Contest Class Development for Future Success - The Case fordeveloping the Handicapped Classes

Sean, et al:

I totally get the appeal of a grand prix race. I'd likely show up for one, depending on who is flying. I personally prefer distance racing, but hey, that's me. Where I think we can agree is that we're not running nearly enough experiments to find new and popular racing formats.

We seem to be running the same experiments, with small tweaks by the rules committee, hoping for a very different outcome. In the lingo of start-up culture, it's time for a pivot.

I applaud what Bruno and Tim have done at Nephi (and I really wished I could have gone this year). They've clearly found a format that is so popular as to have been over subscribed. It doesn't matter if it meets an arbitrary definition of a "true race", it got plenty of attendance in a pretty damn remote part of the country. They're clearly on to something.

I have read (too many times) that the rules committee will give waivers to try different things at a regional level, and if it's popular they'll consider adopting it at a nationals level. But this is a very slow approach to innovation, and it sure doesn't look like we have decades to figure this out folks.

In my opinion the gliding community is very risk adverse and slow to change.. We like rules. We like organization. We like to presume there is a correct way to do things. We're all a bunch of pundits, but in the meantime our sport is dying because it has become so insular and clique-ish.

For years it seems like the focus has been on optimizing for a local maximum that incrementally improves attendance at, say, a standard class nationals, rather than searching for another format(s) that are compelling enough to get competitors to make the extra effort to participate. Clearly the data shows this isn't working. I'll tend to think that the racing scene needs two things to occur to change it's death spiral:

(1) It needs to be far more inviting to new racing pilots. Doing this almost certainly will require simplified formats, with shorter races, and a strong social activity component to help new pilots develop relationships with established pilots. Right now this is handled at the regional level, that's a mistake if you want to develop a strong national racing scene.

(2) We need *way* more experimentation occurring in the sport to increase the probability that we discover a growth opportunity. Again, this has been pushed down to the regional level. Instead, why doesn't the SSA rules committee promote several new race format concepts each year and see which ones get traction?

Alternatively, we can have an endless discussion on RAS that makes much the same points that have been made before, and stay the course.

Chris Young
42DJ

[NOTE: Since the original post and many of the comments seem to be focused on the National-level contest scene, I'm deliberately ignoring the Regionals component of USA soaring in this post. I feel that those are a separate topic from the issues/concerns that were originally raised]

Here are some thoughts I've had, as a relative newcomer to racing (participating in 1-2 Regionals per year since 2009, plus Nats at Montague in 2012; and with full intentions of hitting at least 1 Nats per year for the next 10-20 years... with the recent purchase of an ASG-29 to back that up) -

1) If we're going to handicap a class or two at the Nationals, do we really _need_ a Sports Class Nats? If momentum is picking up for Club class and Handicapped Standards, then perhaps Sports becomes a regional-only class and its focus is around encouraging new folks into the competition scene... as well as being a non-threatening place for "weekend warriors" (who have no interest in the Nationals or Worlds) that enjoy goal/task-oriented flying for a solid week with fellow pilots.

Its not like we are going to attract a lot of "casual participants" to Nationals in their current format, given the long vacation times, high costs, and plethora of alternative activities in this modern age (all of which others have pointed out).

I think a slight reduction in the number of classes allows us to cut down the number of events and consolidating entries to fewer sites, thus helping with minimum total entries and - presumably - helping with contest viability & financial success.

2) While I'm not as big of a convert to the "Enterprise tasking" and distance-oriented tasks that Chris has discussed, I think they're a breath of fresh air and I _do_ feel like the current tasking attitude/direction has several drawbacks. One of the major ones is a slow creep towards shorter and shorter tasks, or so it seems. When I got started I was told tales of 2.5 to 3.5 hours tasks at Regionals; but that the Nats and Worlds really upped the ante with 3.5 to 5+ hour tasks. To me that sounds like a real challenge and a real test of endurance!

....But in my real-world contest experience there's this pressure to get all the contestants launched only after no one will land back at the airport. That tends to shift launch times until later, which encourages shorter tasks. Then on top of that there's this desire to task in a manner that ensures everyone completes the task; which also encourages less-challenging/shorter tasks. Luckily this second set of pressure isn't as strong at a Nationals as it is at Regionals, but I think it still exists. These add up to what Chris is referring to: the monotony of 3-hour tasks when the day easily supports 5-7 hours of flying. And of course the shorter the task, the longer you can afford to wait around in the start-gate and play games! IMHO longer tasks force people to go out earlier on task, lest they lose too much of the day before starting.

