2009 Proposed US Contest Rules Changes

On Jan 8, 12:22*pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:57*am, wrote:



On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy wrote:

On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:

Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
improvement.

Sorry, I don't agree.

If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
half there are better ways to do it.

The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
an exit from the front half.

The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
software.

Andy

Yes, I do think it's an improvement. *Your version is even better in
its simplicity.

I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
adopted. *However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
expect to see trying this, sooner or later. *I'd rather *not* fly this
way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
competitive. *I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
do this.

-T8

Evan,

I'm not sure what you mean by "rather *not* fly this way". *Is this in
reference to starting near the back of the cylinder or something else?

I have flown at several sites that I could easily see starting near
the back of the cylinder. *I nearly did it a few years ago even with
the 10 mile penalty back then because I could climb 7,000 feet higher
near the back than the front at Air Sailing when we had tasks to the
south.

At Parowan, Minden Logan, and Air Sailing depending on the start
cylinder and the location of the first turn point, there can be a
great reason to go to the back of the cylinder and climb on the higher
ground.

The proposed rules seems to add nothing but confusion and complexity
to a very simple idea. Start anywhere in the cylinder or out the top.
Score the distance from the startpoint to the turnpoint.

The start anywhere is a vast improvement over the old system. *At
Uvalde with the top of the cylinder above cloud base you had one or
two thermals on the closest edge of the cylinder with pilots pushing
into the wisps and the usual gaggle compression at the top. *I will
take Start Anywhere over that anytime.

TT

Hi Tim,

Long time since Albert Lea, eh?

Starting through the top of the cylinder (and staying on top) doesn't
bother me a bit. I just never seem to get the opportunity to do it.
Both regionals I flew this year (R1, R4S) had gates with tops well
above cloud base and in one case the cloud bases were extremely
variable just to spice things up. In no case did I see anyone do
anything dumb or even remotely ungentlemanly in the gate. But at
times it did feel a bit crowded close to cloud, er, cloud clearance
minimums.

What I was referring to was the (so far, largely theoretical) practice
of starting at the back and then flying through the cylinder below max
altitude. The theory is that you'd make good time by using all the
pre-start gaggles. The proposed rule is an attempt to head off that
temptation before it becomes troublesome.

-T8

On Jan 8, 11:00*am, wrote:
On Jan 8, 12:22*pm, Tim Taylor wrote:





On Jan 8, 9:57*am, wrote:

On Jan 8, 11:08*am, Andy wrote:

On Jan 8, 8:45*am, wrote:

Even in the worst case presented, the new rule is still a significant
improvement.

Sorry, I don't agree.

If the intent of the rule change is to prevent starts from the back
half there are better ways to do it.

The rule should define the "front half" as the semicircle of the start
cylinder that has its diameter normal to the line between the start
point and the first turn point. *A valid start would only be given for
an exit from the front half.

The valid start area is then fixed for all contestants regardless of
where they turn in the first area. *This valid start area is easily
visualized by the contestant without needing any special computer
software.

Andy

Yes, I do think it's an improvement. *Your version is even better in
its simplicity.

I've never seen anyone start from the back of the circle, either,
though I've only flown a couple of regionals since start anywhere was
adopted. *However I can think of a few contest numbers that I would
expect to see trying this, sooner or later. *I'd rather *not* fly this
way myself, but probably *would* if it was necessary to be
competitive. *I rather we had a rule that took away any incentive to
do this.

-T8

Evan,

I'm not sure what you mean by "rather *not* fly this way". *Is this in
reference to starting near the back of the cylinder or something else?

I have flown at several sites that I could easily see starting near
the back of the cylinder. *I nearly did it a few years ago even with
the 10 mile penalty back then because I could climb 7,000 feet higher
near the back than the front at Air Sailing when we had tasks to the
south.

At Parowan, Minden Logan, and Air Sailing depending on the start
cylinder and the location of the first turn point, there can be a
great reason to go to the back of the cylinder and climb on the higher
ground.

The proposed rules seems to add nothing but confusion and complexity
to a very simple idea. Start anywhere in the cylinder or out the top.
Score the distance from the startpoint to the turnpoint.

The start anywhere is a vast improvement over the old system. *At
Uvalde with the top of the cylinder above cloud base you had one or
two thermals on the closest edge of the cylinder with pilots pushing
into the wisps and the usual gaggle compression at the top. *I will
take Start Anywhere over that anytime.

TT

Hi Tim,

Long time since Albert Lea, eh?

Starting through the top of the cylinder (and staying on top) doesn't
bother me a bit. *I just never seem to get the opportunity to do it.
Both regionals I flew this year (R1, R4S) had gates with tops well
above cloud base and in one case the cloud bases were extremely
variable just to spice things up. *In no case did I see anyone do
anything dumb or even remotely ungentlemanly in the gate. *But at
times it did feel a bit crowded close to cloud, er, cloud clearance
minimums.

What I was referring to was the (so far, largely theoretical) practice
of starting at the back and then flying through the cylinder below max
altitude. *The theory is that you'd make good time by using all the
pre-start gaggles. *The proposed rule is an attempt to head off that
temptation before it becomes troublesome.

