0

# Proposals for changes of the FAI/IPC-rules

## Recommended Posts

At the competitors meeting of the 2007 WorldCup in Australia it has been mentioned that the rules - the way they are at the moment - don´t judge all events equal.
The different events aren´t of equal importance for the overall results - which they should.
(I guess we all agree on that).
The rules undervalue the speed event and overvalue the accuracy event.
Since then no solution has been found to change this.
Things became even worse as accuracy became even more important…

Speed:
Physics tells us that to go twice as fast you need four times the energy (= be four times as good).
Right now the guy who goes twice as fast (as someone else) receives only twice the amount of points.
Example:
The fastest run of a given round might be 2.6 seconds, worth 100 points.
Someone who isn´t even able to finish the course flying and runs through the exit gate after 5.2 seconds still gets 50 points! Someone scoring 3.9 seconds still gets 75 points!
While 2.6 is a worldclass run, 3.9 is very slow and should never ever be worth 75 points.
The way it is judged right now, speed is more or less a “you-just-have-to-score-somehow-event”.
Proposal:
Listen to the physicists!
Multiply the times with themselves before the final point-calculations are done.
Here some examples how this would affect the sores (calculations are just almost 100% exact, don´t blame me for mistakes after the decimal point):
2.6 sec. x 2.6 = 6.76 (100 points)
3.0 sec. x 3.0 = 9 (77 points)
3.9 sec. x 3.9 = 15.21 (44.44 points) = instead of 75
5.2 sec. x 5.2 = 27.04 (25 points) = twice as long would result in one quarter of the points of the leader instead of 50%
Wouldn´t those scores make way more sense and represent the performance of a competitor way better?

Accuracy:
Example:
The best competitor of a given round scores all watergates and does a stand-up landing in zone three. No-one else does any better.
If this happens during all three rounds, the competitor would receive 300 points.
The way it used to be the person would have received 272 points.
This would still be a lot of points!
Wouldn´t those 272 points represent the performance of the competitor way better?
Shouldn´t 100 points in accuracy represent a perfect run?
To give someone 100 points for a good but not perfect performance - only because no-one else did any better - is as if a student at school or college would receive the very best of all possible grades - for a “just” good but not perfect performance - only because no-one else did any better!!
Proposal:
Judge accuracy the way it used to be!

The most pilots I know are first of all into swooping for their love for speed and distance.
Should accuracy “decide” who is the overall winner of a competition??
Right now someone needs to be outstanding in speed AND distance to have a chance of beating an “accuracy-expert”…

The persons in charge at the FAI are very willing to adapt the rules in a way that makes sense to the majority of competitors.
If you compete at the Worldchampionships speak up at the competitors meeting and let them know your opinion. If you don´t, post your opinion right here, we will let them know.
All thoughts very welcome!

A well known pilot I´ve sent a PM about this topic came up with the idea to make the speed course more difficult by changing the course itself instead of changing the way it is scored.
This would create more zeros and thereby make the speedevent more important.
But it would not solve the major problem that pilots who finish the course with slow times would still receive too much points for their performance, it would still be a "you-just have to-score-thing".
In addition an ultra difficult course could be counterproductive for the sport of CanopyPiloting as it could cause new pilots not to compete if they think about a given course as too difficult for their skill-level.
So changing the course isn´t an option...

##### Share on other sites
Morris,

I'm not sure I agree on changing the percentage system. we need to keep scoring simple, and fair, to keep spectators interested AND to keep the rules understandable. Introducing physics isn't going to accomplish that IMO.

The percentage system is designed to allow a competitor to compare themselves to the best rounds of the day. Since conditions change, I believe this system accurately, and fairly, represents that.

Finally, I'm surprised that there's no mention of the weight issues brought up at US Nationals. Currently a pilot cannot be a single OUNCE over their weigh in weight. This creates massive safety concerns, particularly in competitors who cannot strip off weight (the larger boys) who have to be so careful not to get disqualified that they're scared to even drink water throughout the day. Not to mention that if a competitor gets wet, there is no avenue for them other than to use a different rig altogether to avoid weight disqualification.

I think the above is far more important than refining the scoring system.

Blues bro! See you in SA :)

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

##### Share on other sites
I think there should be some type of give to the weight rule. I think it should be fair across the board as far as getting wet goes and it should be noted, but as far as how much allowance should be given, I have no clue where to start. Also, I think the weight rule is fine for the people allowed to wear weights, as long as the above is added, but as for the heavier people, I think there should be some allowance so people arent fighting dehydration and we are worrying about more serious consequences. Just my 2 cents from a person allowed to wear weights.....

blue skies,
julio

##### Share on other sites
Square the speed scores, clever!

Do the same for the distance scores.

