fairness

Landable points in Alpine terains

Organiser

By Robert Kulhanek on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 22:21

Discipline

Hang Gliding

What do we want ?

In competition in alpine terrains (cat.1. mandatory, cat2. recommended) Way-points of landable points.
*) Some modern xc. apps and instruments can show if we can reach it during flight.
*) Plot it on "taskboard map" sometimes the sentence "there is not landable or, there you can land are lost or forgotten"

How do we achieve that ?

Ideally collect local club landing zones (windsock, etc..) and locals knowledge of proper field.

Issue category :

task setting

Safety

fairness

Read more about Landable points in Alpine terains
4 comments
Log in or register to post comments

Comments

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 00:03

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

By Martin Grössinger on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 14:17

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.

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 15:07

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.

By Fabien Zado on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 08:00

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…

Size Equalizers

Designer

By Luc Armant on Mon, 20 Oct 2025 - 12:17

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

Tackle the ballast issue from its source.

How do we achieve that ?

Use Sizer Equalizer devices. It's already implemented, we need to try and use it. A presentation here below:

Issue category :

Link

Comments

By DomJones on Mon, 20 Oct 2025 - 13:23

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).

Designer

By Luc Armant on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 09:33

On the paper, why not but, DomJones, you need to come up with a practical solution adapted to our sport. If you disqualify a practical solution (Size Equalizer) solving one issue (ballast) by coming up with a theoritical solution to solve two issues but that is not practical, you end up solving zero issue.
This subject has been turned in many ways, I don't see any practical solution to what you suggest.

However, Harness protection is another subject than the ballast issue and you can much more easily sort each issue separately in a practical manner. Shock absorption criteria is far better criteria than area or volume criteria. There are a lot of voluminous protection on the market that are not very effective, if effective at all. Big is not enough for a protection.

By Mark Simpson on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 17:46

Dom. I agree that harnesses have got too slim at the expense of protection. For race to goal this is silly as we are not racing conditions as much as we are racing each other and if we are all on the same gear, that gear might as well provide more protection. However I agree with Luc that by trying to solve 2 issues with one stone this suggestion is impractical. Your suggestion would require manufactures to make 10, 15, 20? different harness sizes. I am tall (often large harness) but 70kg body weight. Have friends that are same height and 60kg. Many shorter than me weigh 85kg or more. So each size of harness S, M, L would also need 4-5-6 different envelopes. Have you flown with the equalizers? What is your concern with them. I have not flown with them, but the concept makes sense to me as they could be adjusted to much smaller increments. We simply need a comp organizer willing to try them.

CIVL Delegate

By zsoltero on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 20:32

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.

By Jonas Prüssing on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 22:28

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.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 12:59

This topic was still very true before submarine harnesses arrived.
Pilots were also heavily ballasted at that time. Personally, in 2010 and 2011 I was wing in Large sizes at 120kg with plenty of ballast. Since then, I broke some bones and I'm flying a Medium.
Offering different harness size for pilots does not sort the issue. I don't think you can find a way to deliver a fair system with a well known and calibrated drag difference between sizes. Also put in perspective that the equipements are built by different manufacturers.

By Jonas Prüssing on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 15:23

The idea isn’t to have different harness sizes, but rather to define a clear category of competition harnesses—which would include an integrated function to add drag while adding protection.

I’m not a harness developer, but I can share some quickly thought-through concepts to illustrate how this could be realized. There are also several ways to calculate harness drag; fluid simulations, for example, have already been used and seem quite accurate from my point of view.

The goal isn’t to find the perfect solution right from the start, but to gradually develop one that makes the sport both fairer and safer. Achieving both is possible—if we’re open to solutions beyond simply putting pool noodles in our lines.

CIVL Delegate

By zsoltero on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 22:31

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.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:10

You can turn it the way you want, I find that dissociating equipement optimisation and drag device for size equity is the only way to have a practical solution.
You can ask for more protection in harnesses, and even more protection for heavier pilot. That's one thing.
And you can ask for more fairness between sizes. That's another thing.

Using your logic, Zsolt, one could say: Why having such skinny lines when we add some drag afterwards ? Let's put the drag into bigger and safer line ! It does not work. But it's not unfortunate if you just think: OK, let's make lines thicker (if we think it's a safety improvement) and let's also add equalizer drag for size equity.

Glider aspect ratio could also comes to the discussion.
Or poorer performance of a particular, but safer glider model.

Let's dissociate or we end up doing nothing for either case.

CIVL Delegate

By zsoltero on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:13

Luc, all I'm asking is to take into account the harness drag. So we are not equalizing only for 95kg wing size, but also Submarine S size.

For those flying the Submarine M or L, give shorter equalizers by a few cms. That's all I'm asking.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:49

I did not understood your point then, sorry.
None is able to measure harness drag properly.
Expect the harness drag difference between sizes to be very small anyway.
On the theoritical calculation for the current proposal, I'm taking into account an estimated bigger harness + arms + head drag for the biggest sizes.

