The 11 best things at the 2015 15m/Std Class Nationals at Harris Hill

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:52:11 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:58:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Sean, it must frustrating to always be right and have to spend SO much time explaining yourself to those who aren't bright or experienced enough to figure it out on their own.

Seriously, I invite you to examine the starting times of the leaders at Elmira: IIRC, seldom did they hang around and often they were some of the first ones out of the gate. There was little of the pre-start maneuvering I've seen at many contests as pilots jockey to be the last one to leave and try to bounce the gaggles on the first leg to catch up. For one thing, the weather wasn't usually very kind to those who lingered. For another, we were blessed with pilots who had their own ideas about what to do to win and flew that way. You and I haven't flown at the same contests so perhaps your experience is different. I saw a lot of what you describe many years ago but as the number of participants has declined precipitously, it's been less of an issue. And to Andy's point, I have to admit I saw less leeching at Elmira than in prior years.

There was one exception to the no late starts paradigm: Gary Ittner won the third day by leaving nearly 30 minutes later than the next-fastest finishers (and 10+ minutes after the next-to-last starter) on the longest task and at the highest speed of the contest. Who really knows what went into his decision (I recall his saying something about it not being altogether intentional). But one of the most outstanding performances of the national contest would arguably have been prevented by a 30 minute start window rule.

I'm playing with you, of course. One can prove anything with statistics.. But you know that already.

In the spirit of cooperation, however, and as long as we're thinking out of the box, here's an idea.

Let's say you're right with your statement that the "2 minute descent thru the (randomly, disorganized and unpredictable) spinning furball" game [is] the worst, most dangerous, most pointless aspect of the sport of soaring." The incentive to orbit at 80 kts. to 100 kts. to avoid (1) popping out of the top of the start cylinder or (2) being the first to leave is built into the rules.

So let's get rid of the 2 minute rule. That was put in to prevent pilots from climbing up above the cylinder and diving down through it (and through the gaggles) to start through the side. The solution to THAT problem is very easy: get rid of the start cylinder. Let's move to a simple start LINE with a maximum altitude. Start whenever you want by crossing the line in the prescribed direction. No incentive to cluster at the top of the thermal; just be under the top of the gate when you go through. To make it even safer, pilots would have to announce their intent and enter the start line area for a run at the gate by passing over an initial point (we could abbreviate it "IP") so everyone would know where they were. Yeah...

Within weeks, software designers would add a feature to graphically depict the entry path all the way into the start line on a moving map without overspeeding. Simple. No more pushing the nose forward the last few seconds and ignoring the redline to squeak under the top of gate. Just tell the software what your personal maximum speed is (the manufacturer's redline, altitude adjusted, would be the default) and follow directions, as if on a very fast final glide.

And with FLARM, no more worries about crowding and potential collisions.. Eureka!!! Much safer and more straightforward starts. Set the line any height you want. Sometimes the solution really is simple.

This would be great for folks like you who want head-to-head racing. No more gliders starting as far as 10 miles apart through opposite sides of the cylinder or, even more outrageous, out the top.

Just to head off the inevitable objections, the talk about high-speed start gate accidents in the old days was, in my experience, overblown. I only know of two incidents. One involved a glider where the main pins weren't safetied and the whole assembly came apart at high speed, with the pilot parachuting to safety. The other involved an enthusiastic young pilot in an early (read: flexible) ASW 20 who experienced flutter and landed safely. I'm sure there were others, but the start line was not nearly as lethal as those who promoted the adoption of GPS loggers made it out to be in order to hasten the mandatory use of those gadgets.

We're currently using finish lines in some contests; how about a start line? I can say from experience that a pilot knew exactly where he could and couldn't fly (no circling in the gate), and knew exactly where to look for traffic even without FLARM.

So let's quit arguing about limited start times and get back to the way real men (and women) flew in the golden age of soaring! (sigh)

Just trying to help.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

I really can't think of any big reasons against a start line. There is some modest incentive to cluster off the upwind edge so maybe a little hooking the gate? You would almost certainly have to use a line if you wanted to use any kind of time-regulated start procedure to reduce leeching. (true for GP obviously, but also 15-minute start windows).

Generally the biggest constraint on where people start is where the thermals are. They stubbornly refuse to appear where and when I want them so I have to adjust. I think start out the top has been helpful in keeping people from getting low on the first leg, though when I looked at it last it appeared that people paid a price for this insurance in the form of slower initial club rates on average. Not surprising when you think about it.

