Sports class tasking

[[email protected]]

The competition director has his hands full when tasking sports class
because of the vast differences in sailplane types in the class. If he
gives the Nimbus driver a challenging task, the 1-26 driver will have
no chance of completing the task. For this reason Assigned Task is not
allowed. At first glance the turn Area Task appears to solve the
problem, call a couple of 25 mile circles and let the pilots fly the
distance that their ships performance dictates. Problem is; its too
easy. Day after day we drive into the first turn area while keeping an
eye on the second turn area. Go as deep as good conditions allow and
then head for the second turn area as we follow the clouds and/or other
sailplanes. The only real challenge is deciding when to quit and head
for home. Our computers do a real good job of making this decision for
us. I feel the TAT should only be called on days that the weather is
predicted to blow-up, but we just don't know exactly where or when.

That leaves us with the Modified assigned task. This is the best task
to call when weather conditions are fairly predictable. Assign several
turn points and the higher performance ships can continue on to several
other turn points. The low performance ship can quit any time after the
first turn and head for home. Sounds good, but is it challenging and is
it always fair? I have seen the first called turn, 60 miles down-wind
(20 knots), the K-6 didn't make it home that day. Another problem with
11 turn points available, is the desirability of running close-in
triangles, maybe several times, no real challenge there. I suppose a
clever CD could call a MAT with NO turn points specified and a MAXIMUM
of 2 turn points allowed and say, 3 hour minimum time. Each contestant
would be forced to fly an out-&-return or triangle that used up the
alloted 3 hours. It would bring back the Non-WUSS tasking of
yesteryear. One would be forced to choose the best direction and a turn
point or two that was far enough to use up the allotted time (3 hrs).
We would be forced to actually go all the way to our chosen turn point
and not be allowad to turn short when conditions didn't look ideal
ahead.

Thirty years ago sports class started with a book of selected triangles
and each contestant was required to fly one of them (at least as far as
his minimum distance). The CD would announce the scratch distance (the
distance he thought the Standard Cirrus should be able to fly that
day). Each contestant would divide his handicap factor into the scratch
distance and come up with his minimum distance. It was a real
challenge, first off, what direction to go? Then choose a triangle that
looked good to you. One could keep ones options open with several
triangles that could be used in the chosen direction. The minimum
distance has been replaced with a minimum time, but the concept can be
used again. I think challenging tasks are still available. We could
call it the Non-WUSS-MAT.

Whe wants to give it a try?
JJ

[F.L. Whiteley]

wrote:

> The competition director has his hands full when tasking sports class
> because of the vast differences in sailplane types in the class. If he
> gives the Nimbus driver a challenging task, the 1-26 driver will have
> no chance of completing the task. For this reason Assigned Task is not
> allowed. At first glance the turn Area Task appears to solve the
> problem, call a couple of 25 mile circles and let the pilots fly the
> distance that their ships performance dictates. Problem is; its too
> easy. Day after day we drive into the first turn area while keeping an
> eye on the second turn area. Go as deep as good conditions allow and
> then head for the second turn area as we follow the clouds and/or other
> sailplanes. The only real challenge is deciding when to quit and head
> for home. Our computers do a real good job of making this decision for
> us. I feel the TAT should only be called on days that the weather is
> predicted to blow-up, but we just don't know exactly where or when.
>
> That leaves us with the Modified assigned task. This is the best task
> to call when weather conditions are fairly predictable. Assign several
> turn points and the higher performance ships can continue on to several
> other turn points. The low performance ship can quit any time after the
> first turn and head for home. Sounds good, but is it challenging and is
> it always fair? I have seen the first called turn, 60 miles down-wind
> (20 knots), the K-6 didn't make it home that day. Another problem with
> 11 turn points available, is the desirability of running close-in
> triangles, maybe several times, no real challenge there. I suppose a
> clever CD could call a MAT with NO turn points specified and a MAXIMUM
> of 2 turn points allowed and say, 3 hour minimum time. Each contestant
> would be forced to fly an out-&-return or triangle that used up the
> alloted 3 hours. It would bring back the Non-WUSS tasking of
> yesteryear. One would be forced to choose the best direction and a turn
> point or two that was far enough to use up the allotted time (3 hrs).
> We would be forced to actually go all the way to our chosen turn point
> and not be allowad to turn short when conditions didn't look ideal
> ahead.
>
> Thirty years ago sports class started with a book of selected triangles
> and each contestant was required to fly one of them (at least as far as
> his minimum distance). The CD would announce the scratch distance (the
> distance he thought the Standard Cirrus should be able to fly that
> day). Each contestant would divide his handicap factor into the scratch
> distance and come up with his minimum distance. It was a real
> challenge, first off, what direction to go? Then choose a triangle that
> looked good to you. One could keep ones options open with several
> triangles that could be used in the chosen direction. The minimum
> distance has been replaced with a minimum time, but the concept can be
> used again. I think challenging tasks are still available. We could
> call it the Non-WUSS-MAT.
>
> Whe wants to give it a try?
> JJ
Getting conceptually better.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

In my opinion, it is simply not possible to have fair competition in a
single task group with Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other.

I have done a lot of task setting in British Regionals and Nationals.
UK Nationals are OK from the point of view of spread of glider
performance because they are run as Open, 15m and Standard. Gliders of
low performance within these classes are generally not entered
(although they could be, of course, as long as the pilot is eligible to
enter at Nationals level in accordance with BGA rules).

BGA-approved Regionals are handicapped and so you could say that they
are run to the equivalent of Club Class rules. It has always been
acknowledged that handicapping only works fairly over a reasonably
narrow band of glider performance. The question is, "what is a
resonable band of handicaps". My own view is, certainly 10%, possibly
20%, but no more than this. The greater the handicap spread in a
single task group, the more anomalies will arise. Glider handicaps
should reflect average theoretical cross-country speeds (Sporting Code
para 7.4), and perhaps a better name for them would be "speed indexes".

However, with a large number of entries in a competition, you can split
the gliders into two (or more) task groups based on handicap. Each
group has a different task for the day, generally the higher
performance group being sent further (unless they had an enormous task
the previous day). This is what we have done at Lasham for many years
and is not only fairer to the pilots but also makes the job of the Task
Setter more straightforward. The Task Setter can optimise different
tasks for the glider performance and pilot ability that he knows he is
dealing with. In my experience this works well, certainly a lot better
than trying to set one task for a huge diversity of glider performance
and pilot ability.

For instance, on one of my task setting days at Lasham I sent the UK
Open Class nationals (38 gliders) on a 450 km task, Regionals Group A
(16 gliders) 400km and Regionals Group B (20 gliders) 325km. Start
lines for these three task groups were separated for safety reasons but
the finish directions were similar to prevent crossing tracks.
Regionals "A" was the high-performance group with gliders from Nimbus
to Discus. Regionals "B" had gliders from DG300 to Astir. The split
between A and B at BGA Speed Index 104% was made by the organisers when
the glider entries were in and the handicap range could be seen.

Finally, some quotes from the Sporting Code for Gliding:

"7.4 HANDICAPPING. If handicapping is to be used, its purpose shall be
to equalise the performance of gliders as far as possible. The handicap
figures used shall be directly proportional to the
expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions
for the competition concerned. The handicap shall be applied directly
to the speed or distance achieved, for finishers to the speed only, for
non-finishers to the distance only. Competitors completing the task
shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not
completing the task shall not be given more than full distance points."

"7.7.6 Club Class. The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the
value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but
high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do
not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to
take part in contests at the highest levels .... The only limitation on
entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within
the range of handicap factors agreed for the competition .... A Club
Class championship shall be scored using formulas which include
handicap factors.

Ian Strachan

[Tim Mara]

this is exactly what I've been saying for years....and why.if you have a
glider that can compete fairly in the FAI Classes you should fly it
there......and not in sports class (USA)
tim

