Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.

That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.

On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.

http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-cou...esnzo-is-over/

2C

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:10:47 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
We've heard alot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules. If we want to win at the world level we ought to be selecting pilots under the same rules system that they will fly in the WC.



That being said, the recent Junior Worlds showed a major weakness in the current scoring system. From what I can tell from the Soaring Cafe report, the Dutch Team purposely outlanded to devalue the day, resulting in one of the Dutch pilots winning. First, my congratulations to the Dutch team Captain / Coach for this brilliant insight. I have a feeling this could have gone either way, but way to play one to win.



On the other hand, I don't think a scoring system should reward this sort of tactic. And I've heard of (although I can't remember where) pilots finishing straight in, then deciding whether to take a valid finish or the penalty, based on how the points would work out. Chalk this one up as interesting and worth discussion.



http://soaringcafe.com/2013/08/2-cou...esnzo-is-over/



2C

I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do. I know I've heard a lot of talk about landing out at World and Continental champs to improve your score when discussions about FAI rules come up but I don't know if those were based on actual experience or the theoretical possibility.

I heard that in Argentina, one team recalled their PW-5 pilots in order to prevent the required % of contestants to make it over minimum distance. In that way they prevented the day from counting and helped preserve a lead.

I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.

Not without seeing an analysis of the same day both under FAI and SSA rules.

Andy

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 8:54:56 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
On Sunday, August 11, 2013 2:10:47 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:

We've heard a lot of arguments for and against instituting FAI rules in the US. For the record, I lean towards the FAI rules.

I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.

I'm curious whether people like the idea of consistency with FAI rules as a matter of principle regardless of issues like this or if they prefer FAI rules based on a point-by-point comparison of the FAI us US rules and find the FAI versions superior?

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B

On 8/11/2013 10:36 PM, Andy wrote:

I agree with you Kevin, and I suspect most in the US at least do.

Not without seeing an analysis of the same day both under FAI and SSA rules.

Andy

The team landout strategy reduced the last day point difference between
Millenaar and Svoboda by 8 points. The final margin was 27 points, so
the strategy only improved the margin, it did not change the placings.

If all starters had finished, there would have been a tie for first
place. Landing out 2 guaranteed the win. But all the team captain knew
when he made the call was that the CZE team was significantly faster
than his pilot, roughly 10 km/hr, and the outcome on the scoresheet
would be very close. And he could buy his number 1 pilot 7-10 more
points by having his number 2 and 3 landout. They were way down the
score sheet without much to gain by finishing.

Under US rules, the two team mates' landouts would have had no bearing
on the outcome, since the devaluation threshold (60% completions) was
not crossed. And of course the ground crew would not be allowed to
advise the pilots how to deal with this either.

-Dave

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B


Which resulted in many landouts in fields past the finish and short of the airport, the IGC's new safety initiative.

The speed/distance points formula is responsible for a lot of the silly stuff in the IGC rules. (If all finish, it's 1000 points for speed and 300 points for distance. When there are lots of landouts it becomes 1000 points for distance and none for speed.) If you are the only finisher and everyone else lands 1 km short, you get about 1 point for your efforts as it is a 1000 points for distance day. If you land 1 km short and everyone finishes, you get 300 points.

In the US team's analysis, this makes it imperative to play start roulette, and sit with the gaggle, even if by waiting around it becomes clear everyone will land out.

I think the formula was designed thinking only about measurement, and not thinking about incentives. If pilots ignored tactical incentives, it would indeed provide a fine measurement of performance.

John Cochrane

snip ...what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet
2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1
glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

9B

Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.

Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.

The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a

1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.

2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!

Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.

I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!

Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?

I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.

Sean
F2

On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:28:36 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

talk to your CD. Ken Sorenson called 3 long MAT's at Region 10 South and everyone really liked them. Sports had TAT's the other 2 days of course, and the FAI guys had a TAT and an Assigned Task, which they all enjoyed a lot.

On Monday, August 12, 2013 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Both of these rule "schemes" have issues. If the IGC scoring "loopholes" which are pointed out above are true, they are pretty silly. But I doubt the severity of this threads initial "loophole" interpretation and it appears not to have been a deciding factor in determining the champion of this event.



The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US rules (5% of the world) a



1) The more rules you have, the less fun it becomes. KISS (Keep it simple stupid). And this is not the case with either, especially US rules which are 2x longer than IGC rules.



2) The WORLD uses IGC rules. Internationally, the US (with the exception of a few young pilots who strongly advocate using IGC rules for major US contests) has been completely left behind in World Championship results because our top pilots are entirely unfamiliar with the technical side of the IGC rules. Like it or not, IGC rules are required reading and "doing" if we want to be competitive at the World Championships again one day!



Meanwhile, the US has become very focused on satisfying the needs of a certain segment of our pilots who tend to not like to even risk landing out anymore...the US rules support that concept desire nicely. I personally find the US rules to be good from a scoring perspective, but would prefer to race vastly more challenging tasks: AT's & long MAT's and hate 10 mile circles in AAT's. 5 mile would be better. Tasking is the main US rule problem in my opinion.



I also think there should be a maximum of a 10 mile circle in US tasking. If a task requires greater than 10 mile circles it should be shelved in favor of a long MAT close into the airport. Seriously, tasks with 20 mile circles should be formally referred to as OLC tasks!



Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles, these tasks are highly influenced by luck (unless it is a 15/18 meter contest with smaller circle AAT, MAT and AT tasking). This makes them boring and less valued by competitive pilots. I would be much more excited about winning an AT task that an AAT with 25 mile circles for example. You?



I cannot wait for the Florida Grand Prix. It will be the most fun I have had in soaring, by far.



Sean

F2

Hmm, I'm not sure the different rule sets are the major factor anymore.
More important is the age of the winners. In the US, we mostly tend
to be older by the time we get to be winners at National contests.
Competitors from other countries are younger on the whole and have
more stamina to fly well for a 3 week contest. Look at how well
our pilots did at the WWGC and Club Class WGC this year -- both of
those pilots are very able, and also younger than the average US
contest pilot.

It was heartening to see the pilots at R3 this year (sorry we missed you!),
especially the young people doing so well.

As to the rule sets, Condor contests use the IGC rules almost exclusively
(it's pretty hard to apply the US rules there, actually). I've found
that practicing on Condor does bleed over into better flying under
US contest rules. You just have to understand the differences, and especially
avoid those Vne dives through the start gate!

Matt