[CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: HTG final task options
- From: "Mike O'Reilly" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:49:21 +0930
Hi Guys
I agree with Tomas. If we do not go to 1/10 of a second it will be very
difficult to separate the results of the top competitors.
Mike O'Reilly
-----Original Message-----
From: ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bartovsky Tomas
Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2009 4:17 PM
To: ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: HTG final task options
Dear Mark,
I vote for timing to 1/10 of second. And I think it's the only choice we
have, because:
1) Rounding or truncating to full second doesn't reduce the human error, it
only hides the error in some cases and makes it more distinct in others.
Consider these two examples:
a) Two pilots flew exactly the same time 102.48 seconds. One
timekeeper measured with an error +0.18 s so the stopwatch displayed 102.66
s. The other timekeeper measured with an error -0.18 s so the stopwatch
displayed 102.30 s. By truncating both pilots will get the same result 102
s. That's OK.
b) Two pilots flew exactly the same time 102.88 seconds. One
timekeeper measured with an error +0.18 s so the stopwatch displayed 103.06
s. The other timekeeper measured with an error -0.18 s so the stopwatch
displayed 102.70 s. By truncating the results would differ by 1 full second.
The difference is bigger than the human error and that's not fair.
By truncating the results to tenth of seconds in case a) the human error
will not be hidden, it will result in a difference of 0.3 s, but in case b)
the difference will be reduced from 1 s to 0.3 s. The human error is still
present but is distributed in a more acceptable way.
2) Rounding or truncating to full seconds equalises many results, which in
reality were different. So rounding or truncating to full seconds increases
the probability of a tie. It's obvious that the probability of a tie is ten
times lower by truncating to tenth of seconds compared to truncating to full
seconds. Especially at WAG there is no time for additional flights which
would be necessary for breaking the tie, so any means reducing the
probability must be used.
Best regards
Tomas
-----Original Message-----
From: ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ciam-f6-wg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Stockton
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:20 PM
To: ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: HTG final task options
My 2 cents worth (using f3j experience). Timing to 1/10th of a second allows
the human error of the timer to become a factor in the overall results.
witness the last f3j world championship where after 4 fly off rounds the top
4
pilots where only separated by .7 of a second (I think).
I'd suggest timing to the last completed second. Simple and effective.
Regards
Mark
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's
limits."
-- Albert Einstein
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Guy Revel <guyrevel@xxxxxxxx>
To: ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:42:38 +0200
Subject: [CIAM-F6-Working_Group] Re: HTG final task options
> All,
>
> Very clearly the vast majority agrees with a 5 x 2 task for the
> final round. Obviously, as Kevin points out, this can succeed only
> with a running commentary, actually as with any event if we want to
> interest spectators. The second major requirement is instant result
> or, in our case, continuous standings. I found that the instant
> results requirement is being discussed within almost every airsport
> after these WAG experience, even the aerobatics guys are talking
> about getting rid of TBL for this very reason. This makes imperative
> a wireless timing system and display (at a minimum the display may
> simply be on a computer screen for the commentator's benefit).
>
> As I see it, one of the 5x2 task major characteristics is that the
> catch / re-launch may be quite short, so that the results may be
> highly dependent upon the timing precision and system.
> So the task would be: 5 x 2-minute max. flights, 10-minute window,
> cumulative flight time.
> As for timing, I see three options:
> - Timing to the full second
> - Timing to the closest full second
> - Timing to 1/10 second
> What would you prefer and why ? Notice that each choice may bring
> different end results.
> If you would suggest another method, feel free to do so.
>
> We'll then talk about the timing system.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy R.
>
> At 21:05 08/07/2009, you wrote:
> >I don't agree with putting in a distance task because of the need
> >for more officials even for the locally run qualifying event and it
> >would make it hard to practice or train for as per F3b.It will also
> >mean different models than standard F3k and will be relative to whom
> >can launch the highest to a certain extent.
> >The 5 x 2 task is a great task to fly but may not be the best for
> >spectators unless we have a good presenter
> >Regards
> >Kev
------- End of Original Message -------
This list set up for FAI/CIAM F6 Working Group.
Archive of the list available at : ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
This list set up for FAI/CIAM F6 Working Group.
Archive of the list available at : ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
This list set up for FAI/CIAM F6 Working Group.
Archive of the list available at : ciam-f6-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
