SIAC readiness

[andypat]

Not maybe strictly relevant but when i used SIAC at the EUOC big weekend I wasnt aware the touch free function of the card itself had to be switched on. Apparently this is done by the check unit.
I cleared pre start but was chatting to the start official and between the two of us we forgot to check my card.

For the first few controls I tried to air punch and failed, but noticed when I dibbed normally the unit beeped. I then had to dib the rest of the course normally. In this scenario I reckon SIAC punching COST me about 30 seconds! Luckily it was just me

I'm surprised that this hasnt happened to more people since I have never seen any info suggesting this was a potential issue.

I did notice though at the Scottish sprints the cards were being checked before being given out...

[Scott]

you don't have to divert your gaze and your attention to the position of the control and whether you hit the hole or not, and then look for the visual flash confirmation.

With SIAC you can just be aware you are near the control and maintain eye contact with the map and your position on it

Although depending on how brave you're feeling you may, of course, want to look at the control to check the control code.

[greywolf]

I did notice though at the Scottish sprints the cards were being checked before being given out...

...but (most of) the control units hadn't been woken up...

[NeilC]

I did notice though at the Scottish sprints the cards were being checked before being given out...

...but (most of) the control units hadn't been woken up...

Simple solution - just send an Englishman out as first runner
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/ ... 2016-02-07

[greywolf]

Simple solution - just send an Englishman out as first runner

Jonny was first out on Men's Open - but he was behind a load (a grumble?) of Vets: Ray Ward did the honours at most of the controls - thankfully the last few were awake already

[King Penguin]

Planner needs to take care when using SIAC, esp. at urban events, as they enable punching from the wrong side of hedges, fences etc. Controls need to be placed farther from narrow uncrossable feature.

[Roger]

I'm not sure we should be enabling this feature unless we are in a position to offer SIAC cards to all competitors. Otherwise the significant advantage of touch free punching represents unfair competition.

I agree (and also with DaveR's estimate of 2-3s per straight-through control; less of course for turning left or right and less again for reversing direction; say 1-2s per control on an average course).

On a sprint course with say 25 controls and a 15-minute winning time that's clearly significant. If an organiser's error at a Level A event affected the times of some people but not others by this amount, including relegating some of the would-be top finishers, then the course would / should be voided.

The harder question is whether touch-free cards should be used by everybody, as opposed to merely being available to everybody. I've been involved (competing or organising) in several races with touch-free punching, both Emit and SI, but the playing field has always been level: touch-free for everybody. I'm controlling the sprint event in the 2016 BOK Blast (Sat 3 Sep - it will be great!). The organisers considered enabling touch-free alongside 'normal' punching and offering SIACs for hire to those that didn't have them but wanted to buy that advantage. They've decided to go the whole hog and make the whole weekend SIAC. The hire cost is a bit easier to swallow when it's spread over two events. (Sun 4 Sep: Wells, UK Urban League race.)

I would need to hire a SI Card 57 times to make it worth buying a new one.

For a SIAC, you may need to revisit your maths. The hire cost quoted by SI was £5.

[DJM]

The implication behind some of these postings is that you shouldn't put on an event where some runners use touch-free and some use conventional cards as those with the latter are at an unfair disadvantage.

Consider the following:-

Runner A has an expensive fast-settling compass whereas runner B has an old, cheap one which takes an age to settle. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?

Runner A has a third-generation (not touch-free) SI-card which is six times faster than runner B's old type 5 card. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?

Runner A buys a pair of lightweight shoes specifically for Sprint races, whereas runner B wears his normal O-shoes. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?

In all three examples, runner B has the option to buy better kit. Is there any difference in principle between these examples and that of runner A who has an SIAC and runner B who hasn't (and the event is set up so that both can be used)?

[Roger]

DJM: the magnitude of the difference is crucial. I would regard 0.1s per control (say) for the difference between SI 5 and SI 6 as insignificant. But in a sprint race the difference between touch-free and not (or indeed between electronic and pin-punching, with disqualification for getting pins outside the box) would be significant.

