On Mar 20, 7:29*pm, wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:24*pm, "
wrote:





Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
to continue the climb those 200'.

If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. *But if you
hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
straight in.

But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
the bottom of the finish, I guess.

But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!

Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!

Cheers,

Kirk

Got it - that makes sense except for the situation where your last
thermal was a good one but you are still low on the glide so you face
a choice of skipping any lift that you aren't POSITIVE is at least as
good. That's because one turn an a half knot thermal and - BAM -
you're into a much steeper penalty.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, there are so many variables and unintended consequences - and no
way to make everybody happy! I'm glad to leave it all to the contest
committee and just rag on them on RAS (tongue in cheek, of course!).

Kirk
66