[r-t] Method difficulty

[Philip Earis]

Peter:
"Certainly the symmetry of sections has something to do with it. Glasgow
has symmetric sections, except for the first, whereas Belfast has all
asymmetric sectins (except the second, Bristol (and all the standard 8)
has all symmetric sectins. Arguably Belfast is harder than Glasgow which
is (certainly) harder than Bristol"

This has all aroused my curiosity.  Two questions: 

1) How many of the rung treble-dodging major methods have no symmetric
sections? Can someone do a database trawl?  I suspect the answer is a
very small fraction of the total number of rung methods.

2) What do people suggest is the 'hardest' t.d. major method that has
all symmetric sections? Hardness is bit of a relative concept anyway, as
I guess I'm making the assumptions that it will have conventional
symmetry and regular leadheads.  So I guess the question is, what are
candidates regular t.d. major methods with all symmetric sections that
have the most varied lines/grids?
 

"Somehow this is also dependent on whether you are ringin in hand or
tower. Beverley & Surfleet are pretty straightforward in the tower but I
find them tricky in hand (maybe that's just a comment on my handbell
ringing ability or lack thereof!)"

I agree entirely with this.  More than one person in Cambridge has found
ringing Beverley in hand to be quite a lot harder than other methods
usually considered more difficult.

"I think your basic premise about changes of direction is right, but how
to account for those chunks of familiar work (long-london, cambridge
places etc)?"

Would Richard Smith's idea be successful here?  I think some simulations
with a test-set of methods are needed...






DISCLAIMER:

This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.