2009 Proposed US Contest Rules Changes

At 08:51 10 January 2009, wrote:

Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the start
cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is conceptually
similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules the potential
magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to variations in first turn
fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than would be the worst case under
the proposed rule for 2009.

One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph speed
limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above the start
cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?

9B


No, I was talking relative to the 2008 Nationals Rules. And I don't
think there is a factor of ten more potential lost distance if you make
the same assumptions of poor start location relative to first turn fix.
The sites that will potentially show this are the ones with low visibility
where you can't see too far out onto the first leg. This might cause you
to do a serious shift in what part of the first turn area you are aiming
for. And the longer the required first leg, the smaller the "lost
distance start area" becomes, and the less distance you can potentially
lose by being in the "bad area".

I think the loggers will only report ground speed. I wouldn't be in
favor of reporting IAS, as some planes have large indicated errors, and
other have very small errors.

And, I didn't see R or N on this, so it applies to all contests for 2009,
right?

Steve Leonard
ZS

On Jan 10, 10:02*am, Andy wrote:
On Jan 9, 7:42*pm, MarkHawke7 wrote:

*What then is the problem with the refinement
suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
start center to the first turnpoint center? *

One disadvantage of my proposal is that a start made just behind the
fixed semicircle diameter would be invalid and no points at all would
be scored for the day. *I doubt any current flight computer software
would flag that start as invalid. *I suppose its a trade off.

Andy

I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!

There seems to be a certain confusion between what constitutes a valid
start and what part of the start cylinder yields full distance credit
under the new proposal. My understanding is that any valid start
under 07/08 rules is still valid under proposed 09 rules.

I do think that defining the "front" or "full distance credit" portion
of the start cylinder w.r.t. the center of the first turn area rather
than the first turn fix is a logical improvement.

-T8

On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:
I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!


What I said was -
The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. A valid start would only be given
for
an exit from the front half.

Note the last sentence.

There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
scored. Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
leg distance computation. The RC proposed rule has a very simple
first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
visualization.

Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
area. I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".


Andy

I need the mailing addresses of all the members of the Racing
Committee... I am going to send each one of them an Occam's Razor.

:-O

Larry
"zero one"



"Andy" wrote in message
:

On Jan 10, 8:22 am, wrote:
I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!


What I said was -
The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. A valid start would only be given
for
an exit from the front half.

Note the last sentence.

There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
scored. Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
leg distance computation. The RC proposed rule has a very simple
first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
visualization.

Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
area. I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".


Andy

On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Andy wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:

I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!

What I said was -
The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given
for
an exit from the front half.

Note the last sentence.

There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
scored. *Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
leg distance computation. *The RC proposed rule has a very simple
first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
visualization.

Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
area. *I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".

Andy

Ah. I had what I thought was a better interpretation of your idea,
but on reflection it suffers from a lack of simplicity.

A half cylinder start area is asking for problems. I don't trust
airspace depictions on my PDA to the level of accuracy required... and
in any case I can't see making life so difficult for the guy that is
using a GPS nav without graphic display (or the guy whose graphic
display locks up...).

Why not define the start as the last exit from the beer can, do away
with the two minute altitude rule and instead required the start to be
under a specified GPS ground speed (100 kts, for instance)? This is
an idea, not a fully thought out proposal.

You could "start anywhere", you'd have ample incentive to stay clear
of the gate area if you start out the back, don't get screwed if you
do fall back into the cylinder, and excess speed could be penalized in
a fashion that provided discouragement but not outright
disqualification for offenders. It would make for a very simple rule.

-T8

On Jan 10, 10:37*am, wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:08*am, Andy wrote:





On Jan 10, 8:22*am, wrote:

I don't want to tell you what your own proposal was, but I didn't
understand it that way!

What I said was -
The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the
start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given
for
an exit from the front half.

Note the last sentence.

There may be a trade off between making a rule that defines an area
easily visualized by the pilot and, on the other hand, is easily
scored. *Having a fixed semicircle define the full score start area,
but allowing starts behind that area, seems to lead to a complex first
leg distance computation. *The RC proposed rule has a very simple
first leg distance computation but arguably a problem with area
visualization.

Making the area fixed and the only valid start area solves both
problems but has a severe penalty if the pilot starts behind the valid
area. *I don't think its a better answer than "start anywhere".

Andy

Ah. *I had what I thought was a better interpretation of your idea,
but on reflection it suffers from a lack of simplicity.

A half cylinder start area is asking for problems. *I don't trust
airspace depictions on my PDA to the level of accuracy required... and
in any case I can't see making life so difficult for the guy that is
using a GPS nav without graphic display (or the guy whose graphic
display locks up...).

Why not define the start as the last exit from the beer can, do away
with the two minute altitude rule and instead required the start to be
under a specified GPS ground speed (100 kts, for instance)? *This is
an idea, not a fully thought out proposal.

