Scoring Discussion

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:

Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.

Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.

Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).

Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.

Ready.... Go!

[krasw]

torstai 19. tammikuuta 2017 19.10.44 UTC+2 Steve Leonard kirjoitti:
> To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
>
> Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
>
> Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
>
> Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
>
> Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
>
> Ready.... Go!

Clipped from Benalla thread:

Ok, let's imagine score formula that gives 900 points to all finishers and remaining 100 points are awarded according to speed. No more gaggles, problems solved?

Wrong. Nothing changes. Same pilots will win and others loose. All we change is point spread between pilots. If winner of the whole competition gets 10000 points and last one 6000, new formula gives 10000 to winner and 9500 to last one. Point spread is very small, but it is as difficult to make any difference by flying as before. Next we start calculating decimals.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Steve:

Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal

points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].

Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.

The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.

It's not magic. There still will be gaggles. 750 is still a bad outcome. But it tilts the playing field a bit to the lone wolf, early starter, etc.

The main "defect" mentioned in the previous thread, is that someone going 66% of winner's speed and someone going 75% of winner's speed get the same points. Reply: That's already in IGC rules. Very slow finishes are counted as landing out. Reply 2: Yeah, but so what. If you lower the 750, then you lower distance points, meaning that going further on distance days counts less, and that a land out is more of a disaster. On that basis 800 distance points makes more sense.

Notice also that by removing 2 x speed -- which was pointless, as it makes speed points just as easy to get as to lose, and does not affect the final ranking -- these distance points are the equivalent of half as many under current IGC rules. So even 750 is harsh. That's another argument for 800 or even more.

Day devaluation? Again, it's a separate issue, but I would also not base this on land outs. We only use land outs to measure things because we didn't use to have gps. A concrete proposal:

day devaluation = min [ median time from start to finish or landing of top 10% of pilots / 3 hours, 1]

We measure time on course for everyone. If the top 10% of pilots fly 3 hours, it's a fully valid day. If we all land out, we're fighting for the full 750 distance points. This keeps the current IGC philosophy that distance days are valid days. It's the median and the top 10% so that one pilot does not affect the devaluation formula -- no incentive to sit on a ridge and orbit to run up the clock and lower the devaluation of a hopeless day

Advantage 2: This is all really really simple! It also removes the quirks of current IGC rules that encourage pilots to intentionally land out on some days.

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:17:09 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> torstai 19. tammikuuta 2017 19.10.44 UTC+2 Steve Leonard kirjoitti:
> > To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
> >
> > Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
> >
> > Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
> >
> > Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
> >
> > Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
> >
> > Ready.... Go!
>
> Clipped from Benalla thread:
>
> Ok, let's imagine score formula that gives 900 points to all finishers and remaining 100 points are awarded according to speed. No more gaggles, problems solved?
>
> Wrong. Nothing changes. Same pilots will win and others loose. All we change is point spread between pilots. If winner of the whole competition gets 10000 points and last one 6000, new formula gives 10000 to winner and 9500 to last one. Point spread is very small, but it is as difficult to make any difference by flying as before. Next we start calculating decimals.
>
> "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I think where we crossed is the assumption that speed points need to equal max points for the day minus distance points. In that case where you separate the two doesn't matter, but that's not how scoring needs to work. If you allow overlap you can dial up or down the relative disaster of a landout to your heart's content. The price you pay is the point of overlap - dealing with the conflict between very slow finishers and long landouts. You can either set limits to prevent the overlap or not - that is, either allow some ties for the very slow (or extreme nonlinear scoring of speeds below 80% or so to forestall it), or allow some long non-finishers to score higher than very slow finishers.

Devaluation formulae complicate matters further, particularly if they are asymmetric - leading to all kinds of undesirable results and pilot behavior - as was demonstrated at Benalla.

I don't get the obsession with pilots who finish less than 75% of the winners speed. Missing the granularity of scoring 750 points versus some pilot who scored an even lower number when the bigger point is both pilots have likely been knocked way down. I'd rather keep them both more in contention. If we were looking at a situation where much of the field was on a consistent basis hitting the limit, I'd feel differently, but in a system where the points are 1:1 proportional to the speed ratio, that just doesn't happen unless someone really got into trouble - in which case it was more likely bad luck anyway so why score it like it's really a representative score of that pilot's abilities that day.

9B

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 8:10:44 PM UTC+3, Steve Leonard wrote:
> To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
>
> Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
>
> Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
>
> Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
>
> Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
>
> Ready.... Go!

Ok .. how about ...

rawScore = speed/referenceSpeed * distance/referenceDistance

finalScore = 1000 * rawScore/max(rawScore)

For those who don't finish the task, their task time and distance are to the GPS fix immediately before they declare a landout (by pressing a button, or possibly by a radio call). The pilot might then proceed to land out, or return to home, or start some means of propulsion.

If someone lands out just short of home they will score a little less than someone who overflies them as they land and makes it home. For concreteness, if pilot A lands out 2 km short on a 300 km task, after 3h20m on task, they'll score the same as someone about 90 seconds behind them but who makes it home.

If two pilots land in the same field, then the one who go there first will score more points.

I specified "reference" not "winner" deliberately. It doesn't actually matter what the reference distance and speed are, as everyone is normalized relative to them. Make them the task length and 3 hours (or 5 hours). Or the task length and the fastest finisher's speed. Or the distance flown by the longest landout, and their speed getting there. It doesn't actually make any difference.

This formula would work equally well for conventional tasks and AATs.

The astute will have noticed that in ...

speed/referenceSpeed * distance/referenceDistance

.... speed = distance/time and therefore this is actually proportional to ....

distance^2/time

[[email protected]]

I think this all depends on exactly what the basis for the argument to change the scoring system is. Safety? That has some short term merit with the 2 collisions here, but the better safety arguement is probably 1 glider per country and half the total number of gliders. Half the gliders is a major break with WGC traditions however and has not been adopted despite years of effort by several distinguished parties. I personally think this is the smartest solution. If the arguement is fairness, that is going to be hard to close as well. Rules are relative. Everyone here is playing under the same rule system and this is how world championships have been scored for decades. Start gaggle games are clearly enjoyable to many from a tactical perspective. Most here feel gaggles are fine, they just get out of hand in the blue from time to time. As I have often expressed, flying around alone injects an element of luck into the game. This is why gaggles exist, to counter that risk. Don't forget, we still have large pre-start and on course gaggles in the US under our experimental rule system (how it is perceived by other countries) and system of no racing tasks (OLC timed task only) culture. So our safety arguement is already quite flawed in my opinion.

All I will say is that the gaggle "tendency" is very strong here. The reason is, partially, that many pilots have the confidence that they can A) stay with the gaggle and B) pass the gaggle and outscore it. But in reality most who are playing the gaggle well here fly with the same group all the way around (such as yesterday). Anything that can be done with scoring or general organization to de-incentivize this sounds good for safety. But this will have to go to an extreme to successfully break up gaggles here (or at home in the US). Also, the need for scoring system change is not the opinion of the majority here. Gaggles are clearly accepted as part of the sport. Most I have takes too do not fully believe that slight changes in scoring ratios will have much effect. This is the feeling I get at least. They seem to favor pleading with the pilots to behave :-).

As I recently demonstrated, along with several others in other classes, this scoring system does make it very hard to catch up once significant points are lost after an A) slightly slow day (1kph is typically worth 20 points, 5kph 100 points on slower days around 100 kph for the winner). In other words, it is very easy to lose points, but extroidinarily difficult to gain points back in terms of scoring scenarios. A landout with the main gaggle finishing is literally game over (not saying that's entirely wrong but, yet again, taking risk to fly alone is "sorta" punished twice). All this equals a huge tactical incentive to stay in touch with the gaggle. This is part of the sport of soaring as flying alone can create huge anomalies in scoring. The best pilots/teams here are experts at controlling risk.

