Start Anywhere

[[email protected]]

I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
cylinder.

I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).

Any other reactions out there?

9B

[PMSC Member]

On Dec 22, 6:03*am, wrote:
> I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
> that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
> the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
> leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
> cylinder.
>
> I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
> pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
> brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
> Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
> out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
> ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).
>
> Any other reactions out there?
>
> 9B

I brought this up a couple times at the regionals I flew this year. I
was assured that we were flying "start anywhere" with actual distance
from the start fix to the first turn being scored, but I never saw the
actual rule that made it so. This is what the 08 regional FAI rules,
published on the SSA web site state: "10.8.6 The distance of the
first task leg shall be taken as the distance from the Start Point to
the control fix at the first turnpoint, minus the Start Radius."
That, of course, is the old rule.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[JJ Sinclair]

I took a start by climbing out the top, near the back of the circle,
then winscore gave me another start with a penalty ( I wasn't below
start gate altitude for 2 minutes), as I nicked the front edge of the
circle on my way to the first turn. This rule requires a lot more
talking to the scorer, not sure its worth the hassle.
JJ

[Tuno]

Andy-San,

Like you I prefer the new rule over the old, but I disagree that it
puts more pressure on getting the perfect start. Without the rule,
there is a lot more lurking and loitering around the side of the start
cylinder in the direction of the first turn. With the rule, one can
explore the whole start cylinder for a good thermal and take it out
the top. I would feel more pressure under the old rule.

There is a small learning curve for scorers (as you know I was the
scorer at Parowan last year). The rule essentially requires that the
scorer examine any and all warnings or suggested penalties at a start.
Pilots should *always* verify their given score against what the
scorer accepts from Winscore, and know the rules wrt starting out the
top and nicking the cylinder again on course to the first turn (ref.
JJ's comment). And it never, EVER hurts to take the scorer a cold
something in a green bottle with your question, especially in Utah.

I'm looking forward to FLYING with the new rule at Parowan this year.
It's not even 2009 yet and the contest already has 35 pilots
registered!

~ted/2NO

[[email protected]]

Andy: Not enough review? RC has been asking pilots for a year for
feedback, we had a poll question, we've assembled all we could learn
about how it worked this year, and I can't tell you how many hours of
discussion went into talking about it.

More feedback is always welcome, but information is most useful when
it comes around poll time and before the annual rules committee
meeting in November. We're now at the stage of finalizing things for
the SSA board. As per minutes, "start anywhere" is scheduled to go to
nationals next year unless there is some nuclear disaster we don't
know about.

I don't understand how giving you credit for the actual distance from
start point to first turn meakes you want to pop the brakes and go
down to start more often. Explain please.

It sounds like you're more upset with start altitudes than "start
anywhere." Start altitudes should be low enough that the last guy to
launch has a reasonable chance to get to MSH before the gate opens.
We're also going to encourage CDs to set start heights at least 500'
below cloudbase to stop this idiotic prestart gaggling in the clouds,
and 500' below dry thermal tops so you don't have to spend 20 minutes
clawing that last few feet before start. With the option to start out
the top in a strong thermal (which was always there) I'm still not
sure what you're unhappy about.

Evan: 10.8.6 was a typo. The intent, and what was programmed into
winscore, is to give you the distance from start point to the control
fix at the first turnpoint. That's what will be implemeted this year.

JJ: There's nothing new about this. Even under the old system,
winscore would have picked out the last start with a penalty, and it
would have been up to you to find the better earlier start. We're
working with Guy Byars to automate this process, which should help
scorers. If your last start has a penalty, then winscore will (we
hope) automatically look for a better previous start. Of course,
nothing beats understanding the rules and checking that you're being
credited for the "right" start, but we're all working on getting it
automated so you don't have to.

More questions please! It's freezing darn cold outside and a great
time for everyone to understand how "start anywhere" will work this
year.

John Cochrane
BB

[[email protected]]

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.
R

[[email protected]]

> I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
> the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
> on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
> explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
> response.

Sure. The "start anywhere" rule says you must take your last start, if
that start doesn't incur a penalty. If your last start incurs a
penalty, then you're free to use earlier starts. A start is any time
you exit the cylinder, so when JJ started out the top/back but then
glided back down and nicked the cylinder he did "start" again.
However, since he wasn't under the start height for 2 minutes, this
last "start" would have the 2 minute penalty associated with it.
Therefore, JJ was free to use the earlier start out the top, which is
what he wanted to do all along. (We're going to try to automate this
process this year so that you don't have to be a rules expert or
butter up the scorer.)

