 |
|
|
|
|
|
Last update: |
||||
|
You are visitor |
||||
 |
||||
|
|
since 20.11.2000 |
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
[IARU] [IARU-Region 1] [IARU-Region 2] [IARU-Region 3] [ARDF Committee Region 2] |
||||
|
From: ARDF Sub-Group Rules
Subject: Report from ARDF Sub-Group Rules
General remark:Every change of the Rules should improve their quality and also quality of ARDF itself. Therefore, every important change of the Rules shall be well tested at lower level competitions, results recorded and evaluated. We recommend for this purpose competitions at national level in countries with many competitors (Czech Republic, Germany, Russia, Ukraine etc.), which are comparable with IARU ARDF Championships (mainly by number of competitors and categories).
1. Competition at simultaneous bands Details of a system as recommended by SGR: to hold two different courses at the same time on both bands. One course for younger categories with longer length (and possibly higher climb) and another course for older categories with shorter length. In addition, there is necessary to define course lengths and recommended winning times more precisely for each category.
1. course at band A: Category No. of Tx length W19 4 4 … 8 km (no change) W21 4 6 … 8 km (no change) M19 4 4 … 8 km (no change) M21 5 6 … 10 km (no change)
2. course at band B: Category No. of Tx length W35 4 5 … 7 km (no change) W50 4 3 … 5 km W60 3 2 . .. 3 km (possible new category) M40 5 6 … 8 km M50 4 5 … 7 km (no change) M60 4 4 … 5 km M70 3 2 ... 3 km (possible new category)
Reasons: Pros: l Siting referee can easily make proper courses for all categories, more physically demanding for younger and more technically demanding for older l Significantly decreased concentration of competitors around transmitters l Number of competitors and their density in the terrain at one race decreased to approximately one half l No principal change for competitors, no special training needed l Only small Rules changes needed (14, 19, 25) l The whole system is already well tested (WCH 2004)
Cons: l Doubles number of technical equipment in the field l Doubles number of referees at the transmitters
Recommendation: to use at „testing“ status at WCH 2006 (provided organizer is in favour). Adopt this point at WG plenary meeting in 2006. Consider establishing new categories, if at least 5 competitors apply to participate.
2. Using 10 transmitters at one band, two frequencies Details of a system as recommended by the SGR: l two sets of transmitters operate normally on two frequencies, the beacon is on the third one, preferably between those of transmitters. The two sets of transmitters are told apart by different keying speeds („slow“ and „fast“). – There is no problem at 3,5 MHz band, at 144 MHz there might be some problems with receivers selectivity. l New starting procedure: Competitors will start at every minute. The sequence could be a fixed one to be followed at every competition or a flexible one as desired by the siting referee. A typical procedure could be: Min.1 : M21 (probably 2 competitors together according to the parallel start system); Min.2: M60 and W21 ; Min. 3: M50 and W35 ; Min. 4 : M40 and W19 ; Min. 5 : M 19 and W 50. l Each category has to search first for a tx as indicated by the siting referee. This offers the siting referee chances to plan 9 very individual courses with route choices requiring high quality direction finding. For the competitors this system will reduce nervousness at the start as they know which tx they have to find first. On the way to this first tx they can take bearings of the other tx they have to find and decide on their further route. One start channel is adequate. If a corridor must be marked should be decided by the starting referee.
Reasons: Pros: l Siting referee will have much more transmitter combinations available and he will be able to build courses technically and physically appropriate to particular categories l Significantly decreased concentration of competitors around transmitters l Significantly decreased number of parallel course sections of particular categories, which will result in more uniform distribution od competitors over the competition area and will minimize the chance of „following“. l Even „weaker“ categories will search for at least 4 –5 transmitters. l System is already tested at national level in CZE.
Cons: l Doubles number of technical equipment in the field l Doubles number of referees at the transmitters l 3 channels needed - need of modification of all 2m receivers l This system differs from „normal“ competitions organized at local level (need of retuning, more transmitters to be searched for and, what is more difficult, to be considered at tactical decisions)
Recommendation: not to adopt this point for now, continue testing at national level
3. Some considerations on parallel starts system Reason: Experience from using says that there is only small problem with following, but worse problem with many competitors in the terrain at the same time. which is even worse than the first. Also rules for qualifying and selecting competitors who start together are not very exact. At all competitions, where parallel starts were used, were not equal start intervals between competitors of the same category (for example, at 10:00 started two competitors, at 10:05 none, at 10:10 one.. etc, with no regularity). The resulting contribution was therefore only small (max. 1 hour) and not worth all complications and bad feelings of competitors. The system was very quickly pushed into life and not properly tested at lower level competitions.
Recommendation: Increase a limit for using a system to 50. Make further considerations about balloting procedure used at parallel starts.
4. Other Rules changes Recommendation: to discuss and prepare the final wording for the WG Plenary Meeting 2006.
|
||||