One other idea that I personally love is a 25-75 km from start "bonus points steering turn" (say 50 points for the first pilot, 30 for second, 20 third and so on. Something the gaggle will have to "let go" to play the typical 20-30 minute behind the early starters game.

The truth is that it's unlikely that the IGC is going to make a major change in scoring formula. The political power to keep this system appears strong. I for one think many changes are necessary.

Why not some concrete, comprehensive safety rules? For example: a pilot who gets within 100 feet of another gets a penalty. This seems reasonable, no? If being in a close gaggle meant several 10 point penalties, the gaggles would be dangerous for points! Hmmm?

Some number crunchers here did some interesting analysis on which pilots (in each class) were flying in closest proximity to others. This produced a bar chart which was displayed on the big theatre screen at the pilots meeting for ALL to see. It appeared to be fairly accurate (happily, I was among the lowest "closeness" in 18m) in my opinion from what I had witnessed. Peer pressure like this is fine but without actual penalties, gaggles will remain aggressive as it is a skill to use others visually as our vario and try to gain competitors in all gaggle thermals. This effort to climb better than others in the gaggle is what makes them risky.

Looks like no fly today here.

Sean

[Tim Taylor]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:10:44 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
>
> Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
>
> Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
>
> Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
>
> Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
>
> Ready.... Go!

Does anyone have history of why FAI is based on a 2X for the speed points? i see that it encourages higher risk flying, but the high hit for land-out promotes the opposite.

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

> One other idea that I personally love is a 25-75 km from start "bonus points steering turn" (say 50 points for the first pilot, 30 for second, 20 third and so on). Something the gaggle will have to "let go" to play the typical 20-30 minute behind the early starters game.

I like this idea too, but would use a radius along track from the centre of the start line (better for AATs which would allow the pilot to choose a better energy line).

> Why not some concrete, comprehensive safety rules? For example: a pilot who gets within 100 feet of another gets a penalty. This seems reasonable, no? If being in a close gaggle meant several 10 point penalties, the gaggles would be dangerous for points! Hmmm?

I like this idea a lot. Listening to the radio feed, I hear a lot of "contest id whatever just passed me 20 ft away". I don't see any specific penalty in the SC3A for flying too closely, so to the causal reader, it appears that IGC is not concerned that in two WGC that I have followed closely (at Uvalde, watching Benalla) there have been four mid-airs, with four gliders lost and four damaged, and two pilots injured enough for hospitalization.

I don't see much difference between a hazardous manuevre during a finish which gets: "Finish: hazardous maneuver 25 pts, n x 25 pts, Disqualification" and one in a gaggle, although I agree the ground is not forgiving.

Why no specific penalty for flying too close in a gaggle?

>
> Some number crunchers here did some interesting analysis on which pilots (in each class) were flying in closest proximity to others. This produced a bar chart which was displayed on the big theatre screen at the pilots meeting for ALL to see. It appeared to be fairly accurate (happily, I was among the lowest "closeness" in 18m) in my opinion from what I had witnessed. Peer pressure like this is fine but without actual penalties, gaggles will remain aggressive as it is a skill to use others visually as our vario and try to gain competitors in all gaggle thermals. This effort to climb better than others in the gaggle is what makes them risky.

What a great idea - not difficult to do, with IGC files. Define a distance which is unsafe, and gives point penalties which either:
- grow rapidly to discourage close flying; or
- if you are high pilot on the graph, you sit the next flying day - a soaring "time out". Make it carry into the Championship from the practice days as well. Multiple mid-airs at WGCs shouldn't be common. Leaving it to peer pressure has not worked.

> Looks like no fly today here.

Bummer but I'll get a lot more sleep tonight in Canada as a result!

[[email protected]]

In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of this is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for you. This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one bad day is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 4:10:44 AM UTC+11, Steve Leonard wrote:
> To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
>
> Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
>
> Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
>
> Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
>
> Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
>
> Ready.... Go!

[[email protected]]

along>>alone.(autocorrect)
On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:21:27 AM UTC+11, wrote:
> In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of this is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for you.. This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one bad day is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.
>
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 4:10:44 AM UTC+11, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
> >
> > Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
> >
> > Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
> >
> > Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
> >
> > Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
> >
> > Ready.... Go!

[Steve Koerner]

As we contemplate the possibilities of a different scoring scheme it's important to identify just what it is that we'd like to make better.

Reducing gaggle motivation is big in my mind. Gaggle flying doesn't measure the right thing (my opinion), is not as much fun as thinking for oneself (my opinion) and is dangerous (everyone agrees). A system that motivates early starting would beneficially reduce the pre-start gaggles, which are often the worst gaggles of all. The suggestion that follows is intended to apply to timed tasks in the US in particular.

I think we should consider as a goal to alter the game so as to motivate distance into the equation. US racing tasks, in recent years, often employ overly short timed task calls. A scoring equation that gave a reason to fly longer by going deep in turn areas or add more turnpoints to a MAT would be desirable from several vantages. It would take away the motivation to hang out playing start gate roulette. It would allow pilots to better use the soaring day to get more flying hours, and OLC points per vacation dollar at a contest. It would reduce the importance of making the last turn at just the right place to get back as close to minimum task time as possible without going under. The latter is an annoying factor to deal with and isn't inherently a soaring skill yet it messes with peoples' scores especially if they come up short.

Rewarding the pilot that goes long means that the scoring formula would have to allow the possibility that we award more points to the pilot that flies 300 miles at 65 mph than the pilot who goes 67 mph over 200 miles, as example. That makes this an idea that has to be internalized a bit since we've never done racing that way before. How much distance incentive to insert would be a matter for debate. I don't think it would take much to change the game for the better.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 4:45:01 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:10:44 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> > To try and get this going separate from the discussion of the ongoing World Championships,I think we can agree:
> >
> > Any scoring system will have an unintended consequences.
> >
> > Current FAI scoring system used at World and Continental Championships tends to encourage group flying (reward for striking out on your own and completing when nobody else does is very small, but the penalty for coming up short is very large). It also does not provide speed point in proportion to the best speed. And it can compress (or expand) scores by having people intentionally land out.
> >
> > Pilots don't like the idea of being 20 KPH faster than the slowest guy, but still getting the same number of points as him (minimum speed points).
> >
> > Now, feel free to discuss various scoring system options, and be prepared for people to comment on the "unintended consequences" of that method.
> >
> > Ready.... Go!
>
> Does anyone have history of why FAI is based on a 2X for the speed points? i see that it encourages higher risk flying, but the high hit for land-out promotes the opposite.

The original thinking was that this would create an incentive to take risks to go fast(or far) to get a big points gain. Sometimes it does have that result.
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

I just came here to collect headers and count sock puppets.

[Michael Opitz]

At 23:21 19 January 2017, wrote:
>In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of
this
>=
>is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for
you.
>=
>This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one
bad day
>=
>is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.
>

George Moffat, who was also a championship sailor, proposed that 40
years ago, but it was overcome by events, meaning devalued days.
Dropping a day only works fairly if every day has equal value for the
winner, ie 1000 points.

RO

[krasw]

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 21:19:52 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
> Steve:
>
> Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal
>
> points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].
>
> Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.
>
> The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.
>

Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.

It amazes that there is constantly reference to "planned outlanding" that would give more points than coming home, apparently by changing day factor (?). Such day has never occurred in my career as a competition pilot/organizer, nor have I ever heard of pilot who had even thought about landing out instead of coming home. I doubt that playing this game would require conspiracy of a huge gaggle. It is purely academic scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with real competition flying at any level. Yes, we can speculate AFTERWARDS that if this-and-that pilot would have outlanded, scores would be like that. It has nothing to do with flying tactic.

