USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted [Archive]

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 14th 10, 04:03 PM

>
> Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> of all gliders up to the
> weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> provision that allows no ballast.
> For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> ballast allowed."
>
> Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> thanks
>
> Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

Mike the Strike

December 14th 10, 04:26 PM

On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > of all gliders up to the
> > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > provision that allows no ballast.
> > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > ballast allowed."
>
> > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > thanks
>
> > Andy
>
> This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> same thing.
>
> Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> kidding)
>
> The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> ballast rules.
>
> Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> John Cochrane

So the committee feels that motorgliders have no advantage over
conventional sailplanes when they have the same wing loading?

Would you line a ten-minute argument or the whole half-hour?

Mike

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 14th 10, 04:37 PM

>
> So the committee feels that motorgliders have no advantage over
> conventional sailplanes when they have the same wing loading?
>
> Would you line a ten-minute argument or the whole half-hour?
>
> Mike

Calm down now, that's not what we said. All we did is address a
wingloading advantage on no-ballast days. This is only about how to
apply no ballast rules. It's not a deep statement on the whole vexing
motorglider question.

John Cochrane

Andy[_1_]

December 14th 10, 04:44 PM

On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > of all gliders up to the
> > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > provision that allows no ballast.
> > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > ballast allowed."
>
> > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > thanks
>
> > Andy
>
> This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> same thing.
>
> Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> kidding)
>
> The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> ballast rules.
>
> Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the quick reply John. The "ballast to the same weight"
concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
with a combined Std and 15M contest. While most modern Std gliders
may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
and 15M wing areas.

Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
unballasted wing loading at contest entry. Each pilot could then
calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. It would only
take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
spreadsheet to get that data.

If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
class, the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
adjusted by the ratio of typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.

ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 9.2 (area in square metres) so
adjustment factor 1.14?

Andy

Kevin Christner

December 15th 10, 12:41 AM

On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > > of all gliders up to the
> > > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > > provision that allows no ballast.
> > > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > > ballast allowed."
>
> > > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > > thanks
>
> > > Andy
>
> > This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> > could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> > lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> > advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> > motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> > everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> > same thing.
>
> > Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> > we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> > else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> > wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> > computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> > in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> > advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> > (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> > kidding)
>
> > The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> > no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> > chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> > ballast rules.
>
> > Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> > day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> > pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> > it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> > that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> > Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> > say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> > conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> > safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> > I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> > John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
> concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
> with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
> may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
> similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
> and 15M wing areas.
>
> Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
> unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
> calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
> reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
> take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
> spreadsheet to get that data.
>
> If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
> class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
> adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.
>
> ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
> adjustment factor 1.14?
>
> Andy

Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be
at an advantage. Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as
well?

2C

[email protected]

December 15th 10, 03:03 AM

On Dec 14, 7:41*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > > > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > > > of all gliders up to the
> > > > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > > > provision that allows no ballast.
> > > > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > > > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > > > ballast allowed."
>
> > > > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > > > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > > > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > > > thanks
>
> > > > Andy
>
> > > This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> > > could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> > > lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> > > advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> > > motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> > > everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> > > same thing.
>
> > > Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> > > we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> > > else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> > > wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> > > computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> > > in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> > > advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> > > (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> > > kidding)
>
> > > The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> > > no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> > > chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> > > ballast rules.
>
> > > Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> > > day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> > > pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> > > it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> > > that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> > > Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> > > say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> > > conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> > > safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> > > I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> > > John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
> > concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
> > with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
> > may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
> > similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
> > and 15M wing areas.
>
> > Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
> > unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
> > calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
> > reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
> > take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
> > spreadsheet to get that data.
>
> > If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
> > class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
> > adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.
>
> > ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
> > adjustment factor 1.14?
>
> > Andy
>
> Conversely if you are flying a 15m ship in an 18m contest you could be
> at an advantage. *Should the 15m ships have an adjustment factor as
> well?
>
> 2C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or go to to the contemplated combined handicap class and don't worry
about it.
UH

Andy[_10_]

December 15th 10, 08:22 PM

On Dec 14, 8:44*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:03*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > > of all gliders up to the
> > > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > > provision that allows no ballast.
> > > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > > ballast allowed."
>
> > > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > > thanks
>
> > > Andy
>
> > This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> > could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> > lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> > advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> > motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> > everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> > same thing.
>
> > Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> > we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> > else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> > wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> > computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> > in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> > advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> > (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> > kidding)
>
> > The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> > no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> > chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> > ballast rules.
>
> > Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> > day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> > pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> > it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> > that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> > Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> > say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> > conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> > safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> > I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> > John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for the quick reply John. *The "ballast to the same weight"
> concept seems to be unfair to Std class gliders flying FAI class rules
> with a combined Std and 15M contest. *While most modern Std gliders
> may have similar wing area, and most modern 15m gliders may have
> similar wing areas, there is a very distinct difference between Std
> and 15M wing areas.
>
> Would it not be reasonable to have every pilot declare their
> unballasted wing loading at contest entry. *Each pilot could then
> calculate, before the contest started, what ballast was required to
> reach the loading of the highest wing loading entrant. *It would only
> take me a minute or two to fire up the laptop and open the W/B
> spreadsheet to get that data.
>
> If that's too complicated then, in the case of a combined Std and 15M
> class, *the Standard should be assigned a max takeoff weight that is
> adjusted by the ratio of *typical Std and typical 15m wing areas.
>
> ASW-28 wing area 10.5, ASG-29-15 *9.2 (area in square metres) so
> adjustment factor 1.14?
>
> Andy

How about allowing more ballast for older generation glass ships up
until their handicap under Sports Class rules is equalized? This would
turn handicapping on it's head - use ballast to equalize performance
rather than adjusting scores after the fact. Of course that would make
for one heavy Libelle.

I'm kidding.

