Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
August 14, 2020, 07:51:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Andy Sephton's new proposals for UK Indoor Scale  (Read 4376 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 710




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2014, 12:52:21 PM »

Interesting comments all. Most interesting of all for me is that there is an apparent perception that electric (and to an extent , co2) is somehow 'easier' than rubber and should attract an arbitrary penalty.

More consistent it might be as a power source (and i would question this with temperature and humidity dependant co2), but the model still requires experience to trim, and the ease with which this is achieved is far more dependant on the subject aircraft than the power source.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2014, 01:40:35 PM »

As well as the advantage of consistency doesn't the very nature of the power source make it easier or harder to trim?  Ie with electric the power source is well up front, not distributed along the fuselage, like a rubber motor (even with a "forward" peg position.  Therefore making the model lighter overall.

Lighter = slower = easier to trim?

Andrew
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2014, 01:51:17 PM »

Ps. Even with that I don't envy those that go for CO2.  Dan Mellor gave me a Telcco a while back, I still haven't been brave enough to try it!  Grin
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 710




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2014, 02:45:47 PM »

So don't pick a short nose subject for rubber, or indeed a long nose subject for Co2/ Electric.   Grin Grin

Both have their issues: my Tri-Pacer has its battery under the wing T/E to avoid a major nose heavy issue, and there are many rubber subjects who with a forward peg will have more than 50% of the mass of their motor in front of the CG, reducing or negating the need for any noseweight: my Focke-Wulf Ta152H for example. It's highly unlikely this model would be any lighter if it were electric powered, and the cell would certainly have to be positioned rearward.

The high revving electric power source is even more thrustline critical than rubber in my experience, with the attendant trimming issues.

The point i'm making is it's too simplistic to say that an electric model should attract a penalty purely on the basis of it's power source and the assumption that the motor run is consistent every time so therefore it must in all cases be easier to trim. I accept that it is very controllable and that is one of it's major attractions, but it's by no means foolproof, and scale rubber flyers far more experienced than me have demonstrated that consistency with a rubber model is equally achievable.
Logged
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 50
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 725




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 03:41:47 PM »

Time for my second message, the "essay"... If you thought my first message was all I had, you were very much mistaken  Grin. Please bear with me  Smiley

The biggest question for me is, what is the intented result, the goal aimed to be achieved through these or other changes.

Is it an increase in overal attendance? Or in attendance of the open class(es)?
A decrease in the work and the number of judges?
Freeing up of valuable contest time during a pressed 1-day event?

I imagine a combination of all of the above, more or less.
But I do not see how the initial proposals would lead to these results, especially the first one of increased participation.

On the proposal for merging the two open classes, I disagree for the following reasons:

First is the difference in philosophy. Each type of power has completely different characteristics. As a matter of fact, as I have written in the past, I do not like it that even CO2 and electric are under the same "roof". This has led almost all of the CO2 models to retirement, since the class is dominated by electric motors and timers. There is a big question if the electrics are easier to trim or not (agree with Graham  Wink). Their biggest advantage to me is their repeatability and dependability, regardless of weather conditions. I would very muc like to see an experimental separation of the two motor types. There are plenty of models and motors around for CO2. More trouble for the judges, yes, and even less time for flying, but more entries could mean more revenue. As it is, CO2 is "dead". 2-3 people and the Czechs still use them. I have no motivation to fly a CO2 model in an electric competition...

If we have an overall  combined open class, pretty soon the top spots will be occupied by electric models. I am not in favour of giving extra to rubber powered models to couteract their "handicap". The "rubber" and "motor" models are two completely different things, I cannot see them together in a single class.

By reducing the two classes to one, this will mean some people will only be able to enter one model instead of two. So, for example we would not see Richard's Flea and Baraccuda at the same time, or Peter Smart's excellent choices every year. to name only two... As I pointed out, the number of entries by the same people is 5-6 in the recent years... These will have to choose, not to mention they will have one less model to fly at the competition (which might not be bad, if they are untrimmed models, like mine usually are  Grin). This could even make it a less strong incentive to come to a competition (generally speaking, not just for me).

