Ban using weights

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

the downwind zone acc. was fun and challenging. but you have to admit, it wasnt for all the pilots there. it was a little scary.

Also remember Mark that it wasn't just the downwind component which made our zone accuracy event a challenge. The high density altitude with the thin fast air here didn't help. Zone accuracy has been a challenge here in CO all summer long (you guys should try it when the temperature is in the 100 degree range) and I didn't pound in nearly as hard during the CPC Championships as I did earlier in the summer. But it was an event which I trained for, so it's didn't bug me at all. I can't wait to try the carving zone accuracy course the pros do. It looks super fun.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[superstu 0]

the bigger reason why pilots were having a challenging time with zone acc is because they didn't set up/ adjust their paterns accordingly. a lot of guys set up on the zone acc course the same way they set up on the dist course and they were blowing out the back. people should have been setting up 150-200 feet further back for the accuracy course

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[davelepka 4]

Quote

guys set up on the zone acc course the same way they set up on the dist course and they were blowing out the back

It's true that the set-up was the problem, but the safety would have been enhanced by running ZA into the wind. Anytime youare dealing with a lower ground speed component, you're going to be enhancing safety.

In an event like ZA, there is no benefit to running it downwind. Speed and distance both reap huge benefits from running downwind, and both have the added bonus that your touch down isn't regulated in any way.

ZA does not have that luxury, as your touch down is part of the score. This is an area where the rduced ground speed will make for a safer event. Into the wind you eliminate the risk of a guy trying to put it down at a high speed before blowing out the back. I know that stalls were not allowed, but just stopping flying your canopy, and trying to keep yourself in a zone was not.

All of this is under the guise that the CPC is designed for newer swoopers/competittors.

[ianmdrennan 2]

back to the issue of weights....

Well - I'm not so sure it's quite that simple. While ideally I'd have no issues with them being removed from the CPC it begins to raise other questions.

1) What do we do with the huge dude loading up a velo 90 at 2.4?
2) What do we do with the small woman (and yes there are some and next year will be MORE) loading a velo 90 at 1.5?
3) Where do the regulation limits stop? For example HMA isn't commonplace (yet) but is available on the JVX. RDS Systems are dime a dozen now (and will soon be a factory option) so why should that be regulated? Etc, etc.
4) Does this encourage people to downsize more to increase their loading? Yes a bigger wing loaded highly yields a better result than a small wing loaded highly (and even then trust me there are exceptions but that's outside of this scope for now) but a smaller wing loaded higher will outperform the low loaded bigger wing.

In theory I agree with what you are proposing regarding the CPC weights BUT it'd be grossly unfair to a number of people to do so on a simple weights/no weights basis.

It's a catch 22 and not as easy as a solution as people on either side would believe it to be. I am interested to see how the WSA handles this.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[marks 0]

ya it is a catch, poor brittney needs a vx 60 to load it at 2.0, and well that is a tough size canopy to be cometitive with. especially in distance.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

LOL. Are you serious?

If you want to compete on a World Level, Yes.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

LOL. Are you serious?

If you want to compete on a World Level, Yes.

Wasnt it Teagle who got tested on a random check at some recent world air games? (may be someone else, but I do remember a big name swooper reported as having a test in Skydiving)

Remster

[frost 1]

Quote

alot of peeps are hurting there swoops because of weights.

Please elaborate - i am interested to hear your opinion on that.

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

Classes, not a ban. The issue is current agenda for the World Swooping Association committee and there is live poll for pilots on the home page at http://www.canopypiloting.com

This seems a lot more reasonable than a ban. Question: (and forgive me if I'm just ignorant here) Wouldn't it make more sense to have classes based on max W/L than weights/no weights?

Let's say that I (as in, me specifically) wanted to start training hard and become a CPC swooper. I'm currently flying a Sabre2 120 loaded about 1.4, and that's WITH 16 lbs of weight (I'm a pretty small guy). I don't wear weight to enhance the performance of my canopy, I wear it for RW and always have. So if I had to drop the weight to train for swooping, I would have to make every jump EITHER RW or swooping. Furthermore, if I decided to go strait swooping, I'd have to drop to a 107 to get the same W/L. We know smaller canopies are more challenging to fly, so this is actually more dangerous than me wearing the weight on a 120. Where's the advantage??? So why not have classes like 1.5 or less, 1.5 to 2.0 and 2.0 and up, or something similar, and have each competitor declare their canopy size and stand on a scale with all their gear and weight at the beginning of the meet?

Just a thought.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

LOL. Are you serious?

If you want to compete on a World Level, Yes.

