material

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.

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.

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.

The definition of Competition Sport Class should encompass harnesses as well, not only wings. There is no definition of a competition harness at the moment, that should be a topic for a separate entry in "what went wrong" or "what do we want".

What is wrong with EN-C? Why is necessary to create a new class of gliders?

I share a statment provided earlier, which might be of help.

Concerns Regarding the Use of EN Certification for a Sports Class World Paragliding Championship / 15 December 2023
Dear CIVL Bureau (and Delegates),
We, the members of WG6 (the authors of the current EN926-2 standard which describes methods for classifying the flight safety characteristics of paragliders in terms of the demands on pilot flying skills), are writing to express our deep concerns regarding the recent announcement of the Sports Class World Championship based on EN-C certification.
While we acknowledge and appreciate the initiative to create a new competition category, we believe that using the EN classification as a criterion for glider selection raises considerable risks and challenges that require more careful consideration.
Our primary concerns are as follows:
1.Safety vs. Fairness: The EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, not for establishing fairness in competition. Implementing EN certification as a criterion for glider selection in a high-ranking competition like the proposed Sports Class World Championship may compromise the safety-oriented nature of EN certification.
2.Lessons from the Past: Reflecting on past experiences from 2011 to 2015 when EN-D was used as a competition class, gliders not originally intended for classic “EN-D pilots” were certified as such for competition pilots. We anticipate a similar scenario with the EN-C class, and we are concerned that this would impact a broader spectrum of pilots.
3.On-site Issue Resolution: During a competition, it is crucial that all questions related to equipment compliance can be resolved on-site. Unlike the EN classification, which relies mostly on flight tests, scrutineering at the Sports Class World Championship will require a process to verify any equipment-related queries on-the-spot. The current CCC has proved superior as a competition class in this regard, compared to relying on EN-D.
In light of these concerns, we strongly urge the CIVL Bureau to reconsider the decision, and follow the CCC class example to develop a more suitable set of rules for defining Sports Class competition equipment. (Measurable parameters might include aspect ratio constraints, and limits on the variable elements of speed systems, for example.)
We suggest that our concerns and recommendations be discussed during the upcoming CIVL Plenary meeting. To facilitate this discussion, we request that our letter be shared with the CIVL Bureau and Delegates in advance of the meeting to ensure a thoughtful and informed consideration of these critical issues.
We appreciate your attention to this urgent matter and look forward to collaborating for the ongoing success and safety of paragliding competitions and promoting a healthy leisure paragliding activity.
Sincerely, Angus Pinkerton / Convenor, TC136/WG6

a very valid argumentation, it`s appreciated

I think it's a very nice project, and it might be necessary.
EN C on its own would be a disaster for the reasons explained by many.

The trap is to think without anticipation, just by referring to the existing state. An example:
"EN C wings are nice. SRS is a nice competition. Let's do all competition with EN C. "
If you do so, EN C for competition becomes a design constraint and manufacturer will produce a specific EN C wing with an aspect ratio close to 8, only suitable for top level competitors. And the situation would be worse than with current CCC.

However Sport Class definition is not a simple project. It requires a good team of collaborating designers trying to anticipate the resulting winning design. It's not as simple as, for example, saying the wing should be EN + have a flat Aspect Ratio below 6.6
In this case, due to the rule constraint, the optimum design, I mean the model that will win, will have a very flat arc. Flat arc is not desirable because it comes with bad handling and high rotation after asymmetrical collapse. The model will win, pilots will have to buy it and it could be a disaster.
Each rules comes with some effect in the optimum design adapted to the rules and that's the reason why writing these rules needs some expertise.

Also, as of today, I'm not sure we can come up with a good class on its own if nothing is done about the way we score final glide. If we only rely on EN C to limit maximum speed, there would be a lot of problems and conflicts. Maximum speed is not well defined in EN C. It's only indirectly limited, with too many gray, unobjective criteria's. But it's a major criteria with today's competition scoring system.

