No Ballast and Mutli Radius Turnpoint

Discipline

Paragliding XC

What do we want ?

Flying heavy is an advantage in XC competitions. This leads to heavy equipment and pilots forced to fly with ballast.
Ballast reduces safety and
Effectively light pilots are excluded from top competition. The average adult human is 62Kg worldwide so most people are excluded!
I have been working on how to overcome this issue for many years and tested many scoring systems to solve this.

How do we achieve that ?

The best solution I have found to solve this issue is MRT competitions.
MRT stands for Multi Radius Turnpoints.
We have been evolving this system for some years and now it works well.
The last event using this system was the Weightless in Laragne in August 2025.
The system is still exxperimental, but with each even we make big progress forward.

Issue category :

task setting

Competition format

Link

http://facebook.com/flybgd/videos/723453743805740/

Comments

CIVL Delegate

By Julien Garcia on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 16:30

Thanks Bruce !
Before stating this solution won't work for tactical or strategical concern (advantage of gaggle flying, leading points escarmouche...), I'd like to think some more and get more detailed datas about radius compensation and total distance flow. It is something we used a lot in comp training and that indeed allow to keep the pack together when done correctly. Much better than the nothing at all currently done since years.

Organiser

By Toni Crottet on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 18:32

If optional, this is ok. I guess in the Alps, where you want to have that exact turnpoint there and not bigger (also because of safety) to guide pilots around an obstacle (like we do with our lake) it is not useful. Or much more headache for a tasksetter.

Haveing different radi for different glider types (we tried in HG) does in our area (alpine and sub-alpine) completely change the task and the tactical thinking behind.

Also, I am a bit against makeing tasks / tasksetting and scoring more complicated as it already is. Important that the pilots in the air understands what is going on. The case: If you are a number 1-5 pilot at the ranking, you don't race against the whole field, you just race against the 3-8 pilots around you in the ranking. Now imagine you have to know which radius your oponents has to take in order to have a idea on what is going on.

By Jonas Prüssing on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 22:21

I’d like to return to a solution we had in the past — offering different harness sizes for pilots. There’s already a strong correlation between body weight and harness size, but we could take this further by developing harnesses that provide additional protection for heavier pilots.
Simply put: the heavier I am, the more protection I need installed under my seat plate. This approach would not only help balance the aerodynamic advantages of larger wings but also increase safety for heavier pilots, who experience higher impact forces due to greater energy in the system.
In the past, we had different harness sizes for bigger pilots, so this topic wasn’t much of an issue. However, since modern “submarine” harnesses have become similarly efficient across sizes, it has turned into a real concern.
From my point of view, the solution is straightforward: a smart harness design that allows adjustable protection — and possibly drag — depending on the pilot’s weight.

By Gianni Profiti on Tue, 21 Oct 2025 - 23:42

I'm a bit concerned about safety in case of MRT.
In nowadays PG high level comp pilots are not spread along the course but moving in a gaggle.
Therefore, let's imagine that pilot A flying an L size and pilot B flying an M size are flying next to each other towards TP1 and the next TP2 is on the right, there are two cases.
Case 1: pilot A is on the the left of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues to reach his radius (shorter) and then turns right. No problem at all.
Case 2: pilot A is on the the right of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues straight to reach his radius. Pilot B most likely would crash into pilot A.

Designer

By Luc Armant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 00:17

I don't see how MRT can deal with a well controlled fairness.
Pilots are flying different task depending on their weight. But how do we set them so they compensate fairly the difference of performance.
Even if we find a ratio of total optimized distance to apply, it does not work very well in practical because the MRT can send the pilots in different places. For example, in heavy sink for the heavier pilot.
The other big problem is that it messes up the group dynamic also bringing unavoidable unfairness. For example, if there is just one heavy pilot on a group, the MRT will leave him out of the group dynamic which we know is a huge part of the performance.

