If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will help if you're sitting in a farmer's field. P3 P3 Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4 crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit that no amount of wingspan can overcome. The handicaps for high performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and this is why. Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better gliders. John Cochrane |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
On Sep 25, 5:13*pm, John Cochrane
wrote: In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will help if you're sitting in a farmer's field. P3 P3 Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4 crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit that *no amount of wingspan can overcome. *The handicaps for high performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and this is why. Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better gliders. John Cochrane One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to compensate. 9B |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
1. Handicaps don't ever work over the range of performance that we allow in the Sports Class. 2. Sport class will never allow for AST's, most common task flown Internationally. rk |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to compensate. 9B How would we ever get this right? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
On Sep 25, 8:13*pm, John Cochrane
wrote: In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will help if you're sitting in a farmer's field. P3 P3 Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4 crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit that *no amount of wingspan can overcome. *The handicaps for high performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and this is why. Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better gliders. John Cochrane John, as you stated the key is to have a long enough contest. Obviously 3 (proposed) or 4 (current) days for valid nationals in not a statistically representative number. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
On Sep 25, 8:13*pm, John Cochrane
wrote: In summary, if the working band is low, the thermals are widely spaced, or the wind is blowing, no amount of speed handicapping will help if you're sitting in a farmer's field. P3 P3 Actually, that's not true. You do get distance points, and there are other days. The handicaps for lower performance gliders include these facts. On some days, they are sitting in a field while the nimbus 4 crosses a blue hole. On other days, they get to blast up and down the cloudstreet while the nimbus 4 has to cross that big blue hole. On other days, the sky is even, but the big wings have a handicap deficit that *no amount of wingspan can overcome. *The handicaps for high performance gliders are much more than simple theory predicts, and this is why. Handicapped racing leads to more variation -- bigger point spreads on different days. The main complaint is too much variation depending on weather luck of the contest -- a valid complaint, addressed by narrower handicap spreads as in club class. But it is not true that that lower performance gliders do not have a level playing field (over a long enough contest) that cannot be or is not addressed by handicaps. Again, look at Tim McAlester and Dave Stephenson's excellent in sports class in libelle, foka, ka6, against much better gliders. John Cochrane John, You've pretty much made the point for me. If the race result is predicated on the type of weather in the contest (i.e. a big-wing favorable weak weather contest or a consistently strong mid-handicap favorable contest), then it's not really a race to determine the best pilot. It's a race to determine which very good pilot happened to bring the right glider to the race this time around. And, as a man of numbers, you've certainly observed that the downside penalty of being one of the few to land out on a weaker day results in a far greater penalty than the upside of being 5% faster (handicapped) on high completion days. The penalty for missing a single thermal on the one or two weaker days of the contest when flying the gliders in the lower end of the performance range is disproportionately large. I grew up in a very competitive sports family, so I really do understand that there are some pilots who will win pretty much regardless of what equipment they're using. My mom used to say that "Bjorn Borg could beat you with a broom handle". She was right. I believe that many of our top pilots would also win a true Club Class nationals. But, until they're flying in the same airmass using the same tactics and dealing with the same performance parameters, it's just a belief. P3 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
On Sep 25, 6:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to compensate. 9B How would we ever get this right? We have plenty of contest history as input data. There are analytic techniques to solve for that sort of thing. I expect you could trade off one factor (handicap multiplier) against the other (devaluation factor) to minimize the error between relative contest points in sports class contests and relative seeding points. I expect something like that is what we do today to establish glider handicaps, just without the additional factor. 9B |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
