Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
Walk in someone else's shoes? Try to understand why everyone is upset?

Adrian is windsurfing on a budget. To him, saying he has to spend $300+ often to replace a GPS that has questionable advantages but well documented disadvantages is offensive. Suddenly disallowing a device that he has used for many years, without any harm to the competition, does not seem to accomplish anything; it almost looks like a direct swipe at him.

Andrew has been speedsurfing at the highest level for decades. He has very closely experienced how important the introduction of accuracy estimates was for a valid results at the top end of the competition, where 0.1 knots sometimes make a difference. He has spend a lot of time looking at GPS accuracy and talking to people who know even more about it than he does. But his decisions are constantly questioned. Sometimes, it is by people to whom the question is new, for example because their approved device suddenly stopped working. More often, he hears the same arguments from the same people, who never acknowledge the validity of anything they disagree with.

Julien has spent a lot of his time to develop the best GPS for speedsurfing on the market. He keeps control of all possible aspects of the production so he can be sure the quality is there and he can honor warranties, rather than just outsourcing production for a quick buck. He has closely worked with the GPSTC to make sure the device works well for the competition, at times changing his decisions even against his personal opinions. Given demand, he could easily sell the Motion at twice the price and make more money, but he chooses to keep it as affordable as possible. But even though there is no way he can possibly meet the demand, he is accused of selfish reasons when he posts.

Everyone is pissed. Is that what we wanted? If not, can it change? Or can we remember that we all love windsurfing fast, albeit with different goals and constraints that can lead to different preferences?

As for the poll, responses have gone down to a trickle, so I'll disable new responses within the next day or two. I'll leave it open a little longer for anyone who has not yet gotten around to answering it.

Great post.

For the record, I am not questioning whether Julien's device is a great device for windsurfing. I am sure it is among the best. I am also not questioning whether having error data is useful for determining if bad data gave an inflated result. I am also not questioning that the data used for competitive results should be held to a high standard. I agree that if you are setting records and contributing to competition that the data should be the highest quality available (but I would probably draw the line differently to others here, as clearly some parameters like distance and NM are much less likely to benefit from bad data).

I do question the notion that unapproved data has no meaning that is presented by some here. It may the case for them. But if I use the same device all the time and see my results improving and I am careful to filter out data that is obviously incorrect, I see a lot of value in the data. One man's rubbish is another mans treasure. Any comments of mine above were not having a swipe at the accuracy of approved devices. They were just trying to establish that many users would be satisfied with +/- 1 knot accuracy and no error data if the compromise is a more reliable/convenient/cheaper device. For them 1 knot error matters little.

I do think that other than the obvious hurdle of the cost/effort of implementation, a two tier system addresses above allowing those who wish to be competitive to do so without being shafted by bad data and those who do it for social reasons to do so without having to deal with the negative of paying for, obtaining and maintaining an approved device. Such a system would encourage users who become competitive to get an approved device so they can be competitive. I like the graphic posted with data greyed out. But even just the (T) or (D) is enough to determine that with less effort. I do not agree with the 30kn 2S limit and 20kn alpha limit. The data is unapproved. It is not contributing to team results or public records. IMHO let someone monitor personal records... what harm does it have for others?

And yes, you are right. I used a legacy device for many years and all the bad data from it is already there in the database and filling all my PRs. My new device is probably better and I really just want to keep doing what I was doing competing against myself, but now the old device is out-ruled and the new device cannot be used. It would have been great to be able to compare results to older results but the current rules don't allow me to do that without spending lots of $$$ and then hoping it keeps working when I have a device on my wrist that does all I want from a device.

I am not sure where the poll sits at the moment. And I do agree that the results would be biased. But regardless of that, I think the Poll does show that a significant proportion of GPSTC users and potential GPSTC users support a two tier system. Probably not as high as 90% as the poll suggests, but surely even 30% makes it worthy of consideration?

The poll is now closed. 106 people responded. 90 chose "Yes" to the question "Should GPSTC allow "non-ranking" postings from non-approved GPS devices?". 16 chose "No".

Daffy's often-repeated statements that this is something that only very few people want has been soundly disproven.

Some have argued that the number of responses was low, and that most GPSTC members who have not responded must be against change; but if that argument had any value, should it not also apply to the even lower number of responses that Hardie received to his post where he threatened to shut down GPSTC?

We live in a time where insulting those who disagree, and telling them to "leave", has become very fashionable. In hindsight, hearing a number of such responses is not really a surprise. But the vast majority of comments in the poll was different - constructive and open to the concerns of others. That's worth remembering when the other voices are louder, or simply state "no more discussion".

