Send Message
Weather | Buy&Sell | Forums |  |
Weather | Buy & Sell | Gallery | Forums | |
If the GPSTC stops aiming for the best as the best of its competitors do then that would be a loss. On the other hand getting new people involved is necessary to build a future, so perhaps a new web site and competition is needed for unapproved device users, to run on their own and also as a "feeder league" to the GPSTC. You could of course post to both comps if you wished. There seems to be some qualified voices here asking for change so perhaps we could respect what the GPSTC is and has been and aim to the future with a new product of your creation.
I do wonder what the "real" issue is with "approved" devices and the expectations of a second tier of the GPSTC. It doesn't read like a whole lot of sense, by my simple mind. I joined the GPSTC, purchased my gT31, moved to a GW60, which proved to be quite useful for 2 years before falling apart and now have moved onto the Motion and have enjoyed the accurate improvement and being a member of the GPSTC.
If a second tier was added, using non approved devices, what does this bring to the sport. In Netball, you have to use an approved "Netball". In Soccer, one must use an approved Soccer Ball, outside of that, in the local park you can kick a tin along, still call it soccer or netball, but you cant be judged accurately by it.
When all your mates have arrived back at the beach and are bragging about their exploits that day on the water, how can you judge your self and see improvement in your sailing if you are using a "Non Approved Device". It doesn't mean anything - we must be lucky up here in FNQ, as long as we all beat Fred, we go home happy 
.
So, I still don't see what a second tier non approved device will achieve. As so many have indicated, its about the camaraderie, being on the same page. Outside of that, just post what a great day you've had out on the water. We belong to the best sport in the world, and I just wonder if it deserves being pulled apart like it has been recently.
I said to the Windtech lads last week, its time i got back to "just having fun". Yes, use the device, but use it to show improvements in gibing and the like. With the guns on our team, I'm more than happy to last the first 2 days of a new month with beans, and watch them all drift off onto another page as the sessions stack up 
Just voted.
I get a good laugh at the argument that unapproved devices have no meaning. What meaning are they lacking. I use an unapproved GPS device for many sports all the time and it gives me plenty of meaning. I even use one for windsurfing and its results have meaning for me.
The truth is that 99.9% of the time it will read within a percent or so of an approved device. The tiny amount of time when it does not, it is pretty evident that something went wrong with GPS signal even if it does not tell you home many satellites it had like an approved one.
Another issue I see is if you allow 'other ' devices , will you allow every other gps device, no matter how bad it could be? who will decide? ...
Stop making stuff up vosadrian, third time. Do you believe people who actually have tried every possible device on the market looking for solutions to be wrong ? Do you know better than them ? Do you know better than timekeepers ? Do you, as an RF engineer, forgot the importance of surface area ? Of polarization ? Of the battery draw required to keep data valid ? Do you not know that speed accuracy is part of computation and as such is definitely always known, always present ? That the only real decision is whether to publish it or not ? And that some manufacturers keep on making the conscious effort not to publish it ?
There's people out there working hard on this. They actually organize events, they actually curate records, they actually test devices, they actually know why a device you mentioned with its massive low-pass-filter to hide issues isn't valid. They also know that their workload is enough as it is, that some have been blatantly trying to game events, that many open events challenges have disappeared before due to curators exhaustion and the never ending quarrels.
To be clear, I'm all for unapproved devices. I'm all for growing the sport. Yet I know this part to be a massive undertaking where many have tried and stopped before for good reasons. As such, I'm all for it but not pushing for it. A similar project was just dropped.
, but he writes a mean story). The whole requirement of having a team structured sport, such as ours, across 5 hugely differing disciplines, needs a base point - and that point is an approved GPS's data. With out it, you don't have the beginnings with which you can start.
GPS accuracy is an issue that appears to be rather straightforward, but actually is rather complex. I am still learning about this issue, after spending hundreds of hours evaluating GPS units, building prototypes, and writing my own software to enable better comparisons. But I fully agree with the GPSTC decision makers about which GPS units are suitable for the competition aspect of the Team Challenge.
I had a really good session with my unapproved GPS, luckily GPSTC still allowed me to post my results and share the stoke with the other guys who had ripper sessions. Because my device was unapproved my numbers appeared as light grey, and my 2S, 5x10 and NM values were capped at a maximum of 29.9 knots and alpha at 19.9 knots. Was brilliant because this is the first time I had hit those limits. Maybe time I now buy an approved GPS and fully participate.
I went to a georeference workshop in California, o E of the speakers described "Precision" as a close cluster of darts somewhere on the dart boat. "Accuracy" is how close they are to the bullseye.
(edited gibberish)
Agreed that NO GPS device is '100% accurate' In fact, pretty much no device or measurement ever invented is. There is always an error margin.
The point is that with the approved devices, we actually know what that error margin is.
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.
In the GPSTC output shown above, why not add a column that shows what device was used, then let 'em all in?
By seeing the results from various devices, we could learn a lot about the quality of the results. We could still be reminded that results from only certain devices can be used to recognize official speeds. Asterisk the others, but keep them readable.
The worry is that this might make for too much ongoing work for the site owners.