Wasnt it Teagle who got tested on a random check at some recent world air games? (may be someone else, but I do remember a big name swooper reported as having a test in Skydiving)

Yes. Jonathan Tagle was randomly selected. If we really want to be considered as an Olimpic or world class sport, we've GOT to bring attention to this.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes. Jonathan Tagle was randomly selected. If we really want to be considered as an Olimpic or world class sport, we've GOT to bring attention to this.

Why? If recreational drugs have no bearing on performance, and I'm trying to imagine what beyond caffeine may matter, then it's merely marketing the sport.

I think championship snowboarders should be able to smoke pot if they want, too. Sure I thought to myself, this is a fake X Games sport for dopers, but should a competitive sport really be altered merely for viewer interest and approval?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why? If recreational drugs have no bearing on performance, and I'm trying to imagine what beyond caffeine may matter, then it's merely marketing the sport.

Image.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

which lead to the followup question: "should a competitive sport really be altered merely for viewer interest and approval?"

Triathlon has been damaged by it. The drafting legal version pushed for the olympics and ITU is TV friendly, but lousy for competition. It allows running specialists to hide at the back of the peleton and relax. It also minimizes the gains one can get during the swim, making it counterproductive to earn a 30 second lead.

Banning drug use doesn't hurt the competitive aspects, but it doesn't seem to gain anything either. It's more about growing the spectator base and vendor sponsorships. If it doesn't achieve the goal, not worth it. And even if it does, may only be worth it for the top X%.

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

alot of peeps are hurting there swoops because of weights.

Please elaborate - i am interested to hear your opinion on that.

alot of people, mostly younger jumpers that are now getting into swooping dont even know how to fly the canopy. they got an idea and get lucky with a killer swoop ever now and then and think that adding weights will make that lucky swoop better. well it will, but getting lucky "consistantly" takes skill and practice and hard work and focus, if you only get lucky every now and then, that would mean you still need to learn more about the parachute.

granted, getting lucky and finding that spot is how one learns. you take what you did and try to re create it. this is also why you should only change one thing at a time. so you can see what works and what doesnt. coaches can help also, by trying to explain where it is better to be, or what you should change next. adding weights comes when you get to a top notch pilot. then add weights to gain more performance.

and adding weights wont gain you performance if you cant "consistantly" be in that spot.

[frost 1]

Quote

Quote

Yes. Jonathan Tagle was randomly selected. If we really want to be considered as an Olimpic or world class sport, we've GOT to bring attention to this.

Why? If recreational drugs have no bearing on performance, and I'm trying to imagine what beyond caffeine may matter, then it's merely marketing the sport.

I think championship snowboarders should be able to smoke pot if they want, too. Sure I thought to myself, this is a fake X Games sport for dopers, but should a competitive sport really be altered merely for viewer interest and approval?

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/hbillenr/HR0002.htm

Edited to add: Recreational drugs DO have an effect on performance, negative or positive is open to debate.

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[frost 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

alot of peeps are hurting there swoops because of weights.

Please elaborate - i am interested to hear your opinion on that.

alot of people, mostly younger jumpers that are now getting into swooping dont even know how to fly the canopy. they got an idea and get lucky with a killer swoop ever now and then and think that adding weights will make that lucky swoop better. well it will, but getting lucky "consistantly" takes skill and practice and hard work and focus, if you only get lucky every now and then, that would mean you still need to learn more about the parachute.

granted, getting lucky and finding that spot is how one learns. you take what you did and try to re create it. this is also why you should only change one thing at a time. so you can see what works and what doesnt. coaches can help also, by trying to explain where it is better to be, or what you should change next. adding weights comes when you get to a top notch pilot. then add weights to gain more performance.

and adding weights wont gain you performance if you cant "consistantly" be in that spot.

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you in most of the points, especially that there is no replacement for practice. No additional weights or type of canopy will help you gain the skill that you can get by making more jumps and practicing.

But i dont think that they are nessesarily hurting their swoops... may be just limiting their learning of the canopy and its capabilities?

SoFPiDaRF - School of Fast Progress in Downsizing and Radical Flying. Because nobody knows your skills better than you.

[marks 0]

Quote

But i dont think that they are nessesarily hurting their swoops... may be just limiting their learning of the canopy and its capabilities?

true, but you have to learn how to get performance before you try to get more of it.

[CanopyPiloting 0]

Good topics! I'm glad to see you guys talking about WSA agenda. You guys should consider starting a similar topic on the forums at canopypiloting.com

The WSA is developing some exciting new stuff and it will effect the PST, CPC, USPA Canopy Piloting Nationals and more. The committe will not make any final decisions until Jan 2006. You can sign up for the WSA newsletter and cast your vote at www.canopypiloting.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/hbillenr/HR0002.htm

Edited to add: Recreational drugs DO have an effect on performance, negative or positive is open to debate.

