morris

I pushed ONLY for a change of speed. The need for a change in speed has already been discussed at the 2007 competitors meeting, but nobody had an idea how this could be done. The proposal for a change of zone acc. came directly from the CP-guys at the IPC. I like a lot of their ideas for zone acc. with the exception of how they wanna give away the points on the water, especially that the last gate would now be too important. I got in touch yesterday with the CP-chairman at the IPC and gave him some examples of possible scores. In addition I´ve send him the proposal of gate 1: 41 gate 2: 14 gate 3: 19 gate 4: 26 This is going to be checked next week, we might see some last minute changes. They also now about the discussion here, so it´s likely they surf by and have a look at the different opinions. So anyone who likes to see something else should better raise his voice NOW!

Like this? (with 100 points on the water) First: 41 Second: 14 Third: 19 Forth: 26 Waaaay better!

Thanks to me?? Those accuracy rules DON´T come from me! I DON´T like ´em at all!

Don´t blame me for the "accuracy-monster" but dare to have a look at it: All watergates but the last one and a non-standup in zone 4: 58 - 21 - 10 = 27 points.... Now the balance of the different events is completely f____d up. The idea was to make speed more important to "catch-up" with accuracy. Now it looks like anyone who isn´t an accuracy expert is out, no matter what... :-(

Did I get that right? Someone who scores all but the last watergate and does a standup-landing in the "bullseye" will receive only 58 points? (It used to be 96, right?) Missing the first gate, scoring the rest = 72? The first two gates 41, the last two 59? Looks to me like going from one extrem (last gate unimportant) to the other (last gate way too important)...

Are the points on the water 25 per gate? One thing in the document I really don´t like is the gateheight for the WorldGames and the WorldAirGames of just 1,2m. I know that the IPC CanopyPiloting chairman Thomas wants to make everything more difficult and there are for sure pros and cons for doing so. But: I really don´t like the idea of achieving this by using lower entrygates! One reason for this is safety. If an average hit of the gate is "kneedeep" the feet of the pilot are about ~90cm from the ground if 1,5m gates are used. With 1.2m gates the clearance to/from the ground is reduced to about ~60cm, a decrease of about 50%. Another reason is performance. If the gates would become lower in general and thereby easier to miss, pilots would fly more conservative to guarantee the gate. I don´t think this is what the spectators or the majority of pilots are looking for. Ideally competitors wanna show their best performance, not 9 "safety-runs". I´m not saying that I´d like to see 10ft (3m) amateur gates at international level, but I´d rather see an increase in (entry)gateheight to anything between 6ft and 2m instead of a reduction down to 1.4m (~4ft). Slightly higher gates would increase safety and performances while lower gates....

I agree! But this has been mentioned at the competitors meeting and therefore I expect that the rules somehow "meet" this objection. Maybe we´ll have to stop within a certain distance from first point of contact, we´ll see...

From what I know they wanted a) to make the water even more important and b) for the landing they wanted to have something that is more like the classic accuracy landing kind of thing, with a target you have to land to at close as possible and you loose points for distance from that target... in addition it could be c) a saftey thing as only your first point of contact counts and you don´t have to stop immediatly at any cost...

I havn´t received the details yet. What I know is a combination of an proposal for accuracy at the WPC and informations from the german IPC-delegate who is part of the "CP-group" at the IPC. It looks like you have to collect all your points on the water. You have to drag the water, if you don´t drag the water it´s already a zero. You can collect up to 100points on the water. A version with 5 watergates has been discussed but I don´t know if the "5-gate-version" has been accepted. Now if you score 100 points on the water and touch down in the highscore zone, you don´t loose any of the points you´ve collect on the water. That would be a perfect run, 100 points, like it used to be. The difference is that you don´t get 60 points on the water and 40 points for your landing, you get all of your points on the water. Now if you don´t touch down in the best landingzone you loose points, points collected on the water. The further away from the best zone you are touching down, the more points you´ll loose. The good thing about it seems to be that you can take a higher risk going for the highscorezone as flying to far isn´t that bad anymore. Flying to far (from what I expect the rules to be, don´t take it for granted) won´t result in a zero anmore just in loosing some points. So a typical score could something like 80 points on the water minus ten for missing the highscorezone by one zone (I´m guessing on the numbers) resulting in a 70...