IGC formula is far from perfect but more I read about new formulas and changes, more I admire it. I think instead of inventing new formula ground up, it would be wiser to carefully adjust current formula to direction wanted (which is not clear at all). It might be slight change to distance/speed points relation, change to minimum time/distance giving 1000p day, day factor (it is very important tool) etc.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:09:15 AM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 January 2017 21:19:52 UTC+2, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Steve:
> >
> > Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal
> >
> > points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].
> >
> > Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.
> >
> > The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.
> >
>
> Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.
>
> It amazes that there is constantly reference to "planned outlanding" that would give more points than coming home, apparently by changing day factor (?). Such day has never occurred in my career as a competition pilot/organizer, nor have I ever heard of pilot who had even thought about landing out instead of coming home. I doubt that playing this game would require conspiracy of a huge gaggle. It is purely academic scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with real competition flying at any level. Yes, we can speculate AFTERWARDS that if this-and-that pilot would have outlanded, scores would be like that. It has nothing to do with flying tactic.
>
> IGC formula is far from perfect but more I read about new formulas and changes, more I admire it. I think instead of inventing new formula ground up, it would be wiser to carefully adjust current formula to direction wanted (which is not clear at all). It might be slight change to distance/speed points relation, change to minimum time/distance giving 1000p day, day factor (it is very important tool) etc.

Very difficult to do a sneaky outlanding as you would have to know, while still in flight and with a choice possible, not only how many other pilots had already made it home but also how many pilots behind you might still make it home.

If you're the guy who could devalue the day by landing out instead of finishing, then it only takes one other pilot still airborne to scratch home at MC=0 and spoil your plans. So you have to be sure that everyone else has already landed, one way or another, and how many made it and how many didn't.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:36:47 AM UTC+3, Steve Koerner wrote:
> As we contemplate the possibilities of a different scoring scheme it's important to identify just what it is that we'd like to make better.
>
> Reducing gaggle motivation is big in my mind. Gaggle flying doesn't measure the right thing (my opinion), is not as much fun as thinking for oneself (my opinion) and is dangerous (everyone agrees). A system that motivates early starting would beneficially reduce the pre-start gaggles, which are often the worst gaggles of all. The suggestion that follows is intended to apply to timed tasks in the US in particular.
>
> I think we should consider as a goal to alter the game so as to motivate distance into the equation. US racing tasks, in recent years, often employ overly short timed task calls. A scoring equation that gave a reason to fly longer by going deep in turn areas or add more turnpoints to a MAT would be desirable from several vantages. It would take away the motivation to hang out playing start gate roulette. It would allow pilots to better use the soaring day to get more flying hours, and OLC points per vacation dollar at a contest. It would reduce the importance of making the last turn at just the right place to get back as close to minimum task time as possible without going under. The latter is an annoying factor to deal with and isn't inherently a soaring skill yet it messes with peoples' scores especially if they come up short.
>
> Rewarding the pilot that goes long means that the scoring formula would have to allow the possibility that we award more points to the pilot that flies 300 miles at 65 mph than the pilot who goes 67 mph over 200 miles, as example. That makes this an idea that has to be internalized a bit since we've never done racing that way before. How much distance incentive to insert would be a matter for debate. I don't think it would take much to change the game for the better.

With the formula I suggested, the 300 mile guy will get 45.5% more points than the 200 mile guy. He'd have to have a speed under 45 mph to get fewer points.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:45:05 AM UTC+3, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 23:21 19 January 2017, wrote:
> >In sailing you are allowed to "drop" a bad race result. The impact of
> this
> >=
> >is that one bad result does not mean that the competition is over for
> you.
> >=
> >This could be a way of encouraging flying along as the cost of one
> bad day
> >=
> >is small compared to the possibility of being faster than the gaggle.
> >
>
> George Moffat, who was also a championship sailor, proposed that 40
> years ago, but it was overcome by events, meaning devalued days.
> Dropping a day only works fairly if every day has equal value for the
> winner, ie 1000 points.

As someone who has done the scoring at both regional and worlds level, I've never liked the idea of devaluing days.

The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> On Friday, 20 January 2017 11:05:21 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.
>
> Smells like circular argument. Good guys win difficult days and good days, that is exactly what we wan't. If "wrong", lucky pilots would win on difficult days, we would have a problem.

Exactly. The "wrong" lucky pilots are not winning the difficult days (at least not very often) -- so why do we devalue the points? I think it's a mistake.

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 9:48:22 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 3:59:35 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 January 2017 11:05:21 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > The stated reasoning is that difficult days are more about luck than about pilot skill. I think the decades of accumulated results show that to be incorrect -- the guys who win contests overall stand out from the also-rans EVEN MORE on the difficult days.
> >
> > Smells like circular argument. Good guys win difficult days and good days, that is exactly what we wan't. If "wrong", lucky pilots would win on difficult days, we would have a problem.
>
> Exactly. The "wrong" lucky pilots are not winning the difficult days (at least not very often) -- so why do we devalue the points? I think it's a mistake.

The right reason to devalue is because of a short task given a brief weather window. A four hour task is a better test than a 90 minute task.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

>>Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.
____________

I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".

Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Michael Opitz]

>I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide
from
>h=
>ome, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and
>retrei=
>ve is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.
>
>Andy Blackburn
>9B
>

It all depends on the landable fields on the final glide to the finish
line. Given good fields and no obstructions, I think most WGC
contenders will drive straight ahead hoping for some "help" plus
ground effect in order to get across that finish line. If they fall
short,
they just land safely straight ahead. It's when there are obstructions
or poor landing choices on short final where that decision comes more
into play.

RO

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 6:43:59 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >>Interesting proposal, but it creates massive incentive to glide home over that last unlandable forest no matter what altitude. Everyone landing out 5 km short on last good landing place, one tries risky glide home and scores extra 250 points. Current formula gives risk taker only small benefit.
> ____________
>
> I believe this is only true if practically everyone lands out and you are the sole finisher. The more common case is you are (or believe you may be since you don't have perfect information) one of a few landouts. In Sean's example landing out cost him nearly 700 points. In general IGC rules are much harsher on outlandings than US rules which are harsher on outlandings than John's proposal (most of the time except in the case of a distance day with near 100% landouts). You are really describing only the case of the one guy who manages to get close to home on a difficult day where IGC rules say "don't bother".
>
> Having looked at the issue of marginal glides home and scoring quite a lot I've concluded that most pilots, if they get within a marginal glide from home, will go for it - for reasons unrelated to points. A landout and retreive is a significant risk and hassle all by itself.

If you've got any brains you'll have scouted safe landout places 5km, 10km, 20km from home field in various directions -- or, better, responsible contest organizers will have done that for you. So hassle, yes, but hopefully not as much risk as pressing on with zero safety margin.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Hi Mike - Two thoughts.

1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.

2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.

3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Three thoughts.

("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")



..> Hi Mike - Two thoughts.
>
> 1) It's hard not to have points on the table if you want to have speed finishers ALL earn more than the longest landout AND you want some points spread across speeds. The additional variable is how much gaggling is induced by a system where lone landouts take a 700 point hit and line finishers get zero credit.
>
> 2) How much are points the primary motive for pressing a marginal glide home versus a "deliberate" landout? I guess some, but my sense is there is a lower limit attributable to "get-home-itis". People want to get home for risk and convenience reasons no matter what so that's what plays against safety concerns once points are off the table. There's only so much you can do to discourage retreive aversion. IGC rules are particularly harsh on land outs if they are in the minority (up to 700 points) and mild if there are lots of finishers, but how is a pilot to know exactly which in a case where he MIGHT be able to get home but it's marginal. There will likely be gliders behind you who might get home, and who really gives up if they think they can make it? An uncertain number of points at stake (but probably some) and a desire to get home anyway.
>
> 3) The bigger issue for me is the complexity, misunderstanding, adverse incentives (gaggling, start-gate roulette and deliberate landouts to deny a competitor points - which has happened on rare occasions which is pretty bad) of the current scoring. Mostly I wonder about the appropriateness of a system where you can drop 700 points by landing 2km short. That seems pretty harsh. I question the whole system of using other pilots flights to determine my score. I get the rationale, but I don't think it necessarily holds water AND it's complex. I think all of this is worthy of some deeper consideration. John's proposal does a pretty decent job at addressing many of these issues, though a thorough pressure testing would be needed.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems. It was optional. I thought it was great in addition to the obvious reasons because it keeps a pilot's interest in a contest. If you land out on the first day of the contest its no longer, well that's over let's wait until next year, and your 10 day gliding vacation is now just fun flying.

