RARA Race Course Distance Measurement Method Changed and Used in 2003

[DOUBLE THREAT]

E-mail sent to RARA...

To Whom It May Concern:
I have been coming to the Reno Air Races since 1964. The changing in 2003 of the course distance measurement method should not have been allowed. As far as I am concerned, all 2003 event speed record references should have a big fat asterisk next to them.

Comparing the new with the old race course distance measurements, pilots were told to expect 2.5% higher rate of speed measurements (per Reno Gazette Journal).

488 (Sunday Dago Red "new Gold race record" average speed) X .025 = 12.2
488 - 12.2 = 475.8, NOT as fast as the 1991 Gold race average speed of 482

508 (Friday Dago Red's heat race average speed) X .025 = 12.7
508 - 12.7 = 495.3, UNDER 500

511.528 (Friday Dago Red's second lap speed) X .025 = 12.788
511.528 - 12.788 = 498.74, UNDER 500

In my opinion, the race course measurement method used in the years previous to 2003 is the proper method and since it was used for so many years, it should have been used indefinitely. Now that this travesty has been committed, comparisons of 2003 with pre-2003 speeds are cumbersome and/or invalid.

I am a Reno Air Races old-timer and am very disappointed.

Sincerely,
DOUBLE THREAT

[flynride]

I agree. That the course distance was changed is not such a big deal (they've done it before) - but this time the course wasn't changed at all. It just "became" 1000 feet shorter.

[Stubby]

Trouble is, the new way is a more accurate representation of the actual distance flown and, as such, a more accurate representation of the actual speed.

[mayday51]

Double Threat,
You seem to have your "adjustment factor" and the calculations
to get what you desire as speeds,
......what else do ya need?

.........if the break from tradition, (the act of change) is what bothers you say that to RARA,better yet start a signed petition.
(so it carries legal force).
..........recent evidence shows RARA plays the "fine legal edge"
so be prepared for any type of response.


........Please do not take this as an attack,rather just a direct
questioning of motive and desires.(will you really do the full leagal thing?) ..........is that the best for our sport ?....

............this comes on the trail end of a similar battle with another "National" race organization.....over similar changes of
rules and scoring........result: 83% decrease in available races...

..........yep we all run on emotions.....(right after the Nitrous to the pilot drops off!)

Looks like I missed a good adventure at the races again.

Good runnin all,

Mayday51
Jim Gallagher

[flynride]

Far be it from me to defend Double Threat, but:

2002 race distance was 8.268 miles
2003 race distance was 8.480 miles

this is from the programs.

That means the new course is 2.56% longer than the old one

Dago's fast lap was 511 mph, he went 498.24 mph on the old measure of the course.

I don't think Double Threat is fudging anything here. Everything else, maybe :-) But not this one.

[Magnum]

500 mph+ Don't get caught in the Hype

The course length change is a complete marketing ploy. RARA simply wanted to get the number 500 published above the fold on the newspaper - which they did. No one ran that much faster than they did previously.

Take nothing away from Dago, they are on the top of their game in an extreme sport. All the teams I talked to were "recalculating" their speeds this year so they could compare them with years past. No one was bragging about how much faster they ran this year versus last. Ask Bill K.

More than 1 race team is not happy with the change simply for comparison purposes. They are extreme competitors. The last thing they want is to strive to achieve a goal and then achieve it because the rules suddenly allowed them to succeed. Having said all that, I have heard no joy (around the pits) in achieving the 500 mph mark, only the excitment asociated with racing itself.

This isn't rocket science. Wanna guess how they are going to break the 550 mph barrier?

[Unregistered]

Yeah I have to agree. The only reason for the course change was so they could acheive 500mph, when I would have rather had it done the hard way. Although really I have no problem with the new system, but they shouldnt be calling it new record lap speeds and the like, because thats not exactly true...

[JoeCook1]

I would agree that this year's speed results should include a large asterisk and a statement of the course length used in the calculation of speed vs. previous years.

However, it seems to me that the logic to use a theoretical course length that approximates what can actually be flown is valid. The old course length, using straight lines between pylons, could not be flown, even in a Piper Cub at 40 mph, let alone an Unlimited at 400+.

So this change basically corrects the "erroneous" calculation of the past.

If Skip had a GPS on board and it was triggered at the start-finish line on his fast lap, it would have shown an average speed for the lap in the vicinity of 511 mph, not 498.7. This is not "marketing" (altho the result was certainly exploited), it is a valid correction, IMO.

The average speed should reflect the real world average speed of a perfectly tracked lap and that's what the new course length does (hopefully, since I don't know exactly how they actually determined it).

[StanleyR]

Interesting Subject

I knew something had been changed with the timing of the races based on various messages throughout last week, but I wasn't sure what had (or could have possibly) been done.

After reading this thread, I gather RARA now times on a more rounded off "theoretical" course which measures out to a greater length than measuring straight distances from pylon to pylon - very interesting and sneaky.

Although I don't have an opinion yet, I do have some thoughts. One is the idea is to get around the course as quickly as possible, which would include straight away speed, staying as tight to the pylons as possible and maintaining a G-force in the turns that yields the most efficient way around them and maintaining a steady altitude. Anyone think the same theoretical rounded line can be verified or maintained by every aircraft racing out there equally, and what about altitude compensation for the higher back side of the course? Perhaps the uphill swing cancels out when they come back down the valley of speed when overall distance is concerned - hmmmm, actually it adds more on both sides.

Take oval track racing - say 500 miles. Where is the 500 mile standard taken? A car on the outside of the track during the entire race will travel farther in distance than the car on the inside of the track. It is only in track and field where the oval distance is compensated with lane staggering.

