Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 12, 2019, 08:09:26 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   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Scale Rules Review  (Read 1449 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 442

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: July 09, 2019, 06:02:49 AM »

Dear scale indoor modellers:
A review of all scale class rules both indoor and outdoor is underway, please see note below.

‘On behalf of the Scale Tech Committee, Doug Hunt is reviewing the FF Scale rules for all classes, indoors and out, with the objective of encouraging more entries, widening the choice of subjects and reducing the time and effort required to judge competing models.  Any proposed changes will be reviewed and ratified by the STC in October for potential implementation in 2020'.

If you have any views on how the current rules might be improved then let Doug know on [email protected] within the next month or so.

Please reply to Doug via email only, NOT by posting on here, as he is not a frequent visitor and your views will be taken into account for discussion at the STC meetings.

Regards John M
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2019, 06:55:16 AM »

Please reply to Doug via email only, NOT by posting on here, as he is not a frequent visitor and your views will be taken into account for discussion at the STC meetings.
Hi John, agree but the two are not mutually exclusive and I think discussion on here might be a good thing.
I'll kick off by saying that things speed up considerably if you only have one judge!
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 442

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2019, 07:30:15 AM »

Sorry Bill, the wording of my post sounded like discussion was not allowed.

Clearly that is not the case, and all discussions are relevant and valid