This does show the challenge the RC faces in responding to the calls
for simple rules versus the calls for fairness. No water contests do
confer some advantage on heavy motorgliders with heavy pilots. The RC
proposal seems like a decent attempt at closing most of that gap. I'm
not sure that equalizing wing loading is an improvement since gliders
all have inherently different wing loading ranges by design. Plus
older gliders with really large wing areas could get pretty heavy -
which might undermine the original intent behind restricting takeoff
weight at certain airfields.

9B

Andy[_10_]

December 15th 10, 09:46 PM

I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
provision that was added for 2010. What happened?

Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
weights for setting handicaps?

9B

[email protected]

December 16th 10, 01:55 AM

On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
> I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> weights for setting handicaps?
>
> 9B

Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
UH

Tom Kelley

December 16th 10, 03:44 AM

On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
> On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > 9B
>
> Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> UH

The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
ft. DRY.
OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
lbs.
Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
lbs sq ft/18 meter). A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
sq ft. Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
girls might not be, BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.

December 16th 10, 06:16 AM

On Dec 15, 10:44*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > 9B
>
> > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > UH
>
> The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> ft. DRY.
> *OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> lbs.
> Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> lbs sq ft/18 meter). *A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> sq ft. *Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> girls might not be, *BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.

Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
Popcorn, anyone?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Andy[_10_]

December 16th 10, 06:26 AM

On Dec 15, 7:44*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > 9B
>
> > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > UH
>
> The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> ft. DRY.
> *OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> lbs.
> Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> lbs sq ft/18 meter). *A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> sq ft. *Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> girls might not be, *BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.

Hmmmm...not sure the intent of the rule is to have a bunch of ships
ballasted to near MGTOW.

9B

Tom Kelley

December 16th 10, 07:58 AM

On Dec 15, 11:16*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 10:44*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > > provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> > > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > > 9B
>
> > > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > > UH
>
> > The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> > Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> > emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> > Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> > has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> > shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> > ft. DRY.
> > *OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> > lbs.
> > Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> > gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> > lbs sq ft/18 meter). *A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> > sq ft. *Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> > girls might not be, *BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> > thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.
>
> Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
> Popcorn, anyone?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Pop alot of corn Evan. Here's a good story.
Last year at the 2010 Seniors, John Good, our CD, showed up with new
scales. We were weighed on different days, outside and with different
conditions, needless to say. Our handicaps were adjusted down to the
10 thousands. Hey, you do want fair to be fair, right to be right, and
no advantage to any of us old folks.
Remember, next time you read the rules, find the rules pertaining to
the Seniors.
Now, put some more butter on that corn, cause heres your Christmas
story. On the second day, I put the weight of 16 pounds in my tail,
plus I put water in my tail tank to move my CG way back where me
likes it, as I am now told I am going to be weighted and no changes
after the weighing. This changed my weight from the declared 840 pds.
to 866 pds. My ASG 29 was in 15 Meter config. Ok, now they adjusted my
handicap on the first day to this new weight, which I tried to
explain, but to no avail.
Ok, whatever, but thats NOT all the Christmas story. Please, read on.
DB flew his ASG 29 in the 15 Meter config. They weighed him in the
wind, he and his glider weighed 861 pds. Ok, whats 5 pds between ships
you say. Nothing at all. BUT wait, DB has a body weight of 175 pds
and yep, my body weight is 242 pds. and yet our total weights were
within 5 pounds. Oh, my you say, what the........za zoom ..........His
handicap was adjusted to what mine was. Is something wrong here? Are
we trying to be to perfect in a non perfect world?

Andy, 9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.

As I do think this new rule will never be used, I brought this up to
show the lengths we go to, at some contests, to adjust wing loadings
and yet the outcome isn't always justified or wanted. Just old school
thinking I guess, never meant any harm or foul yet are we trying to be
to "perfect".

Hank and the guys really work hard to try and make it fair and equal
to all. With the years they have put in, its better now than it has
ever been.

Many thanks to them all.

[email protected]

December 16th 10, 02:42 PM

On Dec 16, 2:58*am, Tom Kelley > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:16*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 10:44*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 6:55*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > > > provision that was added for 2010. *What happened?
>
> > > > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > > > 9B
>
> > > > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > > > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > > > UH
>
> > > The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> > > Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> > > emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> > > Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> > > has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> > > shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> > > ft. DRY.
> > > *OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> > > lbs.
> > > Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> > > gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> > > lbs sq ft/18 meter). *A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> > > sq ft. *Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> > > girls might not be, *BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> > > thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.
>
> > Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
> > Popcorn, anyone?
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Pop alot of corn Evan. Here's a good story.
> Last year at the 2010 Seniors, John Good, our CD, showed up with new
> scales. We were weighed on different days, outside and with different
> conditions, needless to say. Our handicaps were adjusted down to the
> 10 thousands. Hey, you do want fair to be fair, right to be right, and
> no advantage to any of us old folks.
> Remember, next time you read the rules, find the rules pertaining to
> the Seniors.
> Now, put some more butter on that corn, cause *heres your Christmas
> story. On the second day, I *put the weight of 16 pounds in my tail,
> plus I put water in my tail tank *to move my CG way back where me
> likes it, as I am now told I am going to be weighted and no changes
> after the weighing. *This changed my weight from the declared 840 pds.
> to 866 pds. My ASG 29 was in 15 Meter config. Ok, now they adjusted my
> handicap on the first day to this new weight, which I tried to
> explain, but to no avail.
> Ok, whatever, but thats NOT all the Christmas story. Please, read on.
> DB flew his ASG 29 in the 15 Meter config. They weighed him in the
> wind, he and his glider weighed 861 pds. Ok, whats 5 pds between ships
> you say. Nothing at all. BUT wait, *DB has a body weight of 175 pds
> and yep, my body weight is 242 pds. and yet our total weights were
> within 5 pounds. Oh, my you say, what the........za zoom ..........His
> handicap was adjusted to what mine was. Is something wrong here? Are
> we trying to be to perfect in a non perfect world?
>
> Andy, *9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
> ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
> wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
> sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.
>
> As I do think this new rule will never be used, I brought this up to
> show the lengths we go to, at some contests, to adjust wing loadings
> and yet the outcome isn't always justified or wanted. Just old school
> thinking I guess, never meant any harm or foul yet are we trying to be
> to "perfect".
>
> Hank and the guys really work hard to try and make it fair and equal
> to all. With the years they have put in, its better now than it has
> ever been.
>
> Many thanks to them all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just to make as clear as mud. Let's not mix up 2 different changes we
are looking at.
First is what we hope is a fairness adjustment to use limited ballast
instead of no ballast on days that currently would be declared "dry"
days due to safety concerns. Practical example would be to ballast
ASG-29s to same weight as Ventus 2CT so motorgliders with 60 or so lb
of fixed ballast don't have an "unfair" advantage. Yep- the weight set
likely would not be as high as an Antares, so not perfect, but better.
Wing areas are close enough so loadings are not all that different.
This is for a single class, not mixed class, and probably
realistically Nationals. Use of one weight makes it easier to do on
short notice.
Second is the handicapped mixed class with possibly Dtd, 15m, 18m all
in a class with handicaps from Sports list. This could be a dry class,
or it could be ballasted with no change in handicap for ballast. There
is no intent to try to go to common weight in this option.
And yes , weighing has it's problems too. I suspect most contest
organizers will either go dry or wet with no restriction, but we are
providing the option. This is why I suspect the added hassle of
limited ballast will only be used in nationals.
Also note the option to "leever B" and do just as we do now is there.
Not everything we try stays long term. That is why the mixed classes
is an experiment before it becomes permanent in the rules.
Thanks for sharing ideas guys.
UH RC Chair