This will reduce the number of top spots, now there will only be 3 instead of 6, meaning even less incentive for someone to try their luck, with so many experts around. I fear this is one of the reasons CO2/electric is at such a steady point. You can usually guess the two of the 3 winners well in advance of the competition.

I do not disagree, the time needed to make a "proper" (whatever this may mean) open scale model might not be available. Or the tools required (airbrush etc). Or, just as Maxout pointed out, 6 months on one model might not be fun for some.

I hope I have made my points understood on that.

Regarding Peanut-Pistachio, I do not see them together either. What is the point of building a pistachio and flying it against peanuts? Build a peanut from the start. Of the five entrants this year, the three also flew peanut... Last year, of the 9 pistachio entries, the 8 also flew in peanut... I assume of course that we are not allowing double entries, so what would be the point of merging? 5 or 8 less models to fly. If the trend stays negative for pistachio, then perhaps cancellation might be in order. A class has to be supported in order to exist... Those that disagree to that, build something and enter to support the classes you favour.

A negative side effect of these merging or canceling solutions is also some loss of entry revenue. Not much maybe, but still...As long as the fees cover the trophy costs, why lose them?

Kit scale... No one can argue about the high number of entries and the healthy present and future of the Kit scale class. It is definetely a successful event at the nats, by numbers, support and enthusiasm THE most successful.

But for me, there is one specific point of view, where it isn't successful, and that is in the direction originally intented. Or at least, it isn't yet.

If I remember well from the early reports, the intention of Kit scale was to allow people to make their first steps in indoor scale, without the fear of the fierce open class competition (real or imaginative).
I do not see a big result in that direction, not yet. Pete's last post has me covered completely on that. Give some more time for people to try and enter the open classes. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece in order to place well. As a matter of fact, with the flying quality of kit scale models I have seen, it will be quite funny to see the "masterpieces" falling back in score because of their flying performance. You only have to try it and see. The static part is not easy to achieve, but unless you start trying you will never improve it.
True, a masterpiece that flies very well is unbeatable, except perhaps by another masterpiece of similar performance.

I may be placing myself in the target position with this...But I do think that Kit scale should eventually encourage people to try the open classes. To have to reduce the open classes because of luck of time or interest, while Kit Scale is thriving is like reducing the FAI scale champs in favour of stand-off scale models. Please do not shoot me for this...

Perhaps I might like a separate class within Kit scale, for the most advanced modellers who like the fun of it, or for previous winners, to go up a step. It is fun participating and for them winning might not be a motivation. Instead of banning models or modellers, just upgrade them (with no return option...)

For me the goal should be to find a way to make a healthy participation in the open classes. By healthy I mean >12 good models. At some point in the past there were >20 entries. Regardless of winning, there should be the motivation of participating and improving upon one's own performance.

Finally, although first by all means, I have a great appreciation for what Andy has done and is doing for this event. I cannot even appreciate the time and effort it takes to run this, to find the people, to get them organised. Not to mention the stress... I might not agree with his specific proposals, but I do agree that the subject must be stirred up a bit, in order to improve a stagnant situation or to avoid a future bad one.

I would very much like to see more models in the open classes. If not from up close, at least in reports.

End of essay...

George

PS. I reserve the right to return, hopefully with a shorter message, if I think of something else...
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2014, 03:43:24 PM »

If you want to know what it's all about George, I suggest you read the first three posts.
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 50
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 725




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2014, 03:45:40 PM »

On the subject of the easiest power choice, I agree with Graham 100%.

In many respects, rubber models are much easier to trim. Much more forgiving and with many more variable to play with , compared to CO2 or electric. In other respects they are worse. That is why they should remain being different classes...They are different

George
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 50
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 725




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 03:50:16 PM »

If you want to know what it's all about George, I suggest you read the first three posts.

I did, or at least I think I did...

What did I not understand? I am just saying ( in a very loooong message) that, speaking for myself, these proposals would have more negative effect than positive.

George

Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2014, 03:56:50 PM »

Hi George,

The reason I said to read the first three posts was that you based your argument above on the assumptions that: 

".....what is the intented result, the goal aimed to be achieved through these or other changes.

Is it an increase in overal attendance? Or in attendance of the open class(es)?
A decrease in the work and the number of judges?
Freeing up of valuable contest time during a pressed 1-day event?