I just wanted to let you know that the FAI made my proposal the official new scoring rule for the speed event. Thanks to anyone who supported the idea as I really think it makes sense! Competitors - who are comparing their overall scores of future events with scores from the past - should kept in mind that the new scoring rules will not only create more "separation" between the scores for fast and slow times. It will also result in lower overall scores for almost everyone (Exception: If you set the highscore for ALL three rounds of speed you´ll still get 300 points, in any other scenario/combination you´ll score less than in the past). The better you are the less you will be affected/the less points you´ll loose.... Good/fast speed times will now be more important to the overall outcome. Additional "rule-news": - water needs to be only 60cm (=two feet) deep - records in distance are only possible if you are within the windlimits (In SA it happened that the wind exceeded the limit in distance for two pilots and the competitors could take the decision if they wanted a re-jump or take the score. As the winddirection that moment was very much in their favor they took the score...) - in accuracy you collect all your points on the water. The more accurate your landing, the more points you keep. If you make the "highscore-landingarea" you don´t loose any... Don´t blame me for the new accuracy rule as it hasn´t been my idea. I´m only "in charge" for speed and I don´t know yet if I like the accuracy rule myself...

this is why we need to make speed more important I disagree, it´s not just reversing the problem, not at all. We got two problems, not just one. The two problems are that speed AND distance are "underrated"/not important enough for the overall outcome. (with Accuracy being too important) Speed is the bigger problem out of those, squaring the speedscores will solve one of those two problems, the bigger one. Maybe someone else can come up with a solution to make distance more important as well, I´m glad I´ve found a reasonable solution for speed (but I´ll keep on thinking about one for distance as well). Do you still think so now? I agree, Accuracy is already too important, this is why I don´t like to see it changed too much. I´ve just send an additional proposal for Accuracy to Thomas (CP/IPC-chairman for those who don´t know him) that would bring only minor changes to avoid the large amount of ties. If you agree with this, let him know be email, his adress can be found on the FAI-website. But hurry up the decisions are going to be made in January! One more thing about the calculations you´ve done. Do it again with places like 30, 40, 50; the problem is that a poor run in speed is worth too much points at the moment (compared to a poor run in Accuracy). The second half of the table/the weaker pilots will be affected more by the squaring - they´ll move down because they´ll get less points for their slow speed runs (just as much as they deserve by the laws of physics - twice the speed = four times the power - instead of getting way too much like it is at the moment), the guys at the very top won´t be affected too much or will - if they are good at speed - even move up - as you showed...

But if you wanna waste some money and time - you could spend on better things - a tunnel is the perfect place to go!

You can´t fly big ways in the tunnel!

You can´t groundlaunch in the tunnel!

You can´t pull low in the tunnel!

You can´t track in the tunnel!

You can´t speedskydive in the tunnel!

You can´t BASE in the tunnel!

You can´t CRW in the tunnel!

You can´t exit in the tunnel!

You can´t wingsuit in the tunnel!

A container for a 120-non-crossbraced-canopy? I really don´t think you´ll get it in...!

You can´t swoop in the tunnel!

It is of essential importance where the device that is recording your speed is located. If it is in your helmet or at your wrist - forget about the data - it isn´t worth anything! This is because any movement of head or hand will result in a dramatical change of the airflow that results in incorrect readings! To get resonable speeddata the device needs to be on your back (for example behing your rig) or somewhere in the center of your body/belly or upper legs. Lower legs or arms don´t work! This is not my opinion or my guesssing but what airtec told me. Give it a try and you´ll get lower readings. To activate the Cypres at your loading is very unlikly if not impossible. A lot of persons ask Airtec for the SpeedCypres but very few really need it. And the amount of persons that are better off without any Cypres at all (= too fast for the SpeedCypres) is VERY(!) small/little!

I´d like to see this as well! Right now I´m thinking about adding a third seize to my arsenal and it would be very fine with me if I could avoid that.... This would result in less advantage by money or sponsoring and make it (even) more likely that no-one but the very best pilot is winning.