This is the rule working exactly as it should. If someone nips out
the top/back and then tries to bump the start gaggles, he's not going
to get away with it -- he will be forced to take the last start. But
if you start out the top and try your best to stay above the start
cylinder but inadvertently nip into it, you're ok.

By the way, this is exactly what would have happened on the old rule.
Winscore would have found the last start, noticed the 2 minute
penalty, and suggested a start with penalty. Then it would have been
up to JJ and the scorer to search back and see if he had a previous
start that avoided the big penalty. The only difference is that now
JJ gets credit for the extra 10 miles or so of distance, whereas
before he would have had to give that up.

I hope this clears it up. Short version: If you stay the heck out of
the start cylinder after starting, you can ignore all the fancy
language in the rules.

I wrote a little "contest corner" explaining the new start, still
available here:
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/start_anywhere.htm

John Cochrane
BB

[noel.wade]

Just a quick note:

As a new contest pilot (first Regionals will be #12 in Warner Springs
in April), I really like the 'start anywhere' idea. Some more
experienced folk might not like it as much because it seems less-
competitive or a bit more complex - but its been beaten into me how
dangerous gaggle-flying can be in a contest, ESPECIALLY near the
start. As a newbie it takes a lot of pressure off if I can just float
away from the main gaggle and find another acceptable thermal - who
knows, it may be an even better one than the group is using?
Regardless of whether it is, in fact, better - I get to make the
choice myself and I get all the "credit" (or "blame" and shame) for
making that call in terms of distance and scoring. Its nice to know
that i'm going to start my flight with a lot of options open to me...

I'll be curious to see how it plays out in my actual contest starts
this year!

Take care,

--Noel

[kirk.stant]

John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

Second, and more basic: Why do we even allow starts out the top? I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

As an aside, why isn't the top of the start cylinder given as an MSL
altitude, instead of an AGL altitude? Seems absurd, since you end up
having to add the start height to the elevation of the start point,
then use an MSL altitude anyway, which could have no relation to AGL
if the start cylinder is over mountainous terrain and the start point
in a valley!

That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

I agree with Kirk...who determines a nick vs. a machette wack.
R

[[email protected]]

On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> John, a couple of questions:
>
> First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
> "nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
> out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
> the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
> (according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
> to prevent)? *Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
> to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
> cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

We thought hard about the tradeoff of rule complexity vs. desire to
keep "on course" traffic separate from "pre-start" traffic, and the
current rule is our best compromise. But it is a compromise.

Keep in mind that blasting through gaggles is incredibly bad form out
on course just as it is in the start cylinder. It can and should draw
the gentle reminders of your fellow pilots, then somewhat more stern
reminders, then unsafe flying penalties, and finally expulsion from
the sport. Yes, this happens. There is nothing all that special about
gaggles in vs. out of the cylinder, and traces mean that pilot
complaints can be followed up by CD penalties very quickly.

The current rule does allow two minutes of time spent within the start
cylinder, and it does allow a pilot to use any gaggles above the
cylinder. We thought about more stringent rules to require greater
separation, but they got more complicated fast. If we get a lot of bad
behavior, we will either go to those or more likely the whole project
will get abandoned and we'll go back to the old way. My experience is
that pre-start gaggles tend to mark ragged half-knot lift, and quite
often negative 1 knot lift, so it takes only a mild bit of self-
preservation to see that they're not worth bouncing in the first
place. Together with the current rule, I doubt this will be much of a
problem. Planning to go back in the cylinder, but somehow for less
than two minutes, seems just too complex to be a viable strategy.

>
> Second, and more basic: *Why do we even allow starts out the top? *I
> thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
> be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
> 2?). *Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
> tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
> trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
> counterproductive. *I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
> a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
> really curious. *We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
> equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
> loophole, IMHO.

Starts out the top are good for spreading pilots out -- the more
places you can start, the better. They are also great out west. If
you're heading out over boondocks, it's wonderful to leave the airport
at 17000'. However, we can't make the top of the start gate 17000', as
that would be very unfair to the poor sap who launches last and has to
climb that high in 15 minutes. The top of the start gate should be
500' below cloudbase too, and low enough not to give a huge advantage
to a few pilots who stumble on a shear wave and can climb at 1 knot to
great height.