I imagine a combination of all of the above, more or less....."

Whereas in Post No 3 I am quoted as saying:

"....... 3. My aim in suggesting such changes is to bring in newcomers to the Scale Indoor scene. ...."

Which is quite different from your assumptions.

So if your argument is based on your assumptions, you need to read the first three posts to understand the correct reasons why I'm proposing the changes.

Best Regards,
Andy


Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 50
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 725




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2014, 04:07:19 PM »

Sorry, my wrong.

But, when you say "bring newcomers", you mean in general as in "regardless of level", even if it will mean a sacrifice of the existing classes?

I understood it as bringing newcomers in indoor scale "in general", i.e. in all classes, including the open ones. This includes trying to "move up" Kit Scalers" to open models. And I do not think the first proposal helps in that direction...

Difficult to do this with a keyboard, a few countries away... It would be better with a beer  Wink

Best regards

George
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2014, 04:20:24 PM »

No prob George....and yes it would be worth talking over a beer.....I'll look forward to it!
Andy
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 70
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,559


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2014, 04:45:18 AM »

The only rule I would add is to limit the entry for a particular model, my view is that the simplicity of the models  (against the time consuming to build and decorate open models) should mean that you can only enter a model once, at least if you place with it.  This should help avoid the sort of stagnation that occurs with the same old models year on year....

Personally I do like the idea of models that have previously won being black-flagged so they cannot dominate a class for years.

I've been thinking about this aspect and I think it may help the situation. As far as I can tell in Kit Scale 2014 four of the top five placed models had won the class in previous years (correct me if I'm wrong.) I was and am against banning any individual from any class but an 'expert' turning up with a proven model and walking off with a top place doesn't add anything to a beginners class for me. If they want to build a new model then fair enough  Grin
A winning model ban would cut numbers in the class a little and open up the comp to beginners. I only competed under the ban so I have yet to fly against Graham, Laurence et al but let's at least make them try a little bit  Cool


Jon
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,145



Ignore
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2014, 05:21:47 AM »


 As far as I can tell in Kit Scale 2014 four of the top five placed models had won the class in previous years (correct me if I'm wrong.)

Jon
That really does surprise me and I would support a 'one time entry' .
Logged
Robmoff
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 240




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2014, 07:40:07 AM »

The only rule I would add is to limit the entry for a particular model, my view is that the simplicity of the models  (against the time consuming to build and decorate open models) should mean that you can only enter a model once, at least if you place with it.  This should help avoid the sort of stagnation that occurs with the same old models year on year....

Personally I do like the idea of models that have previously won being black-flagged so they cannot dominate a class for years.

I've been thinking about this aspect and I think it may help the situation. As far as I can tell in Kit Scale 2014 four of the top five placed models had won the class in previous years (correct me if I'm wrong.) I was and am against banning any individual from any class but an 'expert' turning up with a proven model and walking off with a top place doesn't add anything to a beginners class for me. If they want to build a new model then fair enough  Grin
A winning model ban would cut numbers in the class a little and open up the comp to beginners. I only competed under the ban so I have yet to fly against Graham, Laurence et al but let's at least make them try a little bit  Cool


Jon


So why not REWARD 'new' models with a 10 - 20% bonus, or penalise previos winners 20% off for last years winner, 15% for 2nd (and first for the winner before last) 10% off for lastyears 3rd (and the year befores 2nd.......
OR a '2nd division' run in a single competion, same judges and flight time slots but awards for 1st 2nd and 3rd NEW models.
I don't know how it would affect the results over the last few years, but if I had the info I could work it out.....

Rob
Logged

Never underestimate the innate hostility of inanimate objects.
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,145



Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2014, 08:38:46 AM »

but if I had the info I could work it out.....

Rob

They're all here!
http://www.scalebmfa.co.uk/Results/results%20new.htm
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 150
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,775


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2014, 12:07:59 PM »

If you kept banning the top models, after a few years you could have a kind of champions' league event to find the Kit Scale King!  Grin
Logged
Rich Moore
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,493




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2014, 05:27:02 PM »

After the discussion so far, I am thinking don't change anything. Perhaps rubber could be combined with electric/co2 (what do I know?) but I don't get what would be gained by doing so. So why fix what ain't broken?