9B

My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit.. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. Your all even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So their is motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not enough).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the behavior is too costly.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates are UNLIMITED! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min....one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 7:47:25 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
My experience is that the cylinder start, with the top well below cloud base, tends to make pilots more likely to make "soaring condition" related starts as opposed to tactical starts. The ability to start over a wide area, and through the top adds an opportunity for a pilot to try to win the start against the other pilots. I think also, due to variations by pilots, tends slightly to spread pilots and reduce gaggle flying. Yes, you can lock onto your competitor, but I think there is a bit less than one sees with a line.
UH

Yup - that's consistent with what I've seen looking at a bunch of starts before and after start out the top was implemented. A slight tendency to try to win the start with a better climb which tends to spread people out a bit. Ironically, In the starts I looked at people who started out the side tended to find stronger initial climbs. I'm sure it varies.

9B

You all know Ill be back next year either way...

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

It would be interesting to see the behavior if on a predicted 5 knot day, one found themselves in a 4.5 kt (and has only found 3.5 kt so far) knot climb with 10 minutes until the start time limit expires. Perhaps one will decide to start rather than a) get stuck with 3.5 later or b) simply waiting around with the pack all afternoon. Maybe many would start earlier rather than risk getting very close to the time limit and risking to consequences.. It actually makes taking a strong climb early a potential advantage. Its hard to predict exaclty how that small change would affect the "game" other than...I basically guarantee...on average we will all be on course sooner than today and we will spend less time in the "circle of death."

I am all for Stealth Mode now by the way, 100%. See, I'm flexible. I think that is clearly out of control. I hope that passes.

In terms of score sheets, I think the top dogs (XG, DJ, DB, KM, ect, etc) are still going to win many of the major contests regardless. In fact, I think the results will mainly remain the same top to bottom no matter what rules we adopt. Im not expecting any real change in results. This is not why I am arguing here. Im arguing because I remain very concerned about start safety and wasting time there vs. getting out on course. Im still shocked how many want to continue the possibility of the extended, spinning, pre-start fur-balls we all so enjoy.

Yes, I admit it. I absolutely hate having to keep track of or wait around with the gaggle(s) and playing the start game when its clearly very soar-able out on course (there is a reason they open the start gate you know!). I often start early anyway knowing full well that some will successfully grind me down eventually out the task (you know who you are). I think I will need to toughen up on that clear weakness if we continue to do "what we are doing" as its a significant give away. I hate that. I may have to play "the game" even more than now.

This is how they did it in the "glory days?" I thought the "glory days" each pilot had a start time and flew thru a defined start gate? What did I miss? IMO, what we do in sailplane contests today is a form of "time trailing" on a fairly free course (see HAT) and a key part of this game is jockeying (or simply out-waiting) to get into a position to "draft up" on the gang (or key pilot) ahead. At least in a Grand Prix you don't gain anything by leeching on. You're all basically even. And in SGP the scoring favors the winner of the day, greatly. So there is good motivation to break the pack (just staying with the pack is not a good strategy as it usually is in US contest, especially if you drafted up 3-5 minutes on the group you are with...HMMM).

Finally, in the 5 years I have been flying sailplane contests, I have not seen any discernible change in start gate behavior or patterns. The 2 minute rule is a big, big player in the scariness. The ability to wait and wait is commonly utilized. I understand the reasoning for the rule but think the negative behavior is clearly too costly to the sport.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates open for an UNLIMITED period of time! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? 1000 ft? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min...one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Just a thought.

Sean

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:46:13 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:

That said, I think the time has come to start moving the "dials" a bit more (than has been happening recently with the RC) and then assess the actual behaviors that result (rather than trying to debate what we "think" will happen). If, for example we decided to institute the start gate time limit (thirty minutes or one hour, whatever), would it really be that big of a deal? Maybe it would solve some of the problems.

RC is pretty flexible - and welcomes innovations. Waivers are not unreasonably denied. Happens every year multiple times. Feel free to try things. You might have to score by hand as we don't have unlimited capacity to change the scoring programs. Getting something as simple as a last start time implemented - like it or not - takes thought and effort to implement. Ron Gleason and I spent a couple of hours going through all the implications of how to pick a start time (and especially a start location) if a pilot starts after the gate close time - assuming you don't just DQ them. Were they headed towards vs away from the first turn, inside vs outside the cylinder when time ran out? We finally concluded you couldn't score it by hand. Many people spend their precious and limited vacation time on attending a contest, so they kind of deserve to have someone dedicate more than the time it takes to type up an idea to thinking about how (and whether) it would actually work.

