On Dec 22, 2:28*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? *Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

We thought hard about the tradeoff of rule complexity vs. desire to
keep "on course" traffic separate from "pre-start" traffic, and the
current rule is our best compromise. But it is a compromise.

Keep in mind that blasting through gaggles is incredibly bad form out
on course just as it is in the start cylinder. It can and should draw
the gentle reminders of your fellow pilots, then somewhat more stern
reminders, then unsafe flying penalties, and finally expulsion from
the sport. Yes, this happens. There is nothing all that special about
gaggles in vs. out of the cylinder, and traces mean that pilot
complaints can be followed up by CD penalties very quickly.

The current rule does allow two minutes of time spent within the start
cylinder, and it does allow a pilot to use any gaggles above the
cylinder. We thought about more stringent rules to require greater
separation, but they got more complicated fast. If we get a lot of bad
behavior, we will either go to those or more likely the whole project
will get abandoned and we'll go back to the old way. My experience is
that pre-start gaggles tend to mark ragged half-knot lift, and quite
often negative 1 knot lift, so it takes only a mild bit of self-
preservation to see that they're not worth bouncing in the first
place. Together with the current rule, I doubt this will be much of a
problem. Planning to go back in the cylinder, but somehow for less
than two minutes, seems just too complex to be a viable strategy.


Second, and more basic: *Why do we even allow starts out the top? *I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). *Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. *I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. *We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

Starts out the top are good for spreading pilots out -- the more
places you can start, the better. They are also great out west. If
you're heading out over boondocks, it's wonderful to leave the airport
at 17000'. However, we can't make the top of the start gate 17000', as
that would be very unfair to the poor sap who launches last and has to
climb that high in 15 minutes. The top of the start gate should be
500' below cloudbase too, and low enough not to give a huge advantage
to a few pilots who stumble on a shear wave and can climb at 1 knot to
great height.

I don't really get your scenario. If there are strong thermals inside
the start cylnder, everyone can fish around for them and then zoom out
the top at 10 knots. Ok, there is some luck there, but there is the
same luck out on course. This is not like the luck of finding a shear
wave and milking it for an hour while the other guys wait to launch.


That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

The basics are easy, and all computers should have this quickly.
Detecting a start is just as before. All they have to do is program an
easier formula for your distance, from the start fix not from the
center of the start circle. Handling all the penalty options is a
programming nightmare, but that was true before.

John Cochrane
BB