3.1) Classifications
For the first year we need some sort of base line...
Ace - top 10 in the latest 2-year ranking
Intermediate - those that don't fall in the above or below rankings
Newbie - has never been on the Cdn NTSS rankings (has never been in a sanctioned event)
We want to encourage pilots of similar skill to compete together in the various XCXC divisions rather than what type of glider they choose to fly.
A three tiered system for Series Divisions - pilots will be placed into a division at the beginning of the calendar year based on their previous year's XCXC results. Each pilot can only be in one class and that is the highest class they fit into. You only need to fit any one of the criteria to fit into a class
Ace Class
- top 10 in the previous 3 years Cdn NTSS rankings
- winners of any Class 'A' or 'B' XCXC event from the previous year
Intermediate Class
- winners of any 'Class C' XCXC event from the previous year
- top 10 in the previous 10 years of Cdn NTSS rankings (but not in top 10 in the past 3 years)
- have been flying for the more than 5 years
Newbie Class
- never been in the XCXC rankings before
- have been flying for less than 5 years
* separate classes for HG & PG of course
Classes
OK all I want to know is how this is all going to bring in new people. If people already are in the top 10 or 20 of the Canadian NTSS they either are or have been PBs (paragliding bums). What you want are the non-PBs. There are lots of pilots out there who've never entered anything, but certainly have the skills to show up some of the ranked pilots.
Frankly, we have class A
Frankly, we have class A there because we'd like them to show as mentors and models. We don't think the tasks, likely field validity, and NTSS points for winning will do much to attract these people. The real focus is B's and C's. The group you describe "who've never entered anything" are exactly who we're aimed at. They aren't as interested, at least initially in race tasks, validity and NTSS points. What we hope they'll be interested in is local comps that are fun, easy to understand, and competitive.
A couple of things
A couple of things here.
First of all I'm assuming these classes are to keep pilots of similar skill levels competing against each other and that the concept is to have separate competitions for each of the classes.
Class A seems pretty restrictive and would be a small group and how many of those would actually be able to get together at any one time assuming they are spread out across the country. Changing this to top 20 might be better.
There doesn't seem to be a place for pilots that haven't been in the top 10 but have been in the rankings. A is top 10 last 3 years, B is top 10 last 10 years and C is never ranked. What about all those pilots that have been in the rankings for years but never made the top 10?
I'm assuming that pilot validity would still be applied to the NTSS points earned for these meets so the winner of a Class A division meet would earn more NTSS points than the winner of a Class C division meet.
The Class A, B & C designations will be confusing considering we already have Class A through C meets as part of the points system. The names of these divisions will need to change.
It may be a little optimistic to think that there will be enough pilots to populate these three divisions but if it encourages more participation maybe there will be.
I've renamed the Classes -
I've renamed the Classes - I'm open to other terms too. I don't want the top class to sound to elite or snobby (or the lower classes to feel "second-class")
"Restricting Ace Class" - I want to do this. I want the ranked pilots that aren't on the World Team to have a venue that they can win at. As Randy said, we aren't designing this series around that class anyways so we don't really care what they do (other than coming out and mentoring the others)...we want more in the mid class.
"a place for ranked, non-top ten pilots" - the criteria saying "have been flying for more than 5 years" in the mid-class should cover those pilots.
"NTSS integration"? I say leave all three classes be equal for NTSS points. I doubt the numbers will be big enough or of course field validity be big enough to make a difference...we just want a way to get more names on the NTSS ranking, but don't really care how far down they are. We just want to motivate those maybe try racing meets to help move them up the rankings.
You're right, these classes
You're right, these classes need clarification and re-naming. Privately we've been going with Newbies, Weekend Warriors and Elites. We don't care much about the elites from the series point of view, except in that the series is intended to nurture those who like to be one some day.
The C's or Newbies are one real focus. We don't care what they are flying. We just want to give them a chance to learn and compete together.
The middle grouping is intended to capture the "pilots that have been in the rankings for years but never made the top 10". These are the core who could compete for fun, and pay the freight at any meet, including most of the big comps.
We don't think the wing specification (i.e, 1-2's and below) does a good enough job of differentiating. We haven't found any other method to describe these classes but are open. Can't have too many because of the numbers issue.
I think this is headed in
I think this is headed in the right direction. Only reservation I have is the potential size of that middle group, but we can wait to see if that causes problems.
I wonder if we don't need 3
I wonder if we don't need 3 classes...
1. Newbies - never competed before, no matter what wing. Maybe you get 3 meets in this class, then you're bumped out or you can stay in this class for 1 year only, no matter how many meets.
2. Sports - you've done it and you want to get betterat it. I like the 1-2 being top wing here on PG side, but there would likley be pressure for 2's in there too. I don't think that's unfair, and hate to see someone excluded or forced to compete against comp wings because they went up that one group.
3. Open - it would still be great to get some top pilots out.
are you saying you DO or
are you saying you DO or DON'T want three classes?
I'd still like to keep it experience based rather than glider based.
Newbies - I'd like it that if you never do well in an event (never win) you can stay in this class (C) until you do get better. If you get thrown up to B without never succeeding in C, you may get discouraged.
Sports - I'd like it too if a 1-2 pilot won....it'd even look better if they were beating 2s, 2-3s or even 3s! It's show that it's NOT the glider but the pilot.
BUT - I see your point. What if you are a 1-2 pilot that won a B event but will never aspire to wanting to win in the A Class...but you're thrown up there and may stay there for a few years. And you leave your Class B buddies behind.
What if we make it that if you win 3 Class B events in a season you are bumped up. I'd just like to have away of encouraging winners to try against the next class....maybe that will prompt them to race, or tell them they may be able handle a hotter wing...
Your thoughts?
I do like the 3 classes.
I do like the 3 classes. Keeping Newbies in class C till they win is fine. We're agreed that class changes happen at the beginning of a season right - it is not "win and you're moved". No problem pushing B's up as well, especially given your suggestion of 3 wins - that kind of consistency should be rewarded/challenged.
Austrailia's Pilot Grading system
8.1 Pilot Grading
The pilot grading scheme had been introduced to encourage pilots new to competition, however this system
is being replaced by glider sub classes as a means of encouraging competition between pilots of different
skill levels.
8.1.1 A grade pilot HG
8.1.2 B grade pilot HG
8.1.3 C grade pilot HG