I can see how organizers might be worried about 10 days of 5-hour tasks and the fatigue-factor it places on pilots; longer tasks may be something to consider in conjunction with contests having fewer days, to keep the fatigue factor manageable overall.

3) When it comes to comments about OLC scoring versus "real racing", people need to remember that the same arguments apply to TATs versus "real tasks" (this term inevitably refers to an AT/AST, when I hear these nose-in-the-air comments from old-timers).

No matter the format, the bottom line is that every rule has two inherent "side-effects": it provides an incentive to specific behaviors, and it changes the yardstick by which you measure pilots.

For example - A Grand Prix start has all pilots start at the same time. Theoretically this means that GP pilots all have similar chances of finding the same lift on-course (assuming they all fly the same course); but it *also* means that GP contests do _not_ account for any pilot skill in determining the best part of the day to fly the task. Its a matter of opinion whether the "better" pilot is the one who flies the task at the same time as other pilots and achieves a higher speed; or whether the "better" pilot is the one who can factor in changing weather and time-of-day into their overall strategy, and wind up with a better optimum speed for the day when that additional element is in the mix.

As another example - OLC flights encourage a pilot to find the best air in a region and use it to make a few "laps" (or cat's-cradles). The pilot does not have a traditional set of waypoints to hit... So is the "better" pilot the person who can find and use the best air to score the most distance and/or highest speed? Or is the "better" pilot the one who can achieve the highest speed when his distance and direction are heavily controlled by the task-setter? You're evaluating very different skill-sets; and in essence, the rules make the champion.

So before we can settle on the "proper" format for Nationals we need to come to a consensus about what the most important skills are that we want to measure. What is the fundamental goal of a National championship? Are we trying to set up our contest so the US National champion is the person we think has the highest likelihood of placing well at Worlds? If so, maybe we need to adopt rules that are as-close-as-possible to the rules we anticipate will be in-effect at upcoming World Championships. Alternatively, do we want to measure some other combination of skills (that perhaps the Worlds don't measure or reward in the same manner)?

Either way, we need to determine those first and _then_ ensure that our contest formats actually measure such things (and incentivize the good behaviors that we want contest pilots to exhibit).

Now, _how_ do we determine what we want to measure? Well contest polls may be one way, but experimenting with contest formats is certainly another. The problem, of course, is that a regional contest or specialty-event may not provide an accurate reflection of how this same format/rules-set plays out in a real Nationals contest**.

In the end, I agree that there are no magic-bullet solutions. But one really good start would be to round up all of the active pilots at the Nationals level and figure out a way to get them to describe what they think makes someone the "best" pilot in the country. The rules can follow from there...

--Noel

**For example: Sure the Nephi events so far have been a big hit (and I really want to go); but there are many factors at play and we don't have any evidence that the attendees would participate in the same manner if they were told this was a National Championship...

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Maybe the issues of US team selection is a big part of the problem? If dwindling participation is the concern, should team selection be a priority? They're likely goals that are at odds with one another.

So, yes, perhaps standard class should follow a radically different format next year. I'm all for combining standard and club (why not, let's see what happens). And I'll step up to help organize something from Ephrata, WA if I can get the support of the SGC.

As for pitchforks and torches, why is that really a concern? If you want to do something disruptive and improve the situation, you should expect to upset the status quo and accept that many people will be unhappy for a while.

Not sure what you mean by not having team selection be a priority for Nationals - Not have a WGC team? Not have them selected based on contest performance? The various competition committees get to wrestle with all these pesky details.

What's the motive/logic for wanting to experiment at Nationals before Regionals? And yes, the pitchforks matter. The RC serves the contest pilot community not the other way around - so the role is to encourage experimentation and build support for what works. There have been dramatic shifts such as the introduction of GPS, but even there a transition was included IIRC.

I love experiments and new formats/ideas, but pilot adoption matters even more.

