[NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format

Mon Sep 16 05:36:50 AKDT 2019

Good point, maybe 2 to 1 bias. 

Dr. Michael S. Harrison, DDS

122 Corporate Terrace

Hot Springs, AR 71913

(501) 520-6677

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 8:34 AM
To: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; dist4 at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format

Mark

On Issue 1: Keeping the P composite and one F  at least weighs the P and F equally at 50% each. The second option keeping 4 of 6 and only able to drop one P and one F weighs the P flights at 75% and F at 25%. Seems that the best pilots that can fly P and F well deserve to win, so this is a handicap to them favoring the pilots who only fly P well and struggle with F. I believe P & F should be weighed at least equally for local contests.

On issue 2: I concur with returning to the previous Normalizing system.

Monte Richard

2019/20 AMA Pattern Nats ED

AMA 5581, NSRCA 4469

NSRCA D6 VP

mrichard at compassengineering.com <mailto:mrichard at compassengineering.com> 

Cell 337-349-6627

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 <mailto:dist4 at nsrca.org> ; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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 ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.   <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> www.paragon-inc.com

Powering The Digital Experience

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20190916/80f75fe6/attachment.html>