Handicap Distance Tasks

[Jim White[_3_]]

I have been following the arguments about Flarm as well as US task setting
with interest. I do not wish to confuse the picture further but I do want
to point out that Handicap Distance Tasks solve many of the complaints
about standard assigned tasks (including leeching).

With HDTs we recognise the glider's handicap in the task, not in the
scoring. This means that every pilot can fly at the same time of day, in
the same air, for roughly the same time on task.

We have been using HDTs successfully in UK rated competition for two
seasons with great pilot feedback. It needs a bit of software for task
setting and if you want to use See You to score them, there is a second bit
of software that prepares the evidence for this.

Following requests from a couple of US clubs, I have put a lot of effort
into modifying this software to be used with the US handicap system, US
Miles, SSA distance calculation rules, and scoring formulae. I would be
delighted if more of you guys gave it a look.

handicaptask.uk or pm me for more information.

Jim

ps: If you want to modify your own scoring software, I can tell you how.

[howard banks]

Jim:
I passed your earlier (UK specific) software to the US competition Committee. Requested that they take a look. They did and rejected it pretty sumararily, though I was not at all clear why. I am a techno-illiterate so that may not be surprising. But their reaction was.
You might try approaching John Godfrey, current chair of the Competition Committee directly and see if you can get any better response, especially now you have Americanized the program.
Howard


On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:45:06 AM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
> I have been following the arguments about Flarm as well as US task setting
> with interest. I do not wish to confuse the picture further but I do want
> to point out that Handicap Distance Tasks solve many of the complaints
> about standard assigned tasks (including leeching).
>
> With HDTs we recognise the glider's handicap in the task, not in the
> scoring. This means that every pilot can fly at the same time of day, in
> the same air, for roughly the same time on task.
>
> We have been using HDTs successfully in UK rated competition for two
> seasons with great pilot feedback. It needs a bit of software for task
> setting and if you want to use See You to score them, there is a second bit
> of software that prepares the evidence for this.
>
> Following requests from a couple of US clubs, I have put a lot of effort
> into modifying this software to be used with the US handicap system, US
> Miles, SSA distance calculation rules, and scoring formulae. I would be
> delighted if more of you guys gave it a look.
>
> handicaptask.uk or pm me for more information.
>
> Jim
>
> ps: If you want to modify your own scoring software, I can tell you how.

[smfidler]

Great idea. Simple and easy and Fun.

Your handicap task would be a great innovation for US sports class (handicaps from 126 to Concordia). I imagine that the USRC did not like the idea that all pilots essentially had their own un-timed, assigned task (with greater lateral variability as you go down in handicap) in which no extra distance could be added (not timed). Also, the work is complete and it's ready to go! No complex scoring equations are required. We can't have this kind of simplicity in the US! ;-)

I prefer non handicap classes (I think we all do) but this new task would definitely make handicap flying (or club flights as you mention) MUCH more fun and interesting.

I wish you success and thank you for the great effort you (and likely many others) have put into developing this cool new task. Very impressive. I will try it at my flying site in the spring.

Sean Fidler

[krasw]

We tried similar idea 5 years ago in GrandPrix-style contest, where traditional handicapping is not possible. I made simple formula for calculating turnpoint barrel radius for individual competitors:

R = D / 2N * ( 1 - k/k0 ) + 0,5 * k/k0

R is radius
D task length
N number of turnpoints
k0 handicap of the best glider participating
k your handicap
All distance units kilometers.

It works well enough if angle between legs is large, out-and-return legs being optimal.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 06:41 28 January 2016, krasw wrote:
>We tried similar idea 5 years ago in GrandPrix-style contest, where
>traditional handicapping is not possible. I made simple formula for
>calculating turnpoint barrel radius for individual competitors:
>
>R = D / 2N * ( 1 - k/k0 ) + 0,5 * k/k0
>
>R is radius
>D task length
>N number of turnpoints
>k0 handicap of the best glider participating
>k your handicap
>All distance units kilometers.
>
>It works well enough if angle between legs is large, out-and-return legs
>being optimal.
>
This is where we started but the present system is somewhat more refined.
In the UK we use windicapping which skews towards low handicap gliders as
the wind strength increases.

We also realised that the shortest way around the task is not to go
directly towards the centre of the barrel, nor to the point where the
bisector intersects the barrel circumference.

So we measure the shortest (handicapped or windicapped)path around task for
each barrel size step and compare to the reference task length * handicap
(/handicap in US). This iterative process arrives at the barrel size that
best fits the desired task length for each handicap flying.

Our software will cope with start lines of any length, variable barrels,
acute and oblique turns, checkpoints, angled finish lines and finish
rings.

It then prints a handy briefing document for the pilots.

If you put a task into the calculator then export it into SeeYou you will
see what I mean.

Jim

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.

What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.

In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.

These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.

9B

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 2:43:57 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.
>
> What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.
>
> In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.
>
> These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.
>
> 9B

Andy, I can answer those questions from some experience.

Everybody has to fly the same course, but higher performance gliders must fly further into the turnpoint cylinder than lower performance, as their radius is smaller. If one is leeching from the other, they will loose each other at each turn point (or at least, the low performance will turn first and then the high performance might leech temporarily in passing to the next turnpoint). The contests we have flown at Truckee like this are simultaneous start, or effectively so. In a perfectly flown contest by all participants, they will see each other only at the start, once between each turnpoint (though maybe not then - see below), and at the simultaneous finish.

For the most part, the weather will be similar, since the handicap difference in radius is usually only a few miles at each turnpoint. Of course it can happen that the only thermal in the area is right at the low performance or high performance turnpoint, which will favor that glider. If the difference in handicap is large, then the best course between two handicapped turnpoints might differ which again might favor one or the other. Some of this can be mitigated by choosing intelligent turnpoints to handicap (not all of them need be).

If run with a simultaneous start and open Flarm, this kind of racing is far more like real racing than traditional US sailplane racing (which is really a time trial). You start at the same time, you can see how you are doing against your fellow competitors, in between each handicapped turnpoint the difference is accounted for and you are even again. Just like real racing.

[Giaco]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 9:09:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 2:43:57 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.
> >
> > What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.
> >
> > In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.
> >
> > These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Andy, I can answer those questions from some experience.
>
> Everybody has to fly the same course, but higher performance gliders must fly further into the turnpoint cylinder than lower performance, as their radius is smaller. If one is leeching from the other, they will loose each other at each turn point (or at least, the low performance will turn first and then the high performance might leech temporarily in passing to the next turnpoint). The contests we have flown at Truckee like this are simultaneous start, or effectively so. In a perfectly flown contest by all participants, they will see each other only at the start, once between each turnpoint (though maybe not then - see below), and at the simultaneous finish.
>
> For the most part, the weather will be similar, since the handicap difference in radius is usually only a few miles at each turnpoint. Of course it can happen that the only thermal in the area is right at the low performance or high performance turnpoint, which will favor that glider. If the difference in handicap is large, then the best course between two handicapped turnpoints might differ which again might favor one or the other. Some of this can be mitigated by choosing intelligent turnpoints to handicap (not all of them need be).
>
> If run with a simultaneous start and open Flarm, this kind of racing is far more like real racing than traditional US sailplane racing (which is really a time trial). You start at the same time, you can see how you are doing against your fellow competitors, in between each handicapped turnpoint the difference is accounted for and you are even again. Just like real racing..

Would it be possible to use Winscore to score a task using this method currently? Is there a reason that we couldn't start trying out this method in US Sanctioned contests?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal distance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance was flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task lengths with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so you'd have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or do a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.

Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and score the flights?

9B

[Tim Newport-Peace[_2_]]

At 05:43 31 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal
>di=
>stance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance
>w=
>as flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task
>lengt=
>hs with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so
>you'=
>d have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or
>do=
> a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.
>
>Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and
>s=
>core the flights?=20
>
>9B
>
The DHT software suite will pre-process each IGC file and insert the task
flown (which will be different for each handicap value) into the file.
SeeYou will use this task when scoring.