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Chris - I'd love to hear a specific proposal. If you want it at the national level rather than the regional level it gets caught up in issues of US team selection so the proposal would have to address that as well...Unless by National you just mean try something at a big venue.

The RC isn't particularly afraid of experimentation, but someone needs to try the experiments that are offered up. We put in Grand Prix format this year which is a pretty big departure and a so far no takers. We are trying to encourage tighter TAT circles, more ASTs and long MATs that look a lot like ASTs. CDs and task advisors seem positively inclined but then the weather steps in and no one really wants to risk mass landouts with so many crewless pilots - or so it seems.

Is your suggestion that we should have mandatory dramatic experiments with rule and format changes every year at the national level? I believe the RC meeting would be met with a large crowd armed with torches and pitchforks if we tried that - but perhaps others can chime in. Plus it would take multiple trys at any experiment before you could have a real valid test given all the exogenous factors that affect participation. Nephi is one form of incubator that works in part because it is a clean departure that has tapped an unmet need - and partly because Nephi is awesome. Thanks Bruno. That might be a place to try some things.

I'd also love to hear more specific reactions to 2T's original question - WX is noodling on it. Thanks. Other reactions?

Great, great points again. I agree. We need a pivot. Its going to be scary for the establishment, but its time.

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:10:05 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Sean, et al:



I totally get the appeal of a grand prix race. I'd likely show up for one, depending on who is flying. I personally prefer distance racing, but hey, that's me. Where I think we can agree is that we're not running nearly enough experiments to find new and popular racing formats.



We seem to be running the same experiments, with small tweaks by the rules committee, hoping for a very different outcome. In the lingo of start-up culture, it's time for a pivot.



I applaud what Bruno and Tim have done at Nephi (and I really wished I could have gone this year). They've clearly found a format that is so popular as to have been over subscribed. It doesn't matter if it meets an arbitrary definition of a "true race", it got plenty of attendance in a pretty damn remote part of the country. They're clearly on to something.



I have read (too many times) that the rules committee will give waivers to try different things at a regional level, and if it's popular they'll consider adopting it at a nationals level. But this is a very slow approach to innovation, and it sure doesn't look like we have decades to figure this out folks.



In my opinion the gliding community is very risk adverse and slow to change. We like rules. We like organization. We like to presume there is a correct way to do things. We're all a bunch of pundits, but in the meantime our sport is dying because it has become so insular and clique-ish.



For years it seems like the focus has been on optimizing for a local maximum that incrementally improves attendance at, say, a standard class nationals, rather than searching for another format(s) that are compelling enough to get competitors to make the extra effort to participate. Clearly the data shows this isn't working. I'll tend to think that the racing scene needs two things to occur to change it's death spiral:



(1) It needs to be far more inviting to new racing pilots. Doing this almost certainly will require simplified formats, with shorter races, and a strong social activity component to help new pilots develop relationships with established pilots. Right now this is handled at the regional level, that's a mistake if you want to develop a strong national racing scene.



(2) We need *way* more experimentation occurring in the sport to increase the probability that we discover a growth opportunity. Again, this has been pushed down to the regional level. Instead, why doesn't the SSA rules committee promote several new race format concepts each year and see which ones get traction?



Alternatively, we can have an endless discussion on RAS that makes much the same points that have been made before, and stay the course.



Chris Young

42DJ

I mostly agree with Chris Young. It seems to me that most of the solutions do not address the elephant in the room, which is there is no replacement population in the sport of soaring. Moving the nationals closer, making some classes handicapped, gently adjusting tasking one way or the other could generate some minimal effects, but it does not stop the fact that if this continues, soaring as a competitive sport will no longer exist once most of the people on this thread will no longer be able to fly.

As far as I have observed in my own progression in soaring, those around me and the juniors that I have been in close contact with, it seems to me that there are two major issues that beset the soaring scene in the USA today.

1) Most of the population is simply unaware of what soaring is. We need to get the message of soaring across through various means in order to attract new membership, plain and simple. This will not be focused on this thread....

