Hip Pocket Builders' Forum

Indoor Free Flight Forum => Peanut Scale => Topic started by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 08:43:16 AM



Title: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 08:43:16 AM
I thought I’d start a thread on the new UK Peanut rules, now that the dust has settled on their first implementation at the Indoor Nats. Obviously, if anyone wants their views to count towards any changes, then they need to express themselves to the STC directly, and I know Mike Stuart has already asked for email feedback. This thread is really just to get an informal discussion going and to see if anyone makes points others might not have considered. I don’t think I’ll ever be competitive in Peanut myself. It’s hard and I much prefer building and flying rather larger models. Even so, my instinct at the moment is that the Peanut rules were better before the recent changes.
The attached pics are text from Eric Coates’s Flying Scale column in the June 1974 Aero Modeller. At the time, Peanut was about to become a UK competition class for the first time. Eric outlines his and the STC of the day’s reasons for the upcoming UK rules differing from the rules in the USA (where Peanut had already been going for some years).


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 13, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Hullo Pete,

Would someone be able to summarise the changes or point me in the direction of the new rules please? I'm familiar with the old rules but somewhat out of touch these days...

Cheers,
Jon


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 09:00:43 AM
Would someone be able to summarise the changes or point me in the direction of the new rules please? I'm familiar with the old rules but somewhat out of touch these days...
Jon, yes sorry- I should have kicked off with that in any case!
I will post a synopsis of the new rules (or a link) ASAP but need to go out now so it’ll be later. (Or maybe some kind person will do it for me in he meantime.)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 13, 2022, 09:03:30 AM
Jon,
the new peanut rules are on pages 112-114 inclusive, of the new scale rule book.
Gary


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 10:56:10 AM
Thanks, Gary. Here's the link: BMFA SCALE RULES (https://britishmfa.sharepoint.com/sites/public/Rule%20Books/Forms/AllItems.aspx?ga=1&id=%2Fsites%2Fpublic%2FRule%20Books%2FRule%20Books%2F2022%20BMFA%20SCALE%20RULE%20BOOK%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2Fpublic%2FRule%20Books%2FRule%20Books)
Also screen shots of the Peanut pages (112-114) attached.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 13, 2022, 11:30:27 AM
Thanks. I've just found this: https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=24802.0

I remember there was some controversy but had forgotten the implications of the changes (still not sure I understand!)
It used to be 50/50 static and flight score didn't it?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 13, 2022, 11:36:48 AM
Yep, now it's triple your best score...
Daft.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 02:47:45 PM
I've just found this: https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=24802.0
Thanks- I knew there'd been some pre-Nats discussion already on here, but forgot to bookmark that thread. I don't get the logic behind the triple score either. Also, whilst I can see why you now only need one good flight in Kit Scale (to bring it in line with the other Open classes) I really don't understand why the 'best flight only' rule was applied to Peanut. It's now more of a duration event than ever, so why aren't consistently good flight times rewarded? And why would anyone maxing on their first flight bother to fly again for the rest of the day?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Squirrelnet on May 13, 2022, 03:08:20 PM
Quote
I don't get the logic behind the triple score either.

Quote
It's now more of a duration event than ever,

From my memory of the rule changes, a while ago now, I thought that was exactly the stated aim to make our rules more like the US rules and make it more of a duration event.

I think I preferred Eric Coates philosophy of emphasis on scale models so I would favour a roll back on the rules too. It would also bring us back into line with international comps like Nijmegen which can only be a good thing

I have not entered Peanut , though I had a peanut in the kit scale this year. My reasons for not entering were more to do with 4 classes being a step too far but looking back it's interesting that Peanut is one I dropped


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: DHnut on May 13, 2022, 03:26:53 PM
The revised F4 FAI rules have now been ratified and have left the Peanut rules the same. They are very close to the American rules and use the same scoring system. The whole section has been tided up and is much clearer.
Ricky


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: TheLurker on May 13, 2022, 03:30:31 PM
Quote from: Gary Dickens
Yep, now it's triple your best score...
That change puzzles me.  It seems to discourage consistency and introduce an element of chance.  Get one "lucky" flight of 50s and no other qualifying times and static scores being equal you'll beat the bod who got (say) 3 49s flights.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 03:39:08 PM
From my memory of the rule changes, a while ago now, I thought that was exactly the stated aim to make our rules more like the US rules and make it more of a duration event.
Ok, but why? It's a UK Scale Nats class after all, and a very well established one at that, and hardly anyone flies their models both here and in the US.
On a related Duration vs Scale note, I also don't understand the Nocal rule that lets people change their chosen subject's scale dimensions (including even its wing area) without any given non-scale limits at all. Seems like a controversy just waiting to happen to me. I'm probably missing something though.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Squirrelnet on May 13, 2022, 03:43:55 PM
Quote
Ok, but why?

I fear that question has been asked too many times over all the recent rule changes. My feeling is rolling back the rules to a time when people weren't asking these questions would solve a whole load of problems


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: DHnut on May 13, 2022, 05:28:24 PM
Chris,
         Who drove your rule change and were they current active fliers? When the F4 revision was done, the working party were all active current fliers, and also a wider parish were consulted as part of the process. This produced some valuable feedback from 4 countries. UK was represented.
Ricky


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 05:55:47 PM
Oh dear- I may regret starting this thread as the worm can of how/who/why the rules got changed might now be best left on the shelf! (And yes, I know I asked that myself!)
I am interested to know if anyone actually prefered any of the new Peanut rules to the old ones though, or if anyone's mind changed after seeing them in action? If not, then putting them back to normal will surely happen soon.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 13, 2022, 06:24:00 PM
I had a conversation at Old Warden with one of the people responsible for the rule change. I mentioned how poorly my coloured tissue model did in static (mý fault, of course) compared to the painted models which won and he apologised, saying the whole idea was to go back to the coloured tissue type models of old and he said he was disappointed that painted models took the first two places.
Gary


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 13, 2022, 07:02:21 PM
Gary, if he wanted the rules to give tissue covered models an edge over potentially heavier sprayed ones then why did he introduce the 60s max I wonder? It takes away the very light model’s duration advantage and he must’ve known that a few of our best Peanut competitors could still max out with a spray painted model.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Jack Plane on May 14, 2022, 02:39:52 AM
I don't have the answer but looking, as an example, at my own placing in which as a very middling player in both duration (max 43secs) and static (didn't quite make 30 points with a coloured tissue model with some documentation issues etc) I came 7th...

If my time improved by the following increments of seconds, then under the new and old rules (but ignoring the changes to the static scoring system which is too complicated to compare) I'd have placed as follows:

+17secs - 2nd new rules (6th old)
+13secs - 3rd new rules (6th old)
+11secs - 4th new rules (9th old)
+06secs - 5th new rules (9th old)
As placed - 7th new rules (10th old)

So the new rules certainly benefit people like me, who like to build relatively simple non-sprayed models which can be made to fly for a fairly good duration (my Puss Moth easily has another ten seconds or more in it, just a question of sorting out the power-train starting with a better prop than the old cut-down plastic jobbie).  But the new rules penalise people like, for example, Mike Stuart who's excellent sprayed Vought Kingfisher came 5th but would have come 2nd under the old rules.  Under the old rules Nick Peppiatt, who won under the new ones, would have come joint 3rd, while Mike Hadland, who came 2nd, would have won as usual.

Thus it seems that it is perfectly possible to at least get a podium place with either type of model under both the new and old rules:  just that if one builds a coloured-tissue model one has to ensure it also scores as well as possible in static, and if one builds a highly-detailed sprayed one then one has to ensure that it is light enough to fly for long enough!


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: billdennis747 on May 14, 2022, 04:25:26 AM
Is this not an unsolvable problem? Some people like to go for performance, others like building more complex and accurate scale models. They are mutually antagonistic in Peanut unless you are one of the unfairly-skilled. Perhaps there is a case for changing rules slightly every few years to shift the emphasis because seeing the same model type winning endlessly is not a good look. Having said that, 3:1  and 3 x best flight are plainly wrong.

