Handicap Distance Tasks

I'd very much support this being tried at a US Regionals, or even local races.

I'm still wondering about tactical implications. If the task lengths are set by handicap and each turn is just a few miles further for higher performance ships I'd think the higher performance ships would be passing the lower performance ships on each leg, continuing on past the lower performance turn a couple of miles then turning and running them down again on the next leg so that the lower performance ships are almost perpetually markers and they don't get to turn the tables because right around the time the higher performance guys pass them they have to turn onto the next leg. Even if the course isn't out and return it wouldn't take much deviation to put the lower performance guys in the crosshairs after a turn.

If the purpose is to handicap the task length so that everybody flies the same task duration then I'd think if you start just a bit behind a lower performance glider you'd pass them up on every leg - assuming equal piloting. People do this a little bit in US AT and MAT tasking by going a little deeper in the 1mi cylinder than a target pilot in front of you. This would set that up by design and well-aligned with glider performance so executing the tactic would be even easier.

Not that it's a big deal, just that some of us Americans hate the using markers style of flying.

Maybe I just need to see how the geometry works out in practice.

Andy
9B

Well we(ASA) have tried these type tasks in the past in the form of Grand Prix where everyone starts at the same time (racehorse) and this year are doing it exclusively in our local contest here in AZ. I also have flown in a couple at SCOH set up by a former ASAer TS1. I like the race style as it relates to flying the same course and at the same time and knowing instantly where you stand in the race. Very exciting.

I remember coming in right behind KM in Houston about a 1/4 mile behind trailing in his water ballast flying a borrowed LS4 dry knowing that I couldn't trade altitude for speed and still make it back as we both were on a marginal glide. You just can't beat better pilots when your handicapping

The only drawback I saw was the race horse start can get a bit hectic if too many planes are in the race. Other than that lots of fun to fly!

Amen!

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:59:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
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 the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this task idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we allow anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the season, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
- A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap level after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for different launch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do some computer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in the air)
- Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use non-certified hand-held loggers.
- Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their loggers. That takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and don't want to acquire.

The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US environment. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the fact that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height (4,500') and start and finish radii.
Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you account for those flying ballasted in the final score.
Herb

Herb, I believe Jim's scheme appends the task into the IGC file post flight and is only used for scoring in SeeYou. So non approved loggers and non pre-declared tasks would not be a problem. Perhaps Jim can clarify.

At 00:54 01 February 2016, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 8:59:23 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 9:54:29 AM UTC-6, smfidler wrote:
The problem is that the USA uses proprietary scoring software (and
prop=
rietary tasks and scoring rules which requires it). =20
=20
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
EVERYTHI=
NG, we can't use this great new task easily.
=20
It's fascinating to watch how many of us, here in the USA, can't see
th=
e forest for the trees...
=20
We simply need to stop trying to be different and join the rest of
the
=
planet in common soaring rules (and scoring software).
=20
Problem solved! Oh if I could see the grinding teeth and clinched
fist=
s all over the land...
=20
But back to US clubs and clubs having fun independently of silly,
propr=
ietary, US rules and US scoring software. =20
=20
Drum roll............................................
=20
Simply use SeeYou! =20
=20
Ta-da! Close curtain!
=20
Morning tasking chores-
A) Call the task
B) Everyone gets various handicap radiuses to "level" the task!
(Anoth=
er thought is a second later of calculation based on pilot experience...)
C) Go race and have fun! =20
D) Drop the traces into SeeYou and BOOM, see who won! =20
=20
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
w=
inner a well deserved pint!
=20
All this fun even while racing (set course) gliders of various
handicap=
s (99% of us!). =20
=20
This would be a fantastic SSA task for regionals. It really makes a
lo=
t of sense (custom, relative assigned) and really gives everyone a fair
cha=
nce of truly competing level against each other (vs wide area tasks) and
ha=
ving 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.
=20
Sean Fidler
=20
At the Chicago Glider Club we started an internal discussion how this
tas=
k idea can be used for our NISC (Northern IL Soaring Contest). Since we
all=
ow anyone from 4 local clubs to participate on any given day during the
sea=
son, I see some problems with Jim White's ideas:
- A computer-generated task sheet has to be produced for each handicap
le=
vel after a set of turnpoints has been selected (not possible for
different=
launch sites on the same day). Even at our club, we would have to do
some
=
computer prep work, the task cannot easily be changed later on (i.e. in
the=
air)
- Loggers that allow for a task load have to be used, some here use
non-c=
ertified hand-held loggers.
- Pilots have to properly declare their specific tasks in their
loggers.
=
That takes familiarity and experience that some pilots don't have and
don'=
t want to acquire.
=20
The basic idea is quite convincing and should be tested in the US
environ=
ment. I like the concept of flying to narrowly defined turnpoints and the
f=
act that it is not a min. time task. We do already limit start height
(4,50=
0') and start and finish radii.
Question to Jim White: do you allow for water ballast and how do you
acco=
unt for those flying ballasted in the final score.
Herb