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
The poll is now closed. 106 people responded. 90 chose "Yes" to the question "Should GPSTC allow "non-ranking" postings from non-approved GPS devices?". 16 chose "No".

Daffy's often-repeated statements that this is something that only very few people want has been soundly disproven.

Some have argued that the number of responses was low, and that most GPSTC members who have not responded must be against change; but if that argument had any value, should it not also apply to the even lower number of responses that Hardie received to his post where he threatened to shut down GPSTC?

We live in a time where insulting those who disagree, and telling them to "leave", has become very fashionable. In hindsight, hearing a number of such responses is not really a surprise. But the vast majority of comments in the poll was different - constructive and open to the concerns of others. That's worth remembering when the other voices are louder, or simply state "no more discussion".

Thank you for doing this poll and for sharing your opinions on a public forum in a professional manner.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
The poll is now closed. 106 people responded. 90 chose "Yes" to the question "Should GPSTC allow "non-ranking" postings from non-approved GPS devices?". 16 chose "No".

Daffy's often-repeated statements that this is something that only very few people want has been soundly disproven.

Some have argued that the number of responses was low, and that most GPSTC members who have not responded must be against change; but if that argument had any value, should it not also apply to the even lower number of responses that Hardie received to his post where he threatened to shut down GPSTC?

We live in a time where insulting those who disagree, and telling them to "leave", has become very fashionable. In hindsight, hearing a number of such responses is not really a surprise. But the vast majority of comments in the poll was different - constructive and open to the concerns of others. That's worth remembering when the other voices are louder, or simply state "no more discussion".

I for one, did not want to validate the poll (which was going to open a big can of worms and increase interpersonal conflict) by participating in it.
Secondly, it is a season of little wind in many places in Aus, and forum participation is very low at the moment as a result. I have only just come across this thread...
I doubt the vote registered is representative of the whole GPSTC community.

Select to expand quote

Windxtasy said..

Secondly, it is a season of little wind in many places in Aus, and forum participation is very low at the moment as a result. I have only just come across this thread...
I doubt the vote registered is representative of the whole GPSTC community.

I agree with above... but it does have value in proving that the notion that "only a few people want change" is false. The results show that there are 90 people who would like change. It is likely this is underestimated just like the people who don't want change is underestimated. I think we can safely say that there are >100 people who would like it changed to accept unapproved devices in a lower tier, and it is likely considerably more.

Current results are around 85% in favour. Being conservative, if a more complete participation in the poll were achieved, could it come down to 30%? Even it were just 30%, is this not significant enough to be worthy of consideration? In the past the idea of unapproved devices has been completely dismissed.

Select to expand quote

boardsurfr said..
The poll is now closed. 106 people responded. 90 chose "Yes" to the question "Should GPSTC allow "non-ranking" postings from non-approved GPS devices?". 16 chose "No".

Daffy's often-repeated statements that this is something that only very few people want has been soundly disproven.

Some have argued that the number of responses was low, and that most GPSTC members who have not responded must be against change; but if that argument had any value, should it not also apply to the even lower number of responses that Hardie received to his post where he threatened to shut down GPSTC?

We live in a time where insulting those who disagree, and telling them to "leave", has become very fashionable. In hindsight, hearing a number of such responses is not really a surprise. But the vast majority of comments in the poll was different - constructive and open to the concerns of others. That's worth remembering when the other voices are louder, or simply state "no more discussion".

Thank you, boardsurfr, for setting up the poll, relaying the results and for conducting yourself immaculately despite all of the slings and arrows. No matter what the end result of it all at least we know that it was more than just a handful of "f**wits" , "whingers", "whiners" and "idiots" who love the GPSTC but just wanted some changes considered.

I'm with you Boston. Thanks to boardsurfr for having the time and the foresight to hold the poll.
I have not bothered to join clamour or is roar of other threads simply because as with jelly beans my participation makes little to no difference.
However my participation in the GPSTC does have meaning for me whether its with an approved device or my old Garmin Geko, and yes I was 1 of the 90.
Bring on the change GPSTC. Lets be inclusive and engender participation as was originally intended.

I agree. All people are doing is asking a question. I think it's a valid question IMO.

Yep, respects to the owner/operators of GPSTC. As an ex-IT specialist, and Electronics tech, I am fully aware of the engineering undertaking involved. People may think this is a quick job. The change is small and easy, but the effort to test this system is huge.