I have to ask again, why is this only just being picked up? Were we not paying attention? Or was the 'extensive consultation with "key flyers"' similar to that outdoors? It is significant that we are now out of step with the rules used elsewhere, with other countries, and the FAI, sticking with our old rules! We used to lead.
Bill


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: SP250 on May 14, 2022, 04:36:37 AM
Here are some of the reasons/my thoughts and different points of view to consider.  And the main one being a discussion on here, as ever, does not constitute the current STC being informed, even though Pete and I are currently on the STC.  You have to write to the secretary Paul Rich and copy the rules officer Mike Smith.  Email addresses on the committee page of the Scale BMFA website.

Ok
1, The peanut competition - is it a scale static with duration flying comp, or a duration comp with static judging?
2, Everyone so far is thinking and expressing their own narrow emotional pov. as to how it affects them, or what they did in the past or the models they have already got.  No one likes change for changes sake.
3, The rules should be such as to encourage more and new participants, because the class was dying slowly (& Pistachio).
4, There is an argument that Peanut and Pistachio should be farmed off to the FFTC as they are the duration FF competition people.
5, There is also an argument to remove the duration element and qualitatively judge the flying element as in open & kit scale etc., but that would mean more flying judges and time in the schedule.
6, The rule changes were done with the goal of keeping the static part, but aligning Peanut and Pistachio together to make the static judging easier for the judges and keep both classes the same.
7, The changes were to make it easier for most competitors to achieve a max, then the Scale part of it (i.e. static judging takes over - it is a scale competition after all) then becomes the most important part in deciding the winner.
8, This allows a tissue covered & coloured model to fly better (less weight) but also a paint sprayed model (if you are good enough to get 50 secs out of it) to score more highly in the static element - as always a trade off between the two styles.
9, Just because it isn't what it used to be and you are all not happy with change, doesn't mean the old rules were "right" and the new "wrong".
It is important to try them for a couple of years to see how it works out in practice.  Not condemn them before sufficient trialling. 

Incidently the Nationals were the second time the new peanut rules were used and I was judging with Martyn Kinder using them the first time at the Velodrome in 2020 the weekend before the first C19 lockdown started.  And they were certainly more straightforward to judge the static.

Also the disclaimer - I was not party to the rule changes as implemented in 2019 and advised not to change all the classes both indoor and outdoor all at the same time.
However the newly introduced intermediate class seems to be well received and making kit scale more of the entry level class it was intended to be.
So there is proof that some of the new rules do work, so my 2 pence worth is to try it another year or two before medling with something that there is not enough evidence yet to show it doesn't work.

John M


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 14, 2022, 04:42:09 AM
Peanut has always been a balancing act between flight times and static scores and, as Jon (Jack Plane) says,
“…it seems that it is perfectly possible to at least get a podium place with either type of model underu both the new and old rules:  just that if one builds a coloured-tissue model one has to ensure it also scores as well as possible in static, and if one builds a highly-detailed sprayed one then one has to ensure that it is light enough to fly for long enough!”

The difference now though is that “fly for long enough” may not exist for some models. Eg. A tissue finished model that does nine consecutive 2 minute flights from RoGs will always lose to any model with one more static point that puts in a single hand-launched sixty second flight.
(Sorry, I know that point’s been made already but I’m still catching up. I was definitely one of those people who weren’t paying attention!)

…the main one being a discussion on here, as ever, does not constitute the current STC being informed…
John, I did make this point right at the start of this thread to save you having to. To be honest though, I don’t think any of the UK flyers on here think HPA is a place to get rules changed. It’s a discussion forum and I don’t really like the slight impression that we get ‘told off’ every time we discuss rules and I don’t agree that everyone so far is just “expressing their own narrow emotional pov”.

I’m not anti-change either. I liked the new Intermediate class and have said so.
That all said, thank you very much for contributing. Point 6 in particular is very useful; I didn’t know (or more likely had forgotten) the judging aspect in the reasons for change. Your points 7 and 8 give a lot of clarity too. Also, apologies for not mentioning that the Peanut rules had already been trialled at the Velodrome in 2020. I was in that contest too! (Hang on though- does that mean the new rules have already been tried for a couple of years, just as you suggest they should be?)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 14, 2022, 06:51:18 AM
I give up....


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Jack Plane on May 14, 2022, 07:27:41 AM
I give up....

Just keep your hands in the air and no sudden moves for your model...!


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 14, 2022, 07:51:00 AM
So, trying to make sure I understand the gist: to be competitive you now have to build a model that can do 50 seconds and ROG. And then it has to score as high as possible in static to win.

The max and ROG bonus basically rules out any subject with small prop clearances doesn't it? The ROG bonus only makes sense without the max ie you can hand launch but you need to be at least 10 seconds better if so. Basically now you can't win without an ROG.

Seems to me this limits the competitive subjects that are available? Or does the max reduce the reliance on duration to the point where more subjects (ie ones less optimal for duration) become viable?  :o

I hold no strong opinions on this - just trying to understand the compromises!


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 14, 2022, 08:05:20 AM
Jon, I mis-read that rule before. I thought you could get the max flight score by either flying for 50 seconds, plus the 10 second ROG bonus, or else just fly for 10 more seconds from a hand launch. But I’ve read it again and you’re right- apparently you need to take off to max out. Sorry for confusion caused.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: john bowerman on May 14, 2022, 03:04:07 PM
For what is worth
I see the Peanut Class as a Scale Duration event rather that a Duration Scale Event.
The exercise is to make a small model as scale as possible but make it able to fly for 50 seconds plus ROG.
If you take away the scale element then I believe you diminish the whole idea of the class,
John


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Jack Plane on May 14, 2022, 03:50:01 PM
Very well expressed John!


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Squirrelnet on May 14, 2022, 03:53:51 PM
As someone who has not actually entered Peanut - I agree with John that the essence of the event is a scale duration event.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 14, 2022, 06:39:25 PM
Peanut competitor numbers from 2009
2009...15
2010...15
2011...12
2012...16
2013...18
2014...12
2015...13
2016...19
2017...19
2018...14
2019...14
Dying slowly? hardly.
A couple of quieter years (14/15) and a couple of healthier years (16/17).
Ease of achieving a max is what killed off open rubber in outdoor f/f. Why does there have to be a max? Doesn't make sense unless you have an unlimited flyoff to determine the winner.
The only chance a simple tissue coloured model has against a painted one is the chance of flying better but of course now that's been shot in the foot by the aforementioned max.
There is no 'argument' for removing the duration element at all, that would create a 13" open event.
There is also no 'argument' for handing anything over to the fftc. The class is called 'Peanut scale' so it's a scale event.
The biggest issue is the introduction of the triple your best flight nonsense, who came up with that idea? It doesn't make sense and I'm yet to hear a single argument for it other than the chance of putting in one good flight then going home early.
I'll never personally fly in peanut again , It's been ruined for me by change for change's sake and paint it whatever colour you like, that's what it is.

Gary.  (Narrow enough ?)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Antonin Alfery on May 15, 2022, 04:06:53 AM
Let me give you one view from outside the BMFA...

Judging rules without knowing what they are looking at is very difficult. Only after the explanation written here by John M do I begin to understand them and think they can achieve some of the stated objectives.

I think that with the new rules the Peanut category will become a sort of "small" F4D, which in my opinion is not good. In my mind, a "statically average", excellent flying model in the Peanut category should have a chance of similar placement to a "statically excellent", average flying model. I don't think it could work that way (because of the established max).

I agree with John that once the rules have been changed, it's better to collect data for a while and wait to make further adjustments.

