Handicap Distance Tasks

John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.

To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.

BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

To repeat - the RC encourages any organizer with an interest to try the handicapped distance task under waiver and providing detailed feedback on how well it works. Keep in mind that you will likely need to fly 100% task types that are supported by SeeYou, which will have some differences form what people might be used to. It seems that those are reasonably surmountable challenges.

9B

Well said, Andy. I remember free distance, cats cradle, AST, POST (pilot option speed task), O&R MTO (out & return, multiple turnpoint option), MAT, and TAT, and I'm probably forgetting a few. All require good soaring skills. All involve luck. All seem to be won by the same guys in most cases although George Moffat made a good case against free distance on that basis.

I agree pilots want to be able to finish. Years ago I "graduated" to the ranks of the crewless at both the regional and national level, and it's not so much fun when lots of crewless pilots land out several days in a row.

I'll just reiterate the one thing you didn't mention, which is each task's susceptibility to being washed out by local weather phenomena. I recall many, many times in the days of ASTs when we lost contest days, decent but difficult-to-forecast soaring days, because an isolated storm or early shutdown blocked many of us from reaching one of those mandatory TPs so beloved by fans of the AST.

The "long MAT" (i.e., a string of TPs--hit as many as you can before finishing somewhere near the minimum time) addresses some of the "weaknesses" of both the TAT (e.g., that pilots can fly in wildly different parts of the task area) and the AST (i.e., trying to get to all the TPs before the sky blows up somewhere). I abhor the one-turn MAT although I understand why desperate CDs sometimes resort to it when they have no confidence in even what quadrant will blow up first.

Any MAT has the disadvantage that a storm over the next TP can make it unreachable but at least with a MAT (unlike with an AST), there's still a chance for a finish and completed task, assuming the pilot has accumulated sufficient distance by the time he/she encounters the blocked TP (or can wait it out and then continue). I'd say the chances are better that the early TPs are more reachable than the later ones as the weather cooks up but that isn't always true, as those who flew at Elmira can confirm.

Chip Bearden

On Thursday, 28 January 2016 19:15:10 UTC+2, Jim White wrote:

This is where we started but the present system is somewhat more refined.
In the UK we use windicapping which skews towards low handicap gliders as
the wind strength increases.

We also realised that the shortest way around the task is not to go
directly towards the centre of the barrel, nor to the point where the
bisector intersects the barrel circumference.

So we measure the shortest (handicapped or windicapped)path around task for
each barrel size step and compare to the reference task length * handicap
(/handicap in US). This iterative process arrives at the barrel size that
best fits the desired task length for each handicap flying.

Our software will cope with start lines of any length, variable barrels,
acute and oblique turns, checkpoints, angled finish lines and finish
rings.

It then prints a handy briefing document for the pilots.

If you put a task into the calculator then export it into SeeYou you will
see what I mean.

Jim

Interesting. I remember flying GP task with my simple cylinder formula with several other gliders participating. During a short (GP tasks are short usually) task I remember seeing my turnpoint radius of few kilometers while best gliders went for 0,5 km cylinder (for 3% handicap difference you will see extra radius of 3% of the leg length, which is not much). Difference was quite small, nothing that would change the game tactics. You basically got a chance to catch up the better gliders at every turnpoint. I still maintain that this is best used with GP tasks: regatta starts and simple scoring. Otherwise AAT does much of the same.

Well said!

On 2/9/2016 10:48 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.
FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

--
Dan, 5J

Arrrrrrg! ;-) (Luke will know what I am saying here...)

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:28:32 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.

To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.

BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

Additionally, pilots who would like to see this task tried in their
regional should lobby their contest organizer.

John Godfrey (QT)


I have followed the very animated and often inspired
correspondence on this subject and I think I can tell my story now,
which can also be called history since an idea of many years ago
grew to factual reality.