Andy[_1_]

December 16th 10, 03:16 PM

On Dec 16, 7:42Â*am, wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2:58Â*am, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:16Â*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 10:44Â*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 6:55Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 4:46Â*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > > > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > > > > provision that was added for 2010. Â*What happened?
>
> > > > > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > > > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > > > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > > > > 9B
>
> > > > > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > > > > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > > > > UH
>
> > > > The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> > > > Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> > > > emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> > > > Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> > > > has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> > > > shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> > > > ft. DRY.
> > > > Â*OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> > > > lbs.
> > > > Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> > > > gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> > > > lbs sq ft/18 meter). Â*A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> > > > sq ft. Â*Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> > > > girls might not be, Â*BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> > > > thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.
>
> > > Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
> > > Popcorn, anyone?
>
> > > -Evan Ludeman / T8- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Pop alot of corn Evan. Here's a good story.
> > Last year at the 2010 Seniors, John Good, our CD, showed up with new
> > scales. We were weighed on different days, outside and with different
> > conditions, needless to say. Our handicaps were adjusted down to the
> > 10 thousands. Hey, you do want fair to be fair, right to be right, and
> > no advantage to any of us old folks.
> > Remember, next time you read the rules, find the rules pertaining to
> > the Seniors.
> > Now, put some more butter on that corn, cause Â*heres your Christmas
> > story. On the second day, I Â*put the weight of 16 pounds in my tail,
> > plus I put water in my tail tank Â*to move my CG way back where me
> > likes it, as I am now told I am going to be weighted and no changes
> > after the weighing. Â*This changed my weight from the declared 840 pds.
> > to 866 pds. My ASG 29 was in 15 Meter config. Ok, now they adjusted my
> > handicap on the first day to this new weight, which I tried to
> > explain, but to no avail.
> > Ok, whatever, but thats NOT all the Christmas story. Please, read on.
> > DB flew his ASG 29 in the 15 Meter config. They weighed him in the
> > wind, he and his glider weighed 861 pds. Ok, whats 5 pds between ships
> > you say. Nothing at all. BUT wait, Â*DB has a body weight of 175 pds
> > and yep, my body weight is 242 pds. and yet our total weights were
> > within 5 pounds. Oh, my you say, what the........za zoom ..........His
> > handicap was adjusted to what mine was. Is something wrong here? Are
> > we trying to be to perfect in a non perfect world?
>
> > Andy, Â*9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
> > ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
> > wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
> > sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.
>
> > As I do think this new rule will never be used, I brought this up to
> > show the lengths we go to, at some contests, to adjust wing loadings
> > and yet the outcome isn't always justified or wanted. Just old school
> > thinking I guess, never meant any harm or foul yet are we trying to be
> > to "perfect".
>
> > Hank and the guys really work hard to try and make it fair and equal
> > to all. With the years they have put in, its better now than it has
> > ever been.
>
> > Many thanks to them all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Just to make as clear as mud. Let's not mix up 2 different changes we
> are looking at.
> First is what we hope is a fairness adjustment to use limited ballast
> instead of no ballast on days that currently would be declared "dry"
> days due to safety concerns. Practical example would be to ballast
> ASG-29s to same weight as Ventus 2CT so motorgliders with 60 or so lb
> of fixed ballast don't have an "unfair" advantage. Yep- the weight set
> likely would not be as high as an Antares, so not perfect, but better.
> Wing areas are close enough so loadings are not all that different.
> This is for a single class, not mixed class, and probably
> realistically Nationals. Use of one weight makes it easier to do on
> short notice.
> Second is the handicapped mixed class with possibly Dtd, 15m, 18m all
> in a class with handicaps from Sports list. This could be a dry class,
> or it could be ballasted with no change in handicap for ballast. There
> is no intent to try to go to common weight in this option.
> And yes , weighing has it's problems too. I suspect most contest
> organizers will either go dry or wet with no restriction, but we are
> providing the option. This is why I suspect the added hassle of
> limited ballast will only be used in nationals.
> Also note the option to "leever B" and do just as we do now is there.
> Not everything we try stays long term. That is why the mixed classes
> is an experiment before it becomes permanent in the rules.
> Thanks for sharing ideas guys.
> UH RC Chair

Hank,

You missed out the case that is the specific one of interest to me. It
is covered in rule 5.7.2 for 2010. The Combine everything class seems
to be new and different from 2010 rules. So my concern as a Std class
pilot is rule 5.7.2.1 in combination with the new limited ballast rule
being applied on some, or all, contest days. If this case cannot
exist under 2011 rules then I'll worry about something else.

