[NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format

Sun Sep 15 17:50:00 AKDT 2019

Mark,
Concur with alternate approach 1, and for issue 2, concur for having it replaced / amended in the next rules cycle.
Thanks,Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'Dr. Mike Harrison' <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format

#yiv6986704123 #yiv6986704123 -- _filtered #yiv6986704123 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6986704123 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} #yiv6986704123 #yiv6986704123 p.yiv6986704123MsoNormal, #yiv6986704123 li.yiv6986704123MsoNormal, #yiv6986704123 div.yiv6986704123MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;} #yiv6986704123 a:link, #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv6986704123 a:visited, #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123apple-tab-span {} #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123apple-style-span {} #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:#1F497D;} #yiv6986704123 span.yiv6986704123EmailStyle20 {font-family:sans-serif;color:#1F497D;} #yiv6986704123 .yiv6986704123MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv6986704123 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} #yiv6986704123 div.yiv6986704123WordSection1 {} #yiv6986704123 I spoke incorrectly.  Just eliminate the first sentence.  The complexity of the rule destroys its validity.  The other issue I addressed is what I believe is the real problem.    Dr. Michael S. Harrison, DDS122 Corporate TerraceHot Springs, AR 71913(501) 520-6677  From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Mike Harrison via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:35 PM
To: 'Atwood, Mark' <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format  I like your personal favorite format.  The new normalization did just as I expected.  The original normalization system was well thought out and worked beautifully.  In my view the new system was formed as kind of a rationalization that someone could fly so much better in one flight that he/she should be declared winner-those were called “barnburners” back in the day.  Competitors would outfly the “favorite” all contest long only to be beaten on the last day because of this “incredible last flight” thus nullifying all the good consistent flying by others. Those flights  got the label “barnburner”.   Personal favorites, particularly in certain regions won regardless.  The original normalization system changed all that.  When a flyer won a flight, he kept it. Thus every flight counted.  Not so in the past and not so with this new system.  It should never been put in place and should be eliminated.    Dr. Michael S. Harrison, DDS122 Corporate TerraceHot Springs, AR 71913(501) 520-6677  From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:43 AM
To: dist4 at nsrca.org; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format  Hey All,   This is directed to D4 pilots, but since we have FAI pilots from other districts that attend D4 events I wanted to include everyone.  This really only impacts the FAI flyers but I wanted to throw out a few thoughts for the 2020 season and get some feedback so we can decide how best to run scoring in D4 next year.  2 Issues…  Issue 1:  Our current scoring format at local events over emphasizes the F pattern.  In short, if you win both F rounds on Sunday, you win the contest.   This has a number of negative effects.  For one, it’s discouraging to those that are trying to advance into FAI.  Typically a new comer to FAI has the ability to fly the P pattern extremely competitively, but may struggle in the first year or two…or five… learning the ropes on all the integrated rolling, knife edge and generally complex maneuvers.   Most are happy to take the plunge and get beat up on Sundays…but want to see their strong efforts in the P pattern count for something.      It’s also damaging for efforts at the Nats and other large events where flying P well is critical to success and even the opportunity to fly F in the Semi's.     Recommendation:   We change our final tabulation to more properly emphasize the P flights.     Currently we use a semi-final format but with everyone moving forward.  Carrying a composite P score, and then flying 2 F flights and keeping the best 2 of 3 (thus allowing someone to JUST fly 2 F’s and win the event).     I would recommend one of two alternate approaches.    1) Carry the composite P score, Keeping that score, and your best F score (thus requiring you to keep your P rounds), OR… and this is MY personal preference, we use our normal round dropping formula (best 3 of 4, 4 of 5, 4 of 6 etc) but you may only drop ONE P score, and only ONE F Score.   So for example in a traditional 6 round event, you would have your best 3 P scores, and best F score to determine the results.  Issue 2)   Normalization.   The new normalization has caused considerable problems locally and on the world stage.  It’s likely to be replaced / amended in the next rules cycle.  Most countries (canada included) have gone back to the old format for all local events.   I recommend we do the same.   The new method has tremendous value when there are 50-60 competitors, as it prevents one high score from making the entire round a throw away for the rest of the competitors.  But with smaller groups, even in the semi-finals at the worlds, it has the strong negative effect of making one round worth more than another.  Which can highlight and exacerbate weather conditions, judging bias, etc.   Its the reason we started normalizing in the first place.  Recommendation:  We revert to traditional normalization (highest score equals 1000) for the 2020 season.  Thoughts??  Peter/ Scott - What can the scoring program handle?  -Mark            MARK ATWOODo  (440) 229-2502c  (216) 316-2489e  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com  Paragon Consulting, Inc.5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124www.paragon-inc.com Powering The Digital Experience  _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20190916/b9091734/attachment.html>