By magdalenajanaway on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 08:05

Two high level competitions only this year showed me that certain people should not be in charge of making tasks for XC PG competitions if i want to be safe flying them. I can only imagine what would have happen with added complication of MRTs.

Designer

By BruceG on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 09:42

We have been working on this subject for 10 years and the solutions have evolved a lot over that time.
Much of the discussions on the Whatsapp have already been tried and put aside over this long testing period (like Weight classes).

The latest version of MRT worked as follows:
- Pilots are weighted at registration and can fly at any weight they want (spot checks later also).
They are then divided into the 10 weight categories.
The task is set on launch for the top weight category (125+kg), and the scoring system calculates the turn point radiuses for each turn point to achieve the shorter task lengths for each weight group.
The amount of task length reduction is calculated from statistical analysis of previous competitions. The more competitions run using MRT the more accurate the statistical analysis will become.
Pilots receive a QR code with the task for their weight group on launch.
MRT is not applied to the start or finish/goal, only to turnpoints along the course.

In Laragne this was the system used and it went pretty smoothly. The QR codes worked really well.
The biggest difficulty was instruments that don't accept QR codes, but they were few.
In the air you hardly noticed the different task lengths, because it was the pilots who were naturally lagging behind were given a boost at each turnpoint bringing them back into the running.
Sometimes the radius change did not help, and sometimes it did. But having a shorter task length is definitely an advantage as it all averages out in the end.
It appeared to me that amount of compensation was about right. Pilots commented that if they had flown a smaller glider they would have ended with the same result, despite having less performance.

By christiaandurrant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 11:12

Basing MRT on weight and not on Wing Size addresses the issue of bigger pilots/profile drag. Nice.

Designer

By BruceG on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 09:19

My letter to CIVL - 8 years of Weightless.

Introduction.
Flying with a bigger glider is a signifiant advantage in competition. As a result heavier pilots tend to do better and most pilots fly larger gliders than their usual size and they carry ballast to be at the top of the weight range. We have now reached the stage where competition equipment is typically double the weight of free flying equipment.
This has lead to signifiant reduction in safety as well as a disadvantage for lightweight pilots. As the average weight of an adult worldwide is 62Kg, then the majority of pilots worldwide are significantly disadvantaged in competition.

The objective of the Weightless project is to study this issue and propose different ways of overcoming this problem.
After 8 years of evolution we have now the latest MRT scoring system. This allows lighter pilots to fly a shorter task and arrive in goal at the same time as the heavy pilots. The system is statistically tuned to compensate exactly for the advantage of weight.
The result is that pilots no longer need to fly with ballast, and lightweight pilots can also compete equally.

Some heavy weight pilots do not like this proposal! As many heavy weight pilots are now in key positions of management in the competition scene. So voting this proposal though may be difficult.

Background.
I have been flying competitions since 1985. Hang gliding at first then paragliding.
Thought my flying career I have consistently seen the advantage of weight, a little in Hang gliders and even more so in paragliders.
Weight gives you an advantage at speed stability and glide, great for “racing tasks”. Being light weight also has its advantages, mainly in weak tasks, where there is hardly enough lift to keep you in the air, I call these “survival tasks”. Tasks usually had a nice mixture of the two. Weak conditions as well as fast racing.
Over the years there have been several rules that have promoted racing and reduced the survival type tasks.
These rules are:
- Task validation (weak days invalid)
- Devaluing weak days (weak days low score)
- Dropped tasks (FTV)
- Easier tasks with high numbers in goal
- Certification regulations giving advantage to larger gliders

These rule changes have had the effect of increasing the advantage of flying heavy. So it is not only the aerodynamics that cause this but also the way the rules have been applied increasing the advantage of weight over the years.

When I won the World Championships I knew that as a 65Kg pilot this was one of the last competitions where a light pilot could win due to rule changes and the general direction in which competition is evolving.