5.7.2.1 â€* Combined 15-Meter/Standard Class: All sailplanes must meet
the requirements for the 15-Meter Class (Rule 6.12.4). A sailplane
that also meets the requirements for Standard Class (Rule 6.12.5) can
compete and receive a daily scored distance bonus (Rule 11.2.3.6).

11.2.3.6 â€* For a sailplane competing in a Combined 15-Meter/Standard
Class (Rule 5.7.2.1) that meets the requirements for
Standard Class, scored distance is multiplied by 1.02.

BTW the "mix anything" class with SSA handicaps and allowed ballast
with no handicap adjustment is exactly what Arizona Soaring
Association uses for our contest series.

Andy

[email protected]

December 16th 10, 03:32 PM

On Dec 16, 10:16Â*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 7:42Â*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2:58Â*am, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 11:16Â*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 10:44Â*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 6:55Â*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 15, 4:46Â*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I thought the "start anywhere" rule was going to revert back to the
> > > > > > > original version by eliminating the "front half" of the cylinder
> > > > > > > provision that was added for 2010. Â*What happened?
>
> > > > > > > Also, under advanced handicap class rules that allow water will the
> > > > > > > handicaps vary with the ballasted weight or just use the unballasted
> > > > > > > weights for setting handicaps?
>
> > > > > > > 9B
>
> > > > > > Handicap would be based on published handicap with no weight
> > > > > > adjustment. No extra work for the scorer.
> > > > > > UH
>
> > > > > The 18 Meter Antares empty is 884 lbs. My ASG 29/18 Meter is 606.
> > > > > Thats a fact and mine is most likely the lightest in the USA on its
> > > > > emprty weight. Now, Dave and I were tied down by each other in
> > > > > Waynesville, Ohio at the 2010 18 Meter Nationals. His 18 Meter Antares
> > > > > has a wing area of 128.1 sq. feet. Mine is 113 sq. feet. Now, Dave
> > > > > shared that without water his wing loading was over 9.2 lbs per sq.
> > > > > ft. DRY.
> > > > > Â*OK, math time, 128.1 sq. feet times 9.2 gives a gross weight of 1178
> > > > > lbs.
> > > > > Now I can ballast to 1178 lbs ( heavest motorglider weight) which
> > > > > gives me a wing loading of 10.429 lbs a sq. ft. (note...Dry I am 7.7
> > > > > lbs sq ft/18 meter). Â*A V2CX has 118 sq. ft. and they will be 9.98 lbs
> > > > > sq ft. Â*Dave Nadler could not be happy on this note, the V2cx guys and
> > > > > girls might not be, Â*BUT I am very happy and just wanted to express my
> > > > > thanks for this wondeful Christmas present.
>
> > > > Going to be great fun watching you 18m guys sort this one out.
> > > > Popcorn, anyone?
>
> > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Pop alot of corn Evan. Here's a good story.
> > > Last year at the 2010 Seniors, John Good, our CD, showed up with new
> > > scales. We were weighed on different days, outside and with different
> > > conditions, needless to say. Our handicaps were adjusted down to the
> > > 10 thousands. Hey, you do want fair to be fair, right to be right, and
> > > no advantage to any of us old folks.
> > > Remember, next time you read the rules, find the rules pertaining to
> > > the Seniors.
> > > Now, put some more butter on that corn, cause Â*heres your Christmas
> > > story. On the second day, I Â*put the weight of 16 pounds in my tail,
> > > plus I put water in my tail tank Â*to move my CG way back where me
> > > likes it, as I am now told I am going to be weighted and no changes
> > > after the weighing. Â*This changed my weight from the declared 840 pds.
> > > to 866 pds. My ASG 29 was in 15 Meter config. Ok, now they adjusted my
> > > handicap on the first day to this new weight, which I tried to
> > > explain, but to no avail.
> > > Ok, whatever, but thats NOT all the Christmas story. Please, read on.
> > > DB flew his ASG 29 in the 15 Meter config. They weighed him in the
> > > wind, he and his glider weighed 861 pds. Ok, whats 5 pds between ships
> > > you say. Nothing at all. BUT wait, Â*DB has a body weight of 175 pds
> > > and yep, my body weight is 242 pds. and yet our total weights were
> > > within 5 pounds. Oh, my you say, what the........za zoom ..........His
> > > handicap was adjusted to what mine was. Is something wrong here? Are
> > > we trying to be to perfect in a non perfect world?
>
> > > Andy, Â*9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
> > > ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
> > > wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
> > > sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.
>
> > > As I do think this new rule will never be used, I brought this up to
> > > show the lengths we go to, at some contests, to adjust wing loadings
> > > and yet the outcome isn't always justified or wanted. Just old school
> > > thinking I guess, never meant any harm or foul yet are we trying to be
> > > to "perfect".
>
> > > Hank and the guys really work hard to try and make it fair and equal
> > > to all. With the years they have put in, its better now than it has
> > > ever been.
>
> > > Many thanks to them all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Just to make as clear as mud. Let's not mix up 2 different changes we
> > are looking at.
> > First is what we hope is a fairness adjustment to use limited ballast
> > instead of no ballast on days that currently would be declared "dry"
> > days due to safety concerns. Practical example would be to ballast
> > ASG-29s to same weight as Ventus 2CT so motorgliders with 60 or so lb
> > of fixed ballast don't have an "unfair" advantage. Yep- the weight set
> > likely would not be as high as an Antares, so not perfect, but better.
> > Wing areas are close enough so loadings are not all that different.
> > This is for a single class, not mixed class, and probably
> > realistically Nationals. Use of one weight makes it easier to do on
> > short notice.
> > Second is the handicapped mixed class with possibly Dtd, 15m, 18m all
> > in a class with handicaps from Sports list. This could be a dry class,
> > or it could be ballasted with no change in handicap for ballast. There
> > is no intent to try to go to common weight in this option.
> > And yes , weighing has it's problems too. I suspect most contest
> > organizers will either go dry or wet with no restriction, but we are
> > providing the option. This is why I suspect the added hassle of
> > limited ballast will only be used in nationals.
> > Also note the option to "leever B" and do just as we do now is there.
> > Not everything we try stays long term. That is why the mixed classes
> > is an experiment before it becomes permanent in the rules.
> > Thanks for sharing ideas guys.
> > UH RC Chair
>
> Hank,
>
> You missed out the case that is the specific one of interest to me. It
> is covered in rule 5.7.2 for 2010. Â*The Combine everything class seems
> to be new and different from 2010 rules. Â*So my concern as a Std class
> pilot is rule 5.7.2.1 in combination with the new limited ballast rule
> being applied on some, or all, contest days. Â*If this case cannot
> exist under 2011 rules then I'll worry about something else.
>
> 5.7.2.1 â€* Combined 15-Meter/Standard Class: All sailplanes must meet
> the requirements for the 15-Meter Class (Rule 6.12.4). A sailplane
> that also meets the requirements for Standard Class (Rule 6.12.5) can
> compete and receive a daily scored distance bonus (Rule 11.2.3.6).
>
> 11.2.3.6 â€* For a sailplane competing in a Combined 15-Meter/Standard
> Class (Rule 5.7.2.1) that meets the requirements for
> Standard Class, scored distance is multiplied by 1.02.
>
> BTW the "mix anything" class with SSA handicaps and allowed ballast
> with no handicap adjustment is exactly what Arizona Soaring
> Association uses for our contest series.
>
> Andy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I tried in earlier post to clarify that there are 2 different cases
addressing different issues. We are not anticipating the combination
of mixed classes AND limited ballast.
The limited ballast is mostly related to fairness in nationals where
the hassle could be seen as justified.
The mixed classes is to get one "reasonable" sized class instead of 2
or 3 very small classes in regional.
Hope this makes it clearer.
UH