Come to UK this Summer and see it in action.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 22:43 30 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.
>
>What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account
>for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders
to
>hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout
>the task.
>
>In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying
>farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes,
>thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.
>
>These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced
>pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.
>
>9B
>

Leeching can happen on the legs between turns. The difference this time is
that the slower gliders get equal opportunity. As I fly a 27 I would
normally hang back a bit to gain an advantage by hopping the slower guys.
This tactic does not work in DHTs. The fast and slow gliders get
disconnected at the turns.

No task type is completely fair. Where is the fairness in making a Pegase
fly for 5 hours on a task completed by a JS1 in 3? If the task is well
designed all gliders will turn in the same airspace and airmass conditions.
If there is a hole to cover then the JS1 is more able to do so. In the UK
we set a showery sector when there are storms about.

Jim

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 05:43 31 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal
>di=
>stance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance
>w=
>as flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task
>lengt=
>hs with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so
>you'=
>d have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or
>do=
> a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.
>
>Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and
>s=
>core the flights?=20
>
>9B
>
Hi Andy

Scoring is actually easy. For pilots that complete their task, it is just a
matter of comparing times. The same as a single class competition.

For land outs there is a compromise to be made. Fast gliders that land out
near the finish (radiused back) get a small disadvantage but if they land
out early get a small bonus. In DHTs less gliders land out.

The software that I created adds the individual task data into the evidence
so that it can be easily and automatically scored using See You. I see no
reason that other scoring software could not be easily modified to compare
the flight to the task read from the file.

Jim

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 10:45:06 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> I have been following the arguments about Flarm as well as US task setting
> with interest. I do not wish to confuse the picture further but I do want
> to point out that Handicap Distance Tasks solve many of the complaints
> about standard assigned tasks (including leeching).
>
> With HDTs we recognise the glider's handicap in the task, not in the
> scoring. This means that every pilot can fly at the same time of day, in
> the same air, for roughly the same time on task.
>
> We have been using HDTs successfully in UK rated competition for two
> seasons with great pilot feedback. It needs a bit of software for task
> setting and if you want to use See You to score them, there is a second bit
> of software that prepares the evidence for this.
>
> Following requests from a couple of US clubs, I have put a lot of effort
> into modifying this software to be used with the US handicap system, US
> Miles, SSA distance calculation rules, and scoring formulae. I would be
> delighted if more of you guys gave it a look.
>
> handicaptask.uk or pm me for more information.
>
> Jim
>
> ps: If you want to modify your own scoring software, I can tell you how.

Any USA Regional contest organizer who would like to try this task format should request a waiver from the US Contest Committee. Typically these types of experiments are encouraged, with the requirement that feedback be carefully collected.

The US Rules Committee would use this data as the first step in any consideration of adding it to the extant task types.

John Godfrey (QT), Rules Committee Chair.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 10:45:06 AM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> I have been following the arguments about Flarm as well as US task setting
> with interest. I do not wish to confuse the picture further but I do want
> to point out that Handicap Distance Tasks solve many of the complaints
> about standard assigned tasks (including leeching).
>
> With HDTs we recognise the glider's handicap in the task, not in the
> scoring. This means that every pilot can fly at the same time of day, in
> the same air, for roughly the same time on task.
>
> We have been using HDTs successfully in UK rated competition for two
> seasons with great pilot feedback. It needs a bit of software for task
> setting and if you want to use See You to score them, there is a second bit
> of software that prepares the evidence for this.
>
> Following requests from a couple of US clubs, I have put a lot of effort
> into modifying this software to be used with the US handicap system, US
> Miles, SSA distance calculation rules, and scoring formulae. I would be
> delighted if more of you guys gave it a look.
>
> handicaptask.uk or pm me for more information.
>
> Jim
>
> ps: If you want to modify your own scoring software, I can tell you how.

Additionally, pilots who would like to see this task tried in their regional should lobby their contest organizer.

John Godfrey (QT)

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Sounds like it's either honor system scoring or learning SeeYou Competition if you want to validate that no one cut their turnpoint(s) short, plus automate landout scoring, printing of scoresheets etc.

Winscore doesn't support this task type, so there'll be a bit of a learning curve to put one on most places in the US where scorers have been using Winscore.

I am curious, is Truckee using SeeYou for their tasks that follow this format?

9B

[smfidler]

The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and proprietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it).

The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a silver platter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique EVERYTHING, we can't use this great new task easily.

It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see the forest for the trees...

We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of the planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).

Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched fists all over the land...

But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly, proprietary, US rules and US scoring software.

Drum roll............................................

Simply use SeeYou!

Ta-da! Close curtain!

Morning tasking chores-
A) Call the task
B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task! (Another thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
C) Go race and have fun!
D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won!

A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix style) and he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second place...and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy he winner a well deserved pint!

All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various handicaps (99% of us!).

This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a lot of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair chance of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and having fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage. Again, congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try it in the spring with my gang in MI.

Sean Fidler

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 6:57:30 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Sounds like it's either honor system scoring or learning SeeYou Competition if you want to validate that no one cut their turnpoint(s) short, plus automate landout scoring, printing of scoresheets etc.
>
> Winscore doesn't support this task type, so there'll be a bit of a learning curve to put one on most places in the US where scorers have been using Winscore.
>
> I am curious, is Truckee using SeeYou for their tasks that follow this format?
>
> 9B

In Truckee in the past we have done these as an out and return typically because of the difficulty in task setting. We have scored them by hand, looking at the flight logs in SeeYou for turnpoint achievement and violations. Also our scoring system is very simple: with a simultaneous start, the first glider back is first, etc. Real racing. 4 races run per year for at least the last 10. One of them is always a 3 lap circuit of 4 turnpoints, with one handicapped so that the gliders are even each lap. Most of the gliders have Flarm, and nobody puts them in stealth.

We are attempting to use Jim White's software this year to set more complex tasks, and will score them with SeeYou.

The Truckee FAI competition, while not tasked this way specifically, is generally flown this way by most participants. Usually everyone starts within a few minutes of gate open, the faster gliders/pilots go further into the AAT while the slower ones graze the cylinder, in order to make minimum times.. Handicaps applied at the end by Winscore. I think it would be more fun doing with handicap distances.

I will further propose sacrilege: regional class competition should also be flown this way. I believe you would get more participation, because a well flown ASW20 would have a chance against an ASG29 or V3.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
> The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and proprietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it).
>
> The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a silver platter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique EVERYTHING, we can't use this great new task easily.
>
> It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see the forest for the trees...
>
> We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of the planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).
>
> Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched fists all over the land...
>
> But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly, proprietary, US rules and US scoring software.
>
> Drum roll............................................
>
> Simply use SeeYou!
>
> Ta-da! Close curtain!
>
> Morning tasking chores-
> A) Call the task
> B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task! (Another thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
> C) Go race and have fun!
> D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won!
>
> A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix style) and he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second place....and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy he winner a well deserved pint!
>
> All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various handicaps (99% of us!).
>
> This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a lot of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair chance of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and having fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage. Again, congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try it in the spring with my gang in MI.
>
> Sean Fidler

At the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this task idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we allow anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the season, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
- A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap level after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for different launch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do some computer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in the air)
- Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use non-certified hand-held loggers.
- Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their loggers. That takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and don't want to acquire.

The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US environment. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the fact that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height (4,500') and start and finish radii.
Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you account for those flying ballasted in the final score.
Herb

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 15:54 31 January 2016, smfidler wrote:
>The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and
>propriet=
>ary tasks and scoring rules which requires it). =20
>
Not quite true Sean. See You uses a script to actually score the task. See
You provides variables to the script such as task distance, speed, handicap
etc. so that the scorer can apply whatever scoring rules he likes within
his script.

Writing a script is simply a matter of taking one of the defaults and
modifying it to meet your needs.