As a result of this 8 years ago I started the Weightless project.
The idea was to investigate ways to remove the advantage of weight in competition, as well as discouraging the use of ballast.
Personally I had always refused to fly with significant ballast despite the pressure to do so.

Timeline.
2003 Article published in XC Mag called “Size Does Matter”

2018 1st Weightless Competition - Slovenia
Test of 3 Weight Classes

2019 2nd Weightless Competition - France
Handicap scoring system with 0.25% points advantage for every 1Kg

2019 Study on the effect of Weight on Paraglider performance.

2020 3rd Weightless Competition - Colombia
Introducing MRT style competition

2022 4th Weightless - Spain
Refining MRT scoring

2025 5th Weightless Competition - France
MRT with compensated task length and QR codes

2025 MRT accepted in gliding for many competitions (not Cat1).

At the first weightless competition we had 3 weight classes. This is similar to having the Reynolds Class which has been proposed in other FAI competitions. Unfortunealty this had the opposite effect to what was intended. Pilots simply carried ballast to be at the top of their weight class. One very keen pilot even carried more ballast to get into the class above his one class carrying 30kg of ballast. The idea simply did not achieve the objective.

At the second weightless the classes were effectively 1Kg though a proposed handicap scoring system. This method helped but was not a perfect system to compensate for weight. The biggest issue being that light pilots could not lead, which removed much of the fun of the race.

MRT was then created to help light pilots compete in the race on an even level. 3 competitions have now been run each with an improved version of the MRT system. The 2025 even showing great promise and achieving its goals to level the field and stopping the need for ballast.

The Numbers.
When discussing performance advantage due to weight it is important to understand that there are 3 components to this.
1. Glide Performance
2. Speed advantage
3. Dynamic effects

When we look at the amount of advantage between and XS to an XL glider, in these 3 subjects we see from the theoretical study that these are around 6% for best glide performance, 5% speed advantage and 25% dynamic advantage. All 3 of these factors constantly come into play in any competition. These factors add together to make a large difference of up to 20% between XS and XL gliders. Note that when discussing the performance difference often pilots only consider the range of 100-125Kg, as this is the only weights that competitors currently use in top level competition, the performance difference in this range is around 6%. The objective must be to change this so that pilots as light as 60Kg (PTV) can compete without ballast opening up competition to 3 times the current number of pilots.

Gliding.
I have been in contact with Nick Gilbert from Australia who says they have been using similar technology for gliding competitions.
https://dhtask.com/
DHTask, short for Distance Handicapped Tasking, is a method for conducting a racing task where task length is adjusted for each competitor based on their glider handicap. This is acheived by moving the centre of some or all turnpoints in such a way that gliders of lesser performance fly a task distance in proportion to their handicap. Contests are scored and tasks are set using SoaringSpot. DHTask applies a script to the task set in SoaringSpot and provides each competitor with access to a CUP file containing their task.
The task is flown & the competitor uploads (via a dhtask pilot portal) or emails their IGC trace and it is automatically scored via SoaringSpot as usual.
Task finishers are scored purely on elapsed time, as the handicapping has already taken place during the flight.

Conclusion.
MRT significantly improves safety by removing the advantage to fly with ballast as well as reducing congestion by avoiding local crowding at turn points. It also is expected to increase the participation of lighter pilots in competitions which could lead to a large increase in the popularity of competitions. The average weight of an adult human is 62Kg worldwide, and we should let these lighter pilots fly on an even playing field opening up competition to all.

By chrisb1 on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:41

Bruce, thanks to you and team for the effort you have put into MRT. Personally, as a hobbyist sports-class comp pilot, I think it's a very interesting direction (very generally: task scoring is already responsive to a range of factors, why should it not also be responsive to the additional factors MRT introduces).

I'm curious if you have been able to gather 'quantitative' data over the years of developing MRT what the preferences of the lighter pilots' are between what sounds like broadly two non-optimal choices? As you highlight above, with the "size/weight" issues interacting with the competition rules, how are these preferences different with and without MRT?

