This seems sensible on initial inspection.

First, I don't believe that it is valuable to test
as a racing skill the ability to find the one thermal
that is closest to the optimal exit point. Finding
the best path to start out on course seems more consistent
with the idea of a start cylinder.

Second, I have frequently deviated several miles to
make a start that minimizes distance to the first turn,
but given up altitude in the process - as John points
out this is just a math problem to solve, but I think
racing should not rely too much on solving trigonometry
problems in the cockpit.

Third, there does often appear to be significant gaggling
near the optimal exit point, which gets particularly
dense at the top of lift or MSH. I can't prove that
this would go down under the alternative (leaching
might be too big a lure), but I don't see any way that
it would increase gaggling.

Some counterpoints to consider:

1) If there is a front-side rule, pilots will need
to be aware of where the 90-degree off-courseline points
on the cylinder are and the rules will have to account
for pilots who exit the back side. Not sure why anyone
would do this - but I'm sure someone would do it.

2) If the start cylinder is large we will introduce
more variability in distance flown across pilots, which
further dilutes the intuitive appeal of 'shortest time
wins' in ASTs. That is, it will be hard to compare
performance until the scoring program has processed
everyone's flight logs, which in my mind is a major
downside of the variable distance tasks - and bigger
turnpoint cylinders.

9B

At 15:00 18 September 2003, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
Mark,

The prestart gaggle is a dangerous place... especially
at nationals.
You have three types of traffic in this gaggle. The
guys waiting at
the top flying circles at 80 knots, the guys below
who are climbing
for all they're worth afraid they might lose the guys
at the top, and
the guys coming in from all points on the compass and
altitudes to see
who is in the prestart gaggle. This rule may just may
be useful in
reducing that density. On many occassions I have wished
that I could
get credit for a start 45 or 90 degrees around the
circle (where there
was better lift and a better cloud field on course),
but have been
forced into the gaggle because I couldn't justify the
4 or 5 minutes
I'd be giving away.

The two start cylinders at Tonopah reduced the anxiety
level. Giving
us the rest of the space, without penalizing our using
it, would
improve things even more. This time, I think the committee
is
addressing a real problem with an effective solution.
Problem is,
we've has so much smoke blowing in the name of safety
that it's wiser
to be suspecious of its motives.

Just like the 1m turnpoint, the 1m finish cylinder,
and even the 10m
AAT cylinder, there is only one best place to be at
a given time. And
if there are 50 gliders in the neighborhood, that's
where they'll wind
up.

I was almost hit twice at Hobbs this year in the prestart
gaggle. God
only knows who I scared as I slammed the controls full
stop to avoid
the guys who didn't see me.


(Mark Navarre) wrote in message
news:...
16.0 “Start Anywhere” Cylinder
Present rules for start cylinders measure start time
from your exit point, but
measure distance from the point on the cylinder’s
perimeter closest to your
first turnpoint.
16.1 Would you prefer that both start time and distance
be measured from
your cylinder exit point?

Consider the negative implications of starting out
the top of the back of the
cylinder and then bumping the pre-start gaggles for
more speed. This would mix
racing traffic with non racing traffic, and high speed
straight line traffic
with thermalling traffic. Yes, I know this happens
already while on course,
but it's not safe there either. Why propose a rule
just because the scoring
program can score it? The same logic was partly behind
the 1 mile turn
cylinder (read between the lines of the poll). Starting
anywhere sure adds
some new variables to 'start gate roulette'. So you
say we will all figure out
the new optimum place to start, go there, and the
point is moot? NOT. There
has been an optimum place to start for years with
the current rules, but I
observe 20% of pilots have not caught on. That won't
change with a new rule.
Why so many rules proposals, anyway? The rules were
not that broken until a
committee broke them, while squawking 'safety' among
other things, and now
there are increasing efforts to protect us from ourselves.
I propose a new rule: 3 year rules stability. Allow
discussions, polls, and
regional testing, but National level changes only
on a three year cycle.
-
Mark Navarre
ASW-20 OD
California, USA
-