-T8

Evan,

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, many years since Albert Lea, HP-18's
and Std Cirri. What you describe can still happen with the new rules
so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
complex. I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
cylinder longer than 2 minutes. Maybe we need to shorten that time to
1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
idea of hitting the front edge worthless.

I like the Start Anywhere because it uses real distance so I can go
over 80 degrees off course line between the center of the start
cylinder and the first turnpoint and start out the side. The
proposed change will have everyone starting in a very narrow range on
the front edge to ensure we get all the distance and we are all back
in the same gaggle again.

Hope you drag your ship out west and run some ridges with us in UT,

Tim (TT)

On Jan 8, 10:41*am, Tim Taylor wrote:
*What you describe can still happen with the new rules
so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
complex. *I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
cylinder longer than 2 minutes. *Maybe we need to shorten that time to
1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
idea of hitting the front edge worthless.


Good points Tim. It feels like an attempt to solve a problem that
doesn't happen much and in doing so negates some of the benefits of
the original rule change while only halfway meeting the objective of
making the "bump and run" strategy hard to pull off when it is an
option.

Andy's suggestion of a fixed front half should work - with the
understanding that under the worst case scenario a pilot could
technically line up a course line that ran for 10 miles along the
straight edge of the half-cylinder - just the way the angles work out.
Would it happen very often? Who the heck knows? It would be simpler to
understand.

The other possible approach would be to make the start cylinder
smaller (like 3 miles) - no software re-programming required. I like
the bigger cylinder, but it would be an easier experiment to run in
2009.

9B

On Jan 8, 12:15�pm, wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:41�am, Tim Taylor wrote:

�What you describe can still happen with the new rules
so I guess I don't see the point in trying to make the rule more
complex. �I can climb up right at the center of the cylinder and dive
through the gaggle five miles ahead as long as I don't stay in the
cylinder longer than 2 minutes. �Maybe we need to shorten that time to
1 minute so they are likely to get a new start time and make the whole
idea of hitting the front edge worthless.

Good points Tim. �It feels like an attempt to solve a problem that
doesn't happen much and in doing so negates some of the benefits of
the original rule change while only halfway meeting the objective of
making the "bump and run" strategy hard to pull off when it is an
option.

Andy's suggestion of a fixed front half should work - with the
understanding that under the worst case scenario a pilot could
technically line up a course line that ran for 10 miles along the
straight edge of the half-cylinder - just the way the angles work out.
Would it happen very often? Who the heck knows? It would be simpler to
understand.

The other possible approach would be to make the start cylinder
smaller (like 3 miles) - no software re-programming required. I like
the bigger cylinder, but it would be an easier experiment to run in
2009.

9B

The rules are written as an agreement between several parties.
This agreement requires all entrants to be in agreement with the rules
and each other. All entrants must be on equal ground and must not be
required to have special, expensive software which only a few can
afford. If one wishes to start anywhere within the defined start
circle, or turn anywhere they choose within the defined turn area,
they must not have the fear that if they don't have the new and
expensive software they might not recieve their flown distance.
The problem is trying to make something work that has these
restrictions which has been pointed out by several of you. I do
believe the rules committee has seen this and is working on it. If
starting out the top is what is normally not done by almost all the
entrants, has not been normally seen, then simply stop it. Most
contest managers that I have spoken with, starting out the top is
their worst fear for possible problems. This one point of starting out
the top was the underlying reason why the NSF closed its doors in
Hobbs. They were very concerned about one hot jock starting out the
top and bouncing his way thur the gaggles. I was their, I saw the IGC
files, and became very involved with this topic.
We finally got a finish which you can't pull up into. I, and
another, almost got knifed in half, when someone pulled up right in
front of us inside the circle, during the finish. We were at 500 agl.
and chutes don't work from 500 ft. agl.
How can this "new start anywhere" be a "start anywhere" when you
can't do that? That's the crazest dang thing I ever heard. Almost all
of us forgot their geometry 101 in high school. New entrants (or any
entrants) flying in any class should be able to understand the rules
and not feel they are at a disadvange before they even get to the
contest. They won't even come. The contest, yes, the contest, should
not start before the start. The start must be fair and equal to all
entrants. Not just to a few who have more knowledge than most of us.
Many thanks to both Andy's on bring this up. I do believe the
rules committee is working on this, because BB hasn't shown up yet and
told us different. I do believe what the rules committee is trying to
do is stop the starting out the rear half, why? because if the first
leg is downwind, its best to start as far upwind as you can, as it
makes the last leg home into the wind shorter, which saves time.
Remember well that XX talks about saving seconds. By starting up near
one side of the circle you can again use the wind, maybe a quartering
tail wind, to fly to the far otherside of the first turn circle, again
saving time. Remember, even on blue days, streets of lift do line up,
reread A J Smith on this.
Now, new folks don't read RAS and most of you already knew this,
so I feel safe in talking about this. But, is this fair to all
entrants? As long as I win, it sure is..........cause I will tell them
they could of read it on RAS.............

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe........#711.