The two choices, perhaps oversimplified, being a) don't ballast up and accept the disadvantages/risk of the smaller gliders (performance, pilot demand, adverse events, ...) or b) fly a (somewhat) larger glider at the disadvantage/risk of carrying ballast? I understand that MRT intends to make (a) a much more available choice if being competitive is the goal but it does not remove what I understand to be a relatively higher risk in flying the (very) small gliders? I recall a recent podcast with a world-class pilot that mentioned they will blast up to some degree for that reason even with other "equalizer" systems in place due to this factor.

I'm not trying to burden MRT with solving every problem, this really is about learning more from the affected pilots (direct voices or indirectly through your work) what their view is. Perhaps the fact that MRT has 'only' been tested in CAT 2 competitions actually provides valuable insights here as lighter pilots may not participate in CAT 1 in the first place due to the challenges they currently face.

Organiser

By Richard Meek on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 14:35

Is there any data on the effects of this proposal on ESS/ goal crowding ? Will it have the tendency to increase the numbers arriving at ESS (and goal) at the same time ?

Designer

By BruceG on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 14:43

We have only run one competition with the latest version of the MRT system. This was a serial class competition with about 70 pilots.
There was a wide range of pilot levels and crowding was never an issue anytime in the competition.
However this is more from the number of pilots, level of pilot spread and very BIG site we were flying in, and is not really related to MRT.

By Markos Siotos on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 21:47

Conceptually is perhaps the boldest idea out there to solve the riddle. I would gladly participate in an MRT logic event, even though I am an 84kg pilot so I am not on the loosing side of the equation, just to see how it works and give it a fair chance. Having said that, I keep seeing scenarios that it would create different problems while it attempts to solve the main one. One example: Task that due to some necessity there is an almost 180 turn after a TP to the next. Without MRT, the Meet Director places his / her finger on that during briefing, and all having the same TP cylinder radius expect (and clearly see) where the people in front of them turn towards them. In the 10 (as described) different MRT's, the heavier guys while they are pushing bar to "their" radius will have people in front of them unexpectedly (to them) turn and face them head on, again, and again, and again, at different and unexpected instances....

Just a thought....

Organiser

By stan radzikowski on Tue, 28 Oct 2025 - 19:19

having been involved with creating tasks using MRT from the beginning there are several drawbacks to the system, and no its not because im a big pilot Bruce.

there are limited areas where you can use MRT to obtain the result that your looking for in terms of giving an advantage to the smaller pilots. Bruce mentioned during the podcast that one of the key factors is the distance required to fly to goal, in my opinion you first need the altitude to then convert that to distance. best example was one of the comps in Colombia using MRT where a group of small pilots that turned early all bombed within a few kms while me going all the way to the WP came to the house thermal (yes house thermal as it was a massive hotspot on my map) and climbed 5m/s to then go on glide again.

when tasking with any terrain involved, you are potentially going to end up sending people to places where you dont want them as a task setter, or you encounter unfairness in what pilots need to do to tag a TP, eg BGD in Gemona where the small pilots tagged a WP and turned back and the larger 3-4 groups had to climb to get over terrain to tag the point, then thermal again to get back.
the other factor when using in terrain, if using on a ridge run again it creates the massive surprise effect of people turning at random moments as they tag their individual WP's.
then when using on valley crossings to go across and go back, sure the small pilots turn earlier but they will either get back low and suffer to gain height again or will fly further into the WP than required to gain the height they need for the return trip.

it creates unpredictable gaggle movements approaching WPs, where you never know who will turn at which moment. typically your all on speed bar and when you have one WP radius you can time each others turns, it makes it almost impossible to predict who will turn and when while using mrt.

distance wise the main advantage is when used on WP's that are 90 degrees or more

if you have a task that is limited with how many WP's are used eg 3-4 WP's zigzagging a valley. MRT is almost no advantage for the smaller pilots.