Jim

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 16:59 31 January 2016, wrote:
>On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
>> The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and
>propri=
>etary tasks and scoring rules which requires it). =20
>>=20
>> The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a silver
>pl=
>atter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique
>EVERYTHING=
>, we can't use this great new task easily.
>>=20
>> It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see
the
>=
>forest for the trees...
>>=20
>> We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of the
>pl=
>anet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).
>>=20
>> Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched
fists
>=
>all over the land...
>>=20
>> But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly,
>proprie=
>tary, US rules and US scoring software. =20
>>=20
>> Drum roll............................................
>>=20
>> Simply use SeeYou! =20
>>=20
>> Ta-da! Close curtain!
>>=20
>> Morning tasking chores-
>> A) Call the task
>> B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task!
>(Another=
> thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
>> C) Go race and have fun! =20
>> D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won! =20
>>=20
>> A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix style)
>a=
>nd he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second
>place..=
>..and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy he
>win=
>ner a well deserved pint!
>>=20
>> All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various
handicaps
>=
>(99% of us!). =20
>>=20
>> This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a
lot
>=
>of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair
>chanc=
>e of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and
>havi=
>ng fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage.
Again,
>=
>congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try it
>i=
>n the spring with my gang in MI.
>>=20
>> Sean Fidler
>
>At the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this
task
>=
>idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we
>allow=
> anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the
>seaso=
>n, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
>- A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap
>leve=
>l after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for different
>l=
>aunch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do some
>co=
>mputer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in the
>a=
>ir)
>- Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use
>non-cer=
>tified hand-held loggers.
>- Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their loggers.
>T=
>hat takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and
don't
>=
>want to acquire.
>
>The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US
>environme=
>nt. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the
>fac=
>t that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height
>(4,500'=
>) and start and finish radii.
>Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you
>accoun=
>t for those flying ballasted in the final score.
>Herb
>
Herb, we do not make any changes for ballasted glider as they are allowed
in all our comps using standard handicaps (except club class where ballast
is prohibited for another reason)

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

I'd very much support this being tried at a US Regionals, or even local races.

I'm still wondering about tactical implications. If the task lengths are set by handicap and each turn is just a few miles further for higher performance ships I'd think the higher performance ships would be passing the lower performance ships on each leg, continuing on past the lower performance turn a couple of miles then turning and running them down again on the next leg so that the lower performance ships are almost perpetually markers and they don't get to turn the tables because right around the time the higher performance guys pass them they have to turn onto the next leg. Even if the course isn't out and return it wouldn't take much deviation to put the lower performance guys in the crosshairs after a turn.

If the purpose is to handicap the task length so that everybody flies the same task duration then I'd think if you start just a bit behind a lower performance glider you'd pass them up on every leg - assuming equal piloting. People do this a little bit in US AT and MAT tasking by going a little deeper in the 1mi cylinder than a target pilot in front of you. This would set that up by design and well-aligned with glider performance so executing the tactic would be even easier.

Not that it's a big deal, just that some of us Americans hate the using markers style of flying.

Maybe I just need to see how the geometry works out in practice.

Andy
9B

[[email protected]]

Well we(ASA) have tried these type tasks in the past in the form of Grand Prix where everyone starts at the same time (racehorse) and this year are doing it exclusively in our local contest here in AZ. I also have flown in a couple at SCOH set up by a former ASAer TS1. I like the race style as it relates to flying the same course and at the same time and knowing instantly where you stand in the race. Very exciting.

I remember coming in right behind KM in Houston about a 1/4 mile behind trailing in his water ballast flying a borrowed LS4 dry knowing that I couldn't trade altitude for speed and still make it back as we both were on a marginal glide. You just can't beat better pilots when your handicapping :)

The only drawback I saw was the race horse start can get a bit hectic if too many planes are in the race. Other than that lots of fun to fly!

[smfidler]

Amen!

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:59:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
> > The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and proprietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it).
> >
> > The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a silver platter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique EVERYTHING, we can't use this great new task easily.
> >
> > It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see the forest for the trees...
> >
> > We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of the planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).
> >
> > Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched fists all over the land...
> >
> > But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly, proprietary, US rules and US scoring software.
> >
> > Drum roll............................................
> >
> > Simply use SeeYou!
> >
> > Ta-da! Close curtain!
> >
> > Morning tasking chores-
> > A) Call the task
> > B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task! (Another thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
> > C) Go race and have fun!
> > D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won!
> >
> > A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix style) and he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second place....and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy he winner a well deserved pint!
> >
> > All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various handicaps (99% of us!).
> >
> > This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a lot of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair chance of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and having fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage. Again, congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try it in the spring with my gang in MI.
> >
> > Sean Fidler
>
> At the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this task idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we allow anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the season, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
> - A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap level after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for different launch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do some computer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in the air)
> - Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use non-certified hand-held loggers.
> - Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their loggers. That takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and don't want to acquire.
>
> The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US environment. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the fact that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height (4,500') and start and finish radii.
> Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you account for those flying ballasted in the final score.
> Herb

Herb, I believe Jim's scheme appends the task into the IGC file post flight and is only used for scoring in SeeYou. So non approved loggers and non pre-declared tasks would not be a problem. Perhaps Jim can clarify.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 00:54 01 February 2016, jfitch wrote:
>On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:59:23 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
>> > The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and
>prop=
>rietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it). =20
>> >=20
>> > The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a
silver
>=
>platter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique
>EVERYTHI=
>NG, we can't use this great new task easily.
>> >=20
>> > It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see
>th=
>e forest for the trees...
>> >=20
>> > We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of
the
>=
>planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).
>> >=20
>> > Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched
>fist=
>s all over the land...
>> >=20
>> > But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly,
>propr=
>ietary, US rules and US scoring software. =20
>> >=20
>> > Drum roll............................................
>> >=20
>> > Simply use SeeYou! =20
>> >=20
>> > Ta-da! Close curtain!
>> >=20
>> > Morning tasking chores-
>> > A) Call the task
>> > B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task!
>(Anoth=
>er thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
>> > C) Go race and have fun! =20
>> > D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won! =20
>> >=20
>> > A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix
>style)=
> and he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second
>place=
>....and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy
he
>w=
>inner a well deserved pint!
>> >=20
>> > All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various
>handicap=
>s (99% of us!). =20
>> >=20
>> > This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a
>lo=
>t of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair
>cha=
>nce of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and
>ha=
>ving fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage.
>Again=
>, congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try
>it=
> in the spring with my gang in MI.
>> >=20
>> > Sean Fidler
>>=20
>> At the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this
>tas=
>k idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we
>all=
>ow anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the
>sea=
>son, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
>> - A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap
>le=
>vel after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for
>different=
> launch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do
some
>=
>computer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in
>the=
> air)
>> - Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use
>non-c=
>ertified hand-held loggers.
>> - Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their
loggers.
>=
> That takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and
>don'=
>t want to acquire.
>>=20
>> The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US
>environ=
>ment. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the
>f=
>act that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height
>(4,50=
>0') and start and finish radii.
>> Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you
>acco=
>unt for those flying ballasted in the final score.
>> Herb
>
>Herb, I believe Jim's scheme appends the task into the IGC file post
>flight=
> and is only used for scoring in SeeYou. So non approved loggers and non
>pr=
>e-declared tasks would not be a problem. Perhaps Jim can clarify.
>

Absolutely. The software puts the task into the IGC file using SeeYou
syntax. SeeYou Competition has a 'use task from file' check box which when
ticked makes it score the embedded task rather than the generic assigned
task.

Neither my software nor See You cares where the evidence comes from as long
as it is in IGC format.

Jim

[[email protected]]

Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:

1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the jockeying that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be exciting. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in closely together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as occurs today when start times are minutes apart.

