Thinking about handicapping contest weather

[Bill Daniels]

I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with Henryk Birecki's
"GPS_LOG WinCE". (This is a training function to learn Henryk's software)
It's possible to set the software so auto-select the McCready number based
on actual thermal strengths. Other software can do the same thing.

The average M number is a pretty good way to determine how good the day was.
For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result is some very long,
fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter and slower flights
result.

My thought is that it might be possible to run the day's contest results
through similar software to determine the average M number and use that
number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping the gliders.
This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring weather to a single
number.The result would be to make the contest more equal for different
gliders.

That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not competitive with it's
handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class disallows water
ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are not competitive in weak
weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best. Canceling WX effects
could make the Sports Class more attractive.

Thoughts?

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with Henryk Birecki's
> "GPS_LOG WinCE". (This is a training function to learn Henryk's software)
> It's possible to set the software so auto-select the McCready number based
> on actual thermal strengths. Other software can do the same thing.
>
> The average M number is a pretty good way to determine how good the day was.
> For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result is some very long,
> fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter and slower flights
> result.
>
> My thought is that it might be possible to run the day's contest results
> through similar software to determine the average M number and use that
> number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping the gliders.
> This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring weather to a single
> number.The result would be to make the contest more equal for different
> gliders.
>
> That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not competitive with it's
> handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class disallows water
> ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are not competitive in weak
> weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best. Canceling WX effects
> could make the Sports Class more attractive.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill Daniels

Do you mean that every glider will have to a weather handicap value for
each strength of weather? In your example your Nimbus needs a
"favourable" weathercap on strong days and the smaller gliders need
their favourable number on weak days.

What I'd like is a handicap calculation that allows my small glider to
score top points when I land out trying to cross those reeeeeally big
blue gaps that only your big wings can handle :-)

Martin, UK

[Shaun McLaughlin]

>Do you mean that every glider will have to a weather
>handicap value for
>each strength of weather? In your example your Nimbus
>needs a
>'favourable' weathercap on strong days and the smaller
>gliders need
>their favourable number on weak days.
>
>What I'd like is a handicap calculation that allows
>my small glider to
>score top points when I land out trying to cross those
>reeeeeally big
>blue gaps that only your big wings can handle :-)
>
>Martin, UK

Alot like AAT's then- great in theory- until you landout!

On topic, this was done at the British Overseas Nationals.
Results here:

www.soaringclub.com/Framesets/Competitions/BONnewstxt.htm

Shaun

[Don Johnstone]

Rather than create a new handicap system how about
making the current one fairer.

For example ASW17 Glide angle 48:1 Max water with pilot
64lbs or 3 galls a side and a handicap of 106

LS8(18) Glide angle 48:1 Max water a lot handicap 106

ASW28 Glide angle 45:1 Max water even more handicap
100

and this is fair? Both the LS8 and ASW28 can fly at
warp speed and have a definite advantage in all conditions
because of their ability to loose weight.

Perhaps we need to start handicapping for weight carried
in excess of mauw (dry) or perhaps make the max handicap
100 but then again I suppose this would not give new
gliders an advantage so they would not be worth buying
any more although I did hear it said last week that
an ASW28 goes like greased weasel turd off a shiny
shovel.

At 15:48 16 August 2005, wrote:
>Bill Daniels wrote:
>> I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with
>>Henryk Birecki's
>> 'GPS_LOG WinCE'. (This is a training function to
>>learn Henryk's software)
>> It's possible to set the software so auto-select the
>>McCready number based
>> on actual thermal strengths. Other software can do
>>the same thing.
>>
>> The average M number is a pretty good way to determine
>>how good the day was.
>> For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result
>>is some very long,
>> fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter
>>and slower flights
>> result.
>>
>> My thought is that it might be possible to run the
>>day's contest results
>> through similar software to determine the average
>>M number and use that
>> number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping
>>the gliders.
>> This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring
>>weather to a single
>> number.The result would be to make the contest more
>>equal for different
>> gliders.
>>
>> That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not
>>competitive with it's
>> handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class
>>disallows water
>> ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are not
>>competitive in weak
>> weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best.
>> Canceling WX effects
>> could make the Sports Class more attractive.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
>Do you mean that every glider will have to a weather
>handicap value for
>each strength of weather? In your example your Nimbus
>needs a
>'favourable' weathercap on strong days and the smaller
>gliders need
>their favourable number on weak days.
>
>What I'd like is a handicap calculation that allows
>my small glider to
>score top points when I land out trying to cross those
>reeeeeally big
>blue gaps that only your big wings can handle :-)
>
>Martin, UK
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with Henryk Birecki's
> > "GPS_LOG WinCE". (This is a training function to learn Henryk's
software)
> > It's possible to set the software so auto-select the McCready number
based
> > on actual thermal strengths. Other software can do the same thing.
> >
> > The average M number is a pretty good way to determine how good the day
was.
> > For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result is some very long,
> > fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter and slower flights
> > result.
> >
> > My thought is that it might be possible to run the day's contest results
> > through similar software to determine the average M number and use that
> > number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping the gliders.
> > This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring weather to a single
> > number.The result would be to make the contest more equal for different
> > gliders.
> >
> > That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not competitive with it's
> > handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class disallows water
> > ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are not competitive in weak
> > weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best. Canceling WX
effects
> > could make the Sports Class more attractive.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Do you mean that every glider will have to a weather handicap value for
> each strength of weather? In your example your Nimbus needs a
> "favourable" weathercap on strong days and the smaller gliders need
> their favourable number on weak days.
>
Well, I was sort of heading toward the idea of letting a computer look at
all the competitors .IGC files to get a "power number" for the day. This
would be a number related to the average strength of the thermals
encountered during the time window from opening the start gate to the close
of the task. This number would then be used, after the fact, as it were,
to alter the glider handicap table so as to make it fair for the day.