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> In my opinion, it is simply not possible to have fair competition in a
> single task group with Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other.
>
> I have done a lot of task setting in British Regionals and Nationals.
> UK Nationals are OK from the point of view of spread of glider
> performance because they are run as Open, 15m and Standard. Gliders of
> low performance within these classes are generally not entered
> (although they could be, of course, as long as the pilot is eligible to
> enter at Nationals level in accordance with BGA rules).
>
> BGA-approved Regionals are handicapped and so you could say that they
> are run to the equivalent of Club Class rules. It has always been
> acknowledged that handicapping only works fairly over a reasonably
> narrow band of glider performance. The question is, "what is a
> resonable band of handicaps". My own view is, certainly 10%, possibly
> 20%, but no more than this. The greater the handicap spread in a
> single task group, the more anomalies will arise. Glider handicaps
> should reflect average theoretical cross-country speeds (Sporting Code
> para 7.4), and perhaps a better name for them would be "speed indexes".
>
> However, with a large number of entries in a competition, you can split
> the gliders into two (or more) task groups based on handicap. Each
> group has a different task for the day, generally the higher
> performance group being sent further (unless they had an enormous task
> the previous day). This is what we have done at Lasham for many years
> and is not only fairer to the pilots but also makes the job of the Task
> Setter more straightforward. The Task Setter can optimise different
> tasks for the glider performance and pilot ability that he knows he is
> dealing with. In my experience this works well, certainly a lot better
> than trying to set one task for a huge diversity of glider performance
> and pilot ability.
>
> For instance, on one of my task setting days at Lasham I sent the UK
> Open Class nationals (38 gliders) on a 450 km task, Regionals Group A
> (16 gliders) 400km and Regionals Group B (20 gliders) 325km. Start
> lines for these three task groups were separated for safety reasons but
> the finish directions were similar to prevent crossing tracks.
> Regionals "A" was the high-performance group with gliders from Nimbus
> to Discus. Regionals "B" had gliders from DG300 to Astir. The split
> between A and B at BGA Speed Index 104% was made by the organisers when
> the glider entries were in and the handicap range could be seen.
>
> Finally, some quotes from the Sporting Code for Gliding:
>
> "7.4 HANDICAPPING. If handicapping is to be used, its purpose shall be
> to equalise the performance of gliders as far as possible. The handicap
> figures used shall be directly proportional to the
> expected cross-country speeds of gliders in typical soaring conditions
> for the competition concerned. The handicap shall be applied directly
> to the speed or distance achieved, for finishers to the speed only, for
> non-finishers to the distance only. Competitors completing the task
> shall not be given less than full distance points, and competitors not
> completing the task shall not be given more than full distance points."
>
> "7.7.6 Club Class. The purpose of the Club Class is to preserve the
> value of older high performance gliders, to provide inexpensive but
> high quality international championships, and to enable pilots who do
> not have access to gliders of the highest standard of performance to
> take part in contests at the highest levels .... The only limitation on
> entry of a glider into a Club Class competition is that it is within
> the range of handicap factors agreed for the competition .... A Club
> Class championship shall be scored using formulas which include
> handicap factors.
>
> Ian Strachan
>
>

[John Sinclair]

Ian wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>
>In my opinion, it is simply not possible to have fair
>competition in a
>single task group with Nimbuses at one end and K6s
>at the other.

It is possible, Ian. We have done it for 30 years over
here in the Colonies. We do it by not sending everyone
on the same task. My post was an attempt to make our
tasking a bit more challenging. Sports class draws
more contestants than any of the other FAI classes.
At the national level most contestants will be flying
modern ships. This is to be expected with pilots that
have made a life-long commitment to racing. Why should
they be denied the opertunity to compete? At the regional
level, all shorts of older ships can be seen competing
in sports class. This is as it should be and is working
quite well, thank you very much.
JJ

[[email protected]]

JJ said: It is possible, Ian. We have done it for 30 years over here
in the Colonies. We do it by not sending everyone on the same task.

Dear JJ,
You seem to confirm my main point by admitting that you do not send
everyone on the same task! I stick to my opinion that: "it is simply
not possible to have fair competition in a single task group with
Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other". But perhaps your
definition of a "single task group" is different to mine.

Anyway, as long as the people in the task group(s) enjoy their soaring,
get back to base regularly from the tasks that are set and indulge in
the usual "line-shooting" in the bar afterwards, that's what it is all
about, isn't it?

[John Sinclair]

I believe it was Bob Hope that said, 'The US and UK
are two countries separated by a common language. We
send all sports class on a task where each pilot selects
his own turn points. We call the thing, sports class.


Now lets talk about the meaning of, 'spanner and torch'.
A few years back I was complying with a Slingsby airworthiness
directive which said, 'with a torch in one hand and
a spanner in the other, loosen the jam-nut..................'
Had no idea what I was being told to do, but I knew
I wasn't about to climb in this wooden glider with
a lit acetylene torch in one hand. Years later, I found
out a 'torch' was what we call a flash-light and a
'spanner' is an adjustable wrench.
Anyone want to give the meaning of, 'knock me up' some
time. I believe it means to give me a call, over there.
Over here that means to impregnate me.
Wish this rain would stop, maybe Monday,
JJ

>Dear JJ,
>You seem to confirm my main point by admitting that
>you do not send
>everyone on the same task! I stick to my opinion that:
>'it is simply
>not possible to have fair competition in a single task
>group with
>Nimbuses at one end and K6s at the other'. But perhaps
>your
>definition of a 'single task group' is different to
>mine.

