79% More lenient landout scoring per 2006 US rules poll

If you can get 79% of race pilots to agree to anything that is amazing
- surely this can be considered a mandate for a rule change/serious
study. No other poll item was as clearly delineated as this.

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?

RESULT
Yes 79%
No 17%


So what will be done? It appears [as copied below] that changing the
scoring to match IGC formulas was quite popular, especially considering
what a radical change it would be. So adjusting to more lenient
landout could be done as part of the overall change toward IGC AND/OR
could also be done as part of an incremental change in just the
currrent scoring formula.
I would guess that the rules commitee would want to test out the
changes on a trial basis such as in regionals first.


6.0 IGC vs SSA Scoring:
Their have been frequent suggestions that we should adopt
"international scoring" formulas for US Competitions. John Good has
written an excellent summary of the major differences between SSA and
IGC scoring and how these differences may affect scoring and pilot
strategy. John Good's WGC Strategy Doucument

6.1 Speed Points - Under US rules, the total score for a finisher is
generally based on the ratio of his speed to the winner's speed.
Under WGC rules, the point differences attributable to speed are twice
as large as under US rules and... You must do at least two-thirds of
the winner's speed to get speed points. This greater volatility tends
to cancel out over the period of the contest. However, this same
volatility may provide a greater incentive for pilots who successfully
"break away from the pack" possibly encouraging more aggressive
strategies. Should the Rules Committee pursue further study or trials
associated with adoption of a more volatile speed formula?
Yes 61%
No 33%

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?
Yes 79%
No 17%

6.3 Devaluation Factor - Under IGC scoring, mass-landout days tend to
be devalued much less than a similar day under US rules. Should the
Rules Committee consider changes to reduce the devaluation factor on
mass landout days?
Yes 70%
No 25%

--------------

Current Equation:
11.5.6 Maximum Distance Points:
MDP = MSP * (0.65 - 0.25 * SCR)

MSP - Maximum Speed Points (Rule 11.5.5).
MDP - Maximum Distance Points (Rule 11.5.6).

It seems like most landouts score around 100-400 points, maybe this
should go up by 100-300(?) points or so. I know when you fall 600+
points behind in a 3-5 day regional there is no hope of placing well in
the current system.
Just for discussion sake, If we do not switch to the IGC system fully,
maybe for 2007 we can just change the formula to be something like:
MDP = MSP * (0.85 - 0.25 * SCR)

One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

I think some adjustment may be worth testing in 2007 regionals.
Let the discussion begin...
Chris

chris wrote:
One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

Actually, I believe it would have the opposite effect. With a reduced
penalty, I suspect more pilots would opt for a safe landout opportunity,
rather than continuing with a final glide that is quite likely to end up
short...

Marc

On Dec 6, 1:35 pm, "chris" wrote:
If you can get 79% of race pilots to agree to anything that is amazing
- surely this can be considered a mandate for a rule change/serious
study. No other poll item was as clearly delineated as this.

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?

RESULT
Yes 79%
No 17%

So what will be done? It appears [as copied below] that changing the
scoring to match IGC formulas was quite popular, especially considering
what a radical change it would be. So adjusting to more lenient
landout could be done as part of the overall change toward IGC AND/OR
could also be done as part of an incremental change in just the
currrent scoring formula.
I would guess that the rules commitee would want to test out the
changes on a trial basis such as in regionals first.

6.0 IGC vs SSA Scoring:
Their have been frequent suggestions that we should adopt
"international scoring" formulas for US Competitions. John Good has
written an excellent summary of the major differences between SSA and
IGC scoring and how these differences may affect scoring and pilot
strategy. John Good's WGC Strategy Doucument

6.1 Speed Points - Under US rules, the total score for a finisher is
generally based on the ratio of his speed to the winner's speed.
Under WGC rules, the point differences attributable to speed are twice
as large as under US rules and... You must do at least two-thirds of
the winner's speed to get speed points. This greater volatility tends
to cancel out over the period of the contest. However, this same
volatility may provide a greater incentive for pilots who successfully
"break away from the pack" possibly encouraging more aggressive
strategies. Should the Rules Committee pursue further study or trials
associated with adoption of a more volatile speed formula?
Yes 61%
No 33%