The competitors collective .IGC files contain a lot of information about the
soarability of the day. There might be a way to extract these data for
weather handicapping.

No doubt, someone has thought of this.

Bill Daniels

[Steve Leonard]

Of course, this thought goes to pot on a ridge day
like you will have at Mifflin, PA, or New Castle,
VA. Or a wave site like Omarama. And it may get seriously
flawed on an 'endless streets' day at a site like Uvalde.

Best bet is just take what you've got and go have fun.

Steve Leonard

[Andy Blackburn]

>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>> > I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with
>>>Henryk Birecki's
>> > 'GPS_LOG WinCE'. (This is a training function to
>>>learn Henryk's
>software)
>> > It's possible to set the software so auto-select
>>>the McCready number
>based
>> > on actual thermal strengths. Other software can
>>>do the same thing.
>> >
>> > The average M number is a pretty good way to determine
>>>how good the day
>was.
>> > For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result
>>>is some very long,
>> > fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter
>>>and slower flights
>> > result.
>> >
>> > My thought is that it might be possible to run the
>>>day's contest results
>> > through similar software to determine the average
>>>M number and use that
>> > number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping
>>>the gliders.
>> > This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring
>>>weather to a single
>> > number.The result would be to make the contest more
>>>equal for different
>> > gliders.
>> >
>> > That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not
>>>competitive with it's
>> > handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class
>>>disallows water
>> > ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are
>>>not competitive in weak
>> > weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best.
>>> Canceling WX
>effects
>> > could make the Sports Class more attractive.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?

Part of the problem in accomplishing this is that a
large part the average climb for the day is influenced
by the individual pilot. I've seen two pilots flying
identical tasks one of whom saw an average thermal
strength of 5.5 knots and the other of 9 knots (!).
Picking the best thermals is the key differentiator
in cross-country speed (and hence distance). By handicapping
for it you are in part discounting skill - probably
the opposite of what's intended. If you average over
multiple traces you get into small numbers problems
in most areas because few OLC pilots fly the same tasks
on the same day.

It would be great to equalize for weather (or even
better, for weather/sailplane combinations) - but the
more I think about it the less likely it seems that
there is enough information available to estimate the
'pure' weather effects. If I fly 1 mile away from another
pilot and find a blue street that ups my XC speed (and
distance) by 20% was that pilot skill or a weather
difference that we should equalize for? How about if
I'm 10 miles away, 100 miles away, 1000 miles away?

It's worth further thought, but the basic problem is
the best pilots fly in the upper 10% of the lift strength
distribution while less skilled pilots flying in the
same air are lucky to fly in the upper 1/3 of the distribution.

9B

[Bill Daniels]

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> >> Bill Daniels wrote:
> >> > I've been replaying on-line contest .IGC files with
> >>>Henryk Birecki's
> >> > 'GPS_LOG WinCE'. (This is a training function to
> >>>learn Henryk's
> >software)
> >> > It's possible to set the software so auto-select
> >>>the McCready number
> >based
> >> > on actual thermal strengths. Other software can
> >>>do the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > The average M number is a pretty good way to determine
> >>>how good the day
> >was.
> >> > For example, one day might be a M= 6.1 and the result
> >>>is some very long,
> >> > fast flights. Another might be a M=2.2 and shorter
> >>>and slower flights
> >> > result.
> >> >
> >> > My thought is that it might be possible to run the
> >>>day's contest results
> >> > through similar software to determine the average
> >>>M number and use that
> >> > number to handicap the weather in addition to handicapping
> >>>the gliders.
> >> > This is a simplistic way to reduce the day's soaring
> >>>weather to a single
> >> > number.The result would be to make the contest more
> >>>equal for different
> >> > gliders.
> >> >
> >> > That would interest me because my Nimbus 2C is not
> >>>competitive with it's
> >> > handicap in strong weather since the US Sports Class
> >>>disallows water
> >> > ballast. On the other hand, smaller gliders are
> >>>not competitive in weak
> >> > weather where the unballasted Nimbus is at it's best.
> >>> Canceling WX
> >effects
> >> > could make the Sports Class more attractive.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
>
> Part of the problem in accomplishing this is that a
> large part the average climb for the day is influenced
> by the individual pilot. I've seen two pilots flying
> identical tasks one of whom saw an average thermal
> strength of 5.5 knots and the other of 9 knots (!).
> Picking the best thermals is the key differentiator
> in cross-country speed (and hence distance). By handicapping
> for it you are in part discounting skill - probably
> the opposite of what's intended. If you average over
> multiple traces you get into small numbers problems
> in most areas because few OLC pilots fly the same tasks
> on the same day.
>
> It would be great to equalize for weather (or even
> better, for weather/sailplane combinations) - but the
> more I think about it the less likely it seems that
> there is enough information available to estimate the
> 'pure' weather effects. If I fly 1 mile away from another
> pilot and find a blue street that ups my XC speed (and
> distance) by 20% was that pilot skill or a weather
> difference that we should equalize for? How about if
> I'm 10 miles away, 100 miles away, 1000 miles away?
>
> It's worth further thought, but the basic problem is
> the best pilots fly in the upper 10% of the lift strength
> distribution while less skilled pilots flying in the
> same air are lucky to fly in the upper 1/3 of the distribution.
>
> 9B
>
>
Of course, no system will be perfect and it's easy to find situations that
would make it difficult. With wave or ridge lift available, the weather
factor could be devalued as most pilots would be able to use the lift
effectively. The biggest problems with weather are at the very strong or
very weak end of the thermal spectrum. For example. Region nine at Parowan
vs. the Sports Class Nationals at Ionia, Michigan.