Do the opposite (=square root) for the accuracy scores.

That is (1) simple and (2) achieves the goal of balancing the importance of the different events.

PS: For those who don't agree with this being simple, check what the Artistic Event committee did with the compulsory rounds in Freefly ...

##### Share on other sites
Quote

PS: For those who don't agree with this being simple, check what the Artistic Event committee did with the compulsory rounds in Freefly ...

And how many spectators watched that (non-skydivers), and even had a clue as to what was going on?

As it stands, it's really difficult for non-skydivers watch a swoop meet to understand the ins and outs of accuracy.

The above as I understand it proposal makes it worse IMO, and more complicated. Generally speaking, the most complex solutions, are often the least viable ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely open to changing this for the better, and I agree that the Speed seperation should be somehow greater, I just don't know if this is the right direction (based on what I understand of your post).

Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

##### Share on other sites
Personally, I think that there needs to be a consistant means for scoring, meaning we can't have one event be percentage based, another be something else, and then another be yet another way to score. This was the problem a couple years ago when accuracy was NOT based on the percentage system, people could nearly zero all their accuracy rounds but win speed and distance and still place in the top 3. this was mainly due to people just plain sucking at accuracy. a competitor would score 3 rounds totalling 60 points even though they had the highest 3 rounds of the competition, but it couldn't make up the ground that someone who scored 600 points in speed and distance because those events were based off of the percentage system.

I think if we make the speed course harder it will spread the scores more. And you might say that it's "counter productive" to growing canopy pilots, however at the national or world levels we're not trying to grow pilots, we're trying to see who the best is. So either make the carve harder, make the course tighter, make the course longer, or all of the above. for CPC style meets then make the course how it is now, and actually that is how it is right now. the "amature" CPC class runs a shorter course that can be done in a straight line. so now we could have an "amature" course, a "pro" level course, and an "elite" level course.

competition swooping is an all inclusive sub-discipline of swooping, you can be good at speed and distance but if you suck at accuracy then you're not going to win it's just that simple. and by making accuracy easier or "fluffing" the scores on the speed and distance events we'd only be hurting ourselves.

just my thoughts...stu
Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

##### Share on other sites
You won´t believe - I´ve been thinking about suggesting this for distance as well as it is for sure more than twice as difficult to exceed 500ft compared to exceed just 250ft - I just didn´t dare to (make that suggestion).
But I think a change is of much more importance for speed as the speedscores are way "closer together" and the distancescores are "spread much wider". Distance is already of more importance for the overall scores than speed so there isn´t that much need to change it.

##### Share on other sites
Quote

a competitor would score 3 rounds totalling 60 points even though they had the highest 3 rounds of the competition, but it couldn't make up the ground that someone who scored 600 points in speed and distance

There you got it - in the past you couldn´t make up the ground you´ve lost during speed and distance by doing well in accuracy, now you can.
How can it be that you can regain in ONE event what you´ve lost in TWO?
That´s my point

##### Share on other sites
Quote

As it stands, it's really difficult for non-skydivers watch a swoop meet to understand the ins and outs of accuracy.

What is more difficult to explain?
a) all the different watergate- and zonepoints
or
b) all of the above and then add to that "ok, this has been just the beginning. now that you got all those scores a percentage system comes into the picture and the judges take the highest of all scores and....

I´d say it easier to understand without the percentage system wouldn´t you agree?

##### Share on other sites
I cannot believe we would see one spectator less, just because there is an extra formula in the Excel sheet.

I like simple solutions too. I fail to see what is so complex about squaring scores.

(http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1360)

##### Share on other sites
Quote

And you might say that it's "counter productive" to growing canopy pilots, however at the national or world levels we're not trying to grow pilots, we're trying to see who the best is.

You´re right, I agree on that.

##### Share on other sites
Maybe it's good to give some advantage to zone acc. Speed and distance are good scoring rounds for the heavy boys, but zone acc is more difficult for them. Fat boys can score 6 rounds, skinny swoopers have 3 rounds to try that stand up with some downwind. Now people train some more for zone acc, which is a nice event to see for the spectators. If I could change the rules, I would propose one canopy size for all rounds, but leave the scoring system as it is (but yes indeed, the speed scores for different performances are close together).

##### Share on other sites
Quote

If I could change the rules, I would propose one canopy size for all rounds,

I´d like to see this as well!
Right now I´m thinking about adding a third seize to my arsenal and it would be very fine with me if I could avoid that....
This would result in less advantage by money or sponsoring and make it (even) more likely that no-one but the very best pilot is winning.