It died on the vine as no CD ever wanted to try it. I guess figuring out the existing rules is hard enough, nobody wants to try new ones. And pilots didn't ask for it. If you only ask for things in winter on RAS and don't pester CDs to try it, it never happens. Same thing happened to racehorse starts and an integration of grand prix type racing to US contest tasks. They were introduced as rules options after a RAS storm over the winter on how much fun it would be, then nobody ever used it.

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:

> US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.

The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.

Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 20 January 2017 12:02:01 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.
>
> The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.
>
> Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:

>
> Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

Hey Ron,

I don't think so. I believe it's a relatively simple work-around, though obviously automated is always better. I remember you and I ended up in a useful discussion about racehorse starts a few years back that ended up as not practical to try manually - and you and Bruno are more up for trying things than most.

It's the classic chicken-egg problem - how much coding to ask programmers to do on spec versus how much effort to ask scorers to go through just to try out innovations in how contests are scored. It's a giant doom-loop without some effort somewhere.

9B

[Ron Gleason]

On Friday, 20 January 2017 12:35:15 UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
> > Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?
>
> Hey Ron,
>
> I don't think so. I believe it's a relatively simple work-around, though obviously automated is always better. I remember you and I ended up in a useful discussion about racehorse starts a few years back that ended up as not practical to try manually - and you and Bruno are more up for trying things than most.
>
> It's the classic chicken-egg problem - how much coding to ask programmers to do on spec versus how much effort to ask scorers to go through just to try out innovations in how contests are scored. It's a giant doom-loop without some effort somewhere.
>
> 9B

To try I am assuming we could just delete the IGC file for the day and have that day scored as a DNF. On the other hand that would require only 'n' days scored for each pilot. Workable. Let's talk again at Nephi and maybe try something there

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:51:54 PM UTC-5, Ron Gleason wrote:

> To try I am assuming we could just delete the IGC file for the day and have that day scored as a DNF. On the other hand that would require only 'n' days scored for each pilot. Workable. Let's talk again at Nephi and maybe try something there

Could try that - the more fair way it to pick the day for each competitor with the biggest score differential versus the winner and award them that score starting on, say, the third day There's no point in doing anything on the first day - it would be a giant tie. The actual rule would be workable with manual processing but more work, so it's a tradeoff.

Yes, Nephi would be the place to try it.

9B

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:07:55 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
> Three thoughts.
>
> ("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")

I wasn't expecting that.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:47:37 AM UTC+3, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:07:55 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 12:59:48 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >
> > Three thoughts.
> >
> > ("Our main weapon is fear - and surprise!")
>
> I wasn't expecting that.

Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

[Peter Deane[_2_]]

First impression - I like it !

Heres my perspective.

1 safety decisions are enhanced by a smaller difference between landout points and speed points

2 gaggles will always happen - its less the scoring mechanism (though its true it is a factor) than being mainly due to the basic fear of losing

3 higher distance points will also help reduce gaggles even with FAI scoring

Ive said this before but 600pts is too high a penalty for landing safely but just short.

Perhaps a less steep scale on the speed points (1.5 factor not 2?) with the higher distance points would be something we could really use in US contests

It would encourage FAI dynamics for speed (7T and others) while reducing the incentive for pushing safety limits (BB and others)

Best

2T

On Thursday, 19 January 2017 11:19:52 UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Steve:
>
> Thanks, yes, let's keep Benalla on Benalla and scoring on scoring. My concrete proposal
>
> points = (day devaluation) x max [ 1000 x speed / winner speed, 750 x distance , winner distance].
>
> Let's leave day devaluation out of this for the moment, as it's much less important.
>
> The ratio of speed to distance points does not change as a function of land outs. This is the major innovation. Therefore, just finishing vs. just short is always the same thing. We do not have the situation that the only finisher is 1000 with the gaggle just short at 999 while the only just short is 300 with the gaggle at 1000. The lone wolf can strike out.
>
> It's not magic. There still will be gaggles. 750 is still a bad outcome. But it tilts the playing field a bit to the lone wolf, early starter, etc.
>
> The main "defect" mentioned in the previous thread, is that someone going 66% of winner's speed and someone going 75% of winner's speed get the same points. Reply: That's already in IGC rules. Very slow finishes are counted as landing out. Reply 2: Yeah, but so what. If you lower the 750, then you lower distance points, meaning that going further on distance days counts less, and that a land out is more of a disaster. On that basis 800 distance points makes more sense.
>
> Notice also that by removing 2 x speed -- which was pointless, as it makes speed points just as easy to get as to lose, and does not affect the final ranking -- these distance points are the equivalent of half as many under current IGC rules. So even 750 is harsh. That's another argument for 800 or even more.
>
> Day devaluation? Again, it's a separate issue, but I would also not base this on land outs. We only use land outs to measure things because we didn't use to have gps. A concrete proposal:
>
> day devaluation = min [ median time from start to finish or landing of top 10% of pilots / 3 hours, 1]
>
> We measure time on course for everyone. If the top 10% of pilots fly 3 hours, it's a fully valid day. If we all land out, we're fighting for the full 750 distance points. This keeps the current IGC philosophy that distance days are valid days. It's the median and the top 10% so that one pilot does not affect the devaluation formula -- no incentive to sit on a ridge and orbit to run up the clock and lower the devaluation of a hopeless day
>
> Advantage 2: This is all really really simple! It also removes the quirks of current IGC rules that encourage pilots to intentionally land out on some days.
>
> John Cochrane

[Dan Marotta]

Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
Sheesh... Grow up.

On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> <snip>
> Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
> street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
> Sheesh... Grow up.
>
> On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J


Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY

I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")

9B

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:02:01 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:32:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > US rules had a "drop a day" provision, brilliantly worked out by John Good to overcome the obvious problems.
>
> The brilliance of the design was that it permitted a pilot to select a day to match the winner's score instead of the one (s)he was awarded. This is profoundly different from literally dropping your lowest score because it eliminates the unfairness of dropping devalued days.
>
> Most local racing series have a "best "N" scores" provision. It's odd that no one wanted to try it in a sanctioned contest. It would still be available under waiver - so bring it on!
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Im not an expert in scoring, but it seems to me that many of the problems being discussed are due to the scoring system's characteristic of carrying forward the specific history of the contest. This somewhat rare in sports, multi stage bicycle racing is about the only one I can think of offhand. In football (either flavor) you do not carry the previous day's score into today's contest. Nor in baseball, cricket, yacht racing, car racing, or horse racing. It is this characteristic that makes one bad score so devastating. In baseball for example, the Giants might lose to the Dodgers 1-15 one night, but win the next night 1-0. They are even for the series, 1-1. In sailplane racing, the Giants might as well pack up for the series as they would be behind 2-15.

The way to address that is in how contest scores are accumulated. One design yacht racing regattas provide a well tested example. In many regattas (including the Olympics) a "low points" system is used. The winner of a race gets one point, second place two, and so on. A contestant that doesn't finish gets one more point than the last finisher. At the end of the regatta, the yacht with the lowest points wins. A very lucky one day performance does not put you comfortably ahead for the next day - you must win that one too. A very unlucky performance does not put you out of the running. Fast days (where everyone is within a few minutes of each other) does not count less than slow days (where there are large differences in speeds). The currently used time accumulation system is similar to the US electoral college where some states count much more than others and you can win the contest from another while losing to him on a large majority of days. We have seen the results of such a system.