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?
Yes 79%
No 17%

6.3 Devaluation Factor - Under IGC scoring, mass-landout days tend to
be devalued much less than a similar day under US rules. Should the
Rules Committee consider changes to reduce the devaluation factor on
mass landout days?
Yes 70%
No 25%

--------------

Current Equation:
11.5.6 Maximum Distance Points:
MDP = MSP * (0.65 - 0.25 * SCR)

MSP - Maximum Speed Points (Rule 11.5.5).
MDP - Maximum Distance Points (Rule 11.5.6).

It seems like most landouts score around 100-400 points, maybe this
should go up by 100-300(?) points or so. I know when you fall 600+
points behind in a 3-5 day regional there is no hope of placing well in
the current system.
Just for discussion sake, If we do not switch to the IGC system fully,
maybe for 2007 we can just change the formula to be something like:
MDP = MSP * (0.85 - 0.25 * SCR)

One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

I think some adjustment may be worth testing in 2007 regionals.
Let the discussion begin...
Chris

First order of business with a new scoring apparatus is to rescore
the past few years nationals, and look at the change in placing
especially within the top 5. My bet is it doesn't move too much.
Anyway, if you change the rules, the same guys will win, as they
will adapt to the rules.

Guy, you out there ?

Next: How many angels can dance on the head of a CFIG ?

See ya, Dave "YO"

PS: If you want the USA nats to mirror the international
competitions, you also have to significantly increase the
task lengths so that we use the full day and minimize
start-gate roullette...

"chris" wrote in message
ps.com...
If you can get 79% of race pilots to agree to anything that is amazing
- surely this can be considered a mandate for a rule change/serious
study. No other poll item was as clearly delineated as this.


One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

I think some adjustment may be worth testing in 2007 regionals.
Let the discussion begin...
Chris


Hi Chris:

The risk of damage is different at different places.

Compare Cordele to Moriarty or Marfa for example.

You can't win if you crunch your glider.

Any scoring system, fairly applied, is fine with me.

Hartley Falbaum
USA "KF" DG800B

wrote:
PS: If you want the USA nats to mirror the international
competitions, you also have to significantly increase the
task lengths so that we use the full day and minimize
start-gate roullette...

It does sound like the Europeans are still on final glide after most US
pilots have their gliders disassembled back in the trailers. It does
seem as the US comps are set up to only use the peak 2-3 hours of the
day, versus 3-5+ hours of the whole day's soaring weather used
elsewhere. Flying longer tasks in challenging weaker weather is
probably one factor why US pilots often place poorly in international
comps. [Look how well the British pilots do, they get a lot of
practice in weaker weather]

I hate to go to a regional and be assigned a 1.5 or 2 hour task if the
day can support more. I've asked the CD why can't we do some
challenging longer task. Charlie's reply: I have the younger guys
asking for longer tasks and then the older guys who complain about any
task longer than 2 hours - they just don't want to be in a cockpit that
long.

I looked at the two 2006 sports class regionals in region 5.
Perry was settled with 5.5 hours of task time, and Cordele with 10.3
hours of task time. For 6+ days that does not seem like many hours to
determine a winner.

I'm in favor of longer tasks, [but not so much that we drive away too
many competitors].

Chris

Where is the lastest poll posted at?

Thanks,
2c
chris wrote:
If you can get 79% of race pilots to agree to anything that is amazing
- surely this can be considered a mandate for a rule change/serious
study. No other poll item was as clearly delineated as this.

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?

RESULT
Yes 79%
No 17%


So what will be done? It appears [as copied below] that changing the
scoring to match IGC formulas was quite popular, especially considering
what a radical change it would be. So adjusting to more lenient
landout could be done as part of the overall change toward IGC AND/OR
could also be done as part of an incremental change in just the
currrent scoring formula.
I would guess that the rules commitee would want to test out the
changes on a trial basis such as in regionals first.