I don't really get your scenario. If there are strong thermals inside
the start cylnder, everyone can fish around for them and then zoom out
the top at 10 knots. Ok, there is some luck there, but there is the
same luck out on course. This is not like the luck of finding a shear
wave and milking it for an hour while the other guys wait to launch.

>
> That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
> (SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

The basics are easy, and all computers should have this quickly.
Detecting a start is just as before. All they have to do is program an
easier formula for your distance, from the start fix not from the
center of the start circle. Handling all the penalty options is a
programming nightmare, but that was true before.

John Cochrane
BB

[[email protected]]

On Dec 22, 5:17*pm, wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
> > John, a couple of questions:
>
> > First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
> > "nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
> > out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
> > the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
> > (according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
> > to prevent)? *Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
> > to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
> > cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?
>
> We thought hard about the tradeoff of rule complexity vs. desire to
> keep "on course" traffic separate from "pre-start" traffic, and the
> current rule is our best compromise. But it is a compromise.
>
> Keep in mind that blasting through gaggles is incredibly bad form out
> on course just as it is in the start cylinder. It can and should draw
> the gentle reminders of your fellow pilots, then somewhat more stern
> reminders, then unsafe flying penalties, and finally expulsion from
> the sport. Yes, this happens. There is nothing all that special about
> gaggles in vs. out of the cylinder, and traces mean that pilot
> complaints can be followed up by CD penalties very quickly.
>
> The current rule does allow two minutes of time spent within the start
> cylinder, and it does allow a pilot to use any gaggles above the
> cylinder. We thought about more stringent rules to require greater
> separation, but they got more complicated fast. If we get a lot of bad
> behavior, we will either go to those or more likely the whole project
> will get abandoned and we'll go back to the old way. *My experience is
> that pre-start gaggles tend to mark ragged half-knot lift, and quite
> often negative 1 knot lift, so it takes only a mild bit of self-
> preservation to see that they're not worth bouncing in the first
> place. Together with the current rule, I doubt this will be much of a
> problem. Planning to go back in the cylinder, but somehow for less
> than two minutes, seems just too complex to be a viable strategy.
>
>
>
> > Second, and more basic: *Why do we even allow starts out the top? *I
> > thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
> > be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
> > 2?). *Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
> > tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
> > trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
> > counterproductive. *I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
> > a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
> > really curious. *We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
> > equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
> > loophole, IMHO.
>
> Starts out the top are good for spreading pilots out -- the more
> places you can start, the better. They are also great out west. If
> you're heading out over boondocks, it's wonderful to leave the airport
> at 17000'. However, we can't make the top of the start gate 17000', as
> that would be very unfair to the poor sap who launches last and has to
> climb that high in 15 minutes. The top of the start gate should be
> 500' below cloudbase too, and low enough not to give a huge advantage
> to a few pilots who stumble on a shear wave and can climb at 1 knot to
> great height.
>
> I don't really get your scenario. If there are strong thermals inside
> the start cylnder, everyone can fish around for them and then zoom out
> the top at 10 knots. Ok, there is some luck there, but there is the
> same luck out on course. This is not like the luck of finding a shear
> wave and milking it for an hour while the other guys wait to launch.
>
>
>
> > That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
> > (SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....
>
> The basics are easy, and all computers should have this quickly.
> Detecting a start is just as before. All they have to do is program an
> easier formula for your distance, from the start fix not from the
> center of the start circle. Handling all the penalty options is a
> programming nightmare, but that was true before.
>
> John Cochrane
> BB

Well, I'll give a resounding endorsement to the new rule. Case in
point,
day 2 at Perry last spring for Sports class was a 3 turn MAT task.
Minimum distance was 40 miles, and nominal distance to the first turn
was 19.56 miles. Some pilots were pressed to get to more than just
the first turn (it was a late day start as we had to wait for the
cloudbase
to rise to a safe height), so starting out the side was really needed
for
those pilots. My friend Roger made minimum distance by about 600 feet
thanks to starting out the side.

[[email protected]]

Thanks, BB.

Yes, I like the new rule.

-T8

[[email protected]]

Andy: Not enough review? RC has been asking pilots for a year for
feedback, we had a poll question, we've assembled all we could learn
about how it worked this year, and I can't tell you how many hours of
discussion went into talking about it.