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 16th 10, 04:52 PM

Like Hank says...

The CD has the option to declare a conventional "no water" day or a
"limited ballast" day, in which everyone flies at the same gross
weight. Which one he/she chooses will depend on a lot of things; the
reason for limiting water, and the impact on contest fairness.

The "limited ballast" idea gives you a bit more fairness in a single-
class contest like 18m nationals, where some gliders have motors, it's
a strong day, and people are really competing hard.

For reasons mentioned, "limited ballast" could well be less fair in a
mixed class regional if the class has widely different gliders in it.
So calling a "no water" day could be a better option.

These are tools. Use them wisely.

I don't think anyone is going to win an 18m national in a 15m glider
based on higher wingloading on "limited ballast" days. II will happily
trade my 27 for the 29, V2C, JS1 or Antares of anyone going to Hobbs
nationals who is worried about this.

John Cochrane

Andy[_10_]

December 16th 10, 06:30 PM

On Dec 15, 11:58*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:

> Andy, *9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
> ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
> wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
> sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.

Hey Tom,

I was quoting your math for an ASG-29-18m rather than my -27B. If the
intent of the rule is to allow for soft fields or short, high/hot
runways it seems like ballasting to the heaviest motorglider TOW might
not get used much if there are heavy motorgliders on the grid since it
will put the non-motorgliders at pretty high wing loadings, which is
not what you want for towing under those takeoff conditions. I guess
it's a middle ground, but in some cases may not be much of one - at
least where it comes to the non-motorgliders.

9B

Mike the Strike

December 16th 10, 09:03 PM

On Dec 16, 11:30*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:58*pm, Tom Kelley > wrote:
>
> > Andy, *9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
> > ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
> > wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
> > sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.
>
> Hey Tom,
>
> I was quoting your math for an ASG-29-18m rather than my -27B. If the
> intent of the rule is to allow for soft fields or short, high/hot
> runways it seems like ballasting to the heaviest motorglider TOW might
> not get used much if there are heavy motorgliders on the grid since it
> will put the non-motorgliders at pretty high wing loadings, which is
> not what you want for towing under those takeoff conditions. I guess
> it's a middle ground, but in some cases may not be much of one - at
> least where it comes to the non-motorgliders.
>
> 9B

Two solutions leap to mind - add the ballast when airborne (that
should be interesting!) or make motorgliders compete separately under
thier own rules.

I've never understood the mindset that permits motorgliders, with
their inherent and unmeasurable advantage, to compete with unpowered
sailplanes.

Mike

vontresc

December 16th 10, 09:59 PM

Just a question. From a totally outside perspective having only flown
in one Sports Class fun contest, why are we using ballast to create
what amounts to a handicap? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just apply
a handicap factor like we already do in Sports???

The partial ballast solution just seems to be a complex anser to a
simple problem.

Pete
Just a simple Ka-6 driver

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 16th 10, 10:05 PM

>
> I've never understood the mindset that permits motorgliders, with
> their inherent and unmeasurable advantage, to compete with unpowered
> sailplanes.
>
> Mike

Answer: Small numbers. Give me 65 gliders at every nationals, with
more begging to get in, and we can split off a motorglider class. Give
me 8 at opens, 10 at standard, and only mid-20s in 15-18, and we don't
have enough gliders to split each class in two.

At regionals: typical numbers are 7 in each class, and say 3
motorgliders in the contest. What do you do?

We're already merging FAI classes to get reasonable numbers. When was
the last time you saw an open class regional, or a regional with a
full set of classes? We don't have the gliders to split each class in
two.

I wish it were otherwise for many reasons.

John Cochrane

Frank[_12_]

December 16th 10, 11:48 PM

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20...
>
> John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

Andy[_10_]

December 17th 10, 01:19 AM

On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20...
>
> > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 17th 10, 01:38 AM

>
> Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> TA

Take a look at the poll, question 4, which tries to explain it all
compactly.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20SSA%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%20Results.pdf

Come back if that isn't clear

John Cochrane

Andy[_10_]

December 17th 10, 02:06 AM

On Dec 16, 5:38*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> > early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> > TA
>
> Take a look at the poll, question 4, which tries to explain it all
> compactly.
>
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20SSA%20Pilot%20Opinion%20Poll%2...
>
> Come back if that isn't clear
>
> John Cochrane

There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. Say ALL
the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
depending on the ratios.

I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
conditions.

Any insights?

