Identifying the optimum route is central to the calculation of ideal time, and central to the sport of ARDF itself. After all, the goal of each competitor is to determine the optimum route based on receiver measurements as early as possible in a competition. So the process of identifying the optimum route also reveals how the sport is played at an elite level.
Elite ARDF competitors are so familiar with the principles of optimum route and ideal time that they can derive them from a quick analysis of a competition map. (If you haven’t mastered these concepts yet, it just might be what’s holding you back from getting to the next level of ARDF competitiveness.) Those wanting to learn about these concepts can benefit from a systematic approach for deriving them. This writing describes such an approach.
Needed Materials
- Official course map(s) showing precise locations of Start, Finish, corridors, and all foxes.
- Identity of those foxes required for the course category being analyzed.
- Detailed reports of any course conditions likely to have impacted finishing times: e.g., unusually high or low temperature, flooded terrain, transmitter malfunctions, etc.
Identify the Optimum Route Candidates
Optimum route determination takes into consideration the following criteria:
1. Minimum length
2. Maximum runnability
3. Timing of transmitters
The optimum route is based on the official competition map information and any other information provided to the competitors prior to starting their runs. Actual course conditions that differ from the map or organizers’ information should be considered if it is likely to have impacted a competitors’ progress along the map-derived optimum route.
Start by identifying the fox order that results in the shortest straight-line route from the starting line to the finish line via all foxes on that course. Then map features are studied to identify steepness, vegetation, availability of trails, etc., and that information is used to bend the straight-line paths to follow the quickest route.
Accounting for Speed and Timing
Timing considerations assume that competitors began the competition at the correct point in the fox transmission sequence (at the instant that fox #1 begins its transmission) and that all foxes were synchronized and functioned correctly. Timing calculations utilize an ideal competitor who runs at a pace consistent with a healthy elite athlete in the age/gender category of the course under consideration. Consideration for fatigue should be applied as appropriate to account for the physical challenges of the course.
All foxes are assumed to be found while they are on the air. It is possible (even likely) that some foxes will be found off-cycle, especially those located in locations with little vegetation and lacking large objects that might conceal the flag. But ARDF rules only require that a flag be visible from the location of the fox antenna. So a competitor cannot know ahead of time whether a flag will be plainly visible or not. Even in runnable forests, the direction of arrival can determine whether a flag is visually obscured. In World Championship courses the flags will be intentionally placed to keep them out of plain view. For this and other reasons, it is almost always to a competitor’s advantage to arrive within sprinting distance of a fox at the point in time when it begins a transmission. So time is always synchronized to the fox cycles, except for the sprint to the finish beacon.
Transmission timing considerations mean that some competitors might achieve finish times that are less than the ideal time. That is an indication that some transmitters were likely located off cycle. It is not due to a deficiency in the ideal time calculation.
The process for applying fox timing and running speed to determine the optimum finish time follows:
Begin at the starting line and the first transmission of fox #1. Trace along the route to where the elite competitor would be after each complete cycle, adding one complete cycle period to the competitor’s time. Continue until reaching a point that is approximately a 1-minute sprint (for Classic format) from the first fox along the route. You have now identified the location and time at which an elite competitor will be able to reasonably sprint to the fox once it comes on the air. Now, assume that the competitor sprints to and reaches the flag at the end of that fox’s next transmission. Add the appropriate amount of time to the competitor’s elapsed time to account for waiting for the fox’s transmission to commence.
Proceeding from the location of the first fox, continue to trace along the route toward the next fox, marking the end of each full cycle and adding appropriate time. When you reach the point that is a 1-minute sprint from the next fox repeat the process followed for the first fox: have the competitor wait until that fox begins its next transmission. The fox is assumed found at the end of its transmission, and the elapsed time is added appropriately. Continue in this manner until each fox on the course has been found. Then continue the process to the beacon transmitter and the finish line.
The total elapsed time you calculate is potentially the ideal time. But apply the analysis described above to any other optimum route candidates you identified to see if they might result in shorter finish times. The route providing the shortest finish time is the optimum route, and the calculated finish time is the ideal time for the course.
Limitations
Ideal time is not perfect. There can be differences in opinion between skilled ARDF professionals performing ideal time calculations. Rarely, if ever, do the differences in opinion amount to as much as a transmit cycle. Usually, it is no more than a few minutes. If ideal times will be used in a formula for competitor ranking, then it is best to have at least two persons calculate ideal times and to compare their results. In the event that they cannot agree on an ideal time, then the results should be subject to a tie-breaker analysis by a third party.
It seems unlikely that the amount of error involved in ideal time calculation would result in significant shifts in USA ARDF competitor rankings such that it would affect any competitor’s prospects for team selection. But even in the unlikely event that it does someday result in swapping 3rd and 4th places in a fully-represented category, the Team Selection Subcommittee always has the authority to apply fairness principles to ensure that a fair and equitable decision is made. That is as it should be since no ranking system will ever be perfect.