##### Share on other sites
Quote

Morris,
Currently a pilot cannot be a single OUNCE over their weigh in weight. This creates massive safety concerns, particularly in competitors who cannot strip off weight (the larger boys) who have to be so careful not to get disqualified that they're scared to even drink water throughout the day. Not to mention that if a competitor gets wet, there is no avenue for them other than to use a different rig altogether to avoid weight disqualification.

***

What do they do if a heavy guy is obviously not carrying any lead but gets wet or drinks, so he becomes more heavy?
You can´t kick him off the event!
Light pilots can throw off some ballast to stay in the weightrestriction.

##### Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Morris,
Currently a pilot cannot be a single OUNCE over their weigh in weight. This creates massive safety concerns, particularly in competitors who cannot strip off weight (the larger boys) who have to be so careful not to get disqualified that they're scared to even drink water throughout the day. Not to mention that if a competitor gets wet, there is no avenue for them other than to use a different rig altogether to avoid weight disqualification.

***

What do they do if a heavy guy is obviously not carrying any lead but gets wet or drinks, so he becomes more heavy?
You can´t kick him off the event!
Light pilots can throw off some ballast to stay in the weightrestriction.

Actually, that's EXACTLY what would have happened at this years event. The current rules would disqualify the pilot, regardless of circumstance, if they were a single ounce over weigh in weight at the beginning of the competition.

The rule, as it stands, is totally and utterly ridiculous and should be a priority for fixing.

Blues,
Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team

##### Share on other sites
My big problem with 1 canopy is now you are disadvantaging the big boys.

Assume one canopy size but with the weight system, a light weight can carry up to 35 lb or 16 kg, that is a wingloading difference on a 120 of 0.29, so have a wingloading of 2.2 for distance and 2.5 for speed?????

I say have all the competitors arrive with a fixed weight and one canopy. So if Joe want to jump a 79 velocity with 10 kg of lead then he has to jump that for all the rounds, speed, distance and accuracy. This will level the playing field, I hope, especially as not all people can afford 2 canopies let alone 3.

Obviously still add some weight restrictions so that some really big guy suddenly starts to jump with 22 kg of lead but let someone jump one type of system for the whole competition. Isn't that what most people are doing???

##### Share on other sites
Distance scores are more significant to the overall result than speed scores due to there being more variation. See 5th and 10th place in each WPC event in 2006/7/8 and 2008 and US Nationals. 5th and 10th place in speed ALWAYS have more points than 5th/10th in distance.

Squaring the speed scores just reverses the current issue and makes the variation in speed more than in distance in all of these events, and speed then becomes a more significant event to the overall result. In 2008 Pablo jumps from 18th overall to 13th when speed scores are squared. Shannon goes from 11th to 8th.

YES I think the speed scoring needs work but I don't think squaring is the solution.

Accuracy scores already give a pretty good spread compared to distance and changing the scoring would put a lot more variation and then make it the most significant event of the 3.

##### Share on other sites
Quote

I say have all the competitors arrive with a fixed weight and one canopy.

That's exactly the conclusion we came to after a heated discussion at the wingsuit competition in Gransee: Allowing a light person to put on weights for speed would give them an extra advantage over the heavy flyers (like me, I suck in all disciplines ;-). Not allowing flyers to put on weights gives them (not me ;-) at least the possibility to equalize the score.

Klaus
My Logbook

##### Share on other sites
Quote

Hi Michael...

Quote

Distance scores are more significant to the overall result than speed scores due to there being more variation.

this is why we need to make speed more important

Quote

Squaring the speed scores just reverses the current issue and makes the variation in speed more than in distance in all of these events, and speed then becomes a more significant event to the overall result.

I disagree, it´s not just reversing the problem, not at all. We got two problems, not just one. The two problems are that speed AND distance are "underrated"/not important enough for the overall outcome. (with Accuracy being too important) Speed is the bigger problem out of those, squaring the speedscores will solve one of those two problems, the bigger one. Maybe someone else can come up with a solution to make distance more important as well, I´m glad I´ve found a reasonable solution for speed (but I´ll keep on thinking about one for distance as well).

Quote

YES I think the speed scoring needs work but I don't think squaring is the solution.

Do you still think so now?

Quote

Accuracy scores already give a pretty good spread compared to distance and changing the scoring would put a lot more variation and then make it the most significant event of the 3.