As I wrote on the CIVL forum, I find the WG6 position alarming.
If the EN test criteria are designed primarily to ensure the safety of paragliders, yet still allow "dangerous" gliders to pass the EN-C tests, the obvious conclusion is that the standard itself is not defined correctly. The solution should be to update the standard’s definition, not to introduce a separate list of additional rules for specific competition categories.

In other words, the EN certification system falls apart when it's really put to the test. It turns out it doesn’t actually define a glider’s safety - which is supposed to be its main purpose.

Technical criteria always lead to loophole hunting and pushing definitions to their limits.
I was thinking of a different approach to defining the class:
Leave the definition of the “spirit of the class” to the pilots. Every wing model could be subject to an ongoing vote - any active Sport Class pilot can vote for or against it at any time. If a wing receives 67% votes against, it would be banned from the ranking from that point onward.

I find the idea of setting restrictions based on some simple numbers such as Aspect Ratio and in particular to a single length of speed limiter for the class, and even a broad "EN C" requirement to have several issues, many of which have already been mentioned on this topic, and in the Designers Report.

As stated the EN rating system was never designed with competition in mind. But aside from safety my larger concern is how much such regulations will limit and slow innovation. thereby delaying the much needed advancements by forcing regulation and limits based on simple numbers fails to address the source of the problem. Perhaps dare I say it is the simple or easy way to say "We did something".

My own personal opinion and it is just that, my opinion. Is that we should be targeting and limiting specific dangerous wing behaviors, not putting an arbitrary limit on something such as blanket speed limiter length that applies to all wings in the class. just because there is a correlation to dangerous wing behavior with some or even all current wing designs, same for aspect ratio. I know its easier to say don't exceed this limit and that limit, than it is to actually have each sports class competition wing design pass a specifically designed set of tests based on actual wing behavior.

Some people might say well doesn't the EN C rating do that, and in someways it does, but the testing needs to be taken even further and perhaps without some of the limitations that the EN or even DHV systems currently have.

Wing design has come a long way over the last 20 years, and both speed and safety has been greatly improved in that time. and I think most if not all of us would like to see that continue. we did not know then what we know now about wing design, and we don't know now what we will in 10 or 20 years. but we must not limit innovation, and the ability to have as many brilliant minds coming at the problem from every angle, and not restrained by blanket numbers that have been labeled as bad, when if you change something else in the design, then that number is fine, and the collapse and recovery behavior are within acceptable limits.

I believe the limits should be placed on behavior or in other words on the design as a whole, not just small parts of the design that prevent finding solutions to those limitations.

Some might say won't designers just find ways around the limits, and yes they will, they will find ways around the limiter length, or the aspect ratio, and they are not violating the rules to do so. If the rules are don't exceed this aspect ratio, don't exceed this limiter length, don't exceed this EN rating, etc... if those are the values being measured, then they have the freedom to sacrifice safety, for speed. Because none of the limits proposed are about how the wing actually behaves.

If we are to achieve improved safety, then the metric we use, must be Safety itself. Not things that may correlate to safer wings with designs as they are today, anything else is like tying our hands behind our backs while trying to get to the faster and yet safer designs of tomorrow and beyond.

So in summary I think the best solution, but not the easy solution is more to grade the each wing design as a whole, and to be used in the sports class it cannot score lower than a certain threshold for each test. similar to the EN and DHV systems but redesigned, and without the current limitations, which can and have limited some advancements in design from making it to production just because the way their testing rules are written.

A new testing system or standard is needed, something comprehensive and with both competition/ performance and above all safety in mind, not reward designs that are less safe for the sake of increasing performance.

A testing system that can adapt to allow new safe designs to come forward, not deny them just because the way their rules are written, If a new design can be proven to be safer, and perform as good or better, or be proven to be as safe and perform better than current approved designs, but the rules don't allow it, then the rules themselves are now the problem and not the solution, and therefore the rules must now change to allow for safe progress.