2. Barrel size. Andy raised the issue of blue holes, T-storms, and other localized wx. I'm not overly excited about the "big area" tasks we currently call in the U.S. But based on experience back in the day, I'm not excited about returning to assigned tasks all the time, either (sorry, Sean). I'd rather fly an area task (or this new task with a larger barrel) than lose the entire day because the TP (or the tiny barrel for the higher-performing gliders) is in a bad place weatherwise. It's all well and good to say we'll make changes when showers are in the forecast but in the real world, if we could forecast showers accurately, task calling would be a lot simpler.

But, yeah, let's try this at a few regionals (east and west) and see how it goes. Integrating this with Winscore seems like the biggest obstacle. It's always risky to make changes to software and Winscore hasn't been immune to the bugs that can creep in when this occurs.

Chip Bearden

[Tony[_5_]]

scoring software limitations should not be defining the tasks that we fly...

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 18:30 04 February 2016, wrote:
>Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:
>
>1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the
>jockeyi=
>ng that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be
>excit=
>ing. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in
>closel=
>y together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as
occurs
>=
>today when start times are minutes apart.
>
In UK regionals we do not have regatta starts. Pilots start when they want
to. Human nature is that they tend to end up as regatta starts!

[[email protected]]

I agree scoring software should not be a constraint on task definition. But to a certain extent, it is. As much as corralling someone to develop and read TP film in the old days was a hassle, so is finding someone who can competently make Winscore do what it's supposed to do. And the frequent rule changes in the past did lead inevitably (to anyone who works in software development) to bugs being introduced. Recently I sense there's been more stability but a new task would complicate matters. It shouldn't stop us from considering this interesting concept but the gap between theory and practice exists here, too, as elsewhere in life.

Chip Bearden

[SoaringXCellence]

Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8 this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just a thought for the moment.

I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the software.

Mike

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 02:42 05 February 2016, SoaringXCellence wrote:
>Chip,
>
>In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is
implemented
>via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8
>this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just
a
>thought for the moment.
>
>I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the
>software.
>
>Mike
>
PM me if you need any assistance. I expect that your pilots will love it.
We task this way every weekend throughout the season which is good way to
get into practice with the task and scoring process.

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> Chip,
>
> In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.

I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.

Chip Bearden

[SoaringXCellence]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> > Chip,
> >
> > In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.
>
> I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.
>
> Chip Bearden

Chip,

I think if the handicapper is used, the scoring for the day would have to be done in SeeYou and that would be the score for the day. I was a (new) scorer last year at Region 8 and am planning on doing it again this year, but have to admit, I'm still a novice at WinScore and it's finer nuances.

Mike

[jfitch]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:59:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 9:42:42 PM UTC-5, SoaringXCellence wrote:
> > Chip,
> >
> > In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK.
>
> I understood that conceptually but probably not in sufficient detail. I'm curious to know how that would work under the SSA scoring system. Would the task-based distances just be imported into Winscore as a file to be scored using the existing rules for min distance, devaluation, airport landing bonus, etc.? Or would SeeYou score the entire day using SSA formulae, and the points imported into Winscore to be added to the other days? Not sure Winscore is set up for either of these, or if you could do at least the former with a simple script. Or would you just score the whole contest using SeeYou, with or without SSA scoring formulae? There are more manual steps involved in using Winscore than most pilots realize but I don't know how complex it would be to integrate with SeeYou, if that's what would be required. My version of SeeYou is ancient and it's been 5+ years since I scored with Winscore.
>
> Chip Bearden

I believe you would score the whole contest in SeeYou, using the scoring script of your choice. It should be be possible to write (or modify) a script to implement the US/SSA rules, as Winscore does. The difference here is that each flight log has to be scored against a task that is unique to that glider. Jim's post processor appends that particular task into that particular log (in theory automatically), which is then evaluated by SeeYou for violations, speed, etc. Since the handicapping is done with the task distances, speed is speed - it doesn't need to be adjusted for other than violations.. Points assignment would be done by the SeeYou scoring script to suit your taste in rules.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?

Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.

US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.

However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.

So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"

Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?

The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.

On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.

With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.

That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.

Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.

Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?

PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.

John Cochrane BB

[jfitch]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?
>
> Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.
>
> US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.
>
> However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.
>
> So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"
>
> Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?
>
> The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.
>
> On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.
>
> With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.
>
> That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.
>
> Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.
>
> Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?
>
> PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.
>
> John Cochrane BB

To a couple of your points:

This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.

The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).

Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.

In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.

In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:48:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> To a couple of your points:
>
> This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.
>
> The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).
>
> Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.
>
> In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.
>
> In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.

Since you seem to understand this task, can you explain to me what problem we have with the current tasks used in the US that this task solves?
Another way- what benefit does it provide over existing tasks?
Thanks
UH

[smfidler]

BB,

Please excuse spelling errors as I type this quickly on my cell phone between meetings.

Your question misses the whole point. In fact I'm embarrassed for our sport when I read such comments. It's as if you RC guys are from a different dimension. You guys seem to consistently find very weak reasons to dilute and pervert the few good, clean, race centric tasks which remain in the USA. This is incredibly irritating.

Extra distance? No! No, no, no, NO! For the love of all things special, NOOOOOOO! That is the whole purpose of the Handicap Distnace Task (HDR). It's intended to be a real race!

Do I hear heads exploding in the distance? I said "race!" .......boom!

The HDR calculates a simple set distance requirement for each gliders handicap. It intentionally does not provide aloof freedoms to decide what you want to do. This is becuase that kills the idea of "racing" and creates a new sport entirely (OLC). A new paradigm. The whole point of the HDR task is simplicity and a fair, even, SIMPLE race between a range of different gliders. This is not intended to be an OLC or TAT task John. It is an effort to get away from it (more heads exploding in the distance....)

If your head is still intact, please try and stay with me here.

This IS (intentionally) NOT a timed task. The idea is for all competitors to get to the closest point in their ring as fast as possible and turn. No watches. No scoring formulas. No weather gambles (well, as few as possible). The shortest time wins. Wow!

Yes, lower performance gliders with larger diameter turn points may have more lateral range to work with. Depending on how it goes, I may define narrowed segments (pie shapes) to limit that lateral range for the low handicap gliders in Ionia (for example). Simple to do. An improvement I think.

TATs - Turn area tasks are depressing tasks because they allow far too much choice in A) what side of the turn cylinder to guess, gamble, put your chips on (and that is a significant part of the results). B) It also allows pilots to choose how far to go into various turn areas (this also significantly effects results). The average US "turn area" in our TAT tasks is 40 miles!

The (timed) TAT is, simply put, not much of a race at all. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game. The task allows pilots to choose between tens of thousands of optional square miles to fly thru. It is intentionally free (barely constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, each day.

Some call the TAT a test of skill. The truth is that there is usually significant luck involved in the results. The variables available between A) widely different start times and B) three 40 mile diameter turn areas (for example) are absolutely ENORMOUS. This huge variability results in low quality, almost subjective competition results, especially at the beginner levels.

The TAT is also WILDLY over called in the USA (60-70% of our current tasks).. Here is the test: If glider pilots are able to reach both sides, and varying depths, of 3 turn cylinders (areas) THEN an ASSIGNED TASK would have worked out perfectly for this given content day! When you look at the IGC traces of most US tasks (over the past 5 years) you will see that that test fails the vast majority of the time!

Again, The TAT is a COMPROMISE TASK developed for dealing with less than perfect weather or wide handicap or skill range. It is intended to reduce land outs. It is not the ideal form of a competition becuase LUCK is a major element of the task. The area task allows gliders to (somehow, via formulas, rules, etc) "compete???" on an entirely different track...in other words...not a race at all. The area task is not a race, it's a compromise. Watered down. Muted. Boring. Annoying. A weather guessing task.

I don't care who you are. Nobody can predict the weather that perfectly. It's just to dynamic on a 50 mile scale. So to those who say they want a weather test, give me a break. An assigned task is a far better weather test becuase decisions are exponentially more critical as you must get back to the same exact points after each weather decision on each leg.

I stand amazingly opposed to the idea of extra distance being a good thing. It's THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SOARING. Awful.

