Recent discussions about contest scoring have shown that it might be
beneficial to review the history of contest scoring in the U.S.
Here is a very brief overview.

The first U.S. National Soaring Championship was held at Elmira, New
York, seventy-three years ago. Three tasks were used: duration,
distance, and gain of altitude. The pilot performance measures for
these three tasks were, respectively, minutes, miles, and feet of
altitude. Because soaring contests are multiday contests, the daily
performance measures must be added together for a cumulative score.
However, minutes of duration, miles of distance, and feet of altitude
cannot be added together. No common unit exists for the addition. This
problem was addressed by awarding 1000 points to the daily winner
regardless of the type of task and awarding points to the other pilots
in a proportional manner. The daily points were then added together
for a cumulative score. This is the 1000-point system with which we
all are familiar.

Much has changed in the last seventy-three years since the first
contest. Duration, distance, and altitude tasks are no longer used.
Soaring has matured into a racing-only sport. The pilot performance
measure with the Time Distance Task is distance (see my posting on
r.a.s. 9/23/03). The performance measure is the same each day -
distance. The daily results now can be added together directly for a
cumulative score. It is no longer necessary to assign points

In 1999, I wrote a paper analyzing scoring systems. It was accepted by
OSTIV and presented at the XXVI OSTIV Congress in Bayreuth, Germany.
It was published in the OSTIV Journal, Technical Soaring, and in the
Soaring Association of Canada Journal, free flight. The paper proved
that 1000-point scoring systems produce scores that do not accurately
represent the actual, measured performances of the pilots. Simply, the
scores are not accurate. No one has challenged the conclusion of that
paper. The conclusion is not surprising considering that 1000-point
systems were designed to score duration, distance, and altitude tasks
and are now being used to score races. I will send a copy of the paper
to anyone who emails me for one.

Scoring on distance eliminates the three major sources of inaccuracies
in 1000-point scoring. The first inaccuracy is that pilots' scores
depend on the performances of their competitors rather than just on
their own performances. This is caused by dividing the pilots' speed
by the winner's speed to assign points. The number of pilots who land
out also affects the pilots' scores. These calculations are not done
in distance scoring.

The second inaccuracy is caused by assigning the same score value to
each day regardless of the length of the tasks. For example, 1000
points may be assigned to a two-hour flight on one day and to a
four-hour flight on the next day. However, two does not equal four.
Trying to "Make" two equal to four is mathematically incorrect and
causes scoring inaccuracies. This is not done in distance scoring. The
actual distances attained each day are scored exactly has they happen.

The third inaccuracy is caused by the assignment of an arbitrary value
for distance for the pilots who land out. This problem is eliminated
completely with distance scoring. The finishers and the land outs are
scored on the same dimension - distance.

In racing world wide, a course is set, and the champion is the
competitor with the lowest elapsed time. By calculation, the champion
also has the highest speed.

The same result is achieved with distance scoring. A fixed time for
the race is set rather than a fixed course. The champion is the pilot
with the greatest distance. By calculation, he also has the highest
speed.

This is a unique time in the history of soaring. The current
combination of GPS recorders and the Time Distance Task gives the
soaring community a fantastic opportunity to move from a seventy-three
year old system to an accurate, simple, understandable, and uniform
scoring system based on distance only. The soaring community owes a
debt of gratitude to the Canadians for their leadership in being the
first to seize this new opportunity and to provide the development
that a new system requires.

Bill Feldbaumer 09