I've analyzed a number of .IGC files from the On-Line Contest that were
flown in the same general area on the same day. The optimum McCready
numbers were fairly close to each other. I think that most doing the same
could reasonably be expected to say, "That was a 5 knot day".

I was thinking of a real contest where the flying was restricted to a task
area and the pilots were likely to be fairly good at thermalling. To help
get a more accurate picture of the day, the lower 25% of the contestants
could be discarded.

If the upper 25% of the pilots got 5 knots +or- 1knot at the best hour of
the day, that would seem to be a pretty good indication of the best the day
had to offer.

Bill Daniels

[Andy Blackburn]

At 14:18 17 August 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

>I was thinking of a real contest where the flying was
>restricted to a task
>area and the pilots were likely to be fairly good at
>thermalling. To help
>get a more accurate picture of the day, the lower 25%
>of the contestants
>could be discarded.
>
>If the upper 25% of the pilots got 5 knots +or- 1knot
>at the best hour of
>the day, that would seem to be a pretty good indication
>of the best the day
>had to offer.

Oh, I thought you were suggesting a system for OLC
purposes - where the sample size would probably be
too small on average to be generally useful.

In a 'real' contest situation you might get enough
numbers to get usable results. I've talked about this
with members of the competition committee because I
think the idea has merit, at least in theory. Most
think it's too complicated and that we get enough complaints
about 'unfair' handicaps as it is. Honestly, I think
it would be hard to come up with a McCready adjustment
for every glider - particularly since most achieved
cross-country speeds far exceed the theoretical McCready
speed so it's not reasonable to base an adjustment
on McCready theory alone. In my experience the thing
that really spreads out the pack in sports class is
actually the ratio of interthermal distance to height
of the lift band. Wind speed in the boundary layer
also matters a lot. The guys flying the little gliders
at Parowan this year made heroic, but very low scoring
flights on the windy days.

If someone could come up with a reliable algorithm
for calculating the 'day strength slope' in the handicap
for all gliders I'd be very impressed.

9B

[David R.]

The Brazillians use a weather based handicapping system for their nationals
(not enough gliders in any class to have a class based championship?) You
might want to look into it before inventing something from scratch.

Perhaps a Brazillian could post to tell us a bit about it?

regards,

dave r.



"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 14:18 17 August 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>>I was thinking of a real contest where the flying was
>>restricted to a task
>>area and the pilots were likely to be fairly good at
>>thermalling. To help
>>get a more accurate picture of the day, the lower 25%
>>of the contestants
>>could be discarded.
>>
>>If the upper 25% of the pilots got 5 knots +or- 1knot
>>at the best hour of
>>the day, that would seem to be a pretty good indication
>>of the best the day
>>had to offer.
>
> Oh, I thought you were suggesting a system for OLC
> purposes - where the sample size would probably be
> too small on average to be generally useful.
>
> In a 'real' contest situation you might get enough
> numbers to get usable results. I've talked about this
> with members of the competition committee because I
> think the idea has merit, at least in theory. Most
> think it's too complicated and that we get enough complaints
> about 'unfair' handicaps as it is. Honestly, I think
> it would be hard to come up with a McCready adjustment
> for every glider - particularly since most achieved
> cross-country speeds far exceed the theoretical McCready
> speed so it's not reasonable to base an adjustment
> on McCready theory alone. In my experience the thing
> that really spreads out the pack in sports class is
> actually the ratio of interthermal distance to height
> of the lift band. Wind speed in the boundary layer
> also matters a lot. The guys flying the little gliders
> at Parowan this year made heroic, but very low scoring
> flights on the windy days.
>
> If someone could come up with a reliable algorithm
> for calculating the 'day strength slope' in the handicap
> for all gliders I'd be very impressed.
>
> 9B
>
>
>