Sean

[smfidler]

BB,

Please excuse spelling errors as I type this reply out quickly on my cell phone between meetings. The subject of the TAT task makes my skin crawl.

Let me start by saying I think your a very smart guy and mean well. You do great things for the sport! But when it comes to tasking philosophy, we stand far, far apart... Please don't take this too seriously.

Your question about extra distance shows me that you are entirely missing the point of the Handicap Distance Task. I'm shocked and amazed when I read such questions and comments. It's as if you RC guys are sometimes writing from an entirely different dimension. Somehow you find reasons to continue the anti racing task crusade (even though racing tasks are down to under 3% in the USA and only a few pesky pockets or resistance remain!). Even a newly proposed handicap racing task gets your attention (already struck down by the USRC!) and suffers from your instinct to look at ways to pervert it. This is incredibly irritating.

Extra distance? No! No, no, no, NO! For the love of all things special, NOOOOOOO! That is the whole purpose of the Handicap Distance Task (HDR). It's intended to be a real racing experience for the handicap gliding environment.

Uh oh. Did I just hear the muffled sounds of heads violently exploding in the distance? I said the word "racing" on a US glider forum, big mistake,................boom!

http://youtu.be/B_Lnz64vXB8

The HDR task calculates a simple set distance (around common assigned turn points) for each gliders handicap. It intentionally does not provide aloof freedoms for each pilot to further decide what they want to do when they reach the turn. This is because that freedom would completely kills the idea of "racing" and creates a new, non-racing sport entirely (see OLC, US tasking).

The whole point of the HDR task is simplicity and fair, even, SIMPLE racing between a range of different gliders. This is not intended to be an OLC or TAT task John. In fact, The HDR is an effort to get away from not racing (more heads exploding off in the American countryside distance....)

If your head is still intact, please try and stay with me here.

The HDR is (intentionally) NOT a timed task. The idea is for all competitors to get to the closest point in their "ring" as fast as possible and turn towards the next assigned point. No watches or countdown timers. No scoring formulas. No weather gambles (well, as few as possible). Fly the task as fast as you can. The shortest time wins the RACE. A Ventus 2cxm could race fairly against a LS1 with this task. How great is that. No, wait a minute, you want to add more variables.

Yes, lower performance gliders with larger diameter turn points may have more lateral range to work with. Depending on how it goes, I may define narrowed segments (pie shapes) to limit that lateral range for the low handicap gliders in Ionia (for example). Simple to do. An improvement I think. Better yet would be a series of one km turn points on the task leg radial. Also simple to code up.

Back to the pain of TATs - Turn area tasks are depressing tasks because they allow far too much choice in A) what side of the turn cylinder to guess, gamble, put your chips on (and that is a significant part of the results) and B) how far to go into various turn areas (this also significantly effects results). The average US "turn area" in our TAT tasks is 40 miles! That's 1257 square miles!

The (timed) TAT is, simply put, is not a race. Not even close. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game in a loosely defined area. The TAT task allows pilots to choose between thousands of optional square miles to fly over and turn to the next area over. It is free form by design (lightly constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, for each segment of the day (early starters, late starters...). The weather variability is also enormous over these ranges.

Some call the TAT a test of skill. The truth is that there is usually significant luck involved in the results. The options and variables available to a pilot between A) widely different start times and B) three 20 mile radius (for example) turn areas are absolutely ENORMOUS. This huge variability results in low quality, almost subjective competition results, especially at the beginner levels.

The TAT is also WILDLY over called in the USA (65-70% of our current total task).

Here is the sniff test: If glider pilots on a TAT are able to reach both sides, and varying depths, of 3 turn cylinders (areas) THEN an ASSIGNED TASK would have worked out perfectly for this given content day! When you look at the IGC traces of most US tasks (over the past 5 years) you will see that that test fails the vast majority of the time! I would say 75% of hand. I'm happy to back that up but, better yet, go look for yourself.

Again, The TAT is a COMPROMISE TASK developed for dealing with less than perfect weather forecasts or wide handicap or skill range. It is intended to reduce land outs when weather is unpredictable and give competitors a chance to finish. It is not the ideal form of a competition because LUCK is a major, major element of its results. The area task allows gliders to (somehow, via formulas, rules, etc) "compete???" on an entirely different geography and at entirely different times. Does this sound like a race to you? It's a huge compromise at best. Watered down. Muted. Boring. Annoying. A weather gamble task. I propose that we should only be calling TATs when we must. It should not be our, by far, most common task.

I don't care who you are. I don't care if you are Mother F. Nature. Nobody can predict the weather well enough to consistently succeed at a TAT. The statistics of the task alone prove this. Weather, on the scale of cross country gliding, is just to random and dynamic. This is why non contest pilots like OLC. They have a hard time completing tasks they call for themselves and get frustrated. Why, weather is impossible to predict. OLC allows for this weather problem and "kinda" results in some measurable form of accomplishment (distance), albeit usually at a different location, different time of day and over an entirely different quadrant of a clubs flying area.. Golf clap to you....! You won!?

So to those who say they want a "weather test," give me a break. An assigned task is a far better weather test because decisions are exponentially more critical as you must get back to the same exact same points to complete each assigned leg. Weather decisions are force CONSOLIDATED on every leg of an assigned task. Just because two gliders are not fifty miles apart in the same "turn-area" does not mean that there are not weather implications. It's quite the opposite.

I stand amazingly opposed to the idea of extra distance being a good thing. It's THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SOARING. Awful.

Here is to the hope of the handicap distance task catching on, despite the constant opposition to simple, non-complex, pure racing tasks in the United States.

Sean Fidler

[jfitch]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 5:57:22 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 11:48:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> >
> > To a couple of your points:
> >
> > This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.
> >
> > The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).
> >
> > Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.
> >
> > In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.
> >
> > In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.
>
> Since you seem to understand this task, can you explain to me what problem we have with the current tasks used in the US that this task solves?
> Another way- what benefit does it provide over existing tasks?
> Thanks
> UH

This kind of task is not better or worse than another, flown in isolation. It has slightly different tactical considerations. I like it in conjunction with a simultaneous start, as I have mentioned before. I like that because it is the only sailplane competition that is like a real race: if you are ahead, you are ahead. Other types of tasks are properly called a time trial, not a race. With large cylinder AAT and MAT tasks, there is little difference between them and OLC, might as well fly OLC - costs less and I can fly my day. An AT in a meter class with a simultaneous start would have the same benefits, provided the gliders were really identical.

The only reason for pilots to get together at a specified time and place is to race head to head against others. Racing against the clock can be done anytime, anyplace. I am rather uninterested in traditional US competition where you start at some random time, fly around a loosely defined course occasionally seeing others, then learn how you did after dinner. I got interested in racing again due to the handicapped distance task (and, I will add, Flarm). Take those away and I will go back to touring, OLC style.

Let me ask this: are the currently used tasks so successful that there is an increasing number of participants leading to a full schedule of oversubscribed races?

[smfidler]

BB,

Please excuse spelling errors as I type this reply out quickly on my cell phone between meetings. The subject of the TAT task makes my skin crawl.

Let me start by saying I think that you're a very smart guy and mean well. You also do great things for the sport of soaring! But when it comes to tasking philosophy, we stand far, far apart. Please don't take this too seriously...

Your question about "extra distance" shows me that you entirely miss the point of the Handicap Distance Task. I'm shocked and amazed when I read such questions and comments. It's as if you USRC guys are sometimes writing from an entirely different dimension. Somehow you find reasons to continue the anti racing task crusade (even though racing tasks are down to under 3% in the USA and only a few pesky pockets or resistance remain!). Even a newly proposed handicap racing task gets your attention (already struck down by the USRC!) and suffers from your instinct to look at ways to pervert it. This is incredibly irritating.

Extra distance? No! No, no, no, NO! For the love of all things special, NOOOOOOO! That is the whole purpose of the Handicap Distance Task (HDR). It's intended to be a real racing experience for the handicap gliding environment.

