits of larger wings are undeniable and well-proven and even calculable. It’s simply unfair to compare them in competitions. We all know that formulas and rules can’t capture the realities of gaggle flying and tactical decisions — and if they try, they’ll change the game anyway.

At the same time, introducing “equalizers” doesn’t really make sense either — after all, we’re constantly striving for progress with more efficient gliders and harnesses. As someone pointed earlier: Why build sleek, fast submarines with minimal drag, and then go and add equalizers? Ironically, that logic fits.

For now, unless we agree on some fundamental changes, introducing different weight classes seems the most reasonable way forward — no ballast, fair and square.

@Luc, understanding human nature - the desire always to find a competitive edge - is it possible or likely that at least one harness designer's response to size (weight) riser-equalizers will simply be to reduce frontal area of their next gen comp harness to counteract the "imposed" equalizer? If so, we will end up chasing our tales again...

I don't know how much further that aspect of harness geometry could be pushed, nor how willing pilots will be to sacrifice comfort for better L/D, but give someone wiggle room, and they'll take it. Further, you said the drag equalization only deals with 70% of the large-size advantage, Reynolds etc. will still make a significant difference.

Having spent years engineering & building custom race yachts, humans seem to like an arms race: As a naval architect d'un certain age, you will recall the bad old days of IOR hull distortions; then, when the first public VPPs appeared in IMS, we quickly worked out that they overestimated drag on appendages, so we ended up with the (profitable) obscenity of building nice fast hulls and sails, then adding extra drag (foam padding) to keel bulbs and even masts to slow things down - but by less than the formulas calculated. IRC kept its VPP secret, and the problem was much reduced, but not without some expensive mistakes...

We are nearly 30 years on, CFD modelling of harnesses & wings is accessible, affordable and pretty accurate - isn't it? I understand almost every PG mnfr uses the same package. If that's the case, why not use it to create a standardized handicapping system, that takes into account the harness, wing and AUW? Make this available to comp organizers to plug in individual pilot's kit combinations, then the system only needs to put out a speed correction factor: x seconds per hour flying, as used in handicap dinghy racing.

Yes, you will definitely end up with the big boys winning "line honours", as with 100' super maxis vs. a 4ksb (4 knot shit-box), but the real prize, as in amateur fleet offshore racing, is for winning on handicap. Handicap systems are never going to be perfect across all conditions, but it'd probably be fairer than what we have today; pilots could choose to ballast up/down a little within a wing's weight range to suit the day's conditions; it would prevent the trend towards less and less harness protection; pilots could choose the wings they like the feel of over whatever is fastest or simply something that is more within their competence level and not be tempted out of their comfort zone.

- Does it concerns all gliders classes? or just CCC?

- The polar comparison shows that the performance equalizer eliminates differences in vertical speed, at same horizontal speed.
Ok but this is in calm air, away from terrain.
I know that an heavier pilot is less thrown left and right than a light pilot (not quite sure how much this impacts performance though).
Would that properly compensate, when we float above a ridge, so that pilots have same speed if accelerated similarly?
Otherwise pilots would still want to be heavier

- Are there other downside that you are aware of, like noise or potential consequences during a cascade or hard landing, line usure, ... ?

- Remark: If there are competitions where this is not mandatory, pilots will keep their heavy gear & ballast.

- Next battle: ok but then how do we compensate for stable days and light thermals were light pilots go up but not heavy pilots? (i'm 125kg and have experienced this several times)

I have a really hard time understanding why so many people are dubious about this solution or against it. It's one clear step forward and it doesn't have any drawbacks. It's already been tested and can easily been tested in a few competitions in the future.

Please at least allow this to be tested.

I weigh a bit under 70kg and just stepped up on an M. The difference with the S size is pretty big and pilots who have never flown a smaller size than an M simply can't grasp how much of a difference it is.

Will some pilots still fly the M or the L because it's easier to fly in turbulent conditions ? Yes. (I'll keep hitting the gym ;) )
Will the different pilot and harness sizes be a factor in the glide ratio between pilot A and pilot B and still raise fairness issues ? Yes
Will we still need to talk about and find other solutions ? Yes
Will it still be worse for pilots who can only fly an XXS or an XS ? Yes

But again, I see no reason why not to test this.

I would also like to find a way to make the voice of smaller pilots and women count more than the bigger guys because i can see a very obvious bias considering how many pilots weigh more than 70kg and voting for this change would clearly penalize them.