[Andy Blackburn]

At 23:30 22 April 2005, wrote:
>We could call it the Non-WUSS-MAT.

Gee JJ, you just took all the fun out of finishes in
the name of safety, now you want to increase landouts
with 2-turn MATs in the name of 'challenge'. Or are
you just yanking our chains?

I thought just the ASA pilots were 'AST-only' Neanderthals.
Forcing all the sports-class newbies in PW-5s to roam
far from home by limiting the turns seems like asking
for mayhem.

;-)

9B

[John Sinclair]

Morning Andy,
My remarks were aimed at the forthcoming sports nationals
at Parowan. I don't see any 'newbies' at or below the
cut-off entry point of 50. We need to force pilots
out of sight of home plate or some will just run their
close in triangle until there is a trough worn in the
ground. This is all up to the CD and I would expect
WUSS tasking in sports class regionals where newbies
may feel intimidated by getting out of sight of home.
Thirty years ago I drove my Duster around a selected
triangle in the early days of sports class. Think we
have lost something with our modern tasking. At Parowan
one only needs to drive say, north for an hour and
a half, then head home. If it is anything like last
year, that's a snap + a lot of fun also.
:>) JJ

At 23:00 23 April 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 23:30 22 April 2005, wrote:
> >We could call it the Non-WUSS-MAT.
>
>Gee JJ, you just took all the fun out of finishes in
>the name of safety, now you want to increase landouts
>with 2-turn MATs in the name of 'challenge'. Or are
>you just yanking our chains?
>
>I thought just the ASA pilots were 'AST-only' Neanderthals.
>Forcing all the sports-class newbies in PW-5s to roam
>far from home by limiting the turns seems like asking
>for mayhem.
>
>;-)
>
>9B
>
>
>
>

[John Sinclair]

Me again Andy,
Just got out of the hot-tub and came up with the proper
reply.........................There's a difference
between an unnecessary risk in the finish gate and
a necessary challenge in picking a champion.
:>) JJ

At 23:00 23 April 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 23:30 22 April 2005, wrote:
> >We could call it the Non-WUSS-MAT.
>
>Gee JJ, you just took all the fun out of finishes in
>the name of safety, now you want to increase landouts
>with 2-turn MATs in the name of 'challenge'. Or are
>you just yanking our chains?
>
>I thought just the ASA pilots were 'AST-only' Neanderthals.
>Forcing all the sports-class newbies in PW-5s to roam
>far from home by limiting the turns seems like asking
>for mayhem.
>
>;-)
>
>9B
>
>
>
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:00 24 April 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Me again Andy,
>Just got out of the hot-tub and came up with the proper
>reply.........................There's a difference
>between an unnecessary risk in the finish gate and
>a necessary challenge in picking a champion.
>:>) JJ

Just twisting your tail JJ (hard to do in that Genesis
- no tail boom).

I do find the TAT and MAT formats present unique challenges
around picking the best line - particularly in uneven
weather. The AST gives you no such decisions. My memorable
AST choices always seem to involve things like proximity
to thunderstorms, big blue holes and unlandable terrain.
Those are certainly good tests of skill and judgement
- just different.

I think it's good to have choices in tasking. Charlie
has been great about matching the course to the day
so I'm confident Parowan will have good tests of all
the skill catagories.

As I recall, most of the days at Parowan last year
had the threat of OD, so if you reserved the 2-turn
MAT for days with no OD potential you wouldn't get
much chance to use it - probably the right choice.


Remind me, I don't think the current MAT rules allow
for restricting the number of turnpoints below 11 do
they?

9B

[John Sinclair]

>
>Remind me, I don't think the current MAT rules allow
>for restricting the number of turnpoints below 11 do
>they?

Oh, yeah;

10.3.2.2.2 The CD may designate from zero to 11 turnpoints.


10.3.2.2.4 The CD may restrict:

+ The maximum number of turnpoints to a number less
than the normal maximum of 11.

I agree that Charlie is a master at wringing the most
out of every day. He also will test (challenge) the
winner to prove he is the best. I expect to see the
meaner side of Charlie at Parowan this year, because
it is a nationals. last year it was a regionals. Looking
forward to a real fun time.
JJ

[[email protected]]

JJ
Also note that CD can make it so no turnpoint may be repeated. This
should force pilots to use the task area to a greater extent. They
might even have to THINK about how to use up turnpoints.
With all these options, there is no reason for boring trivial tasks.
Put the bug in the CD's ear to use some of these options.
THEN watch the guys with less experience than you cry. Should be fun to
watch.
UH