Uh oh. Did I just hear the muffled sounds of heads violently exploding in the distance? I said the word "racing" on a US glider forum, big mistake,................boom!

http://youtu.be/B_Lnz64vXB8

The HDR task calculates a simple set distance (around common assigned turn points) for each gliders handicap. It intentionally does not provide aloof freedoms for each pilot to further decide what they want to do when they reach the turn. This is because that freedom would completely kills the idea of "racing" and creates a new, non-racing sport entirely (see OLC, US tasking).

The whole point of the HDR task is simplicity and fair, even, SIMPLE racing between a range of different gliders. This is not intended to be an OLC or TAT task John. In fact, The HDR is an effort to get away from not racing (more heads exploding off in the American countryside distance....)

If your head is still intact, please try and stay with me here.

The HDR is (intentionally) NOT a timed task. The idea is for all competitors to get to the closest point in their "ring" as fast as possible and turn towards the next assigned point. No watches or countdown timers. No scoring formulas. No weather gambles (well, as few as possible). Fly the task as fast as you can. The shortest time wins the RACE. A Ventus 2cxm could race fairly against a LS1 with this task. How great is that. No, wait a minute, you want to add more variables.

Yes, lower performance gliders with larger diameter turn points may have more lateral range to work with. Depending on how it goes, I may define narrowed segments (pie shapes) to limit that lateral range for the low handicap gliders in Ionia (for example). Simple to do. An improvement I think. Better yet would be a series of one km turn points on the task leg radial. Also simple to code up.

Back to the pain of TATs - Turn area tasks are depressing tasks because they allow far too much choice in A) what side of the turn cylinder to guess, gamble, put your chips on (and that is a significant part of the results) and B) how far to go into various turn areas (this also significantly effects results). The average US "turn area" in our TAT tasks is 40 miles! That's 1257 square miles!

The (timed) TAT is, simply put, is not a race. Not even close. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game in a loosely defined area. The TAT task allows pilots to choose between thousands of optional square miles to fly over and turn to the next area over. It is free form by design (lightly constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, for each segment of the day (early starters, late starters...). The weather variability is also enormous over these ranges.

Some call the TAT a test of skill. The truth is that there is usually significant luck involved in the results. The options and variables available to a pilot between A) widely different start times and B) three 20 mile radius (for example) turn areas are absolutely ENORMOUS. This huge variability results in low quality, almost subjective competition results, especially at the beginner levels.

The TAT is also WILDLY over called in the USA (65-70% of our current total task).

Here is the sniff test: If glider pilots on a TAT are able to reach both sides, and varying depths, of 3 turn cylinders (areas) THEN an ASSIGNED TASK would have worked out perfectly for this given content day! When you look at the IGC traces of most US tasks (over the past 5 years) you will see that that test fails the vast majority of the time! I would say 75% of hand. I'm happy to back that up but, better yet, go look for yourself.

Again, The TAT is a COMPROMISE TASK developed for dealing with less than perfect weather forecasts or wide handicap or skill range. It is intended to reduce land outs when weather is unpredictable and give competitors a chance to finish. It is not the ideal form of a competition because LUCK is a major, major element of its results. The area task allows gliders to (somehow, via formulas, rules, etc) "compete???" on an entirely different geography and at entirely different times. Does this sound like a race to you? It's a huge compromise at best. Watered down. Muted. Boring. Annoying. A weather gamble task. I propose that we should only be calling TATs when we must. It should not be our, by far, most common task.

I don't care who you are. I don't care if you are Mother F. Nature. Nobody can predict the weather well enough to consistently succeed at a TAT. The statistics of the task alone prove this. Weather, on the scale of cross country gliding, is just to random and dynamic. This is why non contest pilots like OLC. They have a hard time completing tasks they call for themselves and get frustrated. Why, weather is impossible to predict. OLC allows for this weather problem and "kinda" results in some measurable form of accomplishment (distance), albeit usually at a different location, different time of day and over an entirely different quadrant of a clubs flying area.. Golf clap to you....! You won!?

So to those who say they want a "weather test," give me a break. An assigned task is a far better weather test because decisions are exponentially more critical as you must get back to the same exact same points to complete each assigned leg. Weather decisions are force CONSOLIDATED on every leg of an assigned task. Just because two gliders are not fifty miles apart in the same "turn-area" does not mean that there are not weather implications. It's quite the opposite.

I stand amazingly opposed to the idea of extra distance being a good thing. It's THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF SOARING. Awful.

Here is to the hope of the handicap distance task catching on, despite the constant opposition to simple, non-complex, pure racing tasks in the United States.

Sean Fidler

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Now Sean, settle down. Yes, I understand the idea of the handicapped distance task, and I'm not against it. In fact, I wish we'd try far more things already in the rules -- last start time, OLC-type tasking or "distance day" achieved by 6 hour minimums, really long MATs with all turns assigned, worst day score adjustment, etc. etc.

So let's try it at some regionals and see if pilots like it.

There are two kinds of diametrically opposed feedback I hear about glider races. 1) "I want more eyeball to eyeball racing. It's getting boring out there so I'll stay home and fly OLC" 2) "I don't want to waste my gliding vacation on a bunch of short tasks, flying only 300 km on 750 km days. I'll stay home and fly OLC."

Handicapped distance task addresses 1, especially for pilots who find the strategic choice of where to turn in a turn area and how to use a clock to end the flight unpleasant. But it goes in the other direction on 2. Time-limited tasks are ideally suited to let each pilot get the most out of each day, without long retrieves. At the cost of less eyeball to eyeball racing feel.

Let's try both and see what pilots really want, facing the heartless sky, away from the comfort of their winter keyboards, and ponying up their precious weeks of vacation for the pleasure.

I'll be at Truckee this summer where they call the handicapped distance task with last start time. I'll be interested to try it.

John Cochrane

[smfidler]

;-)

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:57:01 AM UTC-5, smfidler wrote:

<<The (timed) TAT is, simply put, is not a race. Not even close. It's a timed, distance, weather gamble game in a loosely defined area. The TAT task allows pilots to choose between thousands of optional square miles to fly over and turn to the next area over. It is free form by design (lightly constrained) and fundamentally completely different for each competitor, for each segment of the day (early starters, late starters...). The weather variability is also enormous over these ranges.>>

You're right, Sean; there's enormous weather variability. The TAT task evolved in part because we got tired of losing perfectly good soaring days that had a shower or a blue hole over one of the turns. Talk about luck. If you think there's too much luck involved in choosing where in a TAT circle to turn, it's nothing compared with where to position an AST turn 3-6 hours before the first pilots arrive there...on a day when there's a 20%-40% chance of isolated T-storms.

I well remember wild rides under the leading edge of a storm trying to get in close enough to snap a photo (yeah, I'm living in the past) before being washed out of the sky. In some cases, being 1-2 minutes late arriving at the turn as a fast-moving squall line overran it was the difference between landing out and winning the day. THAT is luck.

TAT tasks trade off the uncertainty of where to turn against the uncertainty of picking the right TPs before the flying starts. I agree they're called too often. But it's not because of a conspiracy by the Rules Committee and their minions. It's because CDs really don't like the overt or behind-their-backs flack they get when a bunch of pilots who are paying a lot of money to fly an important contest see "no contest day" pop up because the first or second or third turn was 10 miles too far in one direction. Been there, done that many, many, many times.

I actually like ASTs better. But only when the weather is consistent or predictable enough that our average weatherman and CD can reliably ensure the task can be flown. We flew a bunch of tasks at Elmira last year where many of us finished only because the TAT cylinders allowed us to work around the blue holes and storms that frequently arose.

Nothing is perfect. But I guarantee you that if we were to move to a preponderance of ASTs, the average number of official days per contest would decline significantly. Or CDs would take to calling shorter, close-in tasks hoping to play it safe. Neither one of those is a desirable outcome, in my opinion.