I have retroactively applied this to a couple of regional contests, and it appears to me to give a fairer result. There are not typically wholesale changes, and very few among the top pilots, but better (fairer) results as you go down the list. With SSA scoring, it is quite possible to beat another pilot on 4 of 5 scored days, yet still lose the contest to him. That will not happen in the low points system. Regardless of the type of task flown, placing higher than another pilot in 4 of 5 races should put you ahead of him in my opinion.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 8:05:26 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
> > street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
> > Sheesh... Grow up.
> >
> > On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
>
> Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY
>
> I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")
>
> 9B

Oops! I went off-script a little :(

Ruthless efficiency, and an *almost* fanatical devotion

[Dan Marotta]

Well, that makes all the difference, then.

And yes, I used to love Monte Python though, unlike a Trekkie or a Rocky
Horror fan, I can't quote the movies. I just thought I detected the
beginnings of a snowflake blizzard. Apologies if I was wrong.

On 1/21/2017 11:56 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 8:05:26 PM UTC+3, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:04:36 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Just couldn't let it rest, could you? Why don't you go out into the
>>> street and burn a car or throw a rock at a cop? Fanatical devotion ?
>>> Sheesh... Grow up.
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2017 2:54 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Our two main weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Trump.
>>> --
>>> Dan, 5J
>>
>> Dan may not have watched Monty Python as a young lad...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf_Y4MbUCLY
>>
>> I started it by introducing 2 points then listing 3. ("Among my points are...")
>>
>> 9B
> Oops! I went off-script a little :(
>
> Ruthless efficiency, and an *almost* fanatical devotion

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

We used the SSA drop option it in Ionia in 2011 I believe (maybe it was 2012). People liked it but Ionia often has such challenging weather that we don't get enough soaring in to drop days. Drop races are common in sailing up to the WC level. It is called a "throw out." It kicks in only after a certain number of valid races have been completed (usually six). It makes good sense because in sailing it is extremely difficult to be consistent and (like gliding at the WGC level) other gliders (gaggle) have a big impact on your daily destiny.

Risk (scoring) is critical here at the WGC (A) start time and B) using or not using the gaggle). But the drop day probably would not directly prevent the gaggles which is the number one concern/problem here. Especially during the pre-start gaggle stage which can be well over an hour (sometimes 2+) of continuous "full attention."

The reason that it is important to constantly be with the gaggle (same position and most importantly altitude) is so that we are always in a position to start evenly with them. This ebbs and flows and people are flighting (changing circle path) to gain 300 ft again and again in order to be near the top of each thermal, biding their time to start...

For what it's worth I'm not worried about my landout day here. I did my best and broke it off and landed safely at the right time. I learned more from that landout than it really cost me. I flew that task virtually alone, well of the front of the main gaggle (TAT) except for the Czechs who came with me from 1-2 back of my start until I was able to get away. P7 and the Brits caught me at TP2 but so did not know how far the went into TP1 so we immediately split up. The goal for me that day was to hope that the main gaggle waited too long and that the day died while they were still on course.. This was showing some signs of coming true that afternoon which was why I pushed to get back S quickly, that meant that I had to do more than just touch the final TP area. That was OK because this meant I could utilize the best late day thermal source in the entire task area, the Worby mountains.. If I would have found one weak climb (usually a fairly good is found here), I would have had 900+ points (133kph). But I was slightly too low to connect easily or simply missed. Oh well.

A throw out might be a nice way of making the results a little closer overall, and "might" allow for a little more risk taking. That might be a nice change in dynamics. I think some changes here would be healthy.

Another note is that the 15m gaggle basically stayed intact yesterday despite the TAT and the very weak weather...

I bet even a MAT task would not have separated them yesterday either. This is a real part of the game (risk management from a scoring perspective...)

I look forward to hearing the results of the next IGC meeting in February. I'm sure all of this will be discussed. This event format can and should be improved.

Sean
7T

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 3:21:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> We used the SSA drop option it in Ionia in 2011 I believe (maybe it was 2012). People liked it but Ionia often has such challenging weather that we don't get enough soaring in to drop days. Drop races are common in sailing up to the WC level. It is called a "throw out." It kicks in only after a certain number of valid races have been completed (usually six). It makes good sense because in sailing it is extremely difficult to be consistent and (like gliding at the WGC level) other gliders (gaggle) have a big impact on your daily destiny.
>
> Risk (scoring) is critical here at the WGC (A) start time and B) using or not using the gaggle). But the drop day probably would not directly prevent the gaggles which is the number one concern/problem here. Especially during the pre-start gaggle stage which can be well over an hour (sometimes 2+) of continuous "full attention."
>
> The reason that it is important to constantly be with the gaggle (same position and most importantly altitude) is so that we are always in a position to start evenly with them. This ebbs and flows and people are flighting (changing circle path) to gain 300 ft again and again in order to be near the top of each thermal, biding their time to start...
>
> For what it's worth I'm not worried about my landout day here. I did my best and broke it off and landed safely at the right time. I learned more from that landout than it really cost me. I flew that task virtually alone, well of the front of the main gaggle (TAT) except for the Czechs who came with me from 1-2 back of my start until I was able to get away. P7 and the Brits caught me at TP2 but so did not know how far the went into TP1 so we immediately split up. The goal for me that day was to hope that the main gaggle waited too long and that the day died while they were still on course. This was showing some signs of coming true that afternoon which was why I pushed to get back S quickly, that meant that I had to do more than just touch the final TP area. That was OK because this meant I could utilize the best late day thermal source in the entire task area, the Worby mountains. If I would have found one weak climb (usually a fairly good is found here), I would have had 900+ points (133kph). But I was slightly too low to connect easily or simply missed. Oh well.
>
> A throw out might be a nice way of making the results a little closer overall, and "might" allow for a little more risk taking. That might be a nice change in dynamics. I think some changes here would be healthy.
>
> Another note is that the 15m gaggle basically stayed intact yesterday despite the TAT and the very weak weather...
>
> I bet even a MAT task would not have separated them yesterday either. This is a real part of the game (risk management from a scoring perspective....)
>
> I look forward to hearing the results of the next IGC meeting in February.. I'm sure all of this will be discussed. This event format can and should be improved.
>
> Sean
> 7T

Sean-
Was tracking information at Benalla real time for you guys or delayed like what I saw from here?
Thanks
UH

[[email protected]]

The trackers were usually delayed 15 minutes. Early on, for the first several racing tasks, it was 10. Then they seemed to stay with 15 minutes. JG may have more info from a team captain perspective regarding any debate around this. Several teams were rumored (unconfirmed and kept fairly secret) to have some level of Flarm radar. We utilized the delayed tracker info as much as we could (Team USA) but didn't have any functioning flarm radar for the event. I'm fine with that as it's a massive PITA for JG to manage and he had a huge amount on his plate just as the team Captain (he did a fantastic job). If we did this function in the cuter it would require additional team man/woman power. The whole thing is silly really. They should just make all gliders carry trackers and then make it live (to diffuse the flarm radar advantage). This was supposedly discussed at some level (rumor). But community level live tracking, from the team tactics perspective, will just lead to more start gaggles. Sure, it would make it really fun for spectators. I have no real opinion about what's right "ethically" anymore, but it is a little annoying and depressing since we (team USA) were at clear disadvantage if some teams had some form of sophisticated high function with flarm tracking, etc.

