Handicap Distance Tasks

We tried similar idea 5 years ago in GrandPrix-style contest, where traditional handicapping is not possible. I made simple formula for calculating turnpoint barrel radius for individual competitors:

R = D / 2N * ( 1 - k/k0 ) + 0,5 * k/k0

R is radius
D task length
N number of turnpoints
k0 handicap of the best glider participating
k your handicap
All distance units kilometers.

It works well enough if angle between legs is large, out-and-return legs being optimal.

At 06:41 28 January 2016, krasw wrote:
We tried similar idea 5 years ago in GrandPrix-style contest, where
traditional handicapping is not possible. I made simple formula for
calculating turnpoint barrel radius for individual competitors:

R = D / 2N * ( 1 - k/k0 ) + 0,5 * k/k0

R is radius
D task length
N number of turnpoints
k0 handicap of the best glider participating
k your handicap
All distance units kilometers.

It works well enough if angle between legs is large, out-and-return legs
being optimal.

This is where we started but the present system is somewhat more refined.
In the UK we use windicapping which skews towards low handicap gliders as
the wind strength increases.

We also realised that the shortest way around the task is not to go
directly towards the centre of the barrel, nor to the point where the
bisector intersects the barrel circumference.

So we measure the shortest (handicapped or windicapped)path around task for
each barrel size step and compare to the reference task length * handicap
(/handicap in US). This iterative process arrives at the barrel size that
best fits the desired task length for each handicap flying.

Our software will cope with start lines of any length, variable barrels,
acute and oblique turns, checkpoints, angled finish lines and finish
rings.

It then prints a handy briefing document for the pilots.

If you put a task into the calculator then export it into SeeYou you will
see what I mean.

Jim

It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.

What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.

In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.

These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.

9B

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 2:43:57 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.

What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.

In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.

These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.

9B

Andy, I can answer those questions from some experience.

Everybody has to fly the same course, but higher performance gliders must fly further into the turnpoint cylinder than lower performance, as their radius is smaller. If one is leeching from the other, they will loose each other at each turn point (or at least, the low performance will turn first and then the high performance might leech temporarily in passing to the next turnpoint). The contests we have flown at Truckee like this are simultaneous start, or effectively so. In a perfectly flown contest by all participants, they will see each other only at the start, once between each turnpoint (though maybe not then - see below), and at the simultaneous finish.

For the most part, the weather will be similar, since the handicap difference in radius is usually only a few miles at each turnpoint. Of course it can happen that the only thermal in the area is right at the low performance or high performance turnpoint, which will favor that glider. If the difference in handicap is large, then the best course between two handicapped turnpoints might differ which again might favor one or the other. Some of this can be mitigated by choosing intelligent turnpoints to handicap (not all of them need be).

If run with a simultaneous start and open Flarm, this kind of racing is far more like real racing than traditional US sailplane racing (which is really a time trial). You start at the same time, you can see how you are doing against your fellow competitors, in between each handicapped turnpoint the difference is accounted for and you are even again. Just like real racing.

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 9:09:49 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 2:43:57 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.

What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders to hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout the task.

In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes, thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.

These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.

9B

Andy, I can answer those questions from some experience.

Everybody has to fly the same course, but higher performance gliders must fly further into the turnpoint cylinder than lower performance, as their radius is smaller. If one is leeching from the other, they will loose each other at each turn point (or at least, the low performance will turn first and then the high performance might leech temporarily in passing to the next turnpoint). The contests we have flown at Truckee like this are simultaneous start, or effectively so. In a perfectly flown contest by all participants, they will see each other only at the start, once between each turnpoint (though maybe not then - see below), and at the simultaneous finish.

For the most part, the weather will be similar, since the handicap difference in radius is usually only a few miles at each turnpoint. Of course it can happen that the only thermal in the area is right at the low performance or high performance turnpoint, which will favor that glider. If the difference in handicap is large, then the best course between two handicapped turnpoints might differ which again might favor one or the other. Some of this can be mitigated by choosing intelligent turnpoints to handicap (not all of them need be).