More feedback is always welcome, but information is most useful when
it comes around poll time and before the annual rules committee
meeting in November. We're now at the stage of finalizing things for
the SSA board. As per minutes, "start anywhere" is scheduled to go to
nationals next year unless there is some nuclear disaster we don't
know about.


I don't understand how giving you credit for the actual distance from
start point to first turn meakes you want to pop the brakes and go
down to start more often. Explain please.


It sounds like you're more upset with start altitudes than "start
anywhere." Start altitudes should be low enough that the last guy to
launch has a reasonable chance to get to MSH before the gate opens.
We're also going to encourage CDs to set start heights at least 500'
below cloudbase to stop this idiotic prestart gaggling in the clouds,
and 500' below dry thermal tops so you don't have to spend 20 minutes
clawing that last few feet before start. With the option to start out
the top in a strong thermal (which was always there) I'm still not
sure what you're unhappy about.
____________________________

Sorry John - poor choice of words on my part.

I know there was a lot of discussion here (and a lot of other places
that I don't witness first-hand) prior to the 2008 season. I also know
about the survey question - which is all good and appropriate process
for RC decision-making. My observation was I hadn't seen any public
dialog about the rule 'a posteriori'. For me it helps to compare my
actual experience with the real-world observations of others. I also
find it interesting to compare actual experiences across a number of
people with the various 'a priori' hypotheses we discussed this time
last year. Not trying to second-guess the RC - I'm just curious. There
are potentially a number of interesting race strategy implications so
a broad discussion based on actual experience with the rule is a good
thing in my book.

I definitely took a lot more starts at Region 9 last year than in
years past and on a couple of days was the last starter by something
like 20 minutes as I struggled to get a start I was happy with. I
think there were a couple of reasons behind this. My experience was
that on many days there was a lot of variability in the strength and
height of the lift around the start cylinder. With start anywhere you
don't have the usual clustering of gliders trying to find the best
thermal in a relatively small sector of the cylinder near the first
leg. That's because under the old rules there is a tradeoff between
taking the best lift you can find in that sector and taking a distance
'penalty' to take a start with a stronger climb through the top from
further back. The probability that someone would find a superior
thermal undetected by others in that sector was relatively small.
Lastly, under the old rule if you didn't find a great thermal pre-
start you'd just start out the side as near to MSH as you can get and
look for a good climb on course. Now, under the new rule you are much
more likely to take a start through the top of the cylinder because
you have 75 square miles to explore and you can eliminate risk, as
well as the search and centering time associated with trying to get a
great first climb out on course. Under the new rule the odds are much
higher that someone is going to find a superior thermal somewhere in
those 75 square miles, possibly undetected by many or any others. If
that person is someone other than you, you will be at a disadvantage
right out of the gate. I could have dismissed this as paranoia, except
for those cases when I saw gliders heading out on course 2,000' higher
than the top of my miserable thermal.

As to the MSH issue - I'm not upset and you are right, the issue is
more about setting a proper MSH than the rule per se, though I think
there is some interaction between the two. If people can start
anywhere and if they are making more starts through the top of the
cylinder where they want some room to get centered in the thermal
before going through MSH then the CD is well advised to consider
terrain clearance (including the 'thermal centering buffer') across
the whole cylinder rather than just near the first leg course line.
The situation I experienced had to do with the fact that on a couple
of days the best thermals were up in the high ground or even on the
far side of the 10,000' ridge east of the field. With an 11,000' MSH,
several of us faced some terrain-induced pucker trying to connect
enough below MSH to center the lift without losing our ability to get
back to the airport side of the ridge. Setting the MSH at 12,000'
resolved that issue, but not before one pre-start outlanding on the
far side of the ridge. Obviously, the issue can be very site-specific
and (as you point out) could happen under the old rules too - it just
is a bit more widespread now with increased through-the-top starts
across the whole cylinder.

It would be interesting (by looking at flight traces) to see if the
new rule creates more spread in the field over the first few miles
than the old rule - my hypothesis is that it does. That's not a
negative judgement as personally I prefer the new rule.