Sean

[JS]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 5:49:20 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> The trackers were usually delayed 15 minutes. Early on, for the first several racing tasks, it was 10. Then they seemed to stay with 15 minutes. JG may have more info from a team captain perspective regarding any debate around this. Several teams were rumored (unconfirmed and kept fairly secret) to have some level of Flarm radar. We utilized the delayed tracker info as much as we could (Team USA) but didn't have any functioning flarm radar for the event. I'm fine with that as it's a massive PITA for JG to manage and he had a huge amount on his plate just as the team Captain (he did a fantastic job). If we did this function in the cuter it would require additional team man/woman power. The whole thing is silly really. They should just make all gliders carry trackers and then make it live (to diffuse the flarm radar advantage). This was supposedly discussed at some level (rumor). But community level live tracking, from the team tactics perspective, will just lead to more start gaggles. Sure, it would make it really fun for spectators. I have no real opinion about what's right "ethically" anymore, but it is a little annoying and depressing since we (team USA) were at clear disadvantage if some teams had some form of sophisticated high function with flarm tracking, etc.
>
> Sean

Not just FLARM tracking, but Livetrack24 is available with little delay. Contests use the delay to prevent their official site from being used to leech.
Jim

[Guy Byars[_5_]]

> Has the feature to drop a day been left in WINSCORE?

Yes, it is still in Winscore.

Guy Byars

[Sean Fidler]

For the WGC, Gliding Federation Australia (Australian “SSAâ€�) provided most competitors their own LiveTrack24 system. The GFA owns and maintains 75+ LiveTrack24 “trackerâ€� units (mobile based) which are fully owned and paid for by the GFA in order to provide their member pilots the service of high quality tracking at all Australian contests for free as part of being members of the organization (SSA?). For the WGC, a 10-15 min position delay (10 for racing tasks, 15 for area tasks) was intentionally added in order to "prevent" the competitors from using real-time data for a tactical advantage.Â* But this was perhaps part of the gaggle problem, more than a solution…

Leeching is a silly word really.Â* I don't like it.Â* It's intended to embarrass pilots. But it doesn’t work, never has, never will. Leeching is so 1970's.Â* We all need to grow up about it and deal with reality. Sailplane competitions are still, generally, races in the majority of the world. Even in the US tasking, we occasionally are racing.Â* True leeching is much more common in contests with a wide skill range in which certain pilots "hedge risk" by closely following well-known pilots they perhaps fear will be faster if left to fly alone.Â* Hedging risk is of course not illegal in our sport, it's actually a very smart tactic from time to time.Â* It's really the faster pilots job to avoid being leeched in my opinion. If you put yourself in a position to be “leechedâ€� then you have made a fairly significant mistake. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Sebastian Kawa cannot start in the middle of the main gaggle, at the optimum time and expect not to be followed. You must find ways to avoid or lose leeches quickly if it is truly a threat to your scoring.

True leeching (my experience) happens far more regularly in the USA, despite the 80% wide radius area tasks and dramatically different scoring system which is in part designed to encourage (highly reward) finishing even if everyone else lands out (FAI scoring devalues the one finisher dramatically so that taking that risk doesn’t pay off).Â*

At the WGC level, I believe that almost all the pilots are capable of A) trying to "break away" (start early), B) hold in the gaggle looking for an opportunity for a small gain or C) do the "typical (start anytime you wish) sailplane competition tactic" (used regularly in the USA) of starting last and using the many markers ahead to be more Â*efficient (less centering and searching). Â*

The difference is that at the WGC level, starting even 3-5 min behind the fast gaggle (smart, efficient, working together) will often leave the late starter behind, alone and "off the back." Â*In US contests this is usually not the case (broader skill range), so we have a regular tactic of top pilots starting very late and using others as much as possible.Â* Also, to counter the late starter, the WGC pilots (teams) seem to be very happy to wait around the start area for a huge amount of time, so that any “laterâ€� starters will risk of not finishing the task.Â* Open start windows with no limitation is a huge issue in my view.Â* This policy ensures long waits with large gaggles in close proximity killing time, but keeping close tabs on each other.Â* Risk*time=Chance of an accident. So the current starting rules are utter stupidity and this single issue is the main problem with traditional soaring competition format in terms of safety and gaggles, not variance in scoring incentives.

In regards to Flarm, Flarm radar is a capability that was not yet available to the US team.Â* Despite some efforts to develop this capability for our team, it has not worked out and has not been used in WGC competition, period.Â* In Australia, I received zero Flarm radar info.Â* Huge thanks to our guys who put significant effort into building the system and testing, but developing Flarm radar is extremely hard to do well, and requires significant manpower and team practice to use it effectively.Â* Just having the data is only the beginning.Â* We also need the experience (both on the ground and in the air) on how to use it effectively in the very tactical WGC environment.Â* This real tactical decision making is a huge challenge, far greater than the perfection of the technical challenge of getting the Flarm radar system working properly. Â*

But other top teams are rumored to have very sophisticated Flarm radar systems (user interface, mobile stations, etc).Â* I'm not sure, but let's assume this is true.Â* This means they do have a real time tactical picture of the entire racing class (15m, 18m, Open) and are relaying this information to their pilots in the right proportions, at the right time, so their pilots in the air can make better tactical decisions (they also have on-site weathermen, etc). Â*

Flarm radar is, perhaps, a huge advantage to the larger WGC teams (if real) and many of the little teams without it (naturally) feel that Flarm radar should immediately be countered/made obsolete by simply requiring all competitors to run mobile trackers (great penalty for tampering or failing to turn on) and therefore leveling the “tactical playing field� and removing the great advantage the major teams enjoy with Flarm radar (minus the cumulative experience they have already developed communicating information and making real-time tactical decisions with it).

Again, they don't use the info to leech IMO.Â* Leeching is a terrible description, word.Â* Leeching for these guys is a joke really.Â* FAI Sailplane racing tactics (WGC) is really fun (the rules used all over the world except for the USA) in that the tactics are much like the Tour de France.Â* You have a peloton (several really spread out along several lateral lines and starting at different times, of course).Â* You have break always who gamble by starting early and hoping to be faster alone and/or for the gaggle to wait too long and run into weakening conditions late in the day and C) the "autobus" of the guys who fall behind the main or fast gaggle or start too far behind to catch it.Â* These general team based tactics are extremely fun and interesting.Â* They are almost exactly the same in a racing task or an area task. Â*

The WGC pilots are rarely leeching IMO.Â* The whole group (if smaller than 10) is generally working together (sharing the lead position or working together) and trying to help their gaggle perform well.Â* Just like a stage of the Tour de France with a breakaway, sharing the lead draft position and pulling to pack, constantly rotating.Â* This was mainly my experience in the WGC event. Â*

Leeching isn't necessarily what's happening if certain pilots are hanging back, it's more likely smart tactics. There is an important difference between leeching and tactics.Â* If the tactical situation makes sense, some will sit back and let the others do the work (fly slower, climb a little higher before leaving, etc).Â* To lead out (again and again and again) or to try and get away from the gaggle is to take on more risk.Â* The gaggle behind (and out of view) may find a strong climb you missed (to the side of your line) and soon overtake you, perhaps leaving you well behind low..Â* So the smart play may be to try and always keep the gaggle in sight (laterally or behind), not leave first unless the tactical situation is worth the risk, and working together as much as possible, just like a breakaway in Le Tour.Â* And in some cases, like the tour, certain pilots (riders) choose not to share the load and to let others do all the work.Â* This could be called leeching, but in many ways, they are letting the pilots ahead take the risk and hoping to pass them when they make a mistake, not just planning to stick to them like glue no matter what (my definition of a leech).Â* So there is a big difference (as with so many things) in the traditional US term for "leeching" and what I saw in Australia (smart tactics). Â*

And, being tactically followed (or leeched) is part of racing in any sport.Â* The best pilots must learn to deal with it, and use it to their advantage. If you're calling someone a leech, you're getting frustrated. Advantage leech!Â* Complaining is useless and counterproductive. This is part of the sport, like it or not, unless we dramatically change the rules and the sport.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Very nice thoughtful post. Thanks!
John Cochrane BB

[JS]

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:03:57 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Very nice thoughtful post. Thanks!
> John Cochrane BB

Following the 20m two-seat Nationals in Australia that just finished, I was amazed to see someone scored within 20 minutes of landing out in a field.
We've come a long way.
Jim