However, in a long-O or mountain marathon 1-2s per control wouldn't be significant. Which means that somewhere in that grey area between the two there's a cross-over. Different people will have different opinions on where the cross-over comes.

In principle, nothing is fair; you've got longer legs than I have.

[greywolf]

@DJM: you make not think they are different in principle, but the practical effect is very different:
Compasses are largely irrelevant in sprints
3G SI cards take 60ms apparently, so that's 300ms a control quicker than SI5, in theory 6 seconds on a 20 control course - but i doubt anyone can actually achieve that - our response times aren't quick enough and you can easily waste that much cf. touch-free on a single control if it's loosely wired to a lamppost.
Shoe choice can make an impact - but it's a bit of lottery: i've run races in road flats and slithered around all over the place.

Whereas the difference between touch-free and conventional punching might be 30 - 60s for a 20 control sprint course, depending on course design and control unit presentation.

Setting up controls for SIAir and not providing touchfree cards for all competitors would be akin to running a normal SI or Emit event and saying that anyone who didn't bring their own could have a control card and use pin-punches.

[edit: outsprinted by Roger ]

[awk]

I agree with DJM, and really can't see the relevance of either greywolf's or roger's arguments. Go to a cycling timetrial without aero-kit or with a standard road bike, and the difference is rather more significant than the difference between contactless and contact card (as Laurent Fignon found to his cost). I don't think you'll see organisers expecting themselves to hire equipment out!

And as for the pin-punch versus control card argument - well I certainly went to at least one event in the early transitional days where that was an option. Wish I could remember where, but there was a fee for to hire an SI card, or free use of card and pinpunches. Nobody seemed to complain (actually, the difference in speed between pinpunch and standard SI card wasn't that great - we were all pretty skilled at control flow using cards in those days).

[babs f]

Planner needs to take care when using SIAC, esp. at urban events, as they enable punching from the wrong side of hedges, fences etc. Controls need to be placed farther from narrow uncrossable feature.

This was my first thought.

[SJC]

Consider the following:-
- Runner A has an expensive fast-settling compass whereas runner B has an old, cheap one which takes an age to settle. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?
- Runner A has a third-generation (not touch-free) SI-card which is six times faster than runner B's old type 5 card. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?
- Runner A buys a pair of lightweight shoes specifically for Sprint races, whereas runner B wears his normal O-shoes. Does runner A have an unfair advantage?
In all three examples, runner B has the option to buy better kit. Is there any difference in principle between these examples and that of runner A who has an SIAC and runner B who hasn't (and the event is set up so that both can be used)?

Big difference. I can buy a fast settling compass or a lightweight pair of running shoes from any number of manufacturers. I can only buy a SIAC card from SI. They have a captive audience which they are exploiting to the full.

[DJM]

Where you can buy the kit from is not the point. The principle at stake here is whether or not you get an unfair advantage from the kit.

And, yes, there may be a greater time saving for SIAC vs fast SI compared with fast SI vs slow SI but, again, it is the principle which we should be considering here.

And I suggest that, just as we currently accept that it's OK for some to save time by having better kit than others, that there's no difference in principle between these examples and that of some using a SIAC and some not.

It goes without saying that SIACs should be available for hire at events where they are catered for.

[andypat]

I'm on the side of greywolf/Roger here.

A compass is equipment used for the key constituent of the sport - navigation. A GPS is also an instrument for navigation but that is banned because it offers an unfair advantage.

If an event uses SIair, this is patently a different method of recording times that SI punching. It is unfair if some runners have this and some dont.

If we are evolving to touch free punching then I am happy to go with it and I'd pay the £1 hire fee to use one until I can afford one. But I would be less than happy competing with a normal card agaisnt people using SI air, especially in a sprint race.

As an aside IMO the use of SI air also changes the dynamic of the race, as there is now more emphasis on flat speed rather than the ability to accelerate quickly from a standing start.