9B

[[email protected]]

> It would be interesting (by looking at flight traces) to see if the
> new rule creates more spread in the field over the first few miles
> than the old rule - my hypothesis is that it does. That's not a
> negative judgement as personally I prefer the new rule.
>
> 9B

To clarify, by "spread" I meant spread in speed on course, not traffic
separation - though I would observe that was also true in the tasks I
flew.

9B

[Tuno]

Andy: the next improvement to the start anywhere rule -- use a start
hemisphere instead of a cylinder!

(ducking)

..02NO

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 5:26*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Andy: the next improvement to the start anywhere rule -- use a start
> hemisphere instead of a cylinder!
>
> (ducking)
>
> .02NO

Technically, the top of the start cylinder is spherical - it's just
got the radius of the earth plus MSH.

Ha! I think nicked your cylinder.

..029B

[[email protected]]

You both mean a "sphericonical pyramid". Why nick when you can nuke.
R

[[email protected]]

As usual, Andy phrases the argument much more eloquently than I ever
could.

It's interesting that over the past 10-12 years, we have evolved from
the height-limited gate start, that for all it's safety issues
(crowding at the IP, redline plus start speeds, leeching, to name a
few) was pretty fair in that everyone started on course at the same
place and pretty much the same altitude, to a start system that,
coupled with AAT and MAT tasks, can result in a race where you never
see anybody on course!

Of course this is the same old argument about "what is a glider race"
- and I confess I enjoy flying with a lot of other gliders around -
even start gaggles can be fun, if the pilots involved are skilled!

I guess I still think the provision to start out the top is basically
unfair, especially for late launchers, who have a lot less time to
explore those 75 square miles for that killer start thermal. I too
have been frustrated making a start out the side of the cylinder, only
to see someone way up higher heading out on course.

I hope I get the opportunity to be one of those "out the top" guys
this year!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Tuno]

Kirk,

When you evaluate the "unfairness" you feel when you see somebody
2000' overhead who started out the top, remember that their leg
started when they went out the top; they only have an advantage if
their thermal was better than the first one you choose to take.

If you hit a better thermal than the one the other guy took out the
top, who will be having the faster leg?

..02NO

[Bruce]

wrote:
> You both mean a "sphericonical pyramid". Why nick when you can nuke.
> R
I thought it was a form of frustrum?
Are you sure the ends are spherical - Technically they would be
"geoidal" and conform to some variant of the WGS84 ellipsoidal model,
modified by the pressure distribution of the day.
Within the ability to measure I would say you could call it a Frustrum
of a cone. The vertical difference between the geometric straight line
and an ellipsoidal projection is likely to be less than your system error...

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 8:42*am, Bruce > wrote:

> Within the ability to measure I would say you could call it a Frustrum
> of a cone. The vertical difference between the geometric straight line
> and an ellipsoidal projection is likely to be less than your system error....


Somehow 'start cone frustrum' doesn't really roll off the tongue.

I remain curious about the "initial climb variance" across competitors
under the new rule versus the old rule. Does it pay to hunt around
inside the cylinder for the very best thermal or just head out on
course if you don't connect right away?

9B

[Tuno]

< Does it pay to hunt around inside the cylinder for the very best
thermal or just head out on course if you don't connect right away? >

Yes. Anything else would lead to a landout score.

The winter solstice grows smaller in the rear view mirror, eyes fixed
on the emerging spring calendar --

2NO

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 9:44*am, Tuno > wrote:
> < Does it pay to hunt around inside the cylinder for the very best
> thermal or just head out on course if you don't connect right away? >
>
> Yes. Anything else would lead to a landout score.
>
> The winter solstice grows smaller in the rear view mirror, eyes fixed
> on the emerging spring calendar --
>
> 2NO

Wise guy.

Corrected statement: "...or just head out on course from the edge of
the start cone frustrum as close to MSH as you can get and hope to
connect with a better thermal on course".

Cabin fever setting in. I may have to go analyze something...

9B

[[email protected]]

Not a "Frustum " as a Frustum rest on its base. In this case a Frustum
is the feeling you get when the entire fleet passes 2000' over you as
you start and did so with a 1-26 following in behind. That is a
Frustum.
R

[[email protected]]

Andy and others:

This is really great, and thanks for starting up this thread. The RC
really needs this kind of feedback, and make sure to tell us how
things work out during the season.

I read Andy's story this way: The rule is working pretty much as
intended -- it's spreading everybody out as they fish around through
75 square miles looking for a rocket ride out the top. In one sense
this is good news because we worried that "start anywhere" would just
move the gagglle to a different spot and not change anything.

