Ringing Forums

I have always assumed it's a combination of practicality and machismo. One might draw a parallel with country dancing, which had some similarities, albeit shorter, less complex performances.

there are tw approaches to using the coursing order in Gradsire: the usual one and the one I worked out for myself. The former uses the whole order, which has to be transposed every lead but is unchanged by a bob. The approach I discovered treats the hunt bell separately and only changes at a call. There are pros and cons with each.
I described the system I worked out in The Tower Handbook (now on my website). I think I might have written an article for The Learning Curve, but I can't check because a couple of years ago the CC website stopped providing a lot of the content to any non- recent browser, including my iPad, which is all I've got here.

we produced this a while ago.
http://www.odg.org.uk/sdb/services/banner.html
enlarged here
http://www.odg.org.uk/sdb/services/bannerdetail.html

I am not sure if everyone calls it sonic mapping, but we do in Birmingham. So the sequence was done in whole pulls with an additional bell coming in on each handstroke. — Simon Linford

sounds like partial firing to me. Strictly firing is a rising arpeggio but to the precision most people can manage it might as well be chords.

the effort is going into making the technology work properly, ie making sure that the measurements reflect the real forces under different conditions,which is harder than you might imagine. Also, trying to get a system that can be cheap enough to encourage widespread use.
As for your question, it would need to be more precise about what is meant by'pulling harder' and 'going faster'.

I wrote the last progress update for the RW in December 2019. CoViD disrupted things but there has been further work since then, and I am currently in correspondence with developers.

as a learner, I really need two practice nights a week, and general practices tended to be a bit of a waste when it was one go at rounds, — Tristan Lockheart

That's a good example of the inefficiency of the way people develop as ringers compared with many other skilled activities. One way to increase the efficiency, and potentially reducing the participant cost, would be the much more widespread use of simulators. That requires some investment and a culture change, but the payback is considerable in terms of the practice hours that can be provided per trainee hour, per week at a location, and per unit supporting effort.

How are you defining costs? In the context of cost being a barrier to progression in sport I think it would be interpreted as cost to the individual or family, for example buying equipment. in ringing there are hardly any such costs. The most notable would be the cost of transport to events, but while I am sure lack of transport limits some ringers I suspect it's not the monetary cost so much as th time cost.
The tuition costs, which would be born by the family of a child learning a sport are invisible in ringing because they are invariably born by the teacher and supporters as opportunity costs, which get overlooked when counting cash that changes hands.
In short, I think it would require great care to do a meaningful financial comparison between ringing and sport. You would need to take in many other factors and try to find valid equivalences.
And sadly, any valid lessons to emerge from such an analysis would probably fall on deaf ears because 'ringing is different' and 'ringing isn't like sport', and unlike in the real world, ringers don't like to talk about money and ringing in thee same sentence.

I think Peter is missing the point when I said 'what is the difference'. We all know the way things are done tends to be different, with ringers assuming they can have free use of facilities without formal agreements, and considering themselves generous if the make a token donation. But that wasn't what I asked.
What is the inherent difference between two groups using someone else's building and facilities in order to persue their activity that justifies one group paying a sensible amount with a formal agreement and the other group not doing so?
We like to think ringers are different, and we've got used to acting as if we are. But I think I would find it hard to make the case that it should be that way to someone who assumed that all groups shoul be treated similarly.

If the village choir hires the church for a concert or the local slimming group hires the church hall, those are very different circumstance — Peter Sotheran

Apart from changing the name of the group involved, what is the difference between a band of ringers booking the tower for a peal and a band of singers booking the nave for a a rehearsal?

agreed, it's like the bar structure in music. Perfect closed lead ringing does have an intriguing, somewhat breathless quality. But anything less than perfect sounds chaotic, since the random errors are the only structure.
With open leads the brain can use the dominan structure of the open leads to mask a small number of errors. So the listener hears blemishes added to a regular rhythm, rather than just blemishes.

there's a Learning Curve article about ringing Yorkshire Maximus. I would give you the URL but that's one of the bits of the CC website that refuses to work with my iPad. Look in the index.

I'm always cautious of that sort of ultra simple recipe (more commonly associated with Double Norwich).
In blue line terms the macro structure with two sets of work moving progressively in opposite directions each lead, is the same as Cambridge. But he complication is that in Cambridge the two sets of work are different (places and misses) whereas in Yorkshire they look the same (miss plus places). That can be confusing, especially since they aren't quite the same - in one you dodge with the Treble in the places and in the other you pass the Treble at the miss. And you have to remember whether miss or places comes first.
But what makes Yorkshire much easier to ring on higher numbers in practice is that the coursing order is only briefly disturbed near the Treble (I've during the places + miss) so it is preserved across the large area under the Treble. That makes the ropesight far easier than Cambridge, where as someone once said 'bells come at you from all over the place'.

not sure the argument about needing to control the handstroke (and by implication not needing to control the backstroke) holds water. Method ringing needs accurate control, including speed control, at both strokes. (I agree there is plenty of ringing where the backstrokes are not properly controlled, but that's a failing not a feature.).
Open lead and closed lead ringing are different and being able to do both is a useful skill for a competent band, but for a less expert band maybe not the highest priority.

not sure I would call myself experienced but I've called plenty of G7, usually the same quarter composition. I use coursing order but not the full order that change every lead. So the plain course has CO 5346 (2). The hunt bell is in brackets. The transpositions for positions that don't affect the 7 are easy and operate on a different pair (plus hunt bell) similar to the way they do in Major. Transpositions when the 7 goes in and out of the hunt are a bit more fiddly, which is why I prefer to keep 7 out of the hunt. I think I wrote it up in the conducting chapter of THB, which is on my website.

you refer to 'church funds' and 'the tower fund'. Are they the same thing?

the conversation is headed 'Ringing Forums - your thoughts. Those were my thoughts..
As a user I can't tell what features are designed in and what are the result of how it has been configured.

no, that's not an adequate excuse.
Some things the Forums do very well, for example opening a discussion at the first post you haven't read.
But whoever got that right didn't think about how it would interact with someone else's decision to break conversations into separate pages.

I just got caught out by the pagination again. I opened a discuion showing it had a post, read it and closed it, but couldn't understand why it was still flagged as having an unread post. I opened it again and only the post I'd seen was there. Then the penny dropped and I realised I was on p2. So I had th switch to p2 and then scroll down to the bottom. All rather sub optimal.
Also, I wanted this to be a reply to the previous post, to which it is directly linked. But for some reason the only option was to make a link.

Does the organist play for nothing, the choir sing for nothing, or the priest officiate for nothing? If not you could reasonably ask why you should ring for nothing.
You could also quite reasonably decide that you have more profitable things to do with your time.