+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Great Night at Keystone

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    116
    As you said Rick.
    If the course meets basic NASTAR standards for set and the par time is even close to the cap time, the only thing that can be wrong is the pacesetter's handicap.

    How do you think this approach would turn out?

    Open the course by having the pacesetter do both a pacesetting run and a cap time run using the same skis.
    The timers then adjust the pacesetter's handicap so that par time is 5% greater than cap time. (Or whatever, see below)
    That is then the pacesetter's handicap for the day and is used to figure all the other participants handicaps.

    No pacesetter trials are required with this system.

    This system could be tied to a National Standard by using an ex-US Ski Team member to travel around and establish the correct par/cap time ratio for each hill.
    This would need to be done once and then adjusted only if things change.

    This is a pretty radical departure from the way things are done now.

    Be interesting to get some real data from a couple of courses and pacesetters to see if this would work.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Kine View Post
    As you said Rick.
    If the course meets basic NASTAR standards for set and the par time is even close to the cap time, the only thing that can be wrong is the pacesetter's handicap.

    How do you think this approach would turn out?

    Open the course by having the pacesetter do both a pacesetting run and a cap time run using the same skis.
    The timers then adjust the pacesetter's handicap so that par time is 5% greater than cap time. (Or whatever, see below)
    That is then the pacesetter's handicap for the day and is used to figure all the other participants handicaps.

    No pacesetter trials are required with this system.

    This system could be tied to a National Standard by using an ex-US Ski Team member to travel around and establish the correct par/cap time ratio for each hill.
    This would need to be done once and then adjusted only if things change.

    This is a pretty radical departure from the way things are done now.

    Be interesting to get some real data from a couple of courses and pacesetters to see if this would work.
    Wouldn't course setting differences cause a large variable here?

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    116
    Like I said, no data, but here is how it would work.

    Let's suppose a pacesetter shows up at hill X and sets two courses, one straight and one very turney.

    First he tucks the hill and gets a cap time of 18 seconds.
    Then he runs the straight course and gets a 19.5 second run.
    Then he runs the turney course and gets a 22 second time.

    The par time is computed by multiplying the cap by 1.05 to get 18.9 seconds (assuming NASTAR has said that a 5% par cap ratio is right for this venue.)

    The pacesetter than has a 3.1 handicap for the straight course (19.5/18.9-1)*100
    And a 16.4 handicap for the turney course (22/18.9-1)*100

    The race is then run using the different pacesetter handicaps for the two courses.

    NASTAR can easily quality check the results for course appropriateness by watching the spread in the pacesetters handicaps. A rule might be made that if the pacesetter's current course handicap is more than one standard deviation from his norm the course should be reset.

    This approach avoids arbitrary pacesetter trials and produces results that should be similar to what we get now with the built in quality control of rejecting race results where the courses are not within NASTAR standards.

    To answer NE1's question...I don't think the results would be any more effected by sets than a system that assumes a constant seperation between your pacesetter and the Ski Team Pro regardless of hills.

    The added advantage is that customers wouldn't be jerked around from year to year by flawed or erratic pacetter trials.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts