[NSRCA-discussion] 2020 FAI Format

[Harry Ells]

I agree with the proposal and rational by Monte.

Harry Ells
not that far out of D4

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:33 AM Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> 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; 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.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
>
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>
> www.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/ad34a8df/attachment.html>