On Sep 26, 10:30*am, Andy wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote: One thing we could think about is to increase the devaluation for days with significant numbers of landouts - potentially based also on the spread of handicaps in the contest. This would make dodgy days worth even less than they are today. It also would probably require a modest reduction in the handicaps for lower performing gliders to compensate. 9B How would we ever get this right? We have plenty of contest history as input data. There are analytic techniques to solve for that sort of thing. I expect you could trade off one factor (handicap multiplier) against the other (devaluation factor) to minimize the error between relative contest points in sports class contests and relative seeding points. I expect something like that is what we do today to establish glider handicaps, just without the additional factor. 9B Please no - multi-variable calculus not allowed in the scoring algorithms! :-) Seriously though, I think if there's any "flaw" in the US Competition Rules process, it's that we have too many engineers and mathematicians looking for a perfect solution to complex problems (I count myself in that category by the way). As a management consultant, I'm sure you've counseled clients in the beauty of KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. This strikes me as a KISS moment. Handicaps on gliders are probably good enough to get an indicative level of comparison. Obviously though, they're only as good as the model they're based on. While the polar is (more or less) known/ knowable, the full range of conditions in a contest are, if not infinite, at least pretty complex. While basic models account for lift strength and height, I don't believe they can incorporate all of the other things that go into a competition in anything but homogenous conditions. Wind, unfriendly terrain, ridge flying, thermal spacing, and a hundred other things affect the outcome of a contest. While a group of gliders flying in "roughly" the same performance bucket will be affected equally, ships at the outlier end of the spectrum will be disproportionately impacted by any contests where there are larger deviations from the norm in any of these variables. To give a simplistic/extreme example. We have a guy in our club who flies a 1-26. For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. When he owned the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and unhandicapped contests. He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals. Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if there is even one weak day. Given that many of our nationals are decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26. While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for illustrating the point. You have to draw a line somewhere in terms of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right ship for the conditions. For better or worse, the IGC has already drawn that line, so why reinvent it? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team SelectionPolicy Changes
To give a simplistic/extreme example. * We have a guy in our club who
flies a 1-26. *For a while, he also owned an ASW-20. * When he owned the 20, he was always in the top 5 in both handicapped and unhandicapped contests. *He also routinely wins the 1-26 Nationals. Now, put him in a 1-26 (with it's 1.6 handicap) flying against an ASG-29, and he's likely to finish near the bottom of that contest if there is even one weak day. * Given that many of our nationals are decided with only 4 or 5 days of flying, that makes it pretty unlikely that a great pilot would be rewarded by flying the 1-26. While that's probably the extreme example, it's useful for illustrating the point. * You have to draw a line somewhere in terms of "bunching" ships into a handicapped class that's close enough to eliminate the majority of the luck factor involved in having the right ship for the conditions. * For better or worse, the IGC has already drawn that line, so why reinvent it? I think there is a bit of a misconception here. You need to focus on the whole contest, not just the particular day. The handicaps not only try to compensate for speed differences on a consistent day, they also try to compensate for the impossible days, and are pretty succcessful at it. The high performance gliders have handicaps that are way too punitive based on their polars. That is to compensate for their greater chance of making it home, as well as a little bit of affirmative action. On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the 1-26 can't cross the blue hole, gap, etc. and lands out and the asg 29 wins. On (say) 1 out of 5 days, the 1-26 gets to play on the local ridge / stay in the cloudstreet etc. while the asg29 has to go cross some horrendous blue hole; the asg 29 finishes but with a terrible score. On (say) 3 out of 5 days, both pilots make it home in consistent weather, but the 1-26 handicap is so huge that it comes out ahead by 50 points or so. (This is pretty much the story of the last sports nationals I competed in, substitute "KA6" for "1-26" and "ASW27" for "ASG29") Over a long contest, the two gliders even out if piloted equally well. The issue is variance, not mean (yes, we are techies, are we not) A contest with more consistent days favors the 1-26; a contest with more weak days favors the ASG29, a contest with more days/tasks that allow the 1-26 to stay in small areas of good weather favor it again. Thus the real problem with a wide handicap range is not that one or another kind of glider is favored on average, it is that there is even more weather and task related luck than usual. Dave Stephenson did great in sports class in Foka, Ka-6 and associated gliders, proving those can compete. In part this was great piloting, in part it was a bet on consistent weather. Splittiing gliders up into narrower handicap ranges will certainly produce races with less luck. On the other hand, it also produces smaller contests. I'm dismayed that the average regional seems to have 7 gliders per class, and the average national seems to be struggling to keep in the two digits. If we had enough gliders, I'd be all for three classes -- "FAI" for handicaps above 0.90 or so, "club" for the middle range, and "ex-word- class" for handicaps below 1.0 or so. Spitting only in two by taking out the middle -- "club" for 15 gliders in the mid range, and then "sports" that keeps only the Nimbus 3 and 1-26, is not a good idea. But we need more gliders.... John Cochrane |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Potential Club Class (US Sports Class) World Team Selection Policy Changes