If merging pistachio with peanut doesn't improve anything, then leave it be (don't ditch it either).

As far as encouraging newcomers is concerned, in the first instance, I think it is the taking part that matters more than the competition. I don't care to ban winners or winning models - these provide a standard to aim for in subsequent years as one develops skills and standards - something that needs to happen before gaining the confidence to have a go at the open classes. On the whole, Kit-scale seems to be working. Doesn't it?

After what George said about taking the step from kit-scale to the open classes, I think that it would be good if a few of the 'kit-scalers' built a detailed kit and entered it in the open class. I am considering this as my strategy for 2015. I can build a new model for kit-scale, fly last years kit-scale in the air race, and build a detailed kit for open rubber. Three entries with two models, what a lot of fun. If I find the time, a glider will make sure I am busy.
Logged

It wasn't me
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 47
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,015




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2014, 05:53:25 PM »

Being a complete novice I need experience of competing, or at least familiarity of the various events/classes as they happen to assess the suitability of the rules (whatever they may be) but understanding them is straightforward.

Rubber I consider sacrosanct and should be separate.  CO2 and electric could I would think be combined successfully, being similar power sources. Pistachio depends upon demand against "bodies" and time available.

I did not realise that the same model could be entered time and again in say kit scale. Does that not defeat the object. I think I would enter because of the fun of entering so would not be put off but I can imagine some might be.

If it is to encourage "beginners/novices/new blood" then someone who has won for say 5 years running with the same model is not I suggest in that group. Level playing field and all that. There are other classes for those people.  Say the top three kept entering year after year, and placing. They are none the less continuing to gain experience and will always have a head start over other entrants who by their very nature might be complete novices.

Yes have a target to aim for but one which is practical and reasonable. There might just be the person who sees it as an easy way to win even though at the same time it is a hollow victory.  Yes you are always going to have someone who qualifies to enter kit scale and is very good. OK give then one or maybe even two chances but after that make way please.

But that said I feel perhaps that the quality of the class might do with some enhancing - therefore introduce an element of scale/finish/accuracy into the judging.  After all it is scale class? To encourage people to progress to higher standards?

There is  also an argument for leaving things as they are; but equally one should not lose sight of the potential of refinement. or a bit of tweaking.

But nothing is decided yet and so far it all seems very democratic. Lots of useful discussion. 

I take it that the implementation of any significant changes will be delayed so as to enable folk to assess the effect and plan accordingly with their entries? 

Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2014, 02:30:56 AM »

For info, I explained the Ground Rules for the proposal in Pete Fardell's posts nos 1 and 3 at the beginning of this thread. I suggest you all read those again as a lot of the questions that come come up have already been answered. It may also help you to not make erroneous assumptions.

There are two further considerations:

- Time on the day of the event is limited, we can't increase the number of competitions. Also, we tried two days for the event and it didn't work.

- We can't increase the number of competitions as this would require more helpers, which would be difficult to achieve.

I'll re-iterate my initial criteria: we need to bring beginners into Scale Indoors.

The average age is increasing and if we do nothing about it, this part of our hobby will die out. My proposals were reactions to perceived opinion and existing statistics. If you can think of another way round the challenge, please let me know. But I'll also repeat that I'll only take note of written responses sent to any member of the Scale Technical Committee. You can find their contact details here: http://www.scalebmfa.co.uk/techcomm.html
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,145



Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2014, 04:40:46 AM »



I'll re-iterate my initial criteria: we need to bring beginners into Scale Indoors.

The average age is increasing and if we do nothing about it, this part of our hobby will die out. My proposals were reactions to perceived opinion and existing statistics.
Hi Andy,
I've just done a highly-detailed analysis of the entry for 2006 (pre-KS)  2008 (with KS) and 2014. In 2006 there were about 26 different people entering. In 2008 it was 40 and this year 46, with KS making most of the difference. And I was unfamiliar with many of the names. So, without being too complacent, I think you could justifiably say that you and Ian have already largely succeeded here with KS.
I am not sure how many people regard KS as a beginner's class; I think it stands on its own.
I don't think we need any more classes, nor is there room.
Only you and the organisers know how much of a problem it is now to squeeze everything in, but if there is room for mass launch, air race and gliders then it can't be too serious. There might be a case for reducing the rounds to three.
Oh, and there is no excuse for entering the same model twice in KS. For shame. I used to be able to make a KK SE5 on Saturday and "fly" it on Sunday down the park.
Bill
Logged
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 70
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,559


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2014, 04:53:49 AM »

There might just be the person who sees it as an easy way to win even though at the same time it is a hollow victory. 

