SEN 1474

Table of Contents - SEN 1474

  1. Another Crazy Idea
  2. Comparing
  3. Doh
  4. Bernie in the Q

Another Crazy Idea : ( you said it , not me)
It probably takes a Left-Coaster** to come up with such crazy ideas, but Bill Shailor, Faust and others raise a significant issue in pointing out the additional travel costs for out-of-towners, if we do stay with a single site Finals instead of a Multiple Contest format.  There was a time when the Finals cycled between East and West Coasts, and I have competed many times at Palm Bay and Seguin and also attended the NATS at different locations, so I understand the additional cost and effort involved in of cross-country travel.  But recently, as these flying sites are viewed as being less than ideal for a Finals, that travel burden is no longer equally shared by all.  So, if Lost Hills becomes the sole preferred Finals site for the foreseeable future, can we address this problem ?
The additional costs really boil down to airline, baggage, parking and rental car expenses because everyone, even the locals, have to pay for gas money, motel and food.  So, using Bill’s figures, that still works out to around $860, maybe more or less depending where each Finalist lives.  Looking at the 2010 entry, of the 58 flyers, 27 were “locals”.  So how about making the entry fee for the Finals something like $500.  Then refunding airline, excess baggage and car rental to out-of-towners ?  A standard flat-rate reimbursement list could be created (there was a time when AMA had a Travel Agent) of coach airfares and excess baggage allowance from the various Finalists destinations (Orlando, Houston, Colorado, New York, Chicago etc) and a standard one week budget car rental from LA or SF, which could be approved by the TS Committee and published at the start of the 2012 season.  Competitors can then make their Finals entry and travel plans knowing what reimbursement they will receive, and can choose to upgrade beyond these estimates as they wish at their own expense.  Any remaining surplus can go into the timer pool for the Finals, and of course into the Team travel fund, or if oversubscribed perhaps you only get a 90% refund.  At least the West Coast flyers should jump at this suggestion to sponsor their fellow visiting flyers — otherwise, you may be going to end up in Muncie !  Hey, it may even encourage more participation in the Finals.  Or is that just too crazy an idea ?

—  Biggles

** yes but it would be against a true Right Coaster's principles to accept it

Comparing different team selection proposals

The new Ghio+Cowley (=G+C) proposal is a fresh breath of air and a timely to reorganize the current 14-round format! Flyoffs are reintroduced! We will have a combination of consistency and performance instead of just performance and attrition of the current format.

But the G+C proposal is tightly linked to the current Finals, using absolute scoring and confining itself to three glorious days at a single site. What happens when these constraints are relaxed a bit?

Instead of 14-rounds, lets consider a double 7-round contest Finals (=2F), as suggested originally by Parker. This format will be flown over four days, with an off day between the two contests, to hopefully get different weather conditions (fly-time/rest-fly-rest/time formula). Each of the flying days will have regular evening flyoffs, so instead of two flyoffs under C+G, one has four regular flyoffs. The 2F format also solves the CDing issue: a F1A or C flier would CD the B contests; while a F1B flier would CD the A+C contests. In the G+C proposals one can have small drops on one day that have to be made up in the flyoffs, while the 2F format there are no redundancies. But 2F adds a day to the Finals.

Furthermore, the G+C proposal is silent on what happens between Finals. We could keep the current 75 minute/buy-in/team exemption system we use now. However, five regionals (=5R), spread between Lost Hills and Wawayanda over two years, in which one takes the best personal result (as measured by ranks) will vitalize the whole flying cycle. The regionals would be cross timed (B timing A+C and vice versa) and cross CDed as in 2F. All score will be ranks, firsts is one, second is two, etc.

However, the 5R regionals should be combined with a F2 Finals. (In practice, two regionals will be on the west coast: Lost Hills and say Nevada.) Now a flier has three results: the best regional and the two contests in a F2 Finals. His/her best two out of these three contests counts. So under 2F+5R a flier can skip all the regionals and still make the team by doing well in a 2F. Alternatively, winning a regional and a contest at 2F, assure a team spot. Although all contests matter, the redundancy can be a full (worst) contest(s).

Relative to the G+C proposal, 2F introduces more flyoffs in straight contests separated by a day, while the regionals 5R incorporate a wider range of venues, spanning two years. Every contest would matter – both for the long distance fliers (regionals) and the sprinters (2F only).


Finals - Doh

K.I.S.S - more is less

Proposed F1Q rules changes.

While penning my two-centsworth on this subject, Faust Parker’s post appeared, rendering my mumblings moot. Faust has said it lucidly and well. We don’t have enough info on F1Q-sized Energy Limiters to even consider it at this time. And the last thing we want to do is to turn F1Q into an expensive E-36 by limiting motor weight too strictly. The event is evolving and works as is. Let it ride.

Bernie Crowe.

Roger Morrell