not everyone is concerned that the end to all contest is to crown the next world team....I dare to suggest that relatively few of even the current partisipants have a chance or even care that there is a potential to be on a world team....we're speaking of the sport of flying gliders and doing something that actually in the scheme of all things is there to creat an interest in fun....soaring contest are the social event for all of soaring, for what it's worth, the "fly-in" for glider pilots Agreed. This thread started, however, as a discussion about a proposed change in WGC team selection criteria for Club Class. If it's all about fun then the proposed change in WGC team selection should be a non-issue for most pilots. I'd be quite happy to score Club Class as a subset of Sports Class until such time that Club Class has grown enough to stand on its own (that IS the proposition being put forward after all, that Club Class will grow significantly). Then it might be worth the tradeoff of leaving Duos and Arcuses and DG-1000s and Nimbus 2s and 3s and Grob Twins and ASK-21s and Russias and Ka-8s without a class to fly in at a number of regionals because there are too few of them. I doubt there are many K8 pilots very seriously going to take these gliders to regional contest.in fact, FWIW, few K8's in the US that ever leave the local envoirment...Russia's and L33's could and should be in the World class competitions since they were designed with this in mind..andit's obvious by now that not enough PW5 owners are going to make world class contest more than a handful of gliders without the inclusion of these other "world class contenders" Duo's, Arcuses, Nimbus 2's and 3's along with ASK21's are already "open class" gliders aren't they? technically speaking they already ahve a class....granted the K-21's aren't real serios contenders in this class but so be it...neither are Blaniks and 2-33's..they have a specific job as trainers..we never designed a racing class for Station wagon's in NASCAR either ...being too broad in the idea of letting everyone play isn't ever going to be entirely practical.if someone does show up with a 2-33 to a contest then they can fly...and do what they can in the task but they aren't goingto win either.and I supect they already knew this. If you look at the actual numbers at regionals you find that the total number of Sports/Club Class gliders often number around 5-8, more or less evenly divided between Club and non-Club Class gliders. Dividing it in two without generating significant growth would be ill-advised. So, how do we prove that Club Class will grow without taking the fun out by forcing large-scalle reshuffling of classes? (e.g. forcing everyone fly Sports, or Open or 18M to try to get to enough competitors to make a class). My suggestion, above, would be to score and recognize the best scoring Club Class glider within Sports Class, then you can prove the theory rather than just talk about it. No one is going to make permanent changes to the rules without evidence that the rationale for the change is valid. The rationale here is if we separate out Club Class it will grow significantly. it's more or less "if you build it they will come" .....we've resisted building it for a long time and tried every type of scoring and cotest lay out and most agreee it's never going to be perfect or fair as it cannot be.... I am not sure what you mean when you say rule changes decrease interest in flying contests. I'm sure many people resisted introduction of GPS, new task types that no longer require a ground crew, end of worm-burner finishes at zero feet, loss of redline starts and introduction of Sports Class. But I would argue that all these changes increased, rather than decreased interest in contest flying. If we took your suggestion to end the tweaking of handicaps by eliminating them then all those non-FAI or old generation gliders would have to fly in Std, 15M, 18M or Open. I think that would be less fun overall. There is no point to handicaps if you have to stick with them despite evidence that they are off - these days it seems we only correct handicaps for the occasional glider type that doesn't fly often in competition. even in the concept of Club Class there are handicaps....but there are enough similarities in these glider types that a relaistic handicap can allow all of the competitors to theoretically fly the same "fixed" tasks. What we have right now is too few pilots flying across too many classes - it creates problems for organizers - decreases fun for competitors (IMO) and makes competitions less competitive. If adding classes doesn't increase the ranks of competition pilots it weakens the argument to do it in the first place. absolutely.so why do we need a call (sports class) that involves the current state of the art 15M, Standard and Open class gliders...they again already have their competition class.. tim 9B __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5481 (20100926) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5481 (20100926) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Club class/Sports class | Sam Giltner[_1_] | Soaring | 7 | September 28th 08 12:17 AM |
Club Class vs. Sports Class | noel.wade | Soaring | 28 | September 25th 08 02:52 AM |
Club Class: US Team Selection Policy | Dan Cole | Soaring | 0 | December 21st 07 12:03 AM |
SPORTS CLASS/CLUB CLASS | 5 ugly | Soaring | 0 | July 2nd 06 11:14 PM |
Club and World Class WGC Near - U.S. Team | John Seaborn | Soaring | 0 | June 28th 06 03:38 PM |