Herb, I believe Jim's scheme appends the task into the IGC file post
flight=
and is only used for scoring in SeeYou. So non approved loggers and non
pr=
e-declared tasks would not be a problem. Perhaps Jim can clarify.


Absolutely. The software puts the task into the IGC file using SeeYou
syntax. SeeYou Competition has a 'use task from file' check box which when
ticked makes it score the embedded task rather than the generic assigned
task.

Neither my software nor See You cares where the evidence comes from as long
as it is in IGC format.

Jim

Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:

1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the jockeying that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be exciting. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in closely together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as occurs today when start times are minutes apart.

2. Barrel size. Andy raised the issue of blue holes, T-storms, and other localized wx. I'm not overly excited about the "big area" tasks we currently call in the U.S. But based on experience back in the day, I'm not excited about returning to assigned tasks all the time, either (sorry, Sean). I'd rather fly an area task (or this new task with a larger barrel) than lose the entire day because the TP (or the tiny barrel for the higher-performing gliders) is in a bad place weatherwise. It's all well and good to say we'll make changes when showers are in the forecast but in the real world, if we could forecast showers accurately, task calling would be a lot simpler.

But, yeah, let's try this at a few regionals (east and west) and see how it goes. Integrating this with Winscore seems like the biggest obstacle. It's always risky to make changes to software and Winscore hasn't been immune to the bugs that can creep in when this occurs.

Chip Bearden

scoring software limitations should not be defining the tasks that we fly...

At 18:30 04 February 2016, wrote:
Interesting concept. Love to try it. Two concerns:

1. Traffic. I've done simultaneous starts in local contests and the
jockeyi=
ng that goes on to be on top of the gaggle when the gate opens can be
excit=
ing. So can the first few thermals as all competitors are stacked in
closel=
y together, rather than spread out over hundreds of feet or more as
occurs
=
today when start times are minutes apart.

In UK regionals we do not have regatta starts. Pilots start when they want
to. Human nature is that they tend to end up as regatta starts!

I agree scoring software should not be a constraint on task definition. But to a certain extent, it is. As much as corralling someone to develop and read TP film in the old days was a hassle, so is finding someone who can competently make Winscore do what it's supposed to do. And the frequent rule changes in the past did lead inevitably (to anyone who works in software development) to bugs being introduced. Recently I sense there's been more stability but a new task would complicate matters. It shouldn't stop us from considering this interesting concept but the gap between theory and practice exists here, too, as elsewhere in life.

Chip Bearden

Chip,

In this case the scoring is done by SeeYou, not WinScore and is implemented via scripts that Jim has refined in the UK. I'm scoring at the Region 8 this year and we're considering inviting the contestants to try it. Just a thought for the moment.

I'm planning on trying a local club contest to become familiar with the software.

Mike