On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 10:12:28 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The big question I see on this task is, just how much benefit do we get relative to the turn area task, the MAT and the long MAT, in allowing gliders of different performance to fly together? And is it worth the costs, complexity, snafus, and learning curve for a task with quite different tasking considerations for CD and strategic considerations for pilots?

Issue 1: Do you get credit for extra distance? Flown UK style, each glider turns exactly at one boundary, and does not get credit for extra distance either by flying to the side of the courseline, or deeper into the cylinder.

US style, we give points for extra distance into all turn cylinders, even on assigned tasks. That is, in my opinion, a highly desirable difference relative to international rules where anything past the first fix in a turn is wasted. You can take your time, look out for other gliders, and approach the turnpoint in a leisurely way, rather than perfect the acrobatics of getting exactly one fix in the cylinder.

However, if we keep that aspect, it means we're even closer to a turn area task. You can keep going in any turn point so long as the lift is really good. You can also follow a cloudstreet that takes you a few miles to the right or left of courseline without paying a penalty, as you get credit for the extra distance covered.

So, one big question if this is to be implemented in the US: Do you still get credit for extra distance flown in the turnpoints? Or do we go back to one fix in and you're done? If the latter, are you ready to explain the quite large procedural and tactical differences to the pilots? Quick, in a turnpoint with 15 mile radius, is it worth being 3 miles to the right of course to follow the cloudstreet, but go a bit extra distance, or is it better to bash through the blue to hit the exact turn "point?"

Issue 2: This smells a lot like a turn area task. The difference, of course, is that if turn 1 is great and turn 2 is horrible, you can't keep going in turn 1, you have to turn where you turn. And you don't have any of the fiddling to figure out how to avoid arriving home undertime. But these are small differences. Are they worth the complexity of a new task type, with a new set of strategic considerations?

The downside: Each glider has it's own assigned "turnpoint," and it's easy for those not to be fair. Ridges have big gaps and transitions. Suppose the low performance gliders don't have to cross the gap at all, the high performance gliders have to thermal off in the blue for 30 miles... and don't have the option of making up that distance at another turnpoint. Or suppose the low performance gliders' "turnpoint" is 3/4 across the gap, but the high performace glider's turnpoint is across the gap, 15 miles down the next ridge and back again. The lower performance now does not have the option of completing the transition and using the ridge, or not bothering with the transition and making up the distance later. In flatland, blue holes, lakes, sea breeze fronts, overdevelopment, etc. all play a similar role.

On really tough days, the lower performance gliders will have a lot of latitude where to go to achieve the turnpoint, while the high performance gliders have to go to one exact spot, perhaps where it's raining.

With an assigned task, the task setters spend a lot of time making sure each turnpoint is achievable. With turn area or MAT tasks, each pilot takes a lot of time to make sure his/her turnpoint is achievable. With a handicap distance task, it's going to be much harder to make sure the task is fair.

That consideration will likely limit the task use to flat terrain and homogenous conditions.

Another strategic question that is likely to arise: The ideal way to fly a turn area task is to go 5 miles further in each turn area, then catch up the gaggle again. This task pretty much forces the lower performance gliders to be markers on every leg.

Again, we have the turn area task, and the long MAT, to allow racing among gliders of very different handicap. Turn area tasks with many smaller areas give quite a lot of racing feeling. The question is, just what benefit does one get from the handicap distance task relative to these, and is it worth the substantial costs?

PS, UK pilots who wish to do handicapped racing might try the US long MAT some day. Reacap: You fly around a fully assigned set of turnpoints, but with minimum time rules. After x hours, you stop flying turnpoints and come home. This one keeps everyone on exactly the same course, just letting the lower performance gliders skip the last turnpoints. It has pros and cons too, but if you're looking for task types that allow handicap racing, it's worth a try.

John Cochrane BB

To a couple of your points:

This kind of contest has worked well out of Truckee, which is not flat terrain or homogenous conditions. Certainly it would be possible to intentionally call a task more favorable to one end or the other of the handicap, just as it is possible to avoid doing so.

The high performance gliders do not have to go to an exact point - it depends on how the scratch glider is defined. The highest performing glider in the competition typically still has a cylinder, which can be made as large as is thought fair, so they do get to chose a favorable turn location within limits (that are a little narrower than the low performance gliders).

Many of the same considerations apply to an AAT, in that the high performance gliders MUST go further into the cylinder or risk not making minimum times, even if conditions at the far edge are not favorable.

In perfectly flown tasks, the low performance gliders are markers exactly half the time, and the high performance gliders makers the other half.

In any handicapping scheme, there is unfairness due to conditions. Any contest type rewards certain tactical skills more than others.