WGC Club Class Day 2 Scoring

Can someone explain this one to me:

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/r...aily/day2.html

On 09/01/2013 12:48, Papa3 wrote:
Can someone explain this one to me:

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/r...aily/day2.html


1) 248.5km task
2) They all landed out
3) Dist column looks like actual distance without Handicap applied
4) Ordering/Point is calculated from the calculated handicapped distance
(which is not shown)

If the Hcap is applied to the Dist column you get the following. I've
added the HDist, Handicapped distance column:

Hcap Dist HDist Points
1 KY Branko Stojkovic SER Cirrus 75 100 245.10 245.10 963
2 7 Arndt Hovestadt GER Std. Libelle 99 240.00 242.42 953
3 JR Luca Urbani ITA Std. Cirrus 100 240.20 240.20 944
4 AA Tim Kuijpers NED Cirrus 75 100 240.00 240.00 943
4 IF Roman Mracek CZE Std. Cirrus 100 239.90 239.90 943
6 RC Louis Bouderlique FRA Std. Jantar 2 101 240.60 238.22 936
7 BX Marco Barth GER LS 1f 101 239.90 237.52 934
..
..
..
..
..


--

Nick Hill

On Jan 9, 7:13*am, Nick Hill wrote:
On 09/01/2013 12:48, Papa3 wrote:

Can someone explain this one to me:

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/r...aily/day2.html

1) 248.5km task
2) They all landed out
3) Dist column looks like actual distance without Handicap applied
4) Ordering/Point is calculated from the calculated handicapped distance
(which is not shown)

If the Hcap is applied to the Dist column you get the following. I've
added the HDist, Handicapped distance column:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Hcap * *Dist * *HDist * Points
1 KY Branko Stojkovic * SER Cirrus 75 * 100 * * 245.10 *245.10 *963
2 7 *Arndt Hovestadt * *GER Std. Libelle 99 * * 240.00 *242.42 *953
3 JR Luca Urbani * * * *ITA Std. Cirrus 100 * * 240.20 *240..20 *944
4 AA Tim Kuijpers * * * NED Cirrus 75 * 100 * * 240.00 *240..00 *943
4 IF Roman Mracek * * * CZE Std. Cirrus 100 * * 239.90 *239.90 *943
6 RC Louis Bouderlique *FRA Std. Jantar 2 101 * 240.60 *238.22 *936
7 BX Marco Barth * * * *GER LS 1f * * * 101 * * 239.90 *237.52 *934
.
.
.
.
.

--

Nick Hill

Interesting scoresheet. The start gate opens at least at 14:14, but
the poor guy who started then did a lawn dart all on his own. Second
start 14:17 seems to have gotten over run by the gaggle, but at least
made some distance with them. The gaggle sits around playing who is
going to go first until 14:50 or so...and then all proceed to land out
together. Still, under IGC rules, sitting around for 3/4 of an hour,
guranteeing a mass landout, is the right thing to do.

Standard class

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/r...aily/day2.html

also has first start 15:22 promptly lawn-dart, and second starts 15:34
end up middle of the pack. Otherwise, the daily position is almost
inverse to the start time, with the winners starting 15:54 (15:54!
after waiting at least a half an hour!) ... except for the poor US
team who played the game just a bit too well, starting at 15:59 and,
from the looks of the scoresheet, not quite catching the gaggle.

Disclaimer, I'm sitting in my office in Chicago and just reading
scoresheets. But boy, do they seem to suggest how important start
games and gaggles are to IGC flying! Looking forward to John Good's
acerbic analysis.

John Cochrane

BB,

Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??
FS

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:02:29 AM UTC+11, Fox Sierra wrote:
BB,



Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??

FS

From Australian team pilot Craig Collings:
" Today we gridded on the North end of the airfield with a strong northerly blowing. At the briefing the weatherman said he expected it to move around to the south; which it did, strong from the north to strong from the south! Wind is the theme.
The club class task was over set for the conditions at 248km, will all of the pilots landing out. Tobi and I started early again, 30 minutes after the start open, and had trouble staying together on the first leg (100km into a 30+km/h wind). We were flying alone and after a couple of hours I was the first to get picked up by the gaggle, Tobi was still about 17km ahead. Around 5pm the thermal weakened significantly and the gaggle (about 20 gliders) was taking every thermal from varying from 0.5 to 1.5 knots and rising to 3300ft; we still had about 70km to run of which 50km was into a head wind. Eventually we picked up Tobi and took the last flew climbs in the dying day. Landing at 7pm, I made the furtherest distance, 5.8km from the airfield. After handicaps were applied we came 10th and 11th for the day."

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:02:29 PM UTC-6, Fox Sierra wrote:
BB,



Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??

FS

Big gaggle in desperation conditions, can't quite make the finish. A similar thing happened at Szeged. Under IGC rules, if you're with the lead gaggle of 20 gliders 1000' short of final glide, you do NOT leave. You stay with the gaggle. If the thermal dies and you're circling down .5 knots, you stay with the gaggle. If one guy leaves and lands out, but the others make it back, he's toast. If the gaggle all lands out, they all get 1000 points. Even if the lone wolf makes it back, he gets next to extra points for doing so.. From the Australian report, it sounds like this is exactly what happened -- a lead gaggle of 20 coalesced, and all landed together. Of course, had they not spent 45 minutes playing start games it would have ended differently. But that game has to be played too under IGC rules. And people want to do this in the US....Ok, off soap box for now.

If you listened to John and the RC you would think all another countries would have Ero participation and piles of wreckage every day they fly...

Crusade on...

Ero was meant to be zero.

Spellchecker...

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:58:24 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
If you listened to John and the RC you would think all another countries would have zEro participation and piles of wreckage every day they fly...



Crusade on...

Sean, It is obvious they are tasking too long with the high landouts. The silly "peleton" strategy of staying with the gaggle makes for dull racing. Franke and Arnold are doing very well.
Richard Walters

More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg

T8