I was too late for the poll because it's off season in Australia. I tried to vote but it was closed. I would have voted for no change. So that's another one you can add to the list of NO voters.

I feel this entire question has been misshandled such that it has caused division in the community out of all proportion with the importance of the question. It's effect has been destructive. Hopefully GPSTC will come out of it unscathed. If not Boardsrfer will have ruined it for the rest of us.

Select to expand quote

Shifu said..
>>>>>
I feel this entire question has been misshandled such that it has caused division in the community out of all proportion with the importance of the question. It's effect has been destructive. Hopefully GPSTC will come out of it unscathed. If not Boardsrfer will have ruined it for the rest of us.

I'm sure we'll be OK.
I visited Nebs yesterday, he's very confident he can sort the changes without too much trouble, it'll be business almost the same as usual as soon as he gets round to it.

And I don't think it's fair to blame boardsrfr, there was plenty of heated discussion before the poll started. I thought the poll was a good idea initially. It let us see just how small the group of "stirrers" is.
Turns out it's not that small.
Neither Peter or I anticipated the amount of bad feeling it would generate!
The main problem is the unsatisfactory nature of the GW60, and the unfortunate lag in production of the motion.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Shifu said..
>>>>>
I feel this entire question has been misshandled such that it has caused division in the community out of all proportion with the importance of the question. It's effect has been destructive. Hopefully GPSTC will come out of it unscathed. If not Boardsrfer will have ruined it for the rest of us.

I'm sure we'll be OK.
I visited Nebs yesterday, he's very confident he can sort the changes without too much trouble, it'll be business almost the same as usual as soon as he gets round to it.

And I don't think it's fair to blame boardsrfr, there was plenty of heated discussion before the poll started. I thought the poll was a good idea initially. It let us see just how small the group of "stirrers" is.
Turns out it's not that small.
Neither Peter or I anticipated the amount of bad feeling it would generate!
The main problem is the unsatisfactory nature of the GW60, and the unfortunate lag in production of the motion.

Nailed it

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..>>> It let us see just how small the group of "stirrers" is.
Turns out it's not that small.

Hmm, rereading, that doesn't come out quite as I meant. I didn't mean that every person that voted for a two tier was a "stirrer".

Select to expand quote

red said..

kato said..
I do

I'm still trying to get my head around this ... if an added tab for non approved devices that doesn't affect the original GPSTC concept ( approved devices only vs approves devices only) how will this change it? The people who love the competitiveness and accuracy of it will not be affected at all... in anything it will only strengthen speed sailing in the long run...
Reminds me of a sport I use to do in the 80's and 90's that got high tech and specialised ... it faded away until it reinvented itself with user friendly gear and became about fun again.... can't remember the sport though...

This is not really my idea, but rather, it is based on some ideas already sketched out in the GPSTC with the "Doppler", "Trackpoint", and "Unknown" postings. However, full implementation will require some changes and incur costs. The poll is intended to get an idea how many people think such a two-tier system makes sense. Is this just a small but very vocal group? Or would many current GPSTC members like to be able to use other devices for "recreational" postings?

Select to expand quote

VAILIYATBEN said..

red said..

kato said..
I do

I'm still trying to get my head around this ... if an added tab for non approved devices that doesn't affect the original GPSTC concept ( approved devices only vs approves devices only) how will this change it? The people who love the competitiveness and accuracy of it will not be affected at all... in anything it will only strengthen speed sailing in the long run...
Reminds me of a sport I use to do in the 80's and 90's that got high tech and specialised ... it faded away until it reinvented itself with user friendly gear and became about fun again.... can't remember the sport though...

This is not really my idea, but rather, it is based autoclicker.pro/ wordunscrambler.onl/ jumblesolver.pro/ on some ideas already sketched out in the GPSTC with the "Doppler", "Trackpoint", and "Unknown" postings. However, full implementation will require some changes and incur costs. The poll is intended to get an idea how many people think such a two-tier system makes sense. Is this just a small but very vocal group? Or would many current GPSTC members like to be able to use other devices for "recreational" postings?

This is not really my idea, but rather, it is based on some ideas already sketched out in the GPSTC with the "Doppler", "Trackpoint", and "Unknown" postings. However, full implementation will require some changes and incur costs. The poll is intended to get an idea how many people think such a two-tier system makes sense. Is this just a small but very vocal group? Or would many current GPSTC members like to be able to use other devices for "recreational" postings?

Quote