9B

Frank[_12_]

December 17th 10, 02:39 AM

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20....
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> > Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> > early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> > TA
>
> If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
> distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
> year.
>
> You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
> points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
> the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
> compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
> 60% of the winners speed.
>
> The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
> getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
> shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
> philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
> landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
> exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
> finishers.
>
> I think I got that right.
>
> 9B

Yes, that's what I understand too. However, I haven't heard any
details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
be modified. Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
to be ;-).

Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
horizon ;-).

TA

TA

RW[_2_]

December 17th 10, 05:31 AM

On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > of all gliders up to the
> > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > provision that allows no ballast.
> > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > ballast allowed."
>
> > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > thanks
>
> > Andy
>
> This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> same thing.
>
> Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> kidding)
>
> The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> ballast rules.
>
> Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team :(RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, but it did not help.

Andy[_10_]

December 17th 10, 07:09 AM

On Dec 16, 6:39*pm, Frank > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20...
>
> > > > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> > > Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> > > early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> > > TA
>
> > If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
> > distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
> > year.
>
> > You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
> > points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
> > the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
> > compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
> > 60% of the winners speed.
>
> > The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
> > getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
> > shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
> > philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
> > landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
> > exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
> > finishers.
>
> > I think I got that right.
>
> > 9B
>
> Yes, that's what I understand too. *However, I haven't heard any
> details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
> current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
> Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
> be modified. *Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
> the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
> to be ;-).
>
> Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
> scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
> horizon ;-).
>
> TA
>
> TA

The specific formula change is described in the pilot poll.

9B

[email protected]

December 17th 10, 01:42 PM

On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > > of all gliders up to the
> > > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > > provision that allows no ballast.
> > > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > > ballast allowed."
>
> > > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > > thanks
>
> > > Andy
>
> > This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> > could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> > lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> > advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> > motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> > everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> > same thing.
>
> > Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> > we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> > else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> > wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> > computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> > in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> > advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> > (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> > kidding)
>
> > The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> > no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> > chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> > ballast rules.
>
> > Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> > day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> > pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> > it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> > that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> > Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> > say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> > conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> > safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> > I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> No water rule is US new wheel invention.
> If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
> wait.
> If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
> If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
> with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
> If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
> Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
> Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
> night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
> ****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
> respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
> Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
> OK, we have a team :(RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
> rules.
> Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
> Who is afraid ?
> Ryszard
> Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
> fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
> water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
contemplated weight adjustment
being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
tha option of the CD.
This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
contests would not bother.
UH

RW[_2_]

December 17th 10, 03:37 PM

On Dec 17, 8:42*am, wrote:
> On Dec 17, 12:31*am, RW > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Can someone please explain the intent of this:
>
> > > > "Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
> > > > of all gliders up to the
> > > > weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
> > > > provision that allows no ballast.
> > > > For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
> > > > “No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
> > > > ballast allowed."
>
> > > > Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
> > > > the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?
>
> > > > Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?
>
> > > > thanks
>
> > > > Andy
>
> > > This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
> > > could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
> > > lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
> > > advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
> > > motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
> > > everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
> > > same thing.
>
> > > Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
> > > we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
> > > else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
> > > wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
> > > computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
> > > in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
> > > advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
> > > (And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
> > > kidding)
>
> > > The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
> > > no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
> > > chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
> > > ballast rules.
>
> > > Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
> > > day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
> > > pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
> > > it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
> > > that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.
>
> > > Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
> > > say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
> > > conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
> > > safety, fairness, etc. etc.
>
> > > I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > No water rule is US new wheel invention.
> > If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
> > wait.
> > If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
> > If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
> > with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
> > If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
> > Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
> > Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
> > night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
> > ****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
> > respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
> > Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
> > OK, we have a team :(RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
> > rules.
> > Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
> > Who is afraid ?
> > Ryszard
> > Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
> > fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
> > water ballast, * *but it did not help.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There are conditions such as at Caesar Creek in 2010 where the field
> was wet enough that towing fully loaded 18M gliders would be marginal
> enough to seriously consider not flying, yet not so bad when towing
> dry. 400 lb or so weight difference is significant in launch. In these
> kinds of situatuions it makes sense for the CD to have this option
> available so as to keep a good safety margin and not lose a day. The
> contemplated weight adjustment
> being looked at would add maybe 60 or 70 lb to "light" gliders to
> bring them closer to motorized gliders for fairness. This would be at
> tha option of the CD.
> This is pretty much a nationals issue in my expectation. Most other
> contests would not bother.
> UH

In this specific situation old rule (CD could only propose no water(or
quits) and all pilots have to agree) would get same results.
Especially if we would let get everybody to same the weight(part of
newest rule) it is hard to imagine opposition.
PW5-ers do it every contest(they have option to bring their PW5 to the
heaviest PW5 glider)
Ryszard

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

December 17th 10, 04:14 PM

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20....
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> > Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> > early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> > TA
>
> If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
> distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
> year.
>
> You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
> points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
> the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
> compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
> 60% of the winners speed.
>
> The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
> getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
> shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
> philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
> landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
> exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
> finishers.
>
> I think I got that right.
>
> 9B

That is correct. The only exception occurs when only one person
finishes and they are a "min distancer." In that case the finisher
gets the gold, but its a very chancy strategy to bet on being the only
finisher.

On the weight / handicap issue(s), the RC continues to try an find
"fairness" solutions to problems that all have their base in the
decreasing number of competitors and the need to to avoid contests
with classes made up of only 3 or 4 ships. It is not an easy task and
all the solutions found so far are imperfect. Ongoing thoughtful
discussion is really helpful.

John Godfrey (QT)
Rules Committee

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 17th 10, 04:33 PM

>
> There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
> the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
> were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
> with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
> close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
> good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
> later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
> the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
> changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
> scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
> all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
> them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
> depending on the ratios.
>
> I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
> to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
> conditions.
>
> Any insights?
>
> 9B

That's pretty much right.

Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!

The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.

The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

What happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
day will be strongly devalued).

If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.

So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
the 100 mile guys.

This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
quite that much. There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
odds than it used to.

I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
Loophole now closed.