CIVL Delegate

By zsoltero on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:54

Luc, by my quick calculations, one harness size step is about as much drag as one glider size step.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:10

Glider aspect ratio could also comes to the discussion.
Or poorer performance of a particular, but safer glider model.

Let's dissociate, please !

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:10

Glider aspect ratio could also comes to the discussion.
Or poorer performance of a particular, but safer glider model.

Let's dissociate, please !

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 06:16

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 ?

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:12

The reality is all pilots are hating to carry and to fly with some much ballast. Removing the awards for ballast is good enough. Don't need more !

By christiaandurrant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 11:40

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.

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:09

The size equalizers in some way take into account some of the disadvantages of being a big pilot, because in reality they are not "equalizers", but merely devices to "reduce" the performance advantage of bigger sizes in glides (see Luc´s graphs and calculations)

As for small guys ballasting up to fly large gliders, with the equalizers we could re-introduce ballast limits rules (equipment + ballast)

The only problem I see now is for really light pilots, that they do not mostly see XXS and XS CCC gliders as an attractive option, even with the use of equalizers. But it would be better if those pilots came to this discussion, and explained themselves first-hand.

By Reza on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 00:27

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.

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 00:47

HI Reza,

Thanks for your input !! We really need the voices of the most affected by the decisions

I have a different vision on performance. We are not racing or are not supossed to race in the most performant machines. In fact CCC puts limits on performance, as any other racing sport. The idea is to race with equivalent machines, because the competition is between pilots, not between manufacturers (as opossed in the old days of open class when good prototypes gave an edge). So I do not see a problem with that. Yes I see a problem with what you mention about XS gliders being far more demanding. That is a real problem.

As for weight categories, there is a proposal concerning that, so we should probably write there, but let me tell you just one thing. It will be a nightmare for most small countries and pilots from those countries. In some countries lightweight CCC pilots might compete against themselves, or only a couple of other pilots. Will they want to not compete for the national overall title ? How will countries select pilots for FAI-1 events with different weight categories in the middle ? Think about other categories like Sport, also divided by weight ? And so on ... The amount of side problems weight categories will bring to small NACs and their pilots is difficult to describe in a few paragraphs.

And weight categories will not solve your problems with the XS glider ...

Designer

By Luc Armant on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 13:18

As for weight classes, we can expect that drag equalizers will encourage better small sizes glider design.
There is no impossibility to make good and safe small sizes.
When pilots will fly small sizes and have equal chances of doing great results, then the manufacturers will be very interested in designing good wings for them.

By Frazzled on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 03:37

@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.

By thibaultrohmer on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 00:39

- 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)

Designer

By Luc Armant on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 04:43

@Thibault:
- This is for any sort of wing, in order to compensate for the average physical size scale law. This is a law of nature, nothting to do with EN, CCC or whatever. The same sort of law that makes a drop of water twice bigger becomes 8x heavier but drag only 4x more.
- Any compensation will be better than no compensation. The compensation is aimed to be as fair as possible. And it could easily be update season after season.
- We have tested it. No noise, no consequences on cascade or hard landing, line usure.
- If there are competition where this is not mandatory, pilots are choosing the wing size for at least a season and for the most important competition, the one that will apply compensation.
- The compensation would be for average conditions of a competition.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 05:03

@Frazzled
XC paraglider competition has something very specific that the sailing race don't have: the gaggle influence on performance. It's very similar to what we can see on bicycles race. This is mainly due to "team" work in the thermal and glide lines. Scoring handicap system cannot easily takes this aspect into account, while it has a very large effect on the performance. I guess that the gaggle effect on absolute performance is about 25% of the total performance while the size is about 1% (every 10kg).
It means that if you are a small size and manage to keep your position in the middle of the group thanks to the group dynamic, the handicap scoring system will give you a very unfair advantage in the final result.

Regarding modeling performance, I can tell you that we are not in boat design area here ! A lot of harness manufacturers are working in 2D panels. They don't really have a 3D model. Also organizers don't have the power of checking how any particular model complies with the reference model for handicap.
And finally, we don't have accurate CFD modeling of these very flexible and wrinkly things that are PG harnesses.

By Frazzled on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 15:52

Thanks for the clear answer, which I'll grudgingly accept ; ) !

It depends on this: "... and manage to keep your position in the middle of the group ...", which is quite hard to do, even as an ML Photon pilot with an old GGR3 harness up against an XL with a Sub/GGR5 : ( I know, time for an update!)

But I recognise (and use) the point, it is possible to pimp off the (heavier/faster) pilots in front and catch up at the start of each climb, by being able to follow a liftier line and join the next thermal without having to hunt for it - but isn't that compensated for already to some degree with LOPs?

