Handicap Distance Tasks

John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.

FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.

To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.

BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

To repeat - the RC encourages any organizer with an interest to try the handicapped distance task under waiver and providing detailed feedback on how well it works. Keep in mind that you will likely need to fly 100% task types that are supported by SeeYou, which will have some differences form what people might be used to. It seems that those are reasonably surmountable challenges.

9B

Well said, Andy. I remember free distance, cats cradle, AST, POST (pilot option speed task), O&R MTO (out & return, multiple turnpoint option), MAT, and TAT, and I'm probably forgetting a few. All require good soaring skills. All involve luck. All seem to be won by the same guys in most cases although George Moffat made a good case against free distance on that basis.

I agree pilots want to be able to finish. Years ago I "graduated" to the ranks of the crewless at both the regional and national level, and it's not so much fun when lots of crewless pilots land out several days in a row.

I'll just reiterate the one thing you didn't mention, which is each task's susceptibility to being washed out by local weather phenomena. I recall many, many times in the days of ASTs when we lost contest days, decent but difficult-to-forecast soaring days, because an isolated storm or early shutdown blocked many of us from reaching one of those mandatory TPs so beloved by fans of the AST.

The "long MAT" (i.e., a string of TPs--hit as many as you can before finishing somewhere near the minimum time) addresses some of the "weaknesses" of both the TAT (e.g., that pilots can fly in wildly different parts of the task area) and the AST (i.e., trying to get to all the TPs before the sky blows up somewhere). I abhor the one-turn MAT although I understand why desperate CDs sometimes resort to it when they have no confidence in even what quadrant will blow up first.

Any MAT has the disadvantage that a storm over the next TP can make it unreachable but at least with a MAT (unlike with an AST), there's still a chance for a finish and completed task, assuming the pilot has accumulated sufficient distance by the time he/she encounters the blocked TP (or can wait it out and then continue). I'd say the chances are better that the early TPs are more reachable than the later ones as the weather cooks up but that isn't always true, as those who flew at Elmira can confirm.

Chip Bearden

Arrrrrrg! ;-) (Luke will know what I am saying here...)

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 3:28:32 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:49:42 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:

Perhaps the confusing comes from calling this a race. It is a competition of sorts, but not really what most people think of as a race. More like the gymkhana in motorsports. The Grand Prix format can more properly be called a race.

I believe the official term is competition or contest. You can get all technical about whether or not to use the word "race" what the word means. I don't think that semantics ought be the way we decide what soaring competition ought look like.

To be clear since I get to sit in the meetings where these things are discussed from rules perspective (and Sean doesn't - though sometime he posts as though he does), the RC has no preference (or lack thereof) for one task type versus any other. The rules clearly advise balance in tasking, but also gives authority to those setting the tasks to choose what's appropriate. We have jawboned for better balance, but we have little appetite for mandates that meddle with local decision-making in ways that could have adverse consequences on fairness or safety. We encouraged the "Long MAT" format as a way to move more towards AT in overall racing feel (yes Sean, it is not totally "pure" AT "racing"), but it allows the slow pilots to get home without incurring a landout penalty.

BB's view that the different task types test different skills and all of those skills are relevant to the sport is quite widely held. In addition, many pilots prefer tasking that gets them home most of the time because very few have the risk appetite or crew support to endure 30% landouts (even more for the slow guys) as used to be the tasking guidance way back when. If we care about participation, we need to pay attention to such things. Most pilots I talk to don't really see the value in finishing on the podium in a contest with only three participants so shaping the sport so people will come to contests rather than fly OLC or anything else is critically important.

Well said!

On 2/9/2016 10:48 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
John C, you're on the USRC! You should have a sensitivity to our complete abandonment of international tasking standards.
FYI I lost the election and am no longer on USRC. Congrats to UH who took my place.

And the point of my post is not to argue for one vs. another task. I just object to emotional labels such as "pure."

ATs under IGC rules are an extremely tactical game, and most of the tactics have little to do with extracting energy from the air. That's not good or bad, pure or impure, it's just a fact. Lots of very successful sports set up races and contests in which tactics are central rather than individual performance. Think of bike racing or sailing.

If you enjoy playing these tactical games, you enjoy ATs. If you want to train for WGC, you definitely want to fly more ATs, and TATs under international devaluation rules.

If you enjoy matching wits with the atmosphere, for a few hours, coming home, having a beer with your buddies, swapping stories and seeing how your efforts and soaring decisions stacked up with theirs, you enjoy time limited tasks at SSA sanctioned contests.

If you enjoy flying totally on your own, from dawn to dusk, then going home and seeing how your efforts compared to your buddies on the computer, then you enjoy OLC

Some enjoy close tactical games, some enjoy soaring-focused competitions. Some like dinghy racing or match racing. Some like open ocean man against weather racing. Some like time trials, some like peleton racing, some like track one on one. No good or bad here. And nobody is "pure."

John Cochrane BB

--
Dan, 5J