USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted

On Dec 16, 11:30*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:58*pm, Tom Kelley wrote:

Andy, *9B, you can't even get to 1178 lbs, as you, my friend, have an
ASW 27 which has a max. weight of 1102 lbs.............. Check the
wing on the ASH 31, its 128 sq. ft. and look at the ASH 26E, its 125
sq. ft. Look at their weights as they are motorgliders.

Hey Tom,

I was quoting your math for an ASG-29-18m rather than my -27B. If the
intent of the rule is to allow for soft fields or short, high/hot
runways it seems like ballasting to the heaviest motorglider TOW might
not get used much if there are heavy motorgliders on the grid since it
will put the non-motorgliders at pretty high wing loadings, which is
not what you want for towing under those takeoff conditions. I guess
it's a middle ground, but in some cases may not be much of one - at
least where it comes to the non-motorgliders.

9B

Two solutions leap to mind - add the ballast when airborne (that
should be interesting!) or make motorgliders compete separately under
thier own rules.

I've never understood the mindset that permits motorgliders, with
their inherent and unmeasurable advantage, to compete with unpowered
sailplanes.


Mike

Just a question. From a totally outside perspective having only flown
in one Sports Class fun contest, why are we using ballast to create
what amounts to a handicap? Wouldn't it be much simpler to just apply
a handicap factor like we already do in Sports???

The partial ballast solution just seems to be a complex anser to a
simple problem.

Pete
Just a simple Ka-6 driver

I've never understood the mindset that permits motorgliders, with
their inherent and unmeasurable advantage, to compete with unpowered
sailplanes.

Mike

Answer: Small numbers. Give me 65 gliders at every nationals, with
more begging to get in, and we can split off a motorglider class. Give
me 8 at opens, 10 at standard, and only mid-20s in 15-18, and we don't
have enough gliders to split each class in two.

At regionals: typical numbers are 7 in each class, and say 3
motorgliders in the contest. What do you do?

We're already merging FAI classes to get reasonable numbers. When was
the last time you saw an open class regional, or a regional with a
full set of classes? We don't have the gliders to split each class in
two.

I wish it were otherwise for many reasons.

John Cochrane

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

Take a look at the poll, question 4, which tries to explain it all
compactly.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...%20Results.pdf

Come back if that isn't clear

John Cochrane

On Dec 16, 5:38*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

Take a look at the poll, question 4, which tries to explain it all
compactly.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...inion%20Poll%2...

Come back if that isn't clear

John Cochrane

There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. Say ALL
the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
depending on the ratios.

I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
conditions.

Any insights?

9B

On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20....

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

Yes, that's what I understand too. However, I haven't heard any
details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
be modified. Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
to be ;-).

Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
horizon ;-).

TA

TA

On Dec 14, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Can someone please explain the intent of this:

"Rule change to add provision for restricted water to allow ballasting
of all gliders up to the
weight of the heaviest unballasted glider, in addition to current
provision that allows no ballast.
For a no-ballast day, the rule is unchanged.
“No water contest rules” will not be changed – tail water is the only
ballast allowed."

Under what circumstances, contest type, class etc, is ballasting to
the weight of the heaviest unballasted glider to be allowed?

Why does the new rule apply to weight rather than wing loading?

thanks

Andy

This addresses a situation such as Cesar Creek, where full ballast
could not be used because of a soft field. However, some pilots had a
lot of iron (motors) in the back, giving them a perceived wingloading
advantage. So now, everyone can ballast to the same weight as the
motorgliders. If it's safe to tow the motorgliders, it's safe to tow
everyone at their weight. Newcastle or Parowan might want to do the
same thing.

Why weight rather than wingloading? Simplicity. Imagine the chaos if
we have to find the highest wingloading mortorglider, then everyone
else has to figure out how much ballast puts them at the same
wingloading, then the scales guy has to verify they did the
computation right. Weight is much easier, and we felt the difference
in wing area of modern gliders is small enough that the resultant
advantage to smaller wing area gliders is not worth worrying about.
(And 3/5 of the rules committee flies Schleicher gliders... No, just
kidding)

The conventional no-ballast rules are still an option. For example, if
no water is available, or if there is no time to give everyone a fair
chance to water, weigh, and grid, then the CD can call conventional no-
ballast rules.

Fairness is also a consideration. If it's a clearly marginal 1 knot
day and there are other reasons for wanting to limit water (Mifflin, a
pain to get the fire trucks out) that argues for no-ballast rules. If
it's booming but takeoff or runway considerations are limiting water,
that argues for the water-to-same-gross rules.

Bottom line, now CDs have two options for limiting water: 1) They can
say "everyone can water up to XXX gross weight only" and 2)
conventional no-water rules. Which to use depends on the circumstance,
safety, fairness, etc. etc.

I can see we're in for some interesting pilot meetings....

John Cochrane

No water rule is US new wheel invention.
If the airport is not safe(soft field ect.) , we should not fly or
wait.
If there is no water in the field we can bring our own water (Mifflin)
If somebody didn't put his glider in the morning together and fill it
with water(it was raining) , it is his problem.
If was raining after morning briefing we should have no tape day.
Same if somebody forgot to charge his battery.
Can we make no battery day ?Maybe was no power at the airport last
night.Some time ago I did check ride in Estrela and I got really
****ed (they had no airbrake rules),Can I use slip, NO was the
respond.Took me 3 trays to stop+/- 50ft from my waiting son.
Or maybe some of us are too old for all this hassle ?
OK, we have a team RC) ,,,, they have to produce,,,,, more and more
rules.
Water rule is aimed against Diana 2 and future Duckhawk fliers.
Who is afraid ?
Ryszard
Before last Grand Prix in Chile there was protest against Diana 2
fliers having bigger wing loading.Both Diana fliers had to reduce
water ballast, but it did not help.

On Dec 16, 6:39*pm, Frank wrote:
On Dec 16, 8:19*pm, Andy wrote:





On Dec 16, 3:48*pm, Frank wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:51*am, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2010...e%20Meeting%20...

John Godfrey (QT)

Anyone care to provide a good explanation of the new 'long landout vs
early finisher' scoring rule?

TA

If I recall correctly this is a recurring topic of where to set max
distance points versus min speed points. *It was polled again this
year.

You may remember a rule change a few years ago increased max distance
points to 600 from 400 so that an outlanding was less likely to mean
the end of your contest. The result was that speed points became
compressed because finishers frequently post speeds that are less than
60% of the winners speed.

The 2011 change allows competitors who fly long tasks but just miss
getting home to score more points than competitors who fly the
shortest possible task just to get home. It changes the long-held
philosophy that every speed finisher should get more points than any
landout. It will primarily apply in cases where there were
exceptionally long landout flights along with significantly under time
finishers.

I think I got that right.

9B

Yes, that's what I understand too. *However, I haven't heard any
details about exactly how the scoring would be changed - i.e. how the
current scoring formulas for MDP (Max Distance Points), MSP (Max Speed
Points), "Points for Finishers" and "Points for Non-Finishers" would
be modified. *Stating the philosophy is one thing, but the devil is in
the details (and the unintended consequences, whatever they turn out
to be ;-).

Just my luck that I'm giving a talk on the nuances of the U.S. contest
scoring rules, and there is a potentially game-changer looming on the
horizon ;-).

TA

TA

The specific formula change is described in the pilot poll.

9B