I have to say that this has not been my experience in the slightest. The 'experts' who have entered during my time are some of the nicest people around and lets face it, if you have a model that qualifies for a comp you're going to want to fly it. On a purely personal note I have no trouble with experts competing in Kit Scale (I fought for their unbanning :-)) and I'd enjoy the challenge.

However if Kit Scale is supposed to be a Beginners comp then perhaps that factor should dictate what the tone is. It's becoming apparent that not everyone sees KS the same way. Establish clearly what it's there to achieve and the rules should follow...
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 150
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,775


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2014, 05:16:40 AM »

The concept of "beginner" means different things to different people too. It would be interesting to see an age analysis to go with Bill's numbers analysis, but perhaps that information isn't so available!
If indoor scale is to die out, as Andy fears, then it requires that no younger modellers come through. Well certainly there are not many Joe Robicanos about at the moment, but there are several regulars in their 40s like me, and a few rather younger ones like Jon too. We're not all going to drop of the perch any time very soon and I for one intend to 'do a Reg Boor' and keep going as long as health and world balsa stocks permit.
So whilst complacency is dangerous, there is surely no need to panic. As Bill's numbers show, current strategy is working to a large extent and all credit to the men responsible.
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 47
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,015




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2014, 05:27:48 AM »

I joined my first club, Peckham MAC in about 1952 and some members then said that new younger members were vital otherwise in ten or twenty year aeromodelling would be dead. Inspite of all we have today it is not.  And for my part I don't want thousands of people flying model aircraft. We can see the controls that have come into force as a result of the numbers we have today.

So yes bring people into indoor. But is this by the rules for competitions? Not sure. OK I am a born again areomodeler.  And a convert back from radio to FF.  What did this was the "greeting" I got when visiting events, the obvious enthusiasm to help and encourage. My visit to Bushfield just before the Nats rather sealed it!

So competing with top notch chaps in kit scale, say, for me could well be kudos. But perhaps I am a snob? My comments above were a general possible view by others. And what I thought the I thought behind kit scale was.

So if the intention is to get people indoors then my guess is get them to an event (of any sort) and like me certainly some will get the bug! I am pretty chuffed to have met some of you and had guidance so competing with you will boost my ego no end!

Yes it is essential to look at the rules now and again.  And for useful discussion to occur.

Oh and I have found much the same atmosphere with the outdoor FF scale chaps as well. So you are all  something right!  I took a chum from the radio club to the Nats this year - he is similarly enthused and a short while ago was seen chasing a Southerner Mite across Sculthorpe. He has almost finished a CO2 indoor scale job and is muttering about a Camel (saw one at the Nats he said).
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,145



Ignore
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2014, 05:31:39 AM »

Just to add to Pete's comments, I have been involved in running outdoor events of all types since the 1970s and for many years I feared that it would all be over soon. Rock bottom was in the 80s when we had a grand total of five entries at the Nationals. During that time we have lost most of those who I flew with then but they have been 'replaced', with interest. All free flight events are up against it, but especially outdoors. Indoors seems quite healthy to me (in terms of numbers, that is; not the being cooped up inside in dim light like Morlocks, with ready-availability of chips).
Let's stop talking about indoors in the middle of July and get those Nats entries in!
Logged
Andy Sephton
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 210




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2014, 08:36:25 AM »

".....Let's stop talking about indoors in the middle of July and get those Nats entries in!"

Certainly agree with that Bill!

Just a quick comment on the AIr Race and Mass launch. As well as being a good spectacle and light relief for the competitors and organisers, both events are used when some catch-up time is needed, esp between the end of the competition and the prize giving. THey will remain in the programme.
Logged

Too much thrust is never enough!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!