As with the emphasis on TAT and MAT over AST, "spreading out" has fans
and critics. Fans note it's safer to fly by yourself rather than in
big gaggles, and it rewards lone-eagle types who make bold choices
rather than tactical flying and leeching. Critics note that lots of
people like tactical flying and leeching; they like tight races where
"bold choices by lone eagles" or just dumb luck don't have a big
scoresheet impact. A lot of pilots would like a race in which we all
start at the same time and place, run around an AST very close to each
other, and race over a few minutes here and there. (Read, Grand
Prix).

All of this is important. The quality of the race experience matters.
If people feel that starts out the top are introducing too much
variability and strategy for the amount of spreading out they do, then
we need to hear about it.There are simple ways to fiddle with the rule
-- for example, only give extra distance for starts out the side -- if
everyone starts to dislike the start out the top feature. On the
other hand if people feel that the ability to sneak away from the
gaggle by doing something different at the start is valuable, then
this is another argument in its favor.

How I envy you west coast guys all your troubles over 10 knot thermals
that rocket you up so fast that 11,000' start height isn't enough.

John Cochrane
BB

[kirk.stant]

On Dec 23, 9:27*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Kirk,
>
> When you evaluate the "unfairness" you feel when you see somebody
> 2000' overhead who started out the top, remember that their leg
> started when they went out the top; they only have an advantage if
> their thermal was better than the first one you choose to take.
>
> If you hit a better thermal than the one the other guy took out the
> top, who will be having the faster leg?
>
> .02NO

Prior to the first thermal on course (outside the start frustrum
thingie), my simple single-cell brain tells me that someone who is
2000' above, and started behind me, is going to have a slight initial
advantage! OTOH, if I start out the side at MSH -1ft, and next to me
is someone at MSH +1ft who started out the top 9 miles back 2000'
above MSH, then we start out pretty much equal except for the extra
distance. Which is why I'm whining about the out the top being
"unfair": All competitors do not have an equal opportunity to explore
all the start cylinder for that boomer; the gate is opened after
enough time for the last launch to climb up to MSH, not to the "best"
altitude, so earlier launches have a greater opportunity to take
advantage of the out-the-top start.

Now couple this with the tendency for CDs to call pretty short tasks,
and you end up with the situation where grid position can have a
determining effect on scores!

Unintended consequences, etc...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 12:37*pm, " > wrote:
> Not a "Frustum " as a Frustum rest on its base. In this case a Frustum
> is the feeling you get when the entire fleet passes 2000' over you as
> you start and did so with a 1-26 following in behind. That is a
> Frustum.
> R

Okay it's now called the "start inverted conical frustum"

[[email protected]]

On Dec 23, 1:16*pm, wrote:
> Andy and others:
>
> This is really great, and thanks for starting up this thread. The RC
> really needs this kind of feedback, and make sure to tell us how
> things work out during the season.
>
> I read Andy's story this way: The rule is working pretty much as
> intended -- it's spreading everybody out as they fish around through
> 75 square miles looking for a rocket ride out the top. In one sense
> this is good news because we worried that "start anywhere" would just
> move the gagglle to a different spot and not change anything.
>

I think that's bacically correct - at least out west where all the
thermal are 10+ kts to 17,500' <g> The cylinder is big enough that
someone finding a boomer genreally draws at most a smallish gaggle of
gliders from the immediate vicinity at that time. Things tightened up
a bit if the cylinder had clear areas of more versus less favorable
lift. In any event I felt the size of the gaggles was reduced as was
some of the bunching up on course - although Parowan doesn't suffer
from bomber formation task flying anyway.

I didn't see lots of gaggle-bumping, but in my case I saw climbs
through the top that generally topped out thousands of feet above MSH
- making bumping thermals a very different proposition from what the
RC concerned about. I can't recall anybody taking a start out the side
of the cylinder - though I can't say categorically it didn't happen.

I would think the experience in a contest where pilots can't reach MSH
might be quite different. Anybody?