If run with a simultaneous start and open Flarm, this kind of racing is far more like real racing than traditional US sailplane racing (which is really a time trial). You start at the same time, you can see how you are doing against your fellow competitors, in between each handicapped turnpoint the difference is accounted for and you are even again. Just like real racing..

Would it be possible to use Winscore to score a task using this method currently? Is there a reason that we couldn't start trying out this method in US Sanctioned contests?

Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal distance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance was flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task lengths with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so you'd have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or do a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.

Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and score the flights?

9B

At 05:43 31 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal
di=
stance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance
w=
as flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task
lengt=
hs with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so
you'=
d have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or
do=
a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.

Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and
s=
core the flights?=20

9B

The DHT software suite will pre-process each IGC file and insert the task
flown (which will be different for each handicap value) into the file.
SeeYou will use this task when scoring.

Come to UK this Summer and see it in action.

At 05:43 31 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Scoring seems like a significant issue - presumably you set up a nominal
di=
stance and just score off of raw time no matter what handicapped distance
w=
as flown. I'm guessing Winscore would have trouble with variable task
lengt=
hs with dynamically created waypoints for each task for each pilot, so
you'=
d have to assume people flew their assigned task on an honor system - or
do=
a lot of manual checking. Landouts would also would require manual work.

Unless the software that sets up the task can also read the IGC files and
s=
core the flights?=20

9B

Hi Andy

Scoring is actually easy. For pilots that complete their task, it is just a
matter of comparing times. The same as a single class competition.

For land outs there is a compromise to be made. Fast gliders that land out
near the finish (radiused back) get a small disadvantage but if they land
out early get a small bonus. In DHTs less gliders land out.

The software that I created adds the individual task data into the evidence
so that it can be easily and automatically scored using See You. I see no
reason that other scoring software could not be easily modified to compare
the flight to the task read from the file.

Jim

The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and proprietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it).

The scoring system for this new task has been handed to us on a silver platter. But again, becuase here in the US we have are own unique EVERYTHING, we can't use this great new task easily.

It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see the forest for the trees...

We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of the planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).

Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched fists all over the land...

But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly, proprietary, US rules and US scoring software.

Drum roll............................................

Simply use SeeYou!

Ta-da! Close curtain!

Morning tasking chores-
A) Call the task
B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task! (Another thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
C) Go race and have fun!
D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won!

A1) Or better yet, start together on a starting line (Grand Prix style) and he/she who returns first is the big winner! Second home, second place...and so on. No need for scoring at all! Just go to the pub and buy he winner a well deserved pint!

All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various handicaps (99% of us!).

This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a lot of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair chance of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and having fun. It is also very simple, easy to build and easy to manage. Again, congrats to the developers of this innovative task! I am going to try it in the spring with my gang in MI.

Sean Fidler

At 22:43 30 January 2016, Andy Blackburn wrote:
It's a very interesting idea. A couple of questions.

What are the implications for leeching and does the handicapping account
for the fact that this likely makes it easier for lower handicap gliders
to
hang back a bit and use higher performance gliders as markers throughout
the task.

In uniform weather this seems fine, but what about tasks where flying
farther requires the higher performance gliders to face blue holes,
thunderstorms, getting off convergence lines and the like.

These were questions that were asked of me when I asked some experienced
pilots about it and I had no experience from which to provide an answer.

9B


Leeching can happen on the legs between turns. The difference this time is
that the slower gliders get equal opportunity. As I fly a 27 I would
normally hang back a bit to gain an advantage by hopping the slower guys.
This tactic does not work in DHTs. The fast and slow gliders get
disconnected at the turns.

No task type is completely fair. Where is the fairness in making a Pegase
fly for 5 hours on a task completed by a JS1 in 3? If the task is well
designed all gliders will turn in the same airspace and airmass conditions.
If there is a hole to cover then the JS1 is more able to do so. In the UK
we set a showery sector when there are storms about.

Jim