The great thing about what you're proposing, Sean, is that it's not a new idea. It's the way things used to be. There were a lot of problems with it, which is the reason we adapted. Is today's tasking philosophy perfect? For sure, no. I'm up for exploring new options. But there's no panacea, despite today's better weather information. You're a proponent of change. We did change. Get with the program! :)

Chip Bearden

[jfitch]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:47:38 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Now Sean, settle down. Yes, I understand the idea of the handicapped distance task, and I'm not against it. In fact, I wish we'd try far more things already in the rules -- last start time, OLC-type tasking or "distance day" achieved by 6 hour minimums, really long MATs with all turns assigned, worst day score adjustment, etc. etc.
>
> So let's try it at some regionals and see if pilots like it.
>
> There are two kinds of diametrically opposed feedback I hear about glider races. 1) "I want more eyeball to eyeball racing. It's getting boring out there so I'll stay home and fly OLC" 2) "I don't want to waste my gliding vacation on a bunch of short tasks, flying only 300 km on 750 km days. I'll stay home and fly OLC."
>
> Handicapped distance task addresses 1, especially for pilots who find the strategic choice of where to turn in a turn area and how to use a clock to end the flight unpleasant. But it goes in the other direction on 2. Time-limited tasks are ideally suited to let each pilot get the most out of each day, without long retrieves. At the cost of less eyeball to eyeball racing feel.
>
> Let's try both and see what pilots really want, facing the heartless sky, away from the comfort of their winter keyboards, and ponying up their precious weeks of vacation for the pleasure.
>
> I'll be at Truckee this summer where they call the handicapped distance task with last start time. I'll be interested to try it.
>
> John Cochrane

John, if you can manage it you should try to be at one of the Truckee Tagars events (4 a year). The FAI contest seems to be flown almost as a handicap distance task, every one usually starts at or very near the gate open and goes into the AAT cylinders pretty similar to the way a HDT would be flown. But the Tagars is a real HDT, and this year we will attempt to use Jim's software to do it. In the past the tasks were calculated more manually for each glider. Simultaneous start and first glider home wins.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

How do you even know of that YouTube link?

[smfidler]

Agreed Chip. I just want more than 2-3%. We need to value the purity of the assigned task far more than we currently do in US contests.

The MAT kills the AST. It is not a suitable substitute. It's the worst task on earth.

Increasing the number of ASTs (slightly, nothing ridiculous) starts with the pilots, and then the CDs and organizers. If the pilots see the value, then it will happen.

AST's = racing

All other tasks are timed, distance tasks.

Sean

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

What's so "pure" about the assigned task? The assigned task is deeply all about following tactics. Can you start just at the right time, pick up just the right gaggles, leave them just at the right time to catch the markers ahead, etc? Can you hide from people who want to follow you? Add IGC rules, and it becomes more tactical still, as your strategy depends so much on what others are doing, how many are landing out, and so on.

(That comment is most true with the standard start method. Grand prix or last start time is a different, but still intensely tactical game.)

Time limited tasks with largeish turn areas or a fairly free MAT are about pilot, sky, and ground. How many miles can you put under the glider in 3-4 hours? Sure it takes a lot of skill and a lot of thinking -- looking at weather, understanding terrain, plotting routes, making those big decisions about deviations vs. better lift, and so on. Your brain hurts in these tasks. Which is why many pilots dislike them.

But which is the "pure" measure of soaring skill, and which is the artificial tactical game? Granted many pilots are very very good at the tactical game, and reluctant to see those hard-won skills devalued. But that's a different argument.

Soaring racing did not start with the assigned task because it was the "pure" task. Soaring racing started with the assigned task because it was the only possible task, before GPS. The change from observers to cameras at turnpoints opened up the MAT possibility. And the invention of GPS opened up the turn area possibility. That technology opens up other possibilities too, such as the handicapped distance task.

"old" does not necessarily equate with "pure" or better.

John Cochrane BB

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> What's so "pure" about the assigned task? The assigned task is deeply all about following tactics. Can you start just at the right time, pick up just the right gaggles, leave them just at the right time to catch the markers ahead, etc? Can you hide from people who want to follow you? Add IGC rules, and it becomes more tactical still, as your strategy depends so much on what others are doing, how many are landing out, and so on.
>
> (That comment is most true with the standard start method. Grand prix or last start time is a different, but still intensely tactical game.)
>
> Time limited tasks with largeish turn areas or a fairly free MAT are about pilot, sky, and ground. How many miles can you put under the glider in 3-4 hours? Sure it takes a lot of skill and a lot of thinking -- looking at weather, understanding terrain, plotting routes, making those big decisions about deviations vs. better lift, and so on. Your brain hurts in these tasks. Which is why many pilots dislike them.
>
> But which is the "pure" measure of soaring skill, and which is the artificial tactical game? Granted many pilots are very very good at the tactical game, and reluctant to see those hard-won skills devalued. But that's a different argument.
>
> Soaring racing did not start with the assigned task because it was the "pure" task. Soaring racing started with the assigned task because it was the only possible task, before GPS. The change from observers to cameras at turnpoints opened up the MAT possibility. And the invention of GPS opened up the turn area possibility. That technology opens up other possibilities too, such as the handicapped distance task.
>
> "old" does not necessarily equate with "pure" or better.
>
> John Cochrane BB

Unfortunately the question "how many miles can you put under the glider in a day" is perhaps better answered by OLC. Pilots have voted that it is, by their participation. I agree that no task is inherently more pure than another, but OLC offered an alternative to SSA racing that many seem to prefer. There is really no reason to call a date and place and have everyone launch together during their vacation days, to determine "how many miles you can put under your glider in a day". It can be done on any weekend, and you can choose one with a good forecast.

I am trying to think of ANY other sport called "racing" with an analogous type of task. Imagine a Formula 1 race where the drivers could leave the start line anytime within an hour, drive to anywhere they please in a large area and thence to another, returning before a certain elapsed time limit, then we compare average speeds after dinner to determine the winner. Would anyone watch that race? Would anyone participate? Would you even call it a "race"?

The closest sport I can think of is sailing which is weather dependent even on course: do I take the left hand or right side, what will the wind and current do? This make the choice of course sailed between marks a tactical one. Even so, I can think of NO sailboat race in which the competitors are allowed to start when they want, sail to their choice of mark in a large area and even pick the areas en route, get credit for the actual distance sailed, and the winner called on the basis of average speed over all the different courses sailed. It would be all about "the helmsman, the wind and the water". I can assure you no one would participate in that sort of event. No one would call it a "race".

Yet this is typical SSA 'racing'.

In racing, the reason you call a time and date and course and start together, is to see who makes better use of the equipment and conditions, on that course, at that time, observing the other competitors so as to evaluate your performance each minute.

[smfidler]

Well said jfitch

John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

But I do enjoy our annual winter tangle about assigned tasks. Almost extinct in the USA. Maybe 5-8 a year and falling...

It is well known that you (and the USRC) believe assigned tasks are not important and prefer MATs. You think MATs are a better mousetrap. As a result, we currently run 10-1 MATs vs ASTs in the USA.

While at the same time, internationally, 50% of the tasks are AST, 50% TAT (much smaller radii). That's why assigned tasks are important.

Assigned RACING tasks are pure becuase they require no scoring formulas (well wait a minute, US rules do because you guys molested the AST by allowing cheeky distance grabs in the 1 mile "assigned" turn points, negating the concept of an actual race!), no fancy computers and have less variables (luck). These tasks are the simplest tasks for beginners and contest organizers. They are fun!

Sean

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

> John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.
>
> FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.
>
> And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."
>
> ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.
>
> If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.
>
> If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.
>
> If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC
>
> Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."
>
> John Cochrane BB

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

> Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.

To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.

BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

To repeat - the RC encourages any organizer with an interest to try the handicapped distance task under waiver and providing detailed feedback on how well it works. Keep in mind that you will likely need to fly 100% task types that are supported by SeeYou, which will have some differences form what people might be used to. It seems that those are reasonably surmountable challenges.