how can you implement MRT regularly in each task?
as you have some tasks where you cant use MRT and others where you can, this is not actually giving smaller pilots an advantage its only the illusion of an advantage as there is no way to set a certain value of advantage during a comp when using MRT.

with the lack of ability to gain lead points we lose an element of the task that for some is valuable as they know or are able to push in the front to get some extra points that they may lose during final glides in time.

not to mention the smaller gliders can fit better in cores to out thermal bigger pilots ;)

By flyagain on Sun, 23 Nov 2025 - 04:10

From what I have seen, in order for MRT to work the task will need to be a ping-pong task. IE, the angles at each MRT turn point need to be quite acute with a zig-zag as a result.
Me, personally, I do not fly competitions to win, but use them as a form of XC with weather support and organised retrieve. This is what I think attracts many pilots to low level (FAI2) comps. Zig-zagging one or two valleys only (when a nice long straight-ish task could also be set) does not justify the annual leave time and money I have invested in joining a comp. In other words; The tasks will be less attractive with MRT.

As an aside, in an MRT comp, the first turn point is chaos and the rest of the "race" is as well. There are 5 or more different tasks being flown with the MRT system.
No idea if someone is on a better or worse line, or just on a "lighter" or "heavier" MRT. No idea who is in front or who is behind. Let alone with a thermal (or heavy sink) just inside an MRT, or just outside.
I know that this contradicts my previous "flying for XC" point but having everybody on the same task does help to judge good and bad lines.

The MRT system will definitely lead to everyone, who is seriously racing, to push full bar everywhere since you have no idea if the next turn point does not lead to an overtake or being overtaken. Full bar it is.
I have no data, but isn't the full bar flying, and emphasis on speed and not distance, that likely contributes significantly to accidents? (And potentially pilot re-trimming the wing to negate the speed limiter in CCC?)

In my opinion, if we need any weight/size equalising measures at all, these should be either purely mathematical, or there should simply be different weight classes.
More prizes, Yay!
Many sports have a weight/size differentiator and this is either accepted or weight classes are being used.

Tall swimmers are faster. Accepted.
Tall, heavier rowers are faster. Weight classes.
Tall athletes perform better in many athletic diciplines. Accepted.
Short climbers have generally an advantage over taller ones. Accepted.
Heavy combat sport fighters very much outperform lighter ones. Weight classes.
In none of these the equipment or the race length is adjusted.

I am afraid that there is no ideal solution for an aerodynamical weight/wing size induced problem.
Equalising the drag with "noodles" is just as silly but perhaps an option for FAI1 comps only.

Cheers.

Designer

By BruceG on Mon, 24 Nov 2025 - 13:07

All these comments are from pilots who have various theories about MRT but have never actually flown a comp using it.
In reality most of these arguments just are not an issue.
We hope that more comps will use MRT next year and then we will see be able to see how simple it is and how well it works.
I also hope we will also use glider class in the next MRT as well as weight in 2026.
Bruce

Organiser

By stan radzikowski on Mon, 24 Nov 2025 - 13:19

Bruce I’ve both flown multiple events, tasked multiple events using MRT including the year you and Tyr were locked in a hotel room in Gemona. SO you saying that comments are being made by people without experience with MRT is just untrue.

By flyagain on Mon, 24 Nov 2025 - 13:43

Bruce, I've flown the 2025 BGD Weightless.
I made my comments considering this experience.
I fully appreciate your years long effort towards this, but dismissing the comments as being from people who have not experienced this first hand is a bit too easy.

Designer

By BruceG on Mon, 24 Nov 2025 - 14:19

Hi Stan, Sorry I did not see it was you, and the other pilot 'Flyagain' is hard to know who that is.
This year we made a big step forward with MRT in the 2025 event with the overall task length adjusted mathematically based on statistics from previous events. Again in 2026 we will also make a similar improvement I hope. Every year gets better. Gliders (sailplanes) are also now using a similar format in some events.
Bruce