John Cochrane
BB

Frank[_12_]

December 18th 10, 02:19 AM

On Dec 17, 11:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
> > the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
> > were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
> > with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
> > close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
> > good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
> > later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
> > the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
> > changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
> > scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
> > all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
> > them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
> > depending on the ratios.
>
> > I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
> > to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
> > conditions.
>
> > Any insights?
>
> > 9B
>
> That's pretty much right.
>
> Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
> is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
> does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
> miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
> still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
> distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
> about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
> long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
> clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!
>
> The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
> there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
> mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
> above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.
>
> The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
> distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
> the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.
>
> What *happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
> 400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
> mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
> day will be strongly devalued).
>
> If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
> rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
> a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
> get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
> an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.
>
> So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
> will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
> that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
> longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
> at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
> 399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
> the 100 mile guys.
>
> This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
> aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
> early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
> attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
> about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
> along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
> quite that much. *There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
> a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
> nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
> odds than it used to.
>
> I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
> uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
> were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
> going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
> we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
> and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
> Loophole now closed.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

John, thanks for the pointer to the poll - after some head-scratching
I finally figured out the proposed scoring column for the examples
shown. Now all I have to do is completely re-write the talk I'm doing
at the SSA convention. Adding insult to injury, I tried to give this
talk at last year's convention, but the scheduling guru couldn't fit
it in. Had that happened, I would have been safely out of town before
the rules got changed ;-).

Timing is everything ....

TA

lanebush

December 18th 10, 02:55 AM

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010%20Rules%20Committee%20Meeting%20....
>
> > > John Godfrey (QT)
>
> > Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
> > early finisher' scoring rule?
>
> > TA
>
> If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
> distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
> year.
>
> You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
> points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
> the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
> compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
> 60% of the winners speed.
>
> The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
> getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
> shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
> philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
> landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
> exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
> finishers.
>
> I think I got that right.
>
> 9B

I like the long landout rule change. It encourages trying to create a
nice flight utilizing the most of each day without feeling that a
landout is going to severely punish your standing. In Perry last year
I flew what for me was a very nice flight. I landed 1.5 miles short
of the home airport. Competitors that flew 60% of my distance
punished me in the daily points. I planned my flight poorly for the
conditions but I sure was proud of all those miles!

Lane
XF

Andy[_10_]

December 18th 10, 08:23 AM

On Dec 17, 8:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
> > the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
> > were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
> > with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
> > close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
> > good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
> > later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
> > the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
> > changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
> > scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
> > all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
> > them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
> > depending on the ratios.
>
> > I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
> > to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
> > conditions.
>
> > Any insights?
>
> > 9B
>
> That's pretty much right.
>
> Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
> is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
> does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
> miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
> still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
> distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
> about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
> long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
> clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!
>
> The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
> there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
> mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
> above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.
>
> The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
> distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
> the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.
>
> What *happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
> 400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
> mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
> day will be strongly devalued).
>
> If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
> rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
> a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
> get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
> an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.
>
> So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
> will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
> that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
> longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
> at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
> 399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
> the 100 mile guys.
>
> This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
> aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
> early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
> attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
> about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
> along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
> quite that much. *There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
> a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
> nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
> odds than it used to.
>
> I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
> uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
> were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
> going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
> we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
> and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
> Loophole now closed.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

Just to clarify, is BESTDIST the longest distance of any finisher or
the distance of the fastest finisher? I think it's a pretty big
difference.

9B

Bruce Hoult

December 18th 10, 01:15 PM

On Dec 18, 5:33*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
> distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
> the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
got credit for speed too?

As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
point.

In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.

It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:

raw points = S * (D - L/2)

Where:

D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
finishers)
S = speed achieved over the scoring distance

The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
devaluation rules.

This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:

- if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
land out at the same place.

- if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
maintain that speed over a longer distance.

- speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
more points is more distance.

- the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
the fence.

- once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
figures)

- if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)

- distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
to do it out and return than straight out.

What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
didn't notice? Too complex?

I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
out task is worth zero.

I also wondered about a slight variation:

raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T

Where T is the flight time.

This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
version can also be given as:

raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) = (D^2 - DL/2) / T

This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
after a long flight than after a short one.

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 18th 10, 04:38 PM

>
> Just to clarify, is BESTDIST the longest distance of any finisher or
> the distance of the fastest finisher? I think it's a pretty big
> difference.
>
> 9B

11.6.9 Best Distance:
If there are no Finishers, BESTDIST is the greatest scored distance
achieved by any pilot.
Otherwise, BESTDIST is the larger of the greatest scored distance
achieved by any Finisher and (BESTSPD * MINTIME).

John Cochrane[_2_]

December 18th 10, 04:49 PM

> Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
> distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
> got credit for speed too?
>
> As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
> in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
> was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
> point.
>
> In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.
>
> It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
> can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:
>
> raw points = S * (D - L/2)
>
> Where:
>
> D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
> L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
> finishers)
> S = speed achieved over the scoring distance
>
> The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
> contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
> could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
> devaluation rules.
>
> This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:
>
> - if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
> it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
> land out at the same place.
>
> - if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
> maintain that speed over a longer distance.
>
> - speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
> those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
> more points is more distance.
>
> - the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
> small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
> the fence.
>
> - once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
> promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
> be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
> figures)
>
> - if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
> better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
> easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)
>
> - distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
> counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
> to do it out and return than straight out.
>
> What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
> didn't notice? Too complex?
>
> I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
> For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
> out task is worth zero.
>
> I also wondered about a slight variation:
>
> raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T
>
> Where T is the flight time.
>
> This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
> version can also be given as:
>
> raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) *= *(D^2 - DL/2) / T
>
> This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
> alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
> after a long flight than after a short one.

The main problem I see is that "speed to landout" can encourage you to
dive to the dirt, and needs a major calculation to figure out when
that's the right thing to do. At least my landouts seem to be preceded
by a half hour of grinding away in half knot lift at 1000 feet. (And
too many of my contest flights are interrupted by a half hour of
griding away in half knot lift!). A pilot gets a lot more points in
this system if he gives up and lands right away.