6.0 IGC vs SSA Scoring:
Their have been frequent suggestions that we should adopt
"international scoring" formulas for US Competitions. John Good has
written an excellent summary of the major differences between SSA and
IGC scoring and how these differences may affect scoring and pilot
strategy. John Good's WGC Strategy Doucument

6.1 Speed Points - Under US rules, the total score for a finisher is
generally based on the ratio of his speed to the winner's speed.
Under WGC rules, the point differences attributable to speed are twice
as large as under US rules and... You must do at least two-thirds of
the winner's speed to get speed points. This greater volatility tends
to cancel out over the period of the contest. However, this same
volatility may provide a greater incentive for pilots who successfully
"break away from the pack" possibly encouraging more aggressive
strategies. Should the Rules Committee pursue further study or trials
associated with adoption of a more volatile speed formula?
Yes 61%
No 33%

6.2 Landouts - Carefully read John Good's evaluation of treatment
for landouts under IGC scoring. Should the Rules Committee pursue
further study or trials associated with adoption of a more
"lenient" landout penalty, similar to IGC scoring philosophy?
Yes 79%
No 17%

6.3 Devaluation Factor - Under IGC scoring, mass-landout days tend to
be devalued much less than a similar day under US rules. Should the
Rules Committee consider changes to reduce the devaluation factor on
mass landout days?
Yes 70%
No 25%

--------------

Current Equation:
11.5.6 Maximum Distance Points:
MDP = MSP * (0.65 - 0.25 * SCR)

MSP - Maximum Speed Points (Rule 11.5.5).
MDP - Maximum Distance Points (Rule 11.5.6).

It seems like most landouts score around 100-400 points, maybe this
should go up by 100-300(?) points or so. I know when you fall 600+
points behind in a 3-5 day regional there is no hope of placing well in
the current system.
Just for discussion sake, If we do not switch to the IGC system fully,
maybe for 2007 we can just change the formula to be something like:
MDP = MSP * (0.85 - 0.25 * SCR)

One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

I think some adjustment may be worth testing in 2007 regionals.
Let the discussion begin...
Chris

wrote:
Where is the lastest poll posted at?

http://www.ssa.org/members/contestre...ntestrules.asp
I think this page requires a login
Home Sailplane Racing Rules & Process


see both
2006 SRA Pilot Opinion Poll Results
2006 SRA Pilot Opinion Poll Responses

On Dec 6, 2:01 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
chris wrote:
One downside of a more lenient landout rule would seem that pilots
would fly more aggessively / take a higher risk of landout, which would
probably equate to more damaged gliders.

Actually, I believe it would have the opposite effect. With a reduced
penalty, I suspect more pilots would opt for a safe landout opportunity,
rather than continuing with a final glide that is quite likely to end up
short...

Marc

I see your point, the ~600 point penalty/being knocked out of
contention is the current price for landing out - so pilots will push
on when it is safer to land than proceed with a marginal final glide.

Chris

It does
seem as the US comps are set up to only use the peak 2-3 hours of the
day, versus 3-5+ hours of the whole day's soaring weather used
elsewhere.

Part of this, I think, comes from task-setters not really understanding
the nature of TAT and MAT tasks. In an AST, if you set a task that
takes the winners 4 hours, there is a good chance that the bottom half
of the fleet will land out after 5 or 6 hours of struggle. Task
setters get used to these as the "right" length of a task.

In a TAT or MAT though, you can set a 4 hour task, and the slow pilots
get to land at home after the same 4 hours. I've heard task setters
refer to the 75% completion rule while setting a TAT or MAT, which
obviously makes no sense at all.

Gentle reminders from competitors that 4 or even 5 hour TAT and MAT
tasks are perfectly allowable on long soaring days may help. It is
especially sad to be flying 2-3 hours on some 750 k + days.

John Cochrane BB