[Muttley]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 12:31:03 AM UTC, Sean Fidler wrote:
> For the WGC, Gliding Federation Australia (Australian “SSAâ€�) provided most competitors their own LiveTrack24 system. The GFA owns and maintains 75+ LiveTrack24 “trackerâ€� units (mobile based) which are fully owned and paid for by the GFA in order to provide their member pilots the service of high quality tracking at all Australian contests for free as part of being members of the organization (SSA?). For the WGC, a 10-15 min position delay (10 for racing tasks, 15 for area tasks) was intentionally added in order to "prevent" the competitors from using real-time data for a tactical advantage.Â* But this was perhaps part of the gaggle problem, more than a solution…
>
> Leeching is a silly word really.Â* I don't like it.Â* It's intended to embarrass pilots. But it doesn’t work, never has, never will.. Leeching is so 1970's.Â* We all need to grow up about it and deal with reality. Sailplane competitions are still, generally, races in the majority of the world. Even in the US tasking, we occasionally are racing.Â* True leeching is much more common in contests with a wide skill range in which certain pilots "hedge risk" by closely following well-known pilots they perhaps fear will be faster if left to fly alone.Â* Hedging risk is of course not illegal in our sport, it's actually a very smart tactic from time to time.Â* It's really the faster pilots job to avoid being leeched in my opinion. If you put yourself in a position to be “leechedâ€� then you have made a fairly significant mistake. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Sebastian Kawa cannot start in the middle of the main gaggle, at the optimum time and expect not to be followed. You must find ways to avoid or lose leeches quickly if it is truly a threat to your scoring.
>
> True leeching (my experience) happens far more regularly in the USA, despite the 80% wide radius area tasks and dramatically different scoring system which is in part designed to encourage (highly reward) finishing even if everyone else lands out (FAI scoring devalues the one finisher dramatically so that taking that risk doesn’t pay off).Â*
>
> At the WGC level, I believe that almost all the pilots are capable of A) trying to "break away" (start early), B) hold in the gaggle looking for an opportunity for a small gain or C) do the "typical (start anytime you wish) sailplane competition tactic" (used regularly in the USA) of starting last and using the many markers ahead to be more Â*efficient (less centering and searching). Â*
>
> The difference is that at the WGC level, starting even 3-5 min behind the fast gaggle (smart, efficient, working together) will often leave the late starter behind, alone and "off the back." Â*In US contests this is usually not the case (broader skill range), so we have a regular tactic of top pilots starting very late and using others as much as possible.Â* Also, to counter the late starter, the WGC pilots (teams) seem to be very happy to wait around the start area for a huge amount of time, so that any “laterâ€� starters will risk of not finishing the task.Â* Open start windows with no limitation is a huge issue in my view.Â* This policy ensures long waits with large gaggles in close proximity killing time, but keeping close tabs on each other.Â* Risk*time=Chance of an accident. So the current starting rules are utter stupidity and this single issue is the main problem with traditional soaring competition format in terms of safety and gaggles, not variance in scoring incentives.
>
> In regards to Flarm, Flarm radar is a capability that was not yet available to the US team.Â* Despite some efforts to develop this capability for our team, it has not worked out and has not been used in WGC competition, period.Â* In Australia, I received zero Flarm radar info.Â* Huge thanks to our guys who put significant effort into building the system and testing, but developing Flarm radar is extremely hard to do well, and requires significant manpower and team practice to use it effectively.Â* Just having the data is only the beginning.Â* We also need the experience (both on the ground and in the air) on how to use it effectively in the very tactical WGC environment.Â* This real tactical decision making is a huge challenge, far greater than the perfection of the technical challenge of getting the Flarm radar system working properly. Â*
>
> But other top teams are rumored to have very sophisticated Flarm radar systems (user interface, mobile stations, etc).Â* I'm not sure, but let's assume this is true.Â* This means they do have a real time tactical picture of the entire racing class (15m, 18m, Open) and are relaying this information to their pilots in the right proportions, at the right time, so their pilots in the air can make better tactical decisions (they also have on-site weathermen, etc). Â*
>
> Flarm radar is, perhaps, a huge advantage to the larger WGC teams (if real) and many of the little teams without it (naturally) feel that Flarm radar should immediately be countered/made obsolete by simply requiring all competitors to run mobile trackers (great penalty for tampering or failing to turn on) and therefore leveling the “tactical playing field� and removing the great advantage the major teams enjoy with Flarm radar (minus the cumulative experience they have already developed communicating information and making real-time tactical decisions with it).
>
> Again, they don't use the info to leech IMO.Â* Leeching is a terrible description, word.Â* Leeching for these guys is a joke really.Â* FAI Sailplane racing tactics (WGC) is really fun (the rules used all over the world except for the USA) in that the tactics are much like the Tour de France.Â* You have a peloton (several really spread out along several lateral lines and starting at different times, of course).Â* You have break always who gamble by starting early and hoping to be faster alone and/or for the gaggle to wait too long and run into weakening conditions late in the day and C) the "autobus" of the guys who fall behind the main or fast gaggle or start too far behind to catch it.Â* These general team based tactics are extremely fun and interesting.Â* They are almost exactly the same in a racing task or an area task. Â*
>
> The WGC pilots are rarely leeching IMO.Â* The whole group (if smaller than 10) is generally working together (sharing the lead position or working together) and trying to help their gaggle perform well.Â* Just like a stage of the Tour de France with a breakaway, sharing the lead draft position and pulling to pack, constantly rotating.Â* This was mainly my experience in the WGC event. Â*
>
> Leeching isn't necessarily what's happening if certain pilots are hanging back, it's more likely smart tactics. There is an important difference between leeching and tactics.Â* If the tactical situation makes sense, some will sit back and let the others do the work (fly slower, climb a little higher before leaving, etc).Â* To lead out (again and again and again) or to try and get away from the gaggle is to take on more risk.Â* The gaggle behind (and out of view) may find a strong climb you missed (to the side of your line) and soon overtake you, perhaps leaving you well behind low.Â* So the smart play may be to try and always keep the gaggle in sight (laterally or behind), not leave first unless the tactical situation is worth the risk, and working together as much as possible, just like a breakaway in Le Tour.Â* And in some cases, like the tour, certain pilots (riders) choose not to share the load and to let others do all the work.Â* This could be called leeching, but in many ways, they are letting the pilots ahead take the risk and hoping to pass them when they make a mistake, not just planning to stick to them like glue no matter what (my definition of a leech).Â* So there is a big difference (as with so many things) in the traditional US term for "leeching" and what I saw in Australia (smart tactics). Â*
>
> And, being tactically followed (or leeched) is part of racing in any sport.Â* The best pilots must learn to deal with it, and use it to their advantage. If you're calling someone a leech, you're getting frustrated. Advantage leech!Â* Complaining is useless and counterproductive. This is part of the sport, like it or not, unless we dramatically change the rules and the sport.

Hi Sean

There are a lot more team tactics that are being used i.e. sacrifice of one lower placed pilot as seen in the Open class in Benalla (advantage to the 3 pilot Teams with the additional World Champion) Spotter from a Pilot in a different class before the startline etc. etc. However there is one common denominator of all these tactics - the radio communication. For many years the French National Championships were flown with use of one Frequency only and they also wanted to introduce this rule for the World Gliding Championships in 1997 in St. Auban which eventually was not used but had caused a major bust up in the Organising committee.

I am sure that you can imagine what a single frequency and English Language only for all pilots at all times would mean - no more passing of any kind of information etc. if misused warnings, penalties, elimination.In my opinion a worthwhile consideration, as all arguments against it would only be to support all the tactics which are being used today.