2) Once a potential pilot does get hooked enough to get their license, their ability to progress in the sport, unless they are financially well equipped is very difficult. After getting rated, most pilots will fly in a club. Many clubs, especially when it comes to juniors are not very inclined to allow their equipment to be used over prolonged flights, such as the five hour, let alone cross country. The social scene is not very conducive either. A sizeable enough of a contingent of the older folk thinks it is unreasonable and unfair that the juniors "have it easy" or are doing things differently than they had. In general, it is not easy for new people to enter into this sort of cliquish environment with a lot of existing politics. Furthermore, for juniors, when the next youngest person is 45 years old, the interactions are already highly demanding and it doesn't help when you have people hostile to their presence in the first place.

Aside from the club environment, simply bridging the gap between private pilot and cross country is a very difficult one, even if all the prerequisites line up. We fly in a very mentally demanding sport that is very hard. This period in a pilot's soaring career is one that is least rewarding and most demanding. It is necessary to significantly assist and motivate new pilots going through this period.

Once a pilot starts flying cross country, they might start getting interested in the prospect of flying contests. However, on the outset, they see a bloated set of rules, complicated tasks, and a huge amount of commitment in time and money to participate in this. Frankly, the vast majority prefer OLC because of this. Nephi is an excellent example! They were fully booked for the Nephi OLC event, but the regional to be done in August, which has a relatively very large number of pilots signed up, is significantly less than the OLC event! Contests are becoming too difficult and too burdensome to justify the event for many people.

One possible solution and one that would minimize an obstacle to racing is to greatly simplify the format. I think it would be beneficial to get rid of the TAT and the MAT, and have two racing formats: Assigned Task and an OLC style distance task, with some additions to make it work for a grid and a become more of a race. There are several reasons

1) If you get rid of the MAT/TAT, you greatly simplify the rules and the concept of racing. If you have a pure distance task, it is simple: You go as far as you can within the OLC format and come home. This is something that pilots can easily learn at their home field and something that easily registers for even a layman.

2) We keep the AST for pure racing tasks as they are also very simple and easy to practice. I would advise that the task would potentially target a shorter time for the winner, such as two hours on what would be a three hour TAT task, with a reasonable opportunity for the rest of the finishers to file in between 2-3:30 hours.

3) This seems to me to be a better compromise for the different kinds of flying that most of do already, rather than the TAT/MAT. We have distance pilots and racing pilots.

The contest admin and the pilots flying in such a meet have a lot of discretion over how they would like to task such a contest. It could be entirely one kind of task or the other. They could save the ASTs for the stronger days for better "pure" racing or they could instead use the OLC tasks on those days so that pilots can really stretch out far.

For some specific ways that the race would be executed:

1) I would keep the starts/finishes with a five mile and a 1 mile sector with a minimum finish altitude.

2) The OLC tasks would also have a start and a finish, with a LST style start, with a standard 30 minute start window. This way everyone has a fair chance to start and embark on their distance journey.

3) Unless someone has a better idea, we would keep the 1000 point system. For OLC tasks, it would be good to have a major bonus for coming back to the finish. I would have a say scoring formula that basically takes the winner's handicapped distance plus 250 points as the basis for the rest of the scoring.

4) I would eliminate devaluations. Every day is a 1000 point day. The 1-26ers use a very nice scoring formula: the speed of the slowest finisher determines the distance points for the day. This is to reward he who comes back, no matter how slow. I think this would work well with the proposed format and would simplify understanding the scoring significantly.

5) I would eliminate any leeway in the scoring formula. While it seems nice that busting the minimum finish by 50 ft still garners a score, all of those policies are very complicated to understand for any entering the racing scene. At this point, loggers display altitudes. Even the ancient Colibri does this. No one says that you have to turn a turnpoint at exactly one mile or come in exactly at minimum finish, or exit the start sector at exactly 2 minutes or the like. Pilots should build in their own margins, rather than the scoring formula.

6) The only potential problem I could see in the execution of an OLC style distance day is that it would inherently reward flying very large durations.. I think that this is actually okay, but if it is considered a problem, that could be fixed by having a maximum time. The way this would work is you go as far as you can in a given time span, and then your distance ends there and you get your 250 point bonus if you get back to the airport. I don't like adding a maximum time for it complicates the scoring process and the task, though it is a solution if this is considered a problem.

7) This format works for both limited handicapped racing and pure classes. The format as is now is not conducive for low performance anyway with so much weight being put on speed points, rendering them uncompetitive.

Some of my humble thoughts,
Daniel Sazhin