Maybe the answer then that the scoring program should evaluate every
possible "end of the flight" and give you the one with the most
points. For example, 80 mph to 90 miles is better than the eventual 50
mph to 95 miles where you eventually land. But that seems pretty
complicated, and still leaves some hard strategizing for the pilot on
when it's worth stopping to work weak lift.

This is worth thinking about. Our points formulas are horribly
complex, but every good idea for simplfying them hits a brick wall on
how do you treat landouts vs. speed.

Maybe zero points for landout, but you can drop your worst day?

Well, the other problem is that we've built up a lot of experience
with the current system, so radical changes are dangerous.

John Cochrane

kirk.stant

December 18th 10, 08:58 PM

On Dec 18, 9:49*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
> > distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
> > got credit for speed too?
>
> > As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
> > in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
> > was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
> > point.
>
> > In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.
>
> > It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
> > can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:
>
> > raw points = S * (D - L/2)
>
> > Where:
>
> > D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
> > L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
> > finishers)
> > S = speed achieved over the scoring distance
>
> > The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
> > contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
> > could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
> > devaluation rules.
>
> > This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:
>
> > - if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
> > it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
> > land out at the same place.
>
> > - if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
> > maintain that speed over a longer distance.
>
> > - speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
> > those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
> > more points is more distance.
>
> > - the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
> > small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
> > the fence.
>
> > - once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
> > promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
> > be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
> > figures)
>
> > - if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
> > better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
> > easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)
>
> > - distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
> > counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
> > to do it out and return than straight out.
>
> > What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
> > didn't notice? Too complex?
>
> > I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
> > For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
> > out task is worth zero.
>
> > I also wondered about a slight variation:
>
> > raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T
>
> > Where T is the flight time.
>
> > This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
> > version can also be given as:
>
> > raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) *= *(D^2 - DL/2) / T
>
> > This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
> > alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
> > after a long flight than after a short one.
>
> The main problem I see is that "speed to landout" can encourage you to
> dive to the dirt, and needs a major calculation to figure out when
> that's the right thing to do. At least my landouts seem to be preceded
> by a half hour of grinding away in half knot lift at 1000 feet. (And
> too many of my contest flights are interrupted by a half hour of
> griding away in half knot lift!). A pilot gets a lot more points in
> this system if he gives up and lands right away.
>
> Maybe the answer then that the scoring program should evaluate every
> possible "end of the flight" and give you the one with the most
> points. For example, 80 mph to 90 miles is better than the eventual 50
> mph to 95 miles where you eventually land. But that seems pretty
> complicated, and still leaves some hard strategizing for the pilot on
> when it's worth stopping to work weak lift.
>
> This is worth thinking about. Our points formulas are horribly
> complex, but every good idea for simplfying them hits a brick wall on
> how do you treat landouts vs. speed.
>
> Maybe zero points for landout, but you can drop your worst day?
>
> Well, the other problem is that we've built up a lot of experience
> with the current system, so radical changes are dangerous.
>
> John Cochrane

How about scoring a finish under min time as a landout at the finish
line? No arguing, it's the same as blowing your final glide and
landing short. That would create some incentive to stay out on course
longer!

Kirk
66

Andrzej Kobus

December 18th 10, 09:09 PM

On Dec 18, 3:58*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 9:49*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
> > > distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
> > > got credit for speed too?
>
> > > As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
> > > in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
> > > was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
> > > point.
>
> > > In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.
>
> > > It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
> > > can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:
>
> > > raw points = S * (D - L/2)
>
> > > Where:
>
> > > D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
> > > L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
> > > finishers)
> > > S = speed achieved over the scoring distance
>
> > > The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
> > > contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
> > > could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
> > > devaluation rules.
>
> > > This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:
>
> > > - if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
> > > it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
> > > land out at the same place.
>
> > > - if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
> > > maintain that speed over a longer distance.
>
> > > - speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
> > > those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
> > > more points is more distance.
>
> > > - the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
> > > small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
> > > the fence.
>
> > > - once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
> > > promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
> > > be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
> > > figures)
>
> > > - if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
> > > better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
> > > easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)
>
> > > - distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
> > > counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
> > > to do it out and return than straight out.
>
> > > What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
> > > didn't notice? Too complex?
>
> > > I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
> > > For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
> > > out task is worth zero.
>
> > > I also wondered about a slight variation:
>
> > > raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T
>
> > > Where T is the flight time.
>
> > > This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
> > > version can also be given as:
>
> > > raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) *= *(D^2 - DL/2) / T
>
> > > This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
> > > alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
> > > after a long flight than after a short one.
>
> > The main problem I see is that "speed to landout" can encourage you to
> > dive to the dirt, and needs a major calculation to figure out when
> > that's the right thing to do. At least my landouts seem to be preceded
> > by a half hour of grinding away in half knot lift at 1000 feet. (And
> > too many of my contest flights are interrupted by a half hour of
> > griding away in half knot lift!). A pilot gets a lot more points in
> > this system if he gives up and lands right away.
>
> > Maybe the answer then that the scoring program should evaluate every
> > possible "end of the flight" and give you the one with the most
> > points. For example, 80 mph to 90 miles is better than the eventual 50
> > mph to 95 miles where you eventually land. But that seems pretty
> > complicated, and still leaves some hard strategizing for the pilot on
> > when it's worth stopping to work weak lift.
>
> > This is worth thinking about. Our points formulas are horribly
> > complex, but every good idea for simplfying them hits a brick wall on
> > how do you treat landouts vs. speed.
>
> > Maybe zero points for landout, but you can drop your worst day?
>
> > Well, the other problem is that we've built up a lot of experience
> > with the current system, so radical changes are dangerous.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> How about scoring a finish under min time as a landout at the finish
> line? *No arguing, it's the same as blowing your final glide and
> landing short. *That would create some incentive to stay out on course
> longer!
>
> Kirk
> 66

That would be real good for the fastest pilot of the day who came 1
min early.