9B

[[email protected]]

Well said, Andy. I remember free distance, cats cradle, AST, POST (pilot option speed task), O&R MTO (out & return, multiple turnpoint option), MAT, and TAT, and I'm probably forgetting a few. All require good soaring skills. All involve luck. All seem to be won by the same guys in most cases although George Moffat made a good case against free distance on that basis.

I agree pilots want to be able to finish. Years ago I "graduated" to the ranks of the crewless at both the regional and national level, and it's not so much fun when lots of crewless pilots land out several days in a row.

I'll just reiterate the one thing you didn't mention, which is each task's susceptibility to being washed out by local weather phenomena. I recall many, many times in the days of ASTs when we lost contest days, decent but difficult-to-forecast soaring days, because an isolated storm or early shutdown blocked many of us from reaching one of those mandatory TPs so beloved by fans of the AST.

The "long MAT" (i.e., a string of TPs--hit as many as you can before finishing somewhere near the minimum time) addresses some of the "weaknesses" of both the TAT (e.g., that pilots can fly in wildly different parts of the task area) and the AST (i.e., trying to get to all the TPs before the sky blows up somewhere). I abhor the one-turn MAT although I understand why desperate CDs sometimes resort to it when they have no confidence in even what quadrant will blow up first.

Any MAT has the disadvantage that a storm over the next TP can make it unreachable but at least with a MAT (unlike with an AST), there's still a chance for a finish and completed task, assuming the pilot has accumulated sufficient distance by the time he/she encounters the blocked TP (or can wait it out and then continue). I'd say the chances are better that the early TPs are more reachable than the later ones as the weather cooks up but that isn't always true, as those who flew at Elmira can confirm.

Chip Bearden

[krasw]

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:15:10 UTC+2, Jim White wrote:
>
> This is where we started but the present system is somewhat more refined.
> In the UK we use windicapping which skews towards low handicap gliders as
> the wind strength increases.
>
> We also realised that the shortest way around the task is not to go
> directly towards the centre of the barrel, nor to the point where the
> bisector intersects the barrel circumference.
>
> So we measure the shortest (handicapped or windicapped)path around task for
> each barrel size step and compare to the reference task length * handicap
> (/handicap in US). This iterative process arrives at the barrel size that
> best fits the desired task length for each handicap flying.
>
> Our software will cope with start lines of any length, variable barrels,
> acute and oblique turns, checkpoints, angled finish lines and finish
> rings.
>
> It then prints a handy briefing document for the pilots.
>
> If you put a task into the calculator then export it into SeeYou you will
> see what I mean.
>
> Jim

Interesting. I remember flying GP task with my simple cylinder formula with several other gliders participating. During a short (GP tasks are short usually) task I remember seeing my turnpoint radius of few kilometers while best gliders went for 0,5 km cylinder (for 3% handicap difference you will see extra radius of 3% of the leg length, which is not much). Difference was quite small, nothing that would change the game tactics. You basically got a chance to catch up the better gliders at every turnpoint. I still maintain that this is best used with GP tasks: regatta starts and simple scoring. Otherwise AAT does much of the same.

[Dan Marotta]

Well said!

On 2/9/2016 10:48 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>> John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.
> FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.
>
> And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."
>
> ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.
>
> If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.
>
> If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.
>
> If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC
>
> Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."
>
> John Cochrane BB

--
Dan, 5J

[smfidler]

Arrrrrrg! ;-) (Luke will know what I am saying here...)

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:28:32 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.
>
> I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.
>
> To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.
>
> BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

[Sergio Colacevich[_2_]]

>
>Additionally, pilots who would like to see this task tried in their
>regional should lobby their contest organizer.
>
>John Godfrey (QT)
>

I have followed the very animated and often inspired
correspondence on this subject and I think I can tell my story now,
which can also be called history since an idea of many years ago
grew to factual reality.

In the year 1995 I imagined a task constituted by a short circuit to
be repeated three times, with simultaneous start of groups of
gliders, scored according to the arriving position, so that the first
is first and the second is second etc. independent from elapsed
time. The task was tailored to the gliderport of Crazy Creek because
I judged that location as favorable to this kind of contests. At the
time I discussed the CRAGAR (Crazy Creek Airport Gliding Air Races)
task with other glider pilots but the idea did not make it into
practical application.

In following years I adapted the same concept to Truckee and tried
to have more following but apart a couple of trials with a few other
glider pilots, not much was done until 2005. In that year I finally
was able to organize the first TAGAR (Truckee Airport Gliding Air
Race). It was a quadrilateral to be repeated three times for a total
length of 128 SM. Simultaneous race start crossing the airport
runway, scored by the automobile Formula 1 Grand Prix system, 25
points for the first, 18 for the second etc. without consideration of
the time on course. The last leg was shortened or extended
according to the glider handicap. At the end of the season I read
about the first Sailplane Grand Prix competition and I was comforted
that the were other pilots thinking the same way I was. From then
we run one or two TAGARs per year and slowly the original concept
evolved.

In 2011 I learned about a one-day race held annually by the Arizona
Soaring association (ASA) that consisted also in a race start, but
O&R and with gliders divided in two or three groups, each group
turning at a different distances from the turnpoint according to the
handicap assigned to that group. I was inflamed by the concept and
decided to do the same but added fairness by giving a different
radius per each glider according to its own handicap. I already had
the Great Circle formula I was using for my record attempts and I
created a spreadsheet with the different pilots handicapped
according to their glider.

In 2013 per suggestions of the participants I added handicaps for
the pilots, with 1 percentage point added to the pilot handicap per
each contest win. From that year on we held four races per year, of
which three O&R that I called Grand Prix, and one that was the
original quadrilateral that I called Classic and was run at the end of
the soaring season.

As of today between these two types of contest we have held 27
TAGAR racing days. Both contest types are well liked, the Grand Prix
because it is a cross country flight, and the Classic because it is a
close race inside the Truckee Valley and some pilots like the fact
that they stay close to the airport. I often considered doing a Grand
Prix contest that was not just an O&R but could be a triangle or a
quadrilateral.

In 2014 I came to know about Jim White’s program that would do
just that. I contacted Jim immediately and we began to try and
adapt his program to US parameters. However after two years of
tentative to harmonize the British and American different handicap
systems, the solution was for Jim to modify substantially his
program by including American parameters, a work finished just a
few weeks ago. One feature I like in Jim’s program is the fact
that it can be scored using the SeeYou Competition program.

All the above says that there is no one that would like to try the
HandicapTask more than I do. No need of lobbying!

I saw in these e-mails the good disposition of John Good to go
ahead and try this concept in an actual competition and Andy
Blackburn’s interest as well, and this is what I think can be done: I
will definitely use Jim’s program in two and possibly three of this
year’s Grand Prix. Regarding making an entire contest based on the
program, I cannot do it this year because the Truckee contest is
advertised as an SSA Regional and this is what pilots expect, but we
can certainly consider doing the entire contest based on the
HandicapTask for next year.

- In that case, can we still call it a Regional? The Contest Committee
may give an opinion on that. Or, still regarding next year:

- The HandicapTask may be considered just a different type of task
and be selected by the CD at his choice as it would be a TAT or MAT
or others. In this case, we have to find a scoring system that
addresses the difference between one score based on speed, and
another based on distance - not easy to do but one can try.

- For this year, I can propose to the pilots of the Regional if they
would like to forfeit one day of the Regional competition (we have a
6-day contest) and try the HandicapTask. I would assign the
HandicapTask on the first contest day or perhaps on the second but
not on the last half of the contest or else it would be disruptive of
the overall contest development. Of course if just one pilot votes no,
we cannot do it.

- Also for this year, I can - after asking for the pilots consent –
assign the HandicapTask on the second practice day (we have two
practice days).

This is what I think at this point, comments are welcome

Sergio