You could "start anywhere", you'd have ample incentive to stay clear
of the gate area if you start out the back, don't get screwed if you
do fall back into the cylinder, and excess speed could be penalized in
a fashion that provided discouragement but not outright
disqualification for offenders. *It would make for a very simple rule.

-T8

Evan,

Glad to see you are coming around to my thinking.

The only thing we need to do to fix the Start Anything rule is reduce
the time to one minute. This is short enough to discourage reentering
the cylinder unless you plan to restart, long enough that you can't
carry speed out of the start and if you accidentally nick it you won't
get a penalty.

The bump and run concern is purely theoretical and the more I think
about it, it will not work. Here are the reasons why the bump and run
idea wont work:

1. From 10 miles you have to be able to know where the gaggle is and
to be high enough to not spend more than two minutes (currently) below
the top.

2. This assumes you can time it so that you get there and there is
still a gaggle there. If the gaggle is there are you going to bump
and run so now you are the rabbit for the hounds? Tactically it makes
no sense. The tactical pilots are going to hang around the front and
watch for the leaders to leave and run with that pack.

3. If your goal is to dolphin through the gaggles that are marked you
are going to get a penalty for unsafe flying.

Bottom line is the proposed rules is not needed and is protecting us
from a non-event and just adding extra complexity to the rules.

The rules should be the 2008 start anywhere with maybe a reduction in
the time required below the top to 1 minute. So much simpler than the
proposed idea.

Judge Learned Hand wrote "Right conclusions are more likely to be
gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of
authoritative selection.''


TT

On Jan 10, 7:15*am, Steve Leonard wrote:
At 08:51 10 January 2009, wrote:

Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the start
cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is conceptually
similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules the potential
magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to variations in first turn
fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than would be the worst case under
the proposed rule for 2009.

One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph speed
limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above the start
cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?

9B



No, I was talking relative to the 2008 Nationals Rules. *And I don't
think there is a factor of ten more potential lost distance if you make
the same assumptions of poor start location relative to first turn fix.
The sites that will potentially show this are the ones with low visibility
where you can't see too far out onto the first leg. *This might cause you
to do a serious shift in what part of the first turn area you are aiming
for. *And the longer the required first leg, the smaller the "lost
distance start area" becomes, and the less distance you can potentially
lose by being in the "bad area".

I think the loggers will only report ground speed. *I wouldn't be in
favor of reporting IAS, as some planes have large indicated errors, and
other have very small errors.

And, I didn't see R or N on this, so it applies to all contests for 2009,
right?

Steve Leonard
ZS

Nearly every time I leave out a detail in the name of brevity I get
caught. You are right Steve - the National rules were unchanged w.r.t
Start Anywhere in 2008. We've mostly been discussing the Regional
rules here because there is a helpful distinction between 2007, 2008
and the new proposal.

To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

I over-stated the difference in unscored distance penalty between the
2007 Regional and 2009 proposed Regional rules. Theoretically under
either rule you could execute a start, then fly for up to 5 miles
without gettin credit for the distance. My thought was that since
most pilots in practice tended to start near the point where the
courseline hit the cylinder the most you could be off by is 1.6 miles
in the worst case and 0.7 miles for a more "typical" first leg
configuration. That's a bit of apples and oranges, I know. I was
trying to take into account my perception of difference in pilot
behavior under the two rules, where under the old rule starters tended
to congregate at the best thermal near the courseline intersection
with the start cylinder.

9B

On Jan 10, 12:20*pm, wrote:
To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
published rules?

Andy

Andy wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:20 pm, wrote:
To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
published rules?

Andy

Section 11.2.3.2 has the Regional start anywhere rule for 2008. Thats
the scoring rules section. They missed that it was in two places.

On Jan 10, 1:04*pm, ZL wrote:
Andy wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:20 pm, wrote:
To answer Andy's question on the distance calculation - I believe the
2008 Regional rules contained a typo an were actually scored without
subtracting the start radius (which i think would have been a weird
random act of math if implemented as written). I could be wrong on
that - I thought I heard it somewhere.

How are the scoring rules embedded in Winscore derived if not from the
published rules?

Andy

Section 11.2.3.2 has the Regional start anywhere rule for 2008. Thats
the scoring rules section. They missed that it was in two places.

Yup - that's it. I remember now the typo fix was called out in the
draft 2009 rules.

"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"

"11.2.3 Scored Distance
11.2.3.1 Scored distance is the sum of the distance achieved on each
leg of the task (but no leg shall have a length less than zero).
11.2.3.2 ‡ † For all Tasks, the first leg originates at the start fix
(Rule 10.8.5.3)"

It's actually ambiguous because 11.2.3.2 speaks to where the leg
originates, but 10.8.6 speaks to the distance of the first leg. As a
practical matter I'm certain they did not subtract the radius in
WinScore.

Now we're in the weeds for sure.

9B