In the year 1995 I imagined a task constituted by a short circuit to
be repeated three times, with simultaneous start of groups of
gliders, scored according to the arriving position, so that the first
is first and the second is second etc. independent from elapsed
time. The task was tailored to the gliderport of Crazy Creek because
I judged that location as favorable to this kind of contests. At the
time I discussed the CRAGAR (Crazy Creek Airport Gliding Air Races)
task with other glider pilots but the idea did not make it into
practical application.

In following years I adapted the same concept to Truckee and tried
to have more following but apart a couple of trials with a few other
glider pilots, not much was done until 2005. In that year I finally
was able to organize the first TAGAR (Truckee Airport Gliding Air
Race). It was a quadrilateral to be repeated three times for a total
length of 128 SM. Simultaneous race start crossing the airport
runway, scored by the automobile Formula 1 Grand Prix system, 25
points for the first, 18 for the second etc. without consideration of
the time on course. The last leg was shortened or extended
according to the glider handicap. At the end of the season I read
about the first Sailplane Grand Prix competition and I was comforted
that the were other pilots thinking the same way I was. From then
we run one or two TAGARs per year and slowly the original concept
evolved.

In 2011 I learned about a one-day race held annually by the Arizona
Soaring association (ASA) that consisted also in a race start, but
O&R and with gliders divided in two or three groups, each group
turning at a different distances from the turnpoint according to the
handicap assigned to that group. I was inflamed by the concept and
decided to do the same but added fairness by giving a different
radius per each glider according to its own handicap. I already had
the Great Circle formula I was using for my record attempts and I
created a spreadsheet with the different pilots handicapped
according to their glider.

In 2013 per suggestions of the participants I added handicaps for
the pilots, with 1 percentage point added to the pilot handicap per
each contest win. From that year on we held four races per year, of
which three O&R that I called Grand Prix, and one that was the
original quadrilateral that I called Classic and was run at the end of
the soaring season.

As of today between these two types of contest we have held 27
TAGAR racing days. Both contest types are well liked, the Grand Prix
because it is a cross country flight, and the Classic because it is a
close race inside the Truckee Valley and some pilots like the fact
that they stay close to the airport. I often considered doing a Grand
Prix contest that was not just an O&R but could be a triangle or a
quadrilateral.

In 2014 I came to know about Jim White’s program that would do
just that. I contacted Jim immediately and we began to try and
adapt his program to US parameters. However after two years of
tentative to harmonize the British and American different handicap
systems, the solution was for Jim to modify substantially his
program by including American parameters, a work finished just a
few weeks ago. One feature I like in Jim’s program is the fact
that it can be scored using the SeeYou Competition program.

All the above says that there is no one that would like to try the
HandicapTask more than I do. No need of lobbying!

I saw in these e-mails the good disposition of John Good to go
ahead and try this concept in an actual competition and Andy
Blackburn’s interest as well, and this is what I think can be done: I
will definitely use Jim’s program in two and possibly three of this
year’s Grand Prix. Regarding making an entire contest based on the
program, I cannot do it this year because the Truckee contest is
advertised as an SSA Regional and this is what pilots expect, but we
can certainly consider doing the entire contest based on the
HandicapTask for next year.

- In that case, can we still call it a Regional? The Contest Committee
may give an opinion on that. Or, still regarding next year:

- The HandicapTask may be considered just a different type of task
and be selected by the CD at his choice as it would be a TAT or MAT
or others. In this case, we have to find a scoring system that
addresses the difference between one score based on speed, and
another based on distance - not easy to do but one can try.

- For this year, I can propose to the pilots of the Regional if they
would like to forfeit one day of the Regional competition (we have a
6-day contest) and try the HandicapTask. I would assign the
HandicapTask on the first contest day or perhaps on the second but
not on the last half of the contest or else it would be disruptive of
the overall contest development. Of course if just one pilot votes no,
we cannot do it.

- Also for this year, I can - after asking for the pilots consent –
assign the HandicapTask on the second practice day (we have two
practice days).

This is what I think at this point, comments are welcome

Sergio