Anyway, the main point of my original question was to ask if the L/D modelling on wings and harnesses was "good enough" (not expecting perfection) to generate a look up table that could combine some simple numerical data to produce a TCF for each pilot / load condition.

This could be compiled empirically / retrospectively of course over a couple of seasons, as with handicap dinghy TCFs, at no extra equipment cost, just careful flight data analysis. But as you say, you would then have to counter compensate for the gaggle effect benefit to the smaller wings...

By Damien Pattou on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 20:43

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.

By Frazzled on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 15:05

Hi Damien,
Please don't think my (and other pilot's ) replies to Luc's and all the other ideas posted in GaggleReport are a rejection of those ideas.

For the first time, this feels like a really well-structured, well-informed & focussed discussion on improving fairness and safety for our comp scene - without those arguments getting lost in a sea of other messages like PGF.
As a public "debate*, it serves two purposes.
1) it might just spark some new thinking, who knows...?
2) it really helps those of us who aren't in the industry, expert wing designers or PWC podium pilots to understand properly the pros and cons of each idea - and importantly will make it more likely that the majority of engaged pilots will support those ideas if/when implemented.

I realise that means lots of Q&A for the dozen or so rare people in Luc's position - and a lot of extra effort from them in replying. I for one am hugely grateful for the time and care they're taking, so apologies if my line of questioning seemed like it was shooting down the idea - it was much more to explore the possible response to it.

The riser-noodle / equalizer system seems fantastically simple, quick, cheap and check-able to implement. If it deals with even only 50% of the performance disparity, between XS & XL, then it *has* to be tried. What I'd hate to see happen in response is something that increases the disparity again, hence the question ...

By Tim Rochas on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 17:40

I'm convince that the equalizer can be a great solution for few problems we are facing and we want to solve since ever !
Like performance difference in between sizes that will then impact the choice of the pilot in between ballast up to the bigger glider or not so it will have a positive effect also on the over ballasting issue ....
We need to test this in real conditions and don't wait years for it !

By Markos Siotos on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 22:14

Now. I am usually very accommodating to new ideas, and I would love to be positive about this but, sorry.

I will not participate in a competition that requires me to castrate the performance of my glider with drag devices.

I am not doing it to keep any "advantage" due to my size. Give me handicaps, give me MRT's, give me anything than having to fly on a competition with a degraded glider from what I am using in my every day XC flights. For one, I believe it will be dangerous. Where my brain has hard-coded a particular performance - in order to cross over a pass, to push and escape from a bad place, or whatever - I will find myself in a comp, with all its extra mental complications, to have to deal with something that suddenly is not 'my glider' but 'less than my glider' . Thank you but, nop. I believe there are more people that would simply drop out of racing than ones that would accept this as a solution. And I propose a vote on that...

PWCA Board

CIVL Delegate

By eduardosanchezgranel on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 22:48

Hi Markos,

It seems you are overestimating the size advantage quite a lot. It is an advantage that can be noticed in competition, but I seriously doubt you would distinguish your performance with or without drag devices in a valley crossing, in the speed to escape from a bad place, or whatever. It will not affect your hard-coded performance. I assume it will have yes a psicological impact, in seeing the drag devices and thinking you could do much better without them. But if the difference were that big it would be impossible to compete at all nowadays and it is not like that.

And also remember that the drag devices do not even "equalize performance", they just greatly diminish the actual existing difference but L sized glider still keep a bit of advantage at full speed or near. The "equalization" seems to stay up to 50% bar

I think we will all get used to them pretty soon if they are adopted.

By Markos Siotos on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 00:22

Hello Eduard!

I was thinking about that the whole day today, playing scenarios in my mind and saying "perhaps it's just psychological". 'Being stuck somewhere and seeing the "noodles" and thinking it is "their fault" while is not... '

Truth is. Till we try we will not know. And truth also is "up to now everything is talk, and nobody knows what this thing is and what it will do to a glider".

I was thinking myself that perhaps the extra drag is so inconsequential in any particular case that does not matter, and its effect will manifest only accumulatively, in a 2 hour task (say)

But then, you read that the difference between a smaller glider and a larger is in the order of 10%, some people are saying even 20%, and then you wander.

"If they try to adjust for that, I will be feeling it - on every turn and every glide" Because 10% is Huge. 20% is two categories down.

Then you have Bruce that is saying that the "Size Equalizers" cannot mend this large of a disparity and only his MRT can, and is just becoming a mess. It would be nice if someone could put his finger on a number and say "guys we are speaking about a 2% (say) just to keep the 95 Kg guys and girls flying with the 105's (say). I mean. We are speaking without numbers, without test events...

Perhaps 2026 should be the year of testing all these concepts simultaneously, because in the end of the day we need "reality" to tell us what is working and what is not, not our preconceptions...

Subscribe to fairness