But I do have one major comment. The actual meaning of the 50sec max and 10sec per ROG for the Pistachio category is definitely not the same as for the Peanut category.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: DHnut on May 15, 2022, 06:02:36 AM
Antonin,
            That is exactly why the F4F Peanut rules were left alone as the current rule works well so that a high static score with a moderate flying score can top the event as can a high flying score with a moderate static score. The scoring provides a good balance between the flying and static. In most cases you can almost predict the static score so there is some variability depending on the entry if there are some unusual models entered. You in Europe fly to the F4F rule so there is no impact on your events.
Ricky 


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 15, 2022, 04:40:05 PM
But I do have one major comment. The actual meaning of the 50sec max and 10sec per ROG for the Pistachio category is definitely not the same as for the Peanut category.
Hello Antonin, could you expand on your last point please? The wording in both sets of UK rules is the same (with the exception of omitted 'any' in Pistachio - took me ages to spot that!). Are you referring to the difficulty of achieving the 50s and a ROG?
thanks Nigel

Peanut Flight Judging "Each competitor is allowed a maximum of 9 flights. An official flight is counted each time the model is released for a declared official flight.  Flights may be hand launched or may take off from the floor. If takeoff is achieved without pushing or any other assistance then a 10 second bonus will be added to the flight score."
Peanut Marking and Scoring "...The Flight Score is the timed duration of the flight in seconds rounded down to the nearest second.    Flight  times  are  scored  on  a  Max  basis  with  a  maximum  score  of  50  seconds applied to all flights of 50 seconds or over to which the take-offbonus is added if applicable."

Pistachio Flight Judging "Each competitor is allowed a maximum of 9 flights. An official flight is counted each time the model is released for a declared official flight. Flights may be hand launched or may take off from the floor.  If takeoff is achieved without pushing or other assistance then a 10 second bonus will be added to the flight score."
Pistachio Marking and Scoring "...The Flight Score is the timed duration of the flight in seconds rounded down to the nearest second.    Flight  times  are  scored on  a  Max  basis  with  a  maximum  score  of 50seconds applied to all flightsof 50 seconds or over to which the take-off bonus is added if applicable."


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: billdennis747 on May 15, 2022, 05:02:56 PM
What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 15, 2022, 06:01:07 PM
The Pistachio rules are no more than a lazy 'cut and paste' of the peanut rules. I'm open to be corrected but I've never seen a successful Pistachio which could take off. The prop required for a decent flight would not permit ROG.
I can only presume, ( and again, I'm happy to be corrected) that someone has/had an agenda to eliminate certain models and or competitors.
As for attracting new people to the class, I've checked the results over the last decade and found that there have been no newcomers whatsoever. The same names, year in, year out. If the rulemakers think attracting new blood is a difficult task, may I suggest they'll find it even more troublesome to bring back those who get fed up and walk away.
Gary.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: billdennis747 on May 15, 2022, 06:16:34 PM
Here are some of the reasons/my thoughts and different points of view to consider.  And the main one being a discussion on here, as ever, does not constitute the current STC being informed, even though Pete and I are currently on the STC.  You have to write to the secretary Paul Rich and copy the rules officer Mike Smith.  Email addresses on the committee page of the Scale BMFA website.

2, Everyone so far is thinking and expressing their own narrow emotional pov. as to how it affects them, or what they did in the past or the models they have already got.  This attitude towards competitors no longer pertains in the STC. No one likes change for changes sake. Precisely
3, The rules should be such as to encourage more and new participants, rule changes never attract new participants. The idea that there is a pool of people itching to join in as soon as the rules change is a myth. Bad rule changes certainly do have an effect because the class was dying slowly (& Pistachio) Not true.  
4, There is an argument that Peanut and Pistachio should be farmed off to the FFTC as they are the duration FF competition people. I don't think anyone has ever taken this idea seriously
5, There is also an argument to remove the duration element and qualitatively judge the flying element as in open & kit scale etc., but that would mean more flying judges and time in the schedule. Ditto

9, Just because it isn't what it used to be and you are all not happy with change, doesn't mean the old rules were "right" and the new "wrong". This is an interesting philosophical point. Surely if nobody likes the rules, then by definition they are wrong!
It is important to try them for a couple of years to see how it works out in practice.  Not condemn them before sufficient trialling. It saves time, though


John is correct that if people want change to the Peanut rules, they need to get organised  and come up with a proposal, even if it's just to go back to things as they were (the static changes seem a good idea to me). Perhaps even have discussion on here. Views will be listened to by the current STC. My bottom line is that three years ago, people were generally happy with how things were, indoors and out. The acrimony caused since is unprecedented and it remains to be seen what lasting effect there will be on all FF scale


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 15, 2022, 06:45:32 PM
As for attracting new people to the class, I've checked the results over the last decade and found that there have been no newcomers whatsoever. The same names, year in, year out. If the rulemakers think attracting new blood is a difficult task, may I suggest they'll find it even more troublesome to bring back those who get fed up and walk away.
Gary.
John Cooper was a new entrant this year in Peanut, to the best of my knowledge. Whether the rule changes affected his decision to compete I cannot say. I do believe he was influenced by a person encouraging him individually.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 15, 2022, 07:08:11 PM
Oh dear- I may regret starting this thread as the worm can of how/who/why the rules got changed might now be best left on the shelf! (And yes, I know I asked that myself!)
I am interested to know if anyone actually prefered any of the new Peanut rules to the old ones though, or if anyone's mind changed after seeing them in action? If not, then putting them back to normal will surely happen soon.
Peter, you were right to start this thread so people can express their views in one place instead of scattered through the other threads. Not least because some of the STC do read this and other forums/fora/fori and will be influenced to some extent I'm sure, particularly if thoughts are gathered here, and soberly expressed perhaps. I agree with Bill in that we should discuss here, clarify facts and be clear when we're expressing opinions. And if you're serious, there is an open invitation to contact the STC (Paul Rich and Mike Smith) with your views.

I thought I preferred the new rules, but please read until the end. I hope to enter when time permits. Imho, the rules, read as they are written, give a very clear picture of what I need to do to try to win the competition. I don't wish to try to achieve a middling position. I have no illusions I will be able to win, but trying to get 4th rather than 5th is not of interest.

Why the big concern with the 50s max? Every other scale class has a max! They are simply expressed as a min. If you don't achieve the min, you can't win. If you don't exceed the max, you're unlikely to win. I don't recognise the similarity to a glider duration class because glider comps are not judged on their fidelity to glider-ness as the ultimate tie-breaker. Actually, it isn't written what the tie-breaker is for Peanut & Pistacio - it's stated as a fly-off but would the fly-off be a single unlimited flight or a series of max-limited flights until one contestant falters? I assume the CD will decide on the day... now that's asking for trouble. But I digress.

I know I need to achieve 50s from ROG and that doing so is difficult because only one - yep, only one - model from 15 flying entrants achieved that (none in Pistacio). Several were close (any score between 51 and 60 shows the 10s ROG bonus has been earned). Second placed model used all his 9 flights trying to achieve 50s. It will be interesting next year to see which models that have been newly-built for these rules can achieve this.

I would/will not try spray painting because that only adds 1 mark over a tissue finish. That's an "is it/isn't it?" mark. If a model beat mine by that one mark, I know what to do next time, or I could perhaps add an extra wing. Then again, I can gain more marks by having a 3D pilot which is very much easier than spraying. I can print tissue in this class to gain complexity of markings marks (I think?).  Overall skill in crafting the model is judged between 0 and 5 - and nowhere else? Scale fidelity is judged elsewhere. Quite straight forward because:

Scale fidelity is judged against the documentation provided. For that reason alone, it is a restricted, not open, class. Now that's an improvement imho.

If there is not a max time, I suspect one is constrained to a ranking system such as previously, in order to be able to combine a time and a static scoring scheme. Otherwise, choosing the static scheme, with some knowledge of likely max flight times, already includes an emphasis between flying and static. Consider the difference between scoring between 0-3 or 0-5 or 0-10, or adding more 'things' to judge against. 'Things' are #wings, wing outline, tructure fidelity, etc, so each choice in the preceding sentence directly affects the max possible total static score and therefore the ratio between flight time and static scores. Then there's a choice between 3/5/10 for each 'thing'. And it appears we can't please everyone all the time. So, maybe the combined rankings approach is better...? Oooooh  ??? ??? I thought I had made up my mind.

Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 16, 2022, 04:01:26 AM
I think you've completely missed the point regarding the max. There is a world of difference between a max and a min! In fact by definition they are totally opposite. The min you refer to is an attempt. This is a time that you must achieve to put in a qualifying flight. This only applies to those scale classes which are judged subjectively, rather than by duration. The judges need enough flight time to judge the seperate phases of the flight and this has nothing to do with duration.
Peanut scale, however, is a duration class but what the imposition of a max does is penalises the competitor who doesn't wish to try and produce a museum piece. Before the max system, a simply built, very lightweight model was in with a fighting chance by being able to fly for a very long time but that chance now has been taken away with one swipe of the pen/mouse. In fact, the chance of being able to produce a very light model has been further restricted by the cursory banning of mylar covering. (I don't get that one at all, don't award marks for it by all means but to ban it altogether is ridiculous)
The 10 second ROG applies regardless of duration. You don't have to achieve the 50 second max to get the bonus, you just have to take off the ground.
It wouldn't matter if you achieve 9 maxes in a row or only one then put your model away, you would get the same score. Your flight score is now, according to the new rules, THREE TIMES your best flight, not the sum of your best three flights.
I, also was a newcomer to the Nationals (certainly don't qualify as a beginner though, I've been modelling for over 40 years and flying peanuts since the mid- seventies) but that is because a certain pandemic put everything on hold and certainly not thanks to the introduction of the new rules.
Gary


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 16, 2022, 04:36:58 AM
The Scale Technical Committee is reviewing the indoor rules based on feedback, so if anyone hasn't replied to Mike Stuart's post nats email yet, or has any new thoughts resulting from this or any other discussions, please send them to the STC. I'll be doing so again myself as, after reading the responses on here, I personally have a clearer idea of what I think about the Peanut changes.
Whatever past circumstances led to the changes, the current STC is very open to our views and very keen to get things as right as possible, so if people are unhappy please do keep faith and give the STC time to work through the consultation process.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 16, 2022, 05:47:20 AM
Well said, Peter. Are you aware of a deadline for those responses and are they restricted to past entrants?

Hi Gary, thanks for your responses. I do understand the difference between max and min definitions and their purposes, thanks. I was making a point about their effect on the competition.

I think we need to separate out the points to be able to discuss them individually and clearly.

My view of the flight max is that it provides a clear flight target, just like a min, after which the competition is decided by a restricted scale quality not an open scale quality. The former appeals to me because it gives me a better chance. If I want to attempt open scale, there is a class for that. If I want to attenpt a pure duration class with only a nod to scale, there is a class for that. However, I can see that a system that offers two approaches to winning (average scale + excellent duration vs excellent duration + average scale) would broaden the appeal.

I'm assuming the rules are being discussed from the perspective of a competitor who wishes to try to win because that's who competition rules are written for. Fly-ins with an informal prize are a different thing. The STC offers a good number of those as well. I think my perspective would/will be 'dare to dream'. I hope I can win, so I'll read the rules and persue those, but I recognise there will be entrants who are simply better modellers than me. How do others see their approach, or is that too sensitive to ask?

Let's be clear, Mylar is a trade mark for DuPont and is a specific material made from PET (if I remember correctly). To the best of my knowledge it is available in clear or silver. Again, if I remember correctly, a previous wording of the new rules did ban it outright. I agree - that made no sense to me. My understanding is it used as a technique to achieve lightness and rigidity, generally under tissue. The latest wording only bans microfilm and Mylar from use as the outermost covering layer. Was clear Mylar ever used as the only covering? Gossamer Albatross anyone? Wouldn't the silver Mylar represent a bare aluminium subject very well? However, I suspect the intention was to ban all plastic films from being used as the only covering which put me off because I happen to find solarfilm and the like easier to use than tissue. Solite, a self coloured polypropylene, is quite light, 20-25gsm, and in my limited experience represents some aircraft quite well, particularly heavily restored classics. (Dare I mention, paint forms a plastic film...?) So, my opinion is this rule needs some more thought and clarification. What are others' thoughts on this specific rule?

The fact that only one model from all the entries and all their attempts achieved 50s from ROG shows that in and of itself the max system did not determine the winner. Nick had the best flight times. It was the change from the rankings system to the combination of time and static that determined the winner. Without sight of the individual static marks and their hypothetical equivalents against the preceding static scheme, we can't say whether the new static scheme affected the positions.

Within the combination of time and static marks approach, the effect of the ROG bonus has become magnified against the new static scheme, because it is worth 30 points, whereas max static available points is implied to be 45. (On the basis max flight score = 180 divided by the stated ratio 4:1 = 45. As an aside, that's difficult to evaluate because the IF-THEN combinations are tricky. For example, I don't know of a multi-plane helicopter. Simply summing max score in each category = 62, I think.) Previously, achieving an extra 10s duration per flight was possibly an easier (but certainly an alternative) approach to winning. The bonus value hasn't changed and intention of the rule is clear to me: full size aeroplanes take off from the ground ( or a ship and accepted a few are launched from beneath a wing). Therefore it is worthy of encouragement and reward via the mark scheme. Is the impact of the ROG bonus now too great within the new rules scheme?

I think there is universal preference, from what I have read on this forum, for a system that sums an entrants' top three flight scores instead of multiplying their best single score. A consistently performing model is challenging and worthy of encouragement and reward via the points scheme. Does anyone disagree with that?

Gary, thankyou for agreeing your previous statement "I've checked the results over the last decade and found that there have been no newcomers whatsoever" was perhaps written in haste.

There has been discussion about banning a winning entrant from one of the simpler classes, which was not supported. What do people think about banning a winning model from Peanut/Pistacio, as happens in kit scale? Would it encourage a competitor to build a new model, or dissuade them from entering? A serious competitor would be forced to build a new model if they wish to keep entering to win. Is retaining the involvement of master-modellers viewed as an over-riding positive?

That's all I can think of for now. Please use my text as discussion points.
TKR
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 16, 2022, 06:01:54 AM
Gossamer Albatross anyone?

Peter Smart did one: http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3zz.htm


Without sight of the individual static marks and their hypothetical equivalents against the preceding static scheme, we can't say whether the new static scheme affected the positions.

Jon M provided this comparison: https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=26588.msg284301#msg284301

Looking at the impact on the results is quite informative. I think that the old rules did at least have a simple explainable concept: the best flying AND best static model is rewarded. Unfortunately this means you have to be very good to win  ::) or good enough to beat Richard C/Mike H 8)

I've never entered Peanut but have had a long interest in it (target market?) I'm not sure that I grasp the concept of the new rules quite yet. It's obvious that a entrant must fly very well. Maybe the max caps that at a point where people with that extra skill level (F1D winding skills?) doesn't become a requirement to be competitive?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 16, 2022, 06:28:52 AM
Nigel, at no time did I agree my commemts were written in haste. I did overlook John Cooper but having watched his many videos I didn't consider him a newcomer, (my mistake) but seriously, 1 newby in a decade?
We know what Mylar is, no need for the lecture.
The rulebook states that neither Mylar nor microfilm are to be used for the overlaid covering on an open structure and the only thing Mylar under tissue on an indoor model would achieve is adding unnecessary weight.
Gary


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 16, 2022, 06:32:15 AM
Are you aware of a deadline for those responses and are they restricted to past entrants?
No deadline given as yet, and the feedback request from Mike Stuart went to entrants (in all classes) at the recent nats, as far as I'm aware. It’s possible one or two people got accidentally missed though. I'm now a part of the STC in my small role as 'outdoor FF scale advisor', but I do get to go to the meetings and am happy to pass on any concerns about the consultation process to Mike in the meantime. Maybe PM me (or indeed him!) if you have any.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Antonin Alfery on May 16, 2022, 07:39:55 AM
But I do have one major comment. The actual meaning of the 50sec max and 10sec per ROG for the Pistachio category is definitely not the same as for the Peanut category.
Hello Antonin, could you expand on your last point please? The wording in both sets of UK rules is the same (with the exception of omitted 'any' in Pistachio - took me ages to spot that!). Are you referring to the difficulty of achieving the 50s and a ROG?
thanks Nigel

In general - the Pistacio category model is able to achieve about 2/3 of the flight time as the Peanut category model of the same type. It is debatable whether this is a little more or less, but in most cases the ratio of achievable times will certainly not be 1:1. So the 50 sec maximum is harder to achieve for Pistachio models than for Peanut models. The situation gets rapidly worse when considering ROG. For one thing, the choice of suitable types for the Pistachio category will be narrowed down, as some types with propeller diameters that would allow ROG will not fly almost at all, others will achieve not 2/3 but barely 1/2 the times of the Peanut models. The 10sec bonus for ROG is 20% of the Peanut category's 50 sec flight max. And those 50 sec most Peanut models can fly. For the Pistachio category this percentage is theoretically the same, but practically it will be well over 30% for real flights. I'm not debating whether this is reasonable or not, just pointing out the facts that are given by the laws of physics.




Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Jack Plane on May 16, 2022, 09:25:20 AM

I've never entered Peanut but have had a long interest in it (target market?) ...


Jon, we look forward to welcoming you into the fraternity!

---

On a more general note, I'm glad this is finally being discussed openly here.

A large part of the problem with the recent changes is that they were discussed and agreed upon behind closed doors, without any clear transparency.  One has no idea what representations were made in advance by actual participants in Peanut Scale, what the range and balance of their opinion was, and whether any account whatsoever was taken of these.  There was not, as far as I'm aware, any openly communicated set of draft proposals - i.e. what, if any, were previously considered to be the issues, what ideas existed for addressing these, and what other ideological initiatives were brewing behind the scenes?  There was just a process that took place entirely in private, culminating in a decision to enact a major overhaul of the class rules without further consultation, which was then delivered upon the people who actually make and fly these models as a "done deal".

This is not to decry the huge amount of time and effort put in by the volunteers who make up the STC, for which everyone is deeply appreciative.  Just that the process needed to be more transparently consultative.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 16, 2022, 09:40:30 AM
What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?
I'd never queried this before, but yes, what IS it for? The flight is otherwise scored purely on its duration, so why does it matter whether it takes off from the ground? After all, there's no bonus for it landing properly on its wheels, or any other scale-like behaviour.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: ffscale on May 16, 2022, 10:15:32 AM
Are you aware of a deadline for those responses and are they restricted to past entrants?
No deadline given as yet, and the feedback request from Mike Stuart went to entrants (in all classes) at the recent nats, as far as I'm aware. It’s possible one or two people got accidentally missed though. I'm now a part of the STC in my small role as 'outdoor FF scale advisor', but I do get to go to the meetings and am happy to pass on any concerns about the consultation process to Mike in the meantime. Maybe PM me (or indeed him!) if you have any.

Thanks to all for the discussion taking place here - as Pete says no deadline yet -as most of you probably know my role is indoor advisor to the STC, so like Pete I am able to pass on the comments to the STC at the next meeting and join in with the discussion (though these advisory roles don't allow us to vote).

Expressing my view as a regular peanut competitor (oh dear - this could be dangerous....) I felt the new rules maybe pushed the flying aspect a bit too much compared to static - if we stick with the "combined scores" method instead of the old ranking method for 2023, I would rather see the sum of the two best flights added to the static score to give a total.   However I realise that this would play to my strengths, as with peanut scale I am a better model builder than model flyer!  For me the max is irrelevant as I will never reach 50 seconds!  I rely on an ROG 10 second bonus to get a reasonable flight score, but for flyers who make those lovely foam fighters they are doomed never to get a 60 second flight time because they can never take off.  So maybe unfair on them?

I have a particular style of peanut that I like to build and will continue to do so whatever the rules are.  I will then just try to get them to fly for as long as I can and have fun doing it.

Mike S.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Indoorflyer on May 16, 2022, 03:38:51 PM
What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?
I'd never queried this before, but yes, what IS it for? The flight is otherwise scored purely on its duration, so why does it matter whether it takes off from the ground? After all, there's no bonus for it landing properly on its wheels, or any other scale-like behaviour.

Sounds more like a penalty against retractable gear planes modeled with the gear "up."


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 16, 2022, 04:37:59 PM
What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?
I'd never queried this before, but yes, what IS it for?

It makes sense without the 50 second max. The smaller prop needed for ROG will tend to limit duration. So it's easier to get duration with an oversized prop and a handlaunch with no need for ROG. The bonus is to encourage models that ROG and so more scale fidelity (?)

But with the max it's more like a penalty for not ROG ing like IF says.

(I thought maxes were to avoiding losing a model in a thermal!)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Squirrelnet on May 16, 2022, 05:05:43 PM
Quote
(I thought maxes were to avoiding losing a model in a thermal!)

My thoughts exactly, though it's taken me a while to get there. An Indoor max ? an indoor max is where the model bounces off the ceiling or worse gets stuck up there and has to be coaxed down with a big stick. Isn't that how we trim ? a few less winds to hit ceiling or thinner rubber etc  ? It seems odd to impose a restriction on a class that I thought, from the initial changes, was intended to be more of a duration class.

I'm afraid I don't get the logic of the new BMFA rules.

I thought from the initial change it was a shame to rule out the carved foam WW2 undercarraige up types of models with the ROG rule as they look so good in the air and frankly we shouldn't be ruling out models at all , especially with the intended aim by the STC to encourage more competitors ?

Anyway we are where we are and I applaud the current STC for their willingness to listen and hopefully take action. This thread is a great way of gathering opinion amongst those of us on here who are part of indoor ff community and many of those who may well be part of it in the future - if it sounds like fun...and that to me is the key. The latest rules seem quite difficult to get your head around  with static/flying ratio it's certainly taken me and several others on here a while to actually work out what the rules are and what they mean and that in itself is a very bad thing to me. That is a red flag to me that things aren't right


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 09:09:02 AM
Gossamer Albatross anyone?

Peter Smart did one: http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3zz.htm


Without sight of the individual static marks and their hypothetical equivalents against the preceding static scheme, we can't say whether the new static scheme affected the positions.

Jon M provided this comparison: https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=26588.msg284301#msg284301

Looking at the impact on the results is quite informative. I think that the old rules did at least have a simple explainable concept: the best flying AND best static model is rewarded. Unfortunately this means you have to be very good to win  ::) or good enough to beat Richard C/Mike H 8)

Thanks, Jon. Peter Smart does indeed create some interesting models. I loved his 4 engined airliner this year (not in peanut, sadly!).

Jon's (Jack Plane) comparison was comparing the new combination method with the old combination method but still using the new static marks. I meant but didn't clarify we don't know how models would have scored under the previous static marking scheme. It's perhaps likely the ranking would have been quite similar and an estimate could be made by taking the published scores from previous years for models that have been entered previously. Those might be buried in a thread somewhere?

I did find the preceding rules scheme quite easily (2019 if I'm correct) but I don't have the ability to upload the pages here. They may be worth a look.

Thanks Peter and Mike for offering to receive comments to bring to the STC.
Thanks Antonin for your clarification.
rgds
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: g_kandylakis on May 17, 2022, 01:03:32 PM
I did not wish to enter the debate at the moment, I haven't flown peanut for quite some time now, but I am thinking about it (Lars is to blame...).

Just a few observations - opinions as well:

Static judging looks much more simplified compared to the previous rules, I might even say, easier as there are less items to be judged.

On the other hand, there are also less points available for a model with extras, such as separate control surfaces, exposed engines etc.

Regardless of the fact that painted models scored high this time, the 1 point difference between painted-unpainted finish is minimal compared to the weight and duration gain potential.

For a rules set that is supposedly aiming to strengthen the flying aspect, having just one flight count, instead of an average of more, simply does not make that much sense. With a factor of 3 to 1, I would find it more logical to count the three best flights out of nine... In such a case, even a max limitation makes sense. Go fly three times consistently for 50 seconds from a ROG, then you get maximum flying points...

Finally, a comment on 6.4.13.6,
"The overall score for the competition is the Total Static score plus three times the highest Flight Score (giving a flight to static ration of approximately 4:1)"

This sentence is also open to debate...
Doing a theoretical point calculation, I arrive at a max of 11x3 (everything perfect, including 3d pilot), =33 points.
Add say 2 for a biplane, 3 for structure accuracy, 4 for structure complexity, and 4 for craftsmanship,
46 points total... Maximum by definition...
Not even 60...

A max in flying should correspond to a max in static as well... And no, I do not expect anyone will ever enter with a multiplane autogyro to get the 60 points...


This does not change the fact that the text in the paragraphs is completely wrong... The ratio is 3:1... Or is that a sign of a further change to come  ???