9B

[ZL]

wrote:
> On Dec 23, 1:16 pm, wrote:
>> Andy and others:
>>
>> This is really great, and thanks for starting up this thread. The RC
>> really needs this kind of feedback, and make sure to tell us how
>> things work out during the season.
>>
>> I read Andy's story this way: The rule is working pretty much as
>> intended -- it's spreading everybody out as they fish around through
>> 75 square miles looking for a rocket ride out the top. In one sense
>> this is good news because we worried that "start anywhere" would just
>> move the gagglle to a different spot and not change anything.
>>
>
> I think that's bacically correct - at least out west where all the
> thermal are 10+ kts to 17,500' <g> The cylinder is big enough that
> someone finding a boomer genreally draws at most a smallish gaggle of
> gliders from the immediate vicinity at that time. Things tightened up
> a bit if the cylinder had clear areas of more versus less favorable
> lift. In any event I felt the size of the gaggles was reduced as was
> some of the bunching up on course - although Parowan doesn't suffer
> from bomber formation task flying anyway.
>
> I didn't see lots of gaggle-bumping, but in my case I saw climbs
> through the top that generally topped out thousands of feet above MSH
> - making bumping thermals a very different proposition from what the
> RC concerned about. I can't recall anybody taking a start out the side
> of the cylinder - though I can't say categorically it didn't happen.
>
> I would think the experience in a contest where pilots can't reach MSH
> might be quite different. Anybody?
>
> 9B

I went out the side the last 3 days at Parowan. Even won 15m on one of
those days. Decided it was time to go, couldn't find a good climb, so
pressed out on course right at the top from a crappy little 5 kt thermal
(gotta love Parowan :)).

I think the start anywhere rule did what it was designed to do in
spreading the pack out a little. The low max start height certainly
changed peoples thinking about the start of the race. Resulted in some
strategic compromises (very early or very late starts) to get a tactical
start advantage.

ZL

[JJ Sinclair]

Kirk wrote.............
my simple single-cell brain tells me that someone who is
> 2000' above, and started behind me, is going to have a slight initial
> advantage! *

Yo Kirk, The guy that was 2000 feet above you, didn't start behind
you. His clock started when he went through the top of the cylinder
and his 2000 foot climb was 'time on course' for him. He just found
his first thermal earlier than you did. Launching at the back of the
grid can be a problem, but we all take our turn back there, don't we?
I find these little start inequities pale in comparison to one little
bad decision out on course. I like the new start anywhere rule and
have gone out the side in the past because that was the closest route
to the nearest Q. My post saying I didn't think it was worth the
hassle was actually in reference to the older 'start out the top'
rule, not the new 'start anywhere' rule.
My thanks to all the members of the RC, you guys are doing a thankless
job, well.
JJ

[kirk.stant]

JJ,

Yeah, I can see how out west when there is a big difference between
the MSH and top of lift, and plenty of opportunities to use it, a
whole new set of start considerations come into play. There really is
no longer any way to compare how you are doing with someone else in
real time. Bit of a shame, that.

And as you say, decisions on course should overwhelm any start
advantage - as long as the CDs give us nice long tasks!

But to continue playing devil's advocate (an I want to emphasize that
I like the new start, this is just a winter discussion of possible pro/
cons, after all!), John in an earlier post stated that it is suggested
that the MSH be set 500' below cloudbase or top of useable lift -
which is not what you guys are describing out at Parowan.

I hope I get a chance to try starting out the top this year - last
year it was more like start at release altitude at the contest I flew
in!

Maybe we can convince John to write us a nice explanation of the
various tactical advantages/disadvantages of side vs top starts with
high or low MSH and strong/weak lift!

Merry Christmas, all!

Kirk
66

[Tuno]

> Merry Christmas, all!

Ba humbug! (I'm at my office staring at a motivational poster CH gave
me. It has Dilbert sitting in his cubicle, placed outdoors, and an
eagle way overhead dropping a load on him. The caption is "SOARING --
One more thing you're not doing right now!")

66 I think you will like new start-anywhere. I didn't get to use it at
Parowan but during the a few ASA contest flights earlier in the year
it provided some welcome flexibility inside the start cylinder.

My first preference was to start *when* I wanted to, out the side,
like in the previous rules. But when I was loitering about, killing
time between the task open and that ideal start time, and stumbled
into a butt thumper, I had the option of taking it out the top
instead.

I found it made for less stressful starts, and certainly less
stressful first legs, and less stress is a good thing. Just ask
Dilbert ...