Muttley

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 9:37:50 AM UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 12:31:03 AM UTC, Sean Fidler wrote:
> > For the WGC, Gliding Federation Australia (Australian “SSAâ€�) provided most competitors their own LiveTrack24 system. The GFA owns and maintains 75+ LiveTrack24 “trackerâ€� units (mobile based) which are fully owned and paid for by the GFA in order to provide their member pilots the service of high quality tracking at all Australian contests for free as part of being members of the organization (SSA?). For the WGC, a 10-15 min position delay (10 for racing tasks, 15 for area tasks) was intentionally added in order to "prevent" the competitors from using real-time data for a tactical advantage.Â* But this was perhaps part of the gaggle problem, more than a solution…
> >
> > Leeching is a silly word really.Â* I don't like it.Â* It's intended to embarrass pilots. But it doesn’t work, never has, never will. Leeching is so 1970's.Â* We all need to grow up about it and deal with reality. Sailplane competitions are still, generally, races in the majority of the world. Even in the US tasking, we occasionally are racing.Â* True leeching is much more common in contests with a wide skill range in which certain pilots "hedge risk" by closely following well-known pilots they perhaps fear will be faster if left to fly alone.Â* Hedging risk is of course not illegal in our sport, it's actually a very smart tactic from time to time.Â* It's really the faster pilots job to avoid being leeched in my opinion. If you put yourself in a position to be “leechedâ€� then you have made a fairly significant mistake. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Sebastian Kawa cannot start in the middle of the main gaggle, at the optimum time and expect not to be followed. You must find ways to avoid or lose leeches quickly if it is truly a threat to your scoring.
> >
> > True leeching (my experience) happens far more regularly in the USA, despite the 80% wide radius area tasks and dramatically different scoring system which is in part designed to encourage (highly reward) finishing even if everyone else lands out (FAI scoring devalues the one finisher dramatically so that taking that risk doesn’t pay off).Â*
> >
> > At the WGC level, I believe that almost all the pilots are capable of A) trying to "break away" (start early), B) hold in the gaggle looking for an opportunity for a small gain or C) do the "typical (start anytime you wish) sailplane competition tactic" (used regularly in the USA) of starting last and using the many markers ahead to be more Â*efficient (less centering and searching). Â*
> >
> > The difference is that at the WGC level, starting even 3-5 min behind the fast gaggle (smart, efficient, working together) will often leave the late starter behind, alone and "off the back." Â*In US contests this is usually not the case (broader skill range), so we have a regular tactic of top pilots starting very late and using others as much as possible.Â* Also, to counter the late starter, the WGC pilots (teams) seem to be very happy to wait around the start area for a huge amount of time, so that any “laterâ€� starters will risk of not finishing the task.Â* Open start windows with no limitation is a huge issue in my view.Â* This policy ensures long waits with large gaggles in close proximity killing time, but keeping close tabs on each other.Â* Risk*time=Chance of an accident. So the current starting rules are utter stupidity and this single issue is the main problem with traditional soaring competition format in terms of safety and gaggles, not variance in scoring incentives.
> >
> > In regards to Flarm, Flarm radar is a capability that was not yet available to the US team.Â* Despite some efforts to develop this capability for our team, it has not worked out and has not been used in WGC competition, period.Â* In Australia, I received zero Flarm radar info.Â* Huge thanks to our guys who put significant effort into building the system and testing, but developing Flarm radar is extremely hard to do well, and requires significant manpower and team practice to use it effectively.Â* Just having the data is only the beginning.Â* We also need the experience (both on the ground and in the air) on how to use it effectively in the very tactical WGC environment.Â* This real tactical decision making is a huge challenge, far greater than the perfection of the technical challenge of getting the Flarm radar system working properly. Â*
> >
> > But other top teams are rumored to have very sophisticated Flarm radar systems (user interface, mobile stations, etc).Â* I'm not sure, but let's assume this is true.Â* This means they do have a real time tactical picture of the entire racing class (15m, 18m, Open) and are relaying this information to their pilots in the right proportions, at the right time, so their pilots in the air can make better tactical decisions (they also have on-site weathermen, etc). Â*
> >
> > Flarm radar is, perhaps, a huge advantage to the larger WGC teams (if real) and many of the little teams without it (naturally) feel that Flarm radar should immediately be countered/made obsolete by simply requiring all competitors to run mobile trackers (great penalty for tampering or failing to turn on) and therefore leveling the “tactical playing field� and removing the great advantage the major teams enjoy with Flarm radar (minus the cumulative experience they have already developed communicating information and making real-time tactical decisions with it).
> >
> > Again, they don't use the info to leech IMO.Â* Leeching is a terrible description, word.Â* Leeching for these guys is a joke really.Â* FAI Sailplane racing tactics (WGC) is really fun (the rules used all over the world except for the USA) in that the tactics are much like the Tour de France.Â* You have a peloton (several really spread out along several lateral lines and starting at different times, of course).Â* You have break always who gamble by starting early and hoping to be faster alone and/or for the gaggle to wait too long and run into weakening conditions late in the day and C) the "autobus" of the guys who fall behind the main or fast gaggle or start too far behind to catch it.Â* These general team based tactics are extremely fun and interesting.Â* They are almost exactly the same in a racing task or an area task. Â*
> >
> > The WGC pilots are rarely leeching IMO.Â* The whole group (if smaller than 10) is generally working together (sharing the lead position or working together) and trying to help their gaggle perform well.Â* Just like a stage of the Tour de France with a breakaway, sharing the lead draft position and pulling to pack, constantly rotating.Â* This was mainly my experience in the WGC event. Â*
> >
> > Leeching isn't necessarily what's happening if certain pilots are hanging back, it's more likely smart tactics. There is an important difference between leeching and tactics.Â* If the tactical situation makes sense, some will sit back and let the others do the work (fly slower, climb a little higher before leaving, etc).Â* To lead out (again and again and again) or to try and get away from the gaggle is to take on more risk.Â* The gaggle behind (and out of view) may find a strong climb you missed (to the side of your line) and soon overtake you, perhaps leaving you well behind low.Â* So the smart play may be to try and always keep the gaggle in sight (laterally or behind), not leave first unless the tactical situation is worth the risk, and working together as much as possible, just like a breakaway in Le Tour.Â* And in some cases, like the tour, certain pilots (riders) choose not to share the load and to let others do all the work.Â* This could be called leeching, but in many ways, they are letting the pilots ahead take the risk and hoping to pass them when they make a mistake, not just planning to stick to them like glue no matter what (my definition of a leech).Â* So there is a big difference (as with so many things) in the traditional US term for "leeching" and what I saw in Australia (smart tactics). Â*
> >
> > And, being tactically followed (or leeched) is part of racing in any sport.Â* The best pilots must learn to deal with it, and use it to their advantage. If you're calling someone a leech, you're getting frustrated. Advantage leech!Â* Complaining is useless and counterproductive. This is part of the sport, like it or not, unless we dramatically change the rules and the sport.
>
> Hi Sean
>
> There are a lot more team tactics that are being used i.e. sacrifice of one lower placed pilot as seen in the Open class in Benalla (advantage to the 3 pilot Teams with the additional World Champion) Spotter from a Pilot in a different class before the startline etc. etc. However there is one common denominator of all these tactics - the radio communication. For many years the French National Championships were flown with use of one Frequency only and they also wanted to introduce this rule for the World Gliding Championships in 1997 in St. Auban which eventually was not used but had caused a major bust up in the Organising committee.
>
> I am sure that you can imagine what a single frequency and English Language only for all pilots at all times would mean - no more passing of any kind of information etc. if misused warnings, penalties, elimination.In my opinion a worthwhile consideration, as all arguments against it would only be to support all the tactics which are being used today.
>
> Muttley

Even on one frequency useful information can be exchanged. It requires use of codes. The down side is that everyone has to listen to a lot of radio chatter and learn how to deal with the distractions.
Been there- Done that
UH

[Muttley]

>
> Even on one frequency useful information can be exchanged. It requires use of codes. The down side is that everyone has to listen to a lot of radio chatter and learn how to deal with the distractions.
> Been there- Done that
> UH

Codes = Misuse, chatter greatly reduced as no information is being passed, only regular aviation use!!