George

(just stiring the cauldron to keep it boiling evenly...)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: SP250 on May 17, 2022, 01:41:27 PM
I believe the ROG bonus was added because in the general rules, paragraph 6.1.1.2 has the following:-

Definition of Scale Models.

A Scale model aircraft shall be a reduced size reproduction of a full-size aircraft, which is
intended to accurately recreate the appearance and realism of the subject full-size aircraft
both on the ground and in flight.


On page 5 of the current rulebook.

As Andy Sephton says "I have flown quite a lot of full size aircraft and I have never been hand launched!"

Consequently the rog bonus aspect was written in. 
Because without it the model is not performing as per the full size. 

Everyone has the option not to try an rog, but then you forego the 10 marks, your decision.
Those 10 marks should be the debate - too many or too few, not the fact that rog shouldn't be in at all. 
Taking Tonda's point about Pistachio and maybe it is a bridge too far, but that is a different class and will also have its own discussion, hopefully.

And please do not shoot the messenger.
I am just pointing out there are more bits of the rulebook (and the Judges guide) to read, covering all scale classes, other than just the chapter on the class rules.

John M



Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 01:47:22 PM

Those 10 marks should be the debate - too many or too few, not the fact that rog shouldn't be in at all. 

I am just pointing out there are more bits of the rulebook (and the Judges guide) to read, covering all scale classes, other than just the chapter on the class rules.

John M
I have sent a constructive essay to the STC and one of the points I mentioned was that which John has just raised. With 10s added for ROG, that has a scoring mark of 30. That can be compared to the scores available from static which are typically less than 45 (between 27 and 44 this year). That's too much emphasis to my mind.
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 01:56:56 PM
Finally, a comment on 6.4.13.6,
"The overall score for the competition is the Total Static score plus three times the highest Flight Score (giving a flight to static ration of approximately 4:1)"
...the text in the paragraphs is completely wrong... The ratio is 3:1... Or is that a sign of a further change to come
Thank you, George. That mistake was noticed by a few others too, and definitely needed to be flagged up. And surely not a sign of further change, as so far it seems most agree that even 3:1 is going too far.


I believe the ROG bonus was added because in the general rules, paragraph 6.1.1.2 has the following:-

Definition of Scale Models.

A Scale model aircraft shall be a reduced size reproduction of a full-size aircraft, which is
intended to accurately recreate the appearance and realism of the subject full-size aircraft
both on the ground and in flight.


On page 5 of the current rulebook.

As Andy Sephton says "I have flown quite a lot of full size aircraft and I have never been hand launched!"

Consequently the rog bonus aspect was written in.  
Because without it the model is not performing as per the full size.  

Has Andy Sephton flown many aircraft that take off nearly vertically after a run of about 2 yards, whizz around in small circles at twice their official max speed for 40-50 seconds, and then bounce off a basket ball hoop before landing on their nose with no damage? If not, then why aren't Peanuts penalised for flying like that?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 01:57:18 PM
What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?
I'd never queried this before, but yes, what IS it for? The flight is otherwise scored purely on its duration, so why does it matter whether it takes off from the ground? After all, there's no bonus for it landing properly on its wheels, or any other scale-like behaviour.
The other aspect of flight scoring related to full scale operation that might become rewarded could be consistency of flight performance. I bet the early channel crossing pilots were keen on reliable flight performance, and I'd like to arrive at holiday destination more than one lucky occasion.

It is the fact of ROG that is rewarded, not the quality. I know you knew that. My point is retractable undercarriage subjects can be flown with undercarriage extended without flight scoring penalty - the added drag would be equivalent to non-retracting models. Also, I think such a model presented for static with undercarriage down is eligible for a 3 more points from the U/C section? Would need to seek advice on that.

Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: g_kandylakis on May 17, 2022, 01:58:48 PM
A valid point about having a ROG...

A good question however by Nigel, just how much should it count in the final score... and yes, I too find 30 to, say 35, a bit too high.

And I imagine, no-one is shooting at any messenger... not even to the STC... just talking about the new rules after they were finally implemented in an event, to see what is good and what isn't...

If someone is to blame it is only Pete, who instead of coming up with a new great Cook up idea, prefers to start such discussions... ;D

George


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 02:03:46 PM
Finally, a comment on 6.4.13.6,
"The overall score for the competition is the Total Static score plus three times the highest Flight Score (giving a flight to static ration of approximately 4:1)"
...the text in the paragraphs is completely wrong... The ratio is 3:1... Or is that a sign of a further change to come
Thank you, George. That mistake was noticed by a few others too, and definitely needed to be flagged up. And surely not a sign of further change, as so far it seems most agree that even 3:1 is going too far.

Sorry - didn't read all of George's post before replying - I think the ratio of approximately 4:1 is based on the expectation that 46 is the max possible static score.

Analysing what is the actual max possible is beyond my knowledge of full scale aircraft but would be a very interesting excercise if anyone cares to contribute? I would go for +3 from multiple engines and +4 for flying boat. I think one of those has been modelled elsewhere  ::) It would need visible undercarriage for +3 as well.

HTH
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 02:09:51 PM
This is addressed at no one in particular but is meant to clarify why a max is a good idea for the system of combined scores.

Basically, without a max, to beat Mike H's supreme Bucker, I would only need to fly for 15s longer than him which I would do by building a super-lightweight duration model with no regard for needing any static marks. The max allows the balance between flight duration and static score to be controlled.

15s is calculated because Mike's static score was 44 which is compared to 3x my hypothetical flight score which is rounded down to the nearest second.

HTH
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 02:18:17 PM
4:1 may be the ratio based on theoretical max points. In practice though, 3:1 is surely a better indication of the weighting isn't it? Essentially, your flight score is tripled and your static score isn't.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 17, 2022, 02:22:33 PM
Yes I agree it's a better indication of the emphasis but not correct mathematically speaking. That's where my mind operates but it must be clear to everyone. I think a rule book should be unambiguous, don't you agree?  ;D


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 02:27:51 PM
Yes I agree it's a better indication of the emphasis but not correct mathematically speaking. That's where my mind operates but it must be clear to everyone. I think a rule book should be unambiguous, don't you agree?  ;D
Yes, probably better not to give a ratio at all than a potentially ambiguous one.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 17, 2022, 02:42:10 PM
If Andy Sephton wants to be hand launched, he only has to ask....


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: billdennis747 on May 17, 2022, 02:46:53 PM
Has Andy Sephton flown many aircraft that take off nearly vertically after a run of about 2 yards, whizz around in small circles at twice their official max speed for 40-50 seconds, and then bounce off a basket ball hoop before landing on their nose with no damage? If not, then why aren't Peanuts penalised for flying like that?
;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Gary Dickens on May 17, 2022, 03:04:45 PM
..


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Russ Lister on May 17, 2022, 04:27:40 PM
No ROG and low static requirement .... we get Chambermaids.
ROG and low static requirements ... we get Fikes and Laceys.
I prefer the old rules myself but if we start to question things that we do in this way ... why do we bother with any of it?



Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 04:39:32 PM
No ROG and low static requirement .... we get Chambermaids.
ROG and low static requirements ... we get Fikes and Laceys.
What do we get if we have no ROG and a high static requirement? (i.e. more points for tackling fixed u/c or wheels down subjects)
Variety?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Russ Lister on May 17, 2022, 04:53:17 PM
I think the old rules did give a wide variety,  yes  :) the ROG bonus was in place then of course.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Russ Lister on May 17, 2022, 05:05:06 PM
..... sorry, missed that little word 'no'  ::)
I think it would give a higher variety of subjects.... but not as much as the old rules?
I unashamedly liked the old rules!
However,  I know that at least one of the very best competitors is happy enough with the rules and is 'optimising ' in view of the rule changes. Upon hearing this it changed my outlook on things a little .... after all, who am I to complain?
I should add that i consider this to be a peanut and pistachio 'thing' ... rules for both have been altered in the same way.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 05:26:26 PM
I like this discussion and don’t really see rule querying or rule discussion as a problem.  I’m fairly confident Peanut will still be well supported whatever happens next year, and it’s interesting to get these different perspectives.

