Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:58:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Jerzy:

Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.

John Cochrane

Do you really think that XG does not know the rules? Almost insulting.

Changes I would like to see is:

1. Reduce the time to one minute. Not sure where the two minutes came from.. There is no need for that long and it just puts more pilots in the area longer.

2. Make the start penalty realistic for leaving too soon. Currently is is about 200 points for a two minute error. Totally unreasonable. How about a maximum of 50 points.

XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.

The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.

TT

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:08:46 PM UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:


The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.

TT,
Would this not be more of a function of conditions? As you know I am far from being a racing veteran but I spent some time at the last contest I attended analyzing my starts and it seems that (For example) if one is in a strong climb on a blue day it would be an advantage to stay with it out the top.. Conversely, when CU were popping on the ridge between the start and the first TP, I would plan exiting the side of the start gate whenever I had the altitude to connect with the clouds and 120 seconds on SYM. What am I missing?

My view of start strategy, which disagrees with TT:

A start out the top is always the most efficient. Any start out the side will necessarily be less than MSH unless you're really lucky to have a thermal right near the edge. If you start out the top, you are at the maximum energy you can get.

If the thermal is at least as strong as what you'd take on course at similar altitude, keep going. (To find such thermals, it's best to scout 1000' below MSH, so you can effectively core it and evaluate it before hitting the top. That also avoids all the gaggles we've been talking about.)

Most of the time, MSH is near the top where thermals are weak. In that case, just poke your nose above the top enough that you're sure you have a fix up there and head off on course. (A logger with altitude display is helpful, your altimeter may be 200 feet off) It doesn't matter if you sink back in the start cylinder, you've marked a start at maximum possible energy.

Start location should be at the upwind part of the start semicircle. A lot of people miss this. If your first leg is cross wind, all the way to the upwind edge is the best place to start. If your first leg is downwind, poking out the top in the middle of the cylider is the best place to start.

Of course, lining up with clouds, ridges, or gaggles is helpful too.

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:46 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
Changes I would like to see is:

XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.


The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.



TT

Hi Tim,

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure where/how you determine that "at most sites [starting out the top] is not that important." Looking at some of my best performances at Cordele and Mifflin, it's been due to nailing a corker at the start and climbing at 5 knots to 1500-2000 feet above the top, allowing me to bypass the slow gaggle and catch up to some of the faster guys. I ran some numbers that showed only a 2kt (already centered) improvement in the climb was worth the time "penalty". Is there something I'm missing.

Curious in Jersey (P3)

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:21:06 PM UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:46 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:

Changes I would like to see is:



XG, the top at Logan was 1500 to 1700 feet above most of the ridges at Logan. The reason for not higher than 11,000 is that then too many pilots spend too much time hanging around trying to get that last 1000 feet in the start gate. Also at Logan very few pilots start out the top, it is usually a waste of time and costs you points.





The only site that starting out the top is really beneficial is Parowan and sometimes at Hobbs, other than that most sites it is not that important.







TT



Hi Tim,

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm not sure where/how you determine that "at most sites [starting out the top] is not that important." Looking at some of my best performances at Cordele and Mifflin, it's been due to nailing a corker at the start and climbing at 5 knots to 1500-2000 feet above the top, allowing me to bypass the slow gaggle and catch up to some of the faster guys. I ran some numbers that showed only a 2kt (already centered) improvement in the climb was worth the time "penalty". Is there something I'm missing.



Curious in Jersey (P3)


I agree with John about starting, so not saying that starting out the top is not better most of the time. What I was saying is grinding around at 300 below the top for an hour is not worth it to find that one that pops you out the top if the group you want to start with has gone out the side 45 minutes earlier.

If you find a good thermal out the top take it, but in eastern conditions you usually don't go that much higher over the top versus someplace like Parowan where you may climb 6,000 to 7,000 feet over the top. In general the distance between thermals is inversely proportional to the strength and height. If the thermal strength is 3 knots in the gate you are likely to find others pretty close by unless there is some blue hole or change in terrain in the direction you are going to go.

Kirk, you are correct in western sites like Air Sailing if you start on the western side of the cylinder and have to go south getting a good climb out the top is important.

In general, the top of the cylinder is set to allow all pilots to reach the same height after fifteen minutes from last launch and to be below the cloud base so they aren't tempted to cloud fly or get conflicts in the mist below the clouds. Other parameters can come into play in setting the top, such as how high the lift is likely to go in the cylinder and the probability of many thermals reaching that versus the rare thermal or odd wave over the clouds. When I have been CD or on task committees we have always tried to set the top as high as practical so that everyone gets a fair start and has a good chance to either climb out the top or reach the next lift from the start height.

If the lift is above the MSH I tend to hang out higher than the top until I am ready to start, drop down to about 500 to 1,000 below, core a thermal and climb out the top. At Logan, I try to start out the side at or slightly below the top because unless it is a 10 knot thermal the average speed on task most days on the first ridge run is faster than can be achieved by climbing.

Back to the original concern, there is very little reason to sit around grinding with the gaggle for an hour unless the maximum thermal height is lower than the MSH and even then if there are a few thermals around I tend to go someplace else until I am ready to start to conserve energy.

Sorry, it should have said "proportional" to the strength and height, not inversely.