How does Winscore calculate finish altitude?

I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will
tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between
and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish.

Andy,

My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
a lot if you miscalculate - or opt for a low altitude dash to a rushed
landing to minimize your losses. Plus it encourages expensive gadgets/
software (as I now realize that my SN10 will show the info I need, for
example - priced one lately?) and clock watching at the finish.

Providing an "altitude-neutral" band to finish in should remove the
incentive to aim for the bottom, since there would no longer be a
benefit to be gained, while the risk of losing a lot would be a strong
incentive to aim for the top of the finish band. The band should be
big enough to hit easily with a properly set regular altimeter (I
think 200' would work) without being so big the adjustment for
altitude becomes "gameable".

Heck, how about adding one second for every 2 feet below the top -
that works out to a 1.2 knot final climb - which wouldn't hurt you
much if you were 20 ft low, but would still encourage not finishing
199 ft low (who wants to give away time, after all).

The addition of "no racing after the finish" (i.e. if below the
bottom, the "hard deck" in fighter speak, you get your finish and
penalty right there and can forget about a straight in finish and
concentrate on making a safe low altitude landing) would additionally
discourage high risk finishes.

I know, I know, enough whining, this is pretty much beat to death -
time to start bashing 2-33s again...

Cheers,

Kirk

kirk.stant wrote:
....
My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
a lot if you miscalculate -

Kirk,

Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.

Todd Smith
3S

On Jul 30, 9:23 am, toad wrote:
kirk.stant wrote:

...

My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
a lot if you miscalculate -

Kirk,

Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.

Todd Smith
3S

Absolutely. But the big difference is that I can SEE 50'. And
depending on the field conditions and approaches, you either added a
big pad (small field, no options if too low) or could push it lower
(lots of available runways, landable fields on the approaches). Since
these decisions affected all the pilots competing, they really even
out - since the penalty for landing just short are really extreme!

But move that up to 500' and you cannot eyeball the finish anymore -
so you either have to throw in a big pad (bogus from a racing
standpoint) or take a big racing risk. Or play the rule and bypass
the safety issue altogether.

People keep on harping how the scoring encourages pilots to leave no
margin. Uh, excuse me, but do you know of any competitive sport that
doesn't? That's why it's called a race! But at the same time, you
can't win by crashing - and as pilot in command it is entirely my
responsibility to not exceed my skill and equipment performance while
completing the task - as close to the margin as rules allow.

Heck, in boat racing, some of the rules encourage collisions (try
being on the start boat end of a Laser start - I've been right-of-
wayed right into the boat by a serious competitor - and properly so)!
Thankfully we aren't that aggressive in soaring (although a limited
altitude start gaggle gets pretty close!).

Now before you accuse me of being a daredevil (I've been called worse)
let me say that I have no problem with rules that encourage a safe
finish by not requireing a dangerous finish. But the rule has to
consider the Race aspect as much as the Safety aspect. Our current
finish cylinder rule does not, IMO.

Sorry, I promise to get help...

Kirk

On Jul 30, 10:56 am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:23 am, toad wrote:



kirk.stant wrote:

...

My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
a lot if you miscalculate -

Kirk,

Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.

Todd Smith
3S

Absolutely. But the big difference is that I can SEE 50'. And
depending on the field conditions and approaches, you either added a
big pad (small field, no options if too low) or could push it lower
(lots of available runways, landable fields on the approaches). Since
these decisions affected all the pilots competing, they really even
out - since the penalty for landing just short are really extreme!

I see you point about being able to visually identify 50' altitude,
but I disagree
that the decisions even out. Because pilot A can choose to leave 0'
margin, but
pilot B chooses 500' margin.


But move that up to 500' and you cannot eyeball the finish anymore -
so you either have to throw in a big pad (bogus from a racing
standpoint) or take a big racing risk. Or play the rule and bypass
the safety issue altogether.

People keep on harping how the scoring encourages pilots to leave no
margin. Uh, excuse me, but do you know of any competitive sport that
doesn't?

Competitive and dangerous sports build the desired minimums into the
rules.
Car races limit engine horsepower, mandate strength standards and
safety equipment,
this all makes the cars slower. Sailboats require certain safety
equipment, etc.
Whitewater races are required to wear life jackets and helmets.


Heck, in boat racing, some of the rules encourage collisions (try
being on the start boat end of a Laser start - I've been right-of-
wayed right into the boat by a serious competitor - and properly so)!
Thankfully we aren't that aggressive in soaring (although a limited
altitude start gaggle gets pretty close!).

Well, you should have known there was no room in there before you
barged !
Most sailboat ROW issues don't have the consequences of a short
landing.

Now before you accuse me of being a daredevil (I've been called worse)
let me say that I have no problem with rules that encourage a safe
finish by not requireing a dangerous finish. But the rule has to
consider the Race aspect as much as the Safety aspect. Our current
finish cylinder rule does not, IMO.

I think that the details might need to be tweaked, but the rule does
try to
consider the racing as well as the safety. The old rule ignored
safety and left that part
to the pilot.

Maybe we need a tethered balloon with a laser level to mark finish
height ;-)


Sorry, I promise to get help...

Just go fly.


Kirk

Todd Smith
3S