Here is a thought. Why is this below max altitude so short (2 min)? Especially considering that start gates open for an UNLIMITED period of time! Have we considered, for example, a 10 minute below max altitude? Imagine how that would change the game. Or how about you have to go 500 feet below max altitude to reset? 1000 ft? At current, one can quickly spiral down from above the limit and keep a lot of energy going in that 2 minutes. Especially if the thermal is wide, strong and well marked by other competitors.. Of course this is highly dangerous. I think the problem is that 2 min is really not long enough to settle everyone down. In other common scenarios, one can keep going up, then changing your mind, going down, waiting 2 min, etc, etc, etc. With only 2 min...one can see others leave (make an obvious start) and then quickly descend, wait 2 min, climb back up and start and only be 3-4 minutes behind the "target." An almost perfect leech (draft) up position.

Generally you're better off staying below MSH than doing all of that. The 2 minute rule is intended to be the minimum time that discourages pilots trying to dive at redline into the top of the cylinder. The problem with a altitude differential is that it innocence redline dives and pull-ups. With a time limit, even at redline you'd bleed off all your energy after 2 minutes so there's not much of a point. As to extending it, anyone who has popped through the top by accident knows the frustration of waiting even 2 minutes.. There would need to be a big benefit unrelated to its current purpose to make it worthwhile to extend it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why you'd do that. If we could get reliable IAS data, we'd simply implement a speed limit, but GPS logs are TAS plus wind drift so it's a recipe for protest if you ding somebody for overspeed. Even so, bombing around in the cylinder can get you an unsafe flying penalty - though most CDs are loathe to do it. If it gets egregious sanctions can happen (and has happened) so please behave!

I really don't think glider contests are like software DevOps where you just try a bunch of stuff to see what works in the marketplace. It's more like traffic laws - people get upset if you monkey around with it too much without some due process.

Keep the ideas coming and keep complaining about what you don't like. Everybody wants to make contests more fair and more enjoyable for more people.

9B

The reason to extend the 2 min below max altitude limit is pretty simple in my view:

- to stop encouraging pilots from descending thru/around the pack (and above average golden thermal) over and over. It's not all straight forward up there. Examples: Pilots pull into what they think is a great climb and then, for a number of potential reasons decide to "reset" and try again. Reasons such as they think they screwed up centering and did not achieve the climb they had hoped or expected, another pack finds a better climb nearby the initial thermal. gliders below are climbing faster or better centered, a key competitor shows up 500 ft. below, a key competitor decides to reset themselves just above you, etc.

With a longer limit, a limit long enough that the gaggle would be lost, this behavior of "resetting" is greatly discouraged. Pilots would also have a greater safety factor (not get so close to max altitude in the high speed circle of death) as the penalty for breaking it is more substantial tactically.

I think it's a good idea. I honestly do. Even 5 min mould be effective.

Now imagine starts had a 10 min limit on the max altitude reset and a 30 minute time limit. Now we are talking!!! ;-)

At 01:46 12 August 2015, Sean Fidler wrote:
p position.=20

Just a thought.=20

Sean=20


Im new at this racing and the pre-start tactics but most of the advice I
have been given either in person or from books is that I want to have some
gliders out in front of me (1/3rd to 1/2 of the field). If that is good
advice for me, then it is good for other pilots too and that might drive
all of us to wait for someone to start. It seems that the waiting drives
some of the behaviors that most find objectionable.

Sean offered a thought, please allow me one.

Rather than penalizing pilots who start late let the CD award PLUS points
(Admin or good sport points) for the pilots who are among the first to
depart on course. The caveats being that the pilot has to be in the bottom
half overall (relative standing could be used for the first days of a
contest), and has to stay on course, no return for another start and it
only covers xx number of contestants. XX being decided by the CD.

Perhaps this will break the surface tension on the start gate, give the
field markers to guide on, reduce leeching, and start congestion, and help
the bottom half of the field with better scores ( but not enough to change
the standings among the top competitors)

BZ