Right, back to the ROG bonus:
I’m at severe risk of flogging a dead horse here I know, but you must admit that in both the old and new rules it is a bit of an anomaly?  After all, you could easily reward a model’s possession of wheels without requiring it to ROG. Just as another weighty part, such as a Lewis gun for instance, could also potentially give you extra static points without it being required to fire tiny bullets.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Russ Lister on May 17, 2022, 07:15:11 PM
Sorry, Pete .... I just don't see it as an anomaly.
I've flown Bostonians extensively and a ROG is a requirement as you know. I do see it as part of a duration competition ... you have to learn how to get the best out of the model between the floor and the ceiling. What does strike me as an anomaly is putting a cap on this achievement and also multiplying up the best flight. I think the three best flights would give a greater requirement for consistency if we were to tweak the latest rules a bit.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Russ Lister on May 17, 2022, 07:20:54 PM
I should add that I am 'halfway' there with you for the idea of rewarding having a UC rather than giving a ROG bonus, but I'm still not sure if that would result in the spectrum of models that we have seen previously?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 17, 2022, 07:34:53 PM
Another thing to consider is that an undercarriage that needs to help a model ROG is a different beast to an undercarriage that just needs to look right. For instance, in the latter case the wheels needn’t turn, so no heavy wire axles or tubes in the hubs required.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Jack Plane on May 18, 2022, 02:20:51 AM
Undercarriage is more than aerodynamic drag-factor - it also limits prop diameter which can with many subjects be a significant impediment to duration, so the ROG bonus is key.

The major issue remains the excessive weighting now given to duration over static (close behind which is the inexplicable 50 sec cap on duration).

The old system of adding the placings gave complete parity between the two elements:  the lowest combined placing won.  The new rule of adding the absolute scores in each element, having first given the flight one a nuclear weighting, results in a 3:1 ratio in favour of duration (although as has been pointed out above this is in practice more of a 4:1 ratio).

It doesn't matter too much whether the best flight time is tripled or the best three flights are aggregated or whatever, what matters is the excessive disparity.  Everything else being equal, a competitor who puts in a lifetime of effort so their static score might rise from say 29 to 40 points is easily beaten by a competitor with a very pared-down model who simply has to fly for 4 seconds longer.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 18, 2022, 03:39:02 AM
Thanks Jon- that’s a very clear summation of the main current issues I think.

I’m still not quite there with this though:
Undercarriage is more than aerodynamic drag-factor - it also limits prop diameter which can with many subjects be a significant impediment to duration, so the ROG bonus is key. :)
Surely undercarriage doesn’t limit prop diameter at all. It’s the rules that limit prop diameter for wheeled subjects (specifically, the ROG bonus rule). Perhaps the real question then is, “Why restrict prop diameter?”

(Despite these queries, on a personal level I quite like the the ROG bonus; it magically makes my Bristol Scout fly
for nearly twice as long!)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Slowmatch on May 18, 2022, 06:10:45 AM
I’m still not quite there with this though:
Undercarriage is more than aerodynamic drag-factor - it also limits prop diameter which can with many subjects be a significant impediment to duration, so the ROG bonus is key. :)
Surely undercarriage doesn’t limit prop diameter at all. It’s the rules that limit prop diameter for wheeled subjects (specifically, the ROG bonus rule). Perhaps the real question then is, “Why restrict prop diameter?”

Biggest possible prop diameter is critical for duration. There aren't many peanuts with prop clearances above 4-5" unless you have stalky non-scale UCs which is penalised by only a static mark or two. A 6" prop + handlaunch would have at least a 10 second advantage over a 4" prop + ROG.

I was looking back at results again: can anyone remember if Mike's Bucker ROGs? Or Richard's Stuka?


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Skymon on May 18, 2022, 07:10:29 AM
You only lose 2 points for modifying the undercarriage to allow large prop clearance.
ROG scores will penalise planes whith retractable undercarriage as they will have to fly with the wheels down.

I've been on the edge of Peanut for many years, the rules have never been the thing that stops me competing.
It's getting around to it. I have flown indoor duration for several years though, so I am aware of the indoor scene.

I've never really understood the weighting applied to "unusual" subjects in order to encourage different models.
If you look at autogiros there are less than half a dozen that would work as rubber models.
These esoterica tend to be more difficult to build and fly, but look like a nice points grabber for a first model.
Not a great intro for a new flier, to pick something potentially points winning but a pain to build and fly.

I realise the contra argument is everyone will be flying Piper Cubs* but if they did then you'd need to build one that flew really well with some superb scale detail to win. Isn't that what Peanut is about?

Sorry to just wade in as a non peanut flier. Just my thoughts.
I a considering a Piper cub :)

*Fike, Chambermaid, Cassutt, etc...


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 18, 2022, 07:18:41 AM
I was looking back at results again: can anyone remember if Mike's Bucker ROGs? Or Richard's Stuka?
Yes and no respectively, I think. Although I don't know if that's always the case for either.

The Hadland Jungmann ROG from 2017 (at 3:51 into Monz's vid): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbpaGq6k3o&t=9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbpaGq6k3o&t=9s)
The Crossley Stuka hand launched (videoed by Mike Stuart right back in 2010; is this the same Stuka?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvH2nKaOTU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvH2nKaOTU)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Squirrelnet on May 18, 2022, 08:13:13 AM
Also Mike Hadland this year in this video ROG 7'10"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2ior65DF54&t=702s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2ior65DF54&t=702s)



Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 18, 2022, 10:58:08 AM
I was looking back at results again: can anyone remember if Mike's Bucker ROGs? Or Richard's Stuka?
Yes and no respectively, I think. Although I don't know if that's always the case for either.

The Hadland Jungmann ROG from 2017 (at 3:51 into Monz's vid): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbpaGq6k3o&t=9s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbpaGq6k3o&t=9s)
The Crossley Stuka hand launched (videoed by Mike Stuart right back in 2010; is this the same Stuka?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvH2nKaOTU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvH2nKaOTU)
It must have done because he scored >50 in flight scores, but I observed he was experimenting with duration props on a previous occasion. He said 'they' said it would improvce duration.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 18, 2022, 11:08:25 AM
You only lose 2 points for modifying the undercarriage to allow large prop clearance.
ROG scores will penalise planes whith retractable undercarriage as they will have to fly with the wheels down.
Hi Skymon, I don't think flying with u/c down is penalised in the rules - happy to be corrected. The extra drag will affect trimming perhaps but is surely no more than fixed u/c aircraft? Good point that an exaggerated (or any!) u/c allows an extra 30 points from a ROG whereas 2 potential points can't be gained. Does that point towards the ROG bonus needing adjustment?

Nigel (another wannabe  :))

Worth noting it's low thrust not low wingers necessarily that are compromised by needing to ROG.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 18, 2022, 11:13:45 AM
Yes I agree it's a better indication of the emphasis but not correct mathematically speaking. That's where my mind operates but it must be clear to everyone. I think a rule book should be unambiguous, don't you agree?  ;D
Yes, probably better not to give a ratio at all than a potentially ambiguous one.
Apologies, Peter, that response was written somewhat in haste. I did not mean to diminish your point... thankfully the conversation has moved on   :-\

For everyone: I'd like to broaden the debate about multipliers applied to flight scores vs static scores. Let me suggest the Open classes are the pinnacle because they require the highest commitment of time and probably the highest level of skill. No-Cal is (almost) pure duration.

How should the classes inbetween be differentiated? Should it be only via static scoring rules? Would you retain Intermediate having a longer flight minimium duration than Open? Should Peanut/Pistachio be created as basically a pair of mini-Intermediates?

Reading the full set of indoor scale classes, there's a clear progression from the Open classes down to the No-Cal Duration class from equal weighting to almost pure duration. Does that not offer the opportunity for each person to decide which emphasis plays to their strengths and preferences?

Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 18, 2022, 11:19:07 AM

I’m at severe risk of flogging a dead horse here I know, 
Keep going please, I think the debate is adding value, particularly in clarification of the nuances of the scoring scheme.
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 18, 2022, 11:24:40 AM
This is addressed at no one in particular but is meant to clarify why a max is a good idea for the system of combined scores.

Basically, without a max, to beat Mike H's supreme Bucker, I would only need to fly for 15s longer than him which I would do by building a super-lightweight duration model with no regard for needing any static marks. The max allows the balance between flight duration and static score to be controlled.