..02NO

[[email protected]]

On Dec 24, 8:57*am, Tuno > wrote:
> > Merry Christmas, all!
>
> Ba humbug! (I'm at my office staring at a motivational poster CH gave
> me. It has Dilbert sitting in his cubicle, placed outdoors, and an
> eagle way overhead dropping a load on him. The caption is "SOARING --
> One more thing you're not doing right now!")
>
> 66 I think you will like new start-anywhere. I didn't get to use it at
> Parowan but during the a few ASA contest flights earlier in the year
> it provided some welcome flexibility inside the start cylinder.
>
> My first preference was to start *when* I wanted to, out the side,
> like in the previous rules. But when I was loitering about, killing
> time between the task open and that ideal start time, and stumbled
> into a butt thumper, I had the option of taking it out the top
> instead.
>
> I found it made for less stressful starts, and certainly less
> stressful first legs, and less stress is a good thing. Just ask
> Dilbert ...
>
> .02NO

Interesting comments.

The one thing that happened a bunch of days at R9 in 2008 was that on
a northbound first leg you sometimes had to cover 35-40 miles over low
country where there was mostly 3-5 knot lift before you got to the
mountains where the lift was 7-10 knots. This meant a good thermal out
the top of the cylinder allowed you the range to get there without
having to do some combination of getting low and taking weak lift
along the way. That could easily save you 3-4 minutes right off the
bat - not to mention reduce your initial stress level. Start anywhere
just increases the probability that you'll be able to find that good
first climb inside the cylinder.

Under more uniform lift conditions if you don't get a climb out the
top, you just start out the side and head out - where you will either
connect to a decent climb on course or turn back for another start.
Under this scenario there isn't much difference between a climb-then-
glide and a glide-then climb strategy - except for the pucker factor.

9B

[[email protected]]

>
> Maybe we can convince John to write us a nice explanation of the
> various tactical advantages/disadvantages of side vs top starts with
> high or low MSH and strong/weak lift!

Alas, there's not much to say. The RC is very determined not to
introduce rules that require lots of strategizing and have secret
tricks to them. I can't think of anything clever to do with this one.
Much of the attraction is that it removes a lot of tactics and
geometry.

In most contests, thermals are weak near the top of the start
cylinder, or the top is near cloudbase, so there really isn't much to
be gained by going out the top. Then, the most important consideration
is to pick a start position that lines up well to clouds or lift
sources on course.

If there is wind, being on the upwind side of the cylinder is
advantageous. Other things equal, the optimal start point is directly
into the wind. Other things aren't equal of course. It will take a
howling wind to get me away from a good looking cu that seems to line
up with energy on course.

With the old start system it was to your advantage to glide quite a
long way inside the cylinder to the exact optimal point. The loss of
altitude was more than made up for by better distance with the clock
not running. In this one, that's much less vital. Try to start near
the top somewhere on the upwind side, and don't worry so much about
the exact upwind point.

If there is a very strong downwind first leg, starting out the top and
floating over the start cylinder may pay off by giving you a few more
miles of downwind flying. But it's a tricky maneuver, and it's not
clear to me that the traffic, cloud clearance, and worry about sinking
in the cylinder make this any better than starting out the side. It
needs a MSH substantially below the top of decent lift to make it pay
off.

Going through the top is likely to pay off only in places like
Parowan, where the optimal lift band for that time of day already
extends 1000' or more above the top of the cylinder. As Andy points
out, you either climb and glide or glide and climb, so the main
advantage of going out the top is less pucker factor. It could also
pay off if the lift in the cylinder is high, but you have to cross a
stretch of bad lift before connecting again, for example a task set to
the west out of Parowan.

If you do go out the top, or go out the side 90 degrees off course,
make sure you stay out of the start cylinder, and keep your eyes
peeled for other traffic.

The main complication is you need to think about where and when you
started. On a MAT/TAT, make sure you get minimum distance, including
your start point choice. If you drift into the cylinder, your "start
point" could be 5 miles further down course than you thought and you
might not make minimum distance, or you might come in 5 minutes under
time unwittingly. Understand how your flight computer tracks the start
and measures distances.

Can't think of much else to say about it. I haven't had the pleasure
of trying it, but I'm looking forward to doing so this year.

John Cochrane
BB

[kirk.stant]

John,

Thanks - great summary!

And a fun winter discussion from all. It had definitely increased my
knowledge of the new start.

Cheers,

Kirk
66