Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Sean, et al:

I totally get the appeal of a grand prix race. I'd likely show up for one, depending on who is flying. I personally prefer distance racing, but hey, that's me. Where I think we can agree is that we're not running nearly enough experiments to find new and popular racing formats.

We seem to be running the same experiments, with small tweaks by the rules committee, hoping for a very different outcome. In the lingo of start-up culture, it's time for a pivot.

I applaud what Bruno and Tim have done at Nephi (and I really wished I could have gone this year). They've clearly found a format that is so popular as to have been over subscribed. It doesn't matter if it meets an arbitrary definition of a "true race", it got plenty of attendance in a pretty damn remote part of the country. They're clearly on to something.

I have read (too many times) that the rules committee will give waivers to try different things at a regional level, and if it's popular they'll consider adopting it at a nationals level. But this is a very slow approach to innovation, and it sure doesn't look like we have decades to figure this out folks.

In my opinion the gliding community is very risk adverse and slow to change.. We like rules. We like organization. We like to presume there is a correct way to do things. We're all a bunch of pundits, but in the meantime our sport is dying because it has become so insular and clique-ish.

For years it seems like the focus has been on optimizing for a local maximum that incrementally improves attendance at, say, a standard class nationals, rather than searching for another format(s) that are compelling enough to get competitors to make the extra effort to participate. Clearly the data shows this isn't working. I'll tend to think that the racing scene needs two things to occur to change it's death spiral:

(1) It needs to be far more inviting to new racing pilots. Doing this almost certainly will require simplified formats, with shorter races, and a strong social activity component to help new pilots develop relationships with established pilots. Right now this is handled at the regional level, that's a mistake if you want to develop a strong national racing scene.

(2) We need *way* more experimentation occurring in the sport to increase the probability that we discover a growth opportunity. Again, this has been pushed down to the regional level. Instead, why doesn't the SSA rules committee promote several new race format concepts each year and see which ones get traction?

Alternatively, we can have an endless discussion on RAS that makes much the same points that have been made before, and stay the course.

Chris Young
42DJ

[NOTE: Since the original post and many of the comments seem to be focused on the National-level contest scene, I'm deliberately ignoring the Regionals component of USA soaring in this post. I feel that those are a separate topic from the issues/concerns that were originally raised]

Here are some thoughts I've had, as a relative newcomer to racing (participating in 1-2 Regionals per year since 2009, plus Nats at Montague in 2012; and with full intentions of hitting at least 1 Nats per year for the next 10-20 years... with the recent purchase of an ASG-29 to back that up) -

1) If we're going to handicap a class or two at the Nationals, do we really _need_ a Sports Class Nats? If momentum is picking up for Club class and Handicapped Standards, then perhaps Sports becomes a regional-only class and its focus is around encouraging new folks into the competition scene... as well as being a non-threatening place for "weekend warriors" (who have no interest in the Nationals or Worlds) that enjoy goal/task-oriented flying for a solid week with fellow pilots.

Its not like we are going to attract a lot of "casual participants" to Nationals in their current format, given the long vacation times, high costs, and plethora of alternative activities in this modern age (all of which others have pointed out).

I think a slight reduction in the number of classes allows us to cut down the number of events and consolidating entries to fewer sites, thus helping with minimum total entries and - presumably - helping with contest viability & financial success.

2) While I'm not as big of a convert to the "Enterprise tasking" and distance-oriented tasks that Chris has discussed, I think they're a breath of fresh air and I _do_ feel like the current tasking attitude/direction has several drawbacks. One of the major ones is a slow creep towards shorter and shorter tasks, or so it seems. When I got started I was told tales of 2.5 to 3.5 hours tasks at Regionals; but that the Nats and Worlds really upped the ante with 3.5 to 5+ hour tasks. To me that sounds like a real challenge and a real test of endurance!

....But in my real-world contest experience there's this pressure to get all the contestants launched only after no one will land back at the airport. That tends to shift launch times until later, which encourages shorter tasks. Then on top of that there's this desire to task in a manner that ensures everyone completes the task; which also encourages less-challenging/shorter tasks. Luckily this second set of pressure isn't as strong at a Nationals as it is at Regionals, but I think it still exists. These add up to what Chris is referring to: the monotony of 3-hour tasks when the day easily supports 5-7 hours of flying. And of course the shorter the task, the longer you can afford to wait around in the start-gate and play games! IMHO longer tasks force people to go out earlier on task, lest they lose too much of the day before starting.

I can see how organizers might be worried about 10 days of 5-hour tasks and the fatigue-factor it places on pilots; longer tasks may be something to consider in conjunction with contests having fewer days, to keep the fatigue factor manageable overall.

3) When it comes to comments about OLC scoring versus "real racing", people need to remember that the same arguments apply to TATs versus "real tasks" (this term inevitably refers to an AT/AST, when I hear these nose-in-the-air comments from old-timers).

No matter the format, the bottom line is that every rule has two inherent "side-effects": it provides an incentive to specific behaviors, and it changes the yardstick by which you measure pilots.