What should I be seeing here? That a representative of Utah, where even Mt Dew is considered bad, thinks that olympic athletes should be punished if found to have used recreational drugs? Where's the clause for sex the night before competition?

1998 sounds like it lines up with the snowboarder who won gold, was briefly stripped, then reinstated when it was found that pot wasn't on the banned substance list.

[Beverly 1]

I think there are 2 threads in one.

The first on weights is a relevant concern.
There are issues with the girls weighting up to compete with the boys.
They are weighting up to be competitive.

Solution :
Separate classes :
Female category
W/L Categories.

I wear weights if I am team jumping and not when I am coaching a small girl, so I have to be aware of my canopy's performance with weights and without.
When I start competing, I am not sure what the choice would be.
If girls and smaller guys are strapping the equivalent of a small child to them, then I think it is a problem.

The second issue : Drugs and drug testing.
Any international sport competition has to comply with the drug administration. Understanding that dope and Coke are both Illegal!
I have seen people burying themselves in the ground while being high - Your choice.
Our team even stopped taking flu pills 6 weeks before world meet - Let alone taking any recreational pharmaceuticals.

I think true friendship is under-rated

Twitter: @Dreamskygirlsa

[davelepka 4]

Quote

1) What do we do with the huge dude loading up a velo 90 at 2.4?

Did you just call me huge?????????

I'll tell you what you do with that guy, you pay for his jumps, take himout to dinner, and pick up his dry cleaning. It'll be ready tomorrow after five.

[davelepka 4]

OK seriously, as a generlly reply to the weight issue:

We do need different classes. You can't have the same series be for entry level swoopers as well as next seasons PST guys. There's just too much ground covered there.

As far as the little people go, I guess weights would be OK, up to, say 1.5. Beyond that, just fly what you brung.

And for the ladies, you can't make a blanket exception for them. Not all of the ladies are 105 lbs. and the ones who register a bit higher on the scale would end up with an unfair advantage.

It's really a complicated situation, which is why I'm glad someone else is making the tough desicions, 24/7.

Thats 24 hours a week, 7 months a year......

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Image

That can go both ways.

When Canadian snowboarder Ross Rebagliati tested positive for Marijuana after winning the olympic gold in 1998, the first move was to pull his medal.

What gives the story an odd turn is that he quickly became a Canadian national hero. His personal worth as a corporate sponsor actually went up, and he raked in millions being spokesman for the Roots clothing outfit. After a TON of publicity, he ended up getting his medal back. I'm not entirely sure why he got it back, but I think it came down to the fact that marijana isn't a performance enhancing drug (if anything, it's a performance weakening one....) and there wasn't any accusation that he was under the influence while competing.

Now there's some big differences here. 1, Skydiving has a historical problem with drugs. 2, The US certainly isn't Canada, and marijuana use can be more troublesome here. I really can't see the media and population standing up for a drug user.

It is an interesting debate. I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy that sets the precadent.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Treejumps 0]

This is a tough call because it all comes down to personal abilities. Unfortunatly, new swoopers are notoriously bad at knowing what their personal abilities are. This is why we have seen the battle over wingloading regulations. Its the same argument, but instead of getting smaller canopies without being able to fly what they already have, now its just cheaper to strap on weights. Does everyone recall the novice (under 200 jumps) who was "training" at the Perris swoop park with 20# of lead on a sub 100 xBrace who hooked it in trying to hit a set of 5' gates?

If the CPC is trying to be the entry level swoop comp, then weights should just be banned. In the Pro Tour its no holds barred, and it should remain that way.

When I qualified Pro a couple years ago it was just speed, distance, and accuracy. Within 2 years it was all about freestyle. With the seemingly endless changes to rules, and a new circuit, club, or association to join every few months, I lost interest. Weights are just one more aspect of an already highly challenging endeavor that 90% of most swoopers can't actually take advantage of.

Crack, on the other hand is something that every swooper can benefit from. With nearly a dozen different swoop related web sites (CPC, PST, WSA, JS.com, SHockwaveprod,etc, etc,) your going to need to stay awake a long time to read all of that.

Anyone ever notice that swoop comps never happen at 4:20? A coincidence? I think not.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

If the CPC is trying to be the entry level swoop comp, then weights should just be banned.

Absolutely not. It is unfair to expect 2 good pilots, one without weights loading at 1.8 and another loading at 2.2 without weights on the same canopy to compete as equals.

I know there was some talk about a max loading for a category (someone even mentioned that in this thread). That'd be a far better way to go IMO. I can't see more than 2 categories being viable though (and even that is stretching it) - we just don't have enough people in competitions at this stage.

Simply stripping out weights is definitely not the answer.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team