I agree, Accuracy is already too important, this is why I don´t like to see it changed too much. I´ve just send an additional proposal for Accuracy to Thomas (CP/IPC-chairman for those who don´t know him) that would bring only minor changes to avoid the large amount of ties. If you agree with this, let him know be email, his adress can be found on the FAI-website. But hurry up the decisions are going to be made in January!
One more thing about the calculations you´ve done. Do it again with places like 30, 40, 50; the problem is that a poor run in speed is worth too much points at the moment (compared to a poor run in Accuracy). The second half of the table/the weaker pilots will be affected more by the squaring - they´ll move down because they´ll get less points for their slow speed runs (just as much as they deserve by the laws of physics - twice the speed = four times the power - instead of getting way too much like it is at the moment), the guys at the very top won´t be affected too much or will - if they are good at speed - even move up - as you showed...

##### Share on other sites
I just wanted to let you know that the FAI made my proposal the official new scoring rule for the speed event.
Thanks to anyone who supported the idea as I really think it makes sense!
Competitors - who are comparing their overall scores of future events with scores from the past - should kept in mind that the new scoring rules will not only create more "separation" between the scores for fast and slow times. It will also result in lower overall scores for almost everyone (Exception: If you set the highscore for ALL three rounds of speed you´ll still get 300 points, in any other scenario/combination you´ll score less than in the past). The better you are the less you will be affected/the less points you´ll loose....
Good/fast speed times will now be more important to the overall outcome.

- water needs to be only 60cm (=two feet) deep
- records in distance are only possible if you are within the windlimits
(In SA it happened that the wind exceeded the limit in distance for two pilots and the competitors could take the decision if they wanted a re-jump or take the score. As the winddirection that moment was very much in their favor they took the score...)
- in accuracy you collect all your points on the water. The more accurate your landing, the more points you keep. If you make the "highscore-landingarea" you don´t loose any...

Don´t blame me for the new accuracy rule as it hasn´t been my idea.
I´m only "in charge" for speed and I don´t know yet if I like the accuracy rule myself...

##### Share on other sites
Quote

- in accuracy you collect all your points on the water. The more accurate your landing, the more points you keep. If you make the "highscore-landingarea" you don´t loose any...

So no longer can people pull out of the water for zone 4 to make zone 2 to add more points than zone 4 would give?

That's different. Any idea of the new point break down?
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

##### Share on other sites
Quote

in accuracy you collect all your points on the water. The more accurate your landing, the more points you keep. If you make the "highscore-landingarea" you don´t loose any...

I'm confused on the meaning of this?

Speaking of accuracy, I'd like to see the gate scoring change - currently there's no real benefit to getting gate 4 (most people skip it).

Today the scoring is:

Gate 1 = 31 points
Gate 2 = 16 points
Gate 3 = 9 points
Gate 4 = 4 points

and I propose (essentially switching gate 2 and 4):

Gate 1 = 31 points
Gate 2 = 4 points
Gate 3 = 9 points
Gate 4 = 16 points
Performance Designs Factory Team

##### Share on other sites
I think the proposal was for 100 points on the water and then deductions depending on what zone you land in e.g. zone 5 would have a zero score and zone 4 will have a -10 score. I don't have the complete breakdown. Someone with the details?
“It takes ten years to get ten years’ experience” Eric "tonto" Stephenson D515 PASA

##### Share on other sites
I havn´t received the details yet.
What I know is a combination of an proposal for accuracy at the WPC and informations from the german IPC-delegate who is part of the "CP-group" at the IPC.
It looks like you have to collect all your points on the water.
You have to drag the water, if you don´t drag the water it´s already a zero.
You can collect up to 100points on the water.
A version with 5 watergates has been discussed but I don´t know if the "5-gate-version" has been accepted.
Now if you score 100 points on the water and touch down in the highscore zone, you don´t loose any of the points you´ve collect on the water.
That would be a perfect run, 100 points, like it used to be. The difference is that you don´t get 60 points on the water and 40 points for your landing, you get all of your points on the water.
Now if you don´t touch down in the best landingzone you loose points, points collected on the water.
The further away from the best zone you are touching down, the more points you´ll loose.
The good thing about it seems to be that you can take a higher risk going for the highscorezone as flying to far isn´t that bad anymore. Flying to far (from what I expect the rules to be, don´t take it for granted) won´t result in a zero anmore just in loosing some points.
So a typical score could something like 80 points on the water minus ten for missing the highscorezone by one zone (I´m guessing on the numbers) resulting in a 70...

##### Share on other sites
If the changes did away with the touch in positive first rule, then things could get interesting!

What were the reasons for the changes? People crashing in hard to keep a score?
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.