So, we all agree RARA wanted that 500+ as a marketing ploy, and they changed the standard of measurement to make it "easier?" Even though it is impossible to fly the straight lines around the pylons using the old standard there were some instances when a lighter aircraft such as Tsunami was CLEARLY able to out-turn the Rare Bear (1990) around pylons 6-8, and I still hold to my story that Skip/Tsunami did a 500+ lap in 1991 when it closed in on Strega from such a large deficit before the white flag. So which aircraft determines the theoretical course?

My final thought would be as long as the rounded theoretical course cannot be "outflown" to the inside of the lines (yielding a shorter distance kind of like David Price in 1993 or 4), the new standard should be good. Otherwise, why bother changing it?

[Unregistered]

Actual flight path.

If we are going to use the theoretical flight path to calculate the average speed then the 500 mph barrier was broken back in 1995 and again in 1996 by the Rare Bear in qualifying. If we add 2.5% to the 9.128 mile course length and use the times of 67.09 secs in 1995 and 66.89 secs in 1996 the qualifying speeds were 502.046 mph and 503.548 mph respectively. If you use the same idea and apply it to the 1991 Gold Race you may find that 500 mph was exceeded there as well as Tsunami turned a couple of quick laps at the end to almost catch Strega and that last lap by the Bear was also fast. I could not find the lap times from that 1991 race but I know they are out there. My vote would be to keep that course length as it was so that historical comparisons would be meaningful. As it is now we have to subtract 2.56% from the course length from this year forward to be able to compare to years past.

Dave Gammell

[Randy Haskin]

On Saturday in the pits I talked to Pete Law about this precise subject, who noted that the Unlimited course has actually changed distanced 9 times over the course of the races, so all of the previous speed comparisons are pretty much invalid, too.

[Magnum]

Course Measurement

Pete is correct in one sense. In past years, the course legnth has been changed several times. However, unlike this year, they actually moved the pylons, thus changing the distance of the course. The course has always (regardless of length) been measured from pylon to pylon in a direct line.

The President of the T-6 race organization attempted to change the rules this year concerning the T-6 start order. He (name withheld) wanted to use an inverse start and pay out prize money not on race finish order, but qualifying time. This was attempted to "make it more interesting for the fans". This puts the fastest plane on the outside, creating the potential for more passes during the race.

Can you imagine the "goat rope" (more than one pilot used a different phrase) at the first pylon.

Several pilots said they would go home if they instituted such a procedure change. When it was pointed out that this was done once before many years ago and only 2 of 6 pilots made it to pylon 2, they backed off.

RARA is attempting to grow this event and ensure its health. However, if I want to grow my business, advertising comes first to mind. Changing the rules to make it more exciting for those who do come to watch or get one headline in the local paper doesn't seem like a productive method to achieve this. RARA is putting the burdon of advertising on the backs of the participants instead of their own marketing department.

[BroncoBob]

A Solution????

Simply recalculate all the prior speeds using the new course miles. I think it is very unfair for the Reno Alumni like Jon Sharp to have all of his records replace by Mariah, just because of the new calculation. Nemisis is Still faster and has the quickest times, but Mariah is shown as the course record holder now.

Very unfair for all the pilots, owners, crews and fans from the beginning to 2002. We need to recalculate their speeds too.

[Race 29]

I remember the race with Tsunami. I have a watch that will give a lap speed when you enter the course length. I think I had her at a 492 for one lap and the rest were in the 487 range. Of course with the changes this year (I didn't know about the calculation need to correct the speed) I had Furias doing 522 during qualifying on Wednesday. Now Furias WAS moving pretty good, but I thought the speed from my watch was suspect. I really didn't trust it when Tom Camps Wildcat turned a 418 according to my watch! Nothing against Tom Camp or the Wildcat, but really now.

About the T-6 reversed start, that was pretty much already done when Mary Dilda had to start from the back of the pack. She was in 2nd place within 3-4 laps! I thought the T-6 class was supposed to be a "stock" class. All of the planes are supposed to be equal. When one of them has so much over the rest of the field that they can pass everyone from the outside of the course (except the guy in first who already has a 1/4 mile on the rest of the field) it's not very enjoyable to watch. RARA needs to be a little more stringent with their tech inspections when it's THAT obvious. I've raced motorcycles, cars, and anything else I could get my hands on. every racing organization that I raced with that left it up to the competitors to protest rules infractions is no longer in business. Leaving it up to the racers to police themselves brings up a whole bunch of other problems. Reversing the start order in other sports to make it more exciting for the fans has always seemed like a stupid idea to me. Racing is dangerous enough as it is. Wanting pole position is incentive enough to have the racers do their best so they don't have to be caught up in a big bunch of racers at the first turn. The potential for damage goes way up when the racers are that close in any other form of racing. With Air Racers it's not only the damage, but the loss of life quotient that goes way up. Air Racing has proved to be very unforgiving. As a fan that RARA want's to make the races more exciting for, I personally have never been excited to see a mid-air at the races (although I know there are those sick F#&%ers out there) Let's just don't cater to them.

Race 29
Sorry to be so long winded!

[Unregistered]

Measurements of course

I too was surprized to see the new method of calculating the course. What we have to remember is that through the years the course has changed dramatically many times. The original course was a big oval that ran in front of the crowd. Through the years they have moved pylons in and out. Changes which have clearly changed the speeds. I remember the change in 1985 when they moved one pylon and the speeds jumped 10 MPH for all the planes. So!!!!! how does this affect the records? I don't believe much. It all boils down to the first guy across the finish line. My suggestion is get over it. The increase in the speeds is good for the sport. Fridays race was clearly the fastest ever run at Reno course change or not. Just ask John Penny and Skip.