15s is calculated because Mike's static score was 44 which is compared to 3x my hypothetical flight score which is rounded down to the nearest second.

HTH
Nigel
Curiously, reflecting on that post finally led a penny to drop regarding the microfilm/Mylar rule.

A person of relevance told me they didn’t think plastic films represented the finish of aircraft well and I assumed the purpose of the microfilm/Mylar rule was a badly worded attempt to remove their use, i.e. the use of all plastic films.

I now think the rule means just what it says and the purpose is to provide another way to avoid entrants creating super lightweight duration models having only a nod to scale fidelity.

Apologies to anyone else my comments may have misled or confused.

For my part, I think glossy plastic films could well represent the sheen on heavily restored classics, modern reproductions, bare metal on unpainted aircraft or cowlings, or painted composite or metal aircraft. The greater difficulty might be achieving a good colour match, colour depth, texture if any, etc, as well as applying them to a lightweight frame without excessive distortion during heat shrinking.

HTH
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: billdennis747 on May 18, 2022, 02:29:31 PM
A person of relevance told me they didn’t think plastic films represented the finish of aircraft well and I assumed the purpose of the microfilm/Mylar rule was a badly worded attempt to remove their use, i.e. the use of all plastic films.
They need to see Ralph Sparrow's silver mylar models.


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Pete Fardell on May 18, 2022, 02:49:55 PM
A person of relevance told me they didn’t think plastic films represented the finish of aircraft well and I assumed the purpose of the microfilm/Mylar rule was a badly worded attempt to remove their use, i.e. the use of all plastic films.
They need to see Ralph Sparrow's silver mylar models.
Such as this one in this pic from Mike’s site  http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3ai.htm (http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3ai.htm)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: RalphS on May 19, 2022, 10:12:13 AM
Just came across this.  Is the mylar ban just for Peanut class or all indoor scale classes?  The only times that I flew were 2016 and 2017 and think that my models were the only mylar covered ones so "was it me" who caused this minor rumpus and why?

Do the Scale tech committee publish minutes of their meetings? 

I found that I got different static scores between the years for the same model. That put me off. 

As well as silver mylar I have used clear mylar with acrylic paint on my Bristol Scout Peanut to get the see-through effect.  The Avro Avis did use silver mylar.  It is still largely unflown due to the Covid interruption.  Both builds here in the indoor scale/ Peanut sections.

Ralph



Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: SP250 on May 19, 2022, 10:31:07 AM
Ralph

It definately wasn't you who caused the mylar ban.
STC minutes are published on the BMFA SharePoint website and there is a link on the Scale BMFA Website under documents tab.
Different scores on different years is normal from different judges.  Everyone else's models will also get different scores. 
As long as they are all judged by the same judges on the day, then all the models will be coming out around the same place relative to each other.
My peanut Lacey M10 with dull side of the mylar out looked just right for the original colour scheme before the white and red one. 
Now I have stripped it all off to tissue cover and the silver tissue is horrendous to use.

John M


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 19, 2022, 01:28:30 PM
A person of relevance told me they didn’t think plastic films represented the finish of aircraft well and I assumed the purpose of the microfilm/Mylar rule was a badly worded attempt to remove their use, i.e. the use of all plastic films.
They need to see Ralph Sparrow's silver mylar models.
Such as this one in this pic from Mike’s site  http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3ai.htm (http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3ai.htm)
Thanks. I happen to own that yellow wingtip now  ;D still far better than anything I can build. Kudos for anyone who can ID it (Dan Mellor is excluded from the comp  :D)


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Nigel M on May 19, 2022, 01:45:31 PM
One more post from me, then I'm off for a lie down. Sorry it's long, happy to be fact-checked, assumptions dismissed, sums altered or whatever else.

I for one think the whole exercise was worthwhile - thanks, Peter - and I look forward to the outcome of STC's deliberations. I'd better build something now I've had so much to say. All I'll say is it will definitely have a wingspan >13".

ROG value
One last contribution from me exploring the impact of the ROG bonus value on breadth of model choice alongside changing the flying score multiplier, within the combining scores system.
To recap; ROG bonus = 10s which is increased by the multiplier value 3 to equal 30 marks. This might be viewed as too rewarding compared to max possible static score which is around 45-60 marks, depending on the aircraft chosen, and hence causes too much bias in model choice, assuming an entrant wishes to at least enter with the possiility of winning, all else being equal. Can the ROG value or multiplier be altered to make model choice fairer, i.e. so a range of model types has an equal chance of winning?

What level of total ROG marks, consistently earned, would be seen as balanced compared to the static scoring system?

How about 15 (i.e. halve the 10 per ROG to 5)? Still too high?
How about 6 (i.e. marks per ROG = 2)? Still too high?

Looked at a different way, to maintain equal encouragement of different model types, it’s easy to compare the impact of the ROG bonus, and the flight time multiplier, upon different strategies. Here’s one strategy comparison as an example:

Compared to building a high wing monoplane, or a biplane, which can’t quite fit a good duration prop, the alternative strategy of building a low winger without undercarriage and foregoing ROG would score: +3 (low winger), -3 (no u/c), -1 (assuming extra dihedral), = -1 before foregoing the ROG bonus. But there’s nothing to prevent an accurate undercarriage being flown deployed though, so score = +2 before accounting for ROG. Overall effect = 2 – total ROG score.

However, an excellent duration-style prop could be used with hand-launch so we could assume flight time max is achieved which, when compared to Mike H’s Bucker, is worth +7+6+5 marks compared to his best flight times of 43, 44 and 45s. That’s either +15 to the low winger (or +18 if we change to combining top 3 flights).

Simplifying the above, low winger no u/c vs biplane using ROG: low winger scores +1 (low wing vs biplane), 0 (u/c modelled deployed), -1 (increased dihedral), +18 (flight times), -ROG bonus. To be equivalent, total ROG should score 18 (i.e. 6 per flight).

Even hand-launching the Bucker but using a better prop, Mike could have scored +15 or +18 (flight time maxes) – total ROG bonus. To be equivalent, ROG bonus would need to be 5 or 6 per flight.

Let’s consider changing the flight score multiplier to another arbitrary number, 2, and/or use top 2 flight scores.

Using the same numbers, comparing a low winger with extended u/c and slightly exaggerated dihedral that achieves max flight times, to Mike’s Bucker from ROG. Low winger flight score = +5+6 (or 2x +5). To be equivalent, divide 11 (or 10) by flight multiplier 2, ROG bonus must be 5.5 (or 5) per flight.

Let’s continue by removing the multiplier completely so flight time and static score are given equal weighting: low winger flight score = +5, to be equivalent, ROG bonus must be 5 per flight.

The downside from removing the multiplier and using single best flight time is it removes the reward for consistency. To regain the encouragement and reward of consistency, one could average the top 3 flight times (or top 2), and still sum flight and static scores without multipliers.

I think my conclusion is, within the combined flight seconds plus static marks system, there is a place for a ROG bonus to encourage diversity of strategies, to make it a more interesting competition. However, the bonus value needs to be changed and the value considered alongside other potential changes, particularly the flight time multiplier.

HTH
Nigel


Title: Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
Post by: Skymon on May 23, 2022, 05:54:11 AM
You only lose 2 points for modifying the undercarriage to allow large prop clearance.
ROG scores will penalise planes whith retractable undercarriage as they will have to fly with the wheels down.
Hi Skymon, I don't think flying with u/c down is penalised in the rules - happy to be corrected. The extra drag will affect trimming perhaps but is surely no more than fixed u/c aircraft? Good point that an exaggerated (or any!) u/c allows an extra 30 points from a ROG whereas 2 potential points can't be gained. Does that point towards the ROG bonus needing adjustment?

Nigel (another wannabe  :))

Worth noting it's low thrust not low wingers necessarily that are compromised by needing to ROG.

Morning Nigel
The penalty I referenced as an aerodynamic one, not a points value one, apologies for any confusion.
The extra long UC legs would allow a bigger prop and an ROG. You can collect 30 points, lose 2 and end up with a strange looking plane, but one designed for this scoring system.