For example - A Grand Prix start has all pilots start at the same time. Theoretically this means that GP pilots all have similar chances of finding the same lift on-course (assuming they all fly the same course); but it *also* means that GP contests do _not_ account for any pilot skill in determining the best part of the day to fly the task. Its a matter of opinion whether the "better" pilot is the one who flies the task at the same time as other pilots and achieves a higher speed; or whether the "better" pilot is the one who can factor in changing weather and time-of-day into their overall strategy, and wind up with a better optimum speed for the day when that additional element is in the mix.

As another example - OLC flights encourage a pilot to find the best air in a region and use it to make a few "laps" (or cat's-cradles). The pilot does not have a traditional set of waypoints to hit... So is the "better" pilot the person who can find and use the best air to score the most distance and/or highest speed? Or is the "better" pilot the one who can achieve the highest speed when his distance and direction are heavily controlled by the task-setter? You're evaluating very different skill-sets; and in essence, the rules make the champion.

So before we can settle on the "proper" format for Nationals we need to come to a consensus about what the most important skills are that we want to measure. What is the fundamental goal of a National championship? Are we trying to set up our contest so the US National champion is the person we think has the highest likelihood of placing well at Worlds? If so, maybe we need to adopt rules that are as-close-as-possible to the rules we anticipate will be in-effect at upcoming World Championships. Alternatively, do we want to measure some other combination of skills (that perhaps the Worlds don't measure or reward in the same manner)?

Either way, we need to determine those first and _then_ ensure that our contest formats actually measure such things (and incentivize the good behaviors that we want contest pilots to exhibit).

Now, _how_ do we determine what we want to measure? Well contest polls may be one way, but experimenting with contest formats is certainly another. The problem, of course, is that a regional contest or specialty-event may not provide an accurate reflection of how this same format/rules-set plays out in a real Nationals contest**.

In the end, I agree that there are no magic-bullet solutions. But one really good start would be to round up all of the active pilots at the Nationals level and figure out a way to get them to describe what they think makes someone the "best" pilot in the country. The rules can follow from there...

--Noel

**For example: Sure the Nephi events so far have been a big hit (and I really want to go); but there are many factors at play and we don't have any evidence that the attendees would participate in the same manner if they were told this was a National Championship...

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Maybe the issues of US team selection is a big part of the problem? If dwindling participation is the concern, should team selection be a priority? They're likely goals that are at odds with one another.

So, yes, perhaps standard class should follow a radically different format next year. I'm all for combining standard and club (why not, let's see what happens). And I'll step up to help organize something from Ephrata, WA if I can get the support of the SGC.

As for pitchforks and torches, why is that really a concern? If you want to do something disruptive and improve the situation, you should expect to upset the status quo and accept that many people will be unhappy for a while.

Not sure what you mean by not having team selection be a priority for Nationals - Not have a WGC team? Not have them selected based on contest performance? The various competition committees get to wrestle with all these pesky details.

What's the motive/logic for wanting to experiment at Nationals before Regionals? And yes, the pitchforks matter. The RC serves the contest pilot community not the other way around - so the role is to encourage experimentation and build support for what works. There have been dramatic shifts such as the introduction of GPS, but even there a transition was included IIRC.

I love experiments and new formats/ideas, but pilot adoption matters even more.

I mean that team selection shouldn't be a priority, I did not say that contests shouldn't select a pilot for the WGC team. Maybe this results in a sub-optimal pilot selection, but so what?

The motivation and logic for experimenting at the national level is that, so far as I can see, the idea that innovation will trickle up from regionals to nationals is a dubious claim. The regional contest scene does not appear to be growing the national competition scene. If you want a healthy set of national competitions, then the rules committee should be focused on innovation at the national level.

With regards to the pitchforks, did they matter at standard class nationals this year? Saying that the RC serves the contest pilot community, not the other way around sounds an awful lot like an abdication of leadership. Members of the RC committee were elected to show leadership, and that should mean having a bold vision and making it happen. Instead, we have leadership by committee, with polling used to help find a compromise that pleases the most people in any given year. This is an approach that is guaranteed to reinforce the status quo and make incremental improvements. But incrementalism is no where near good enough for where things are at today.

This is why I believe bold experimentation at the national level is required (and we could use a little more vision too). Attendance is so low at most of these contests that what's the real risk in any given year with getting it a bit wrong?

Let me turn the question around, what is the logic for *not* experimenting at the nationals level?

The primary difference between regionals and nationals is the role nationals play in seeding and team selection so losing that as a goal means there's really no longer much difference and setting one's sights at experimentation at the national level loses much of it's meaning.

Dramatic reductions in participation would be the downside of dramatic yearly shifts in rules at the national level. There have been some bold visions put forward - too bold for many, maybe not bold enough for others. Participation starts at the local and regional level so that is where you are likely to see the most upside from experiments. I can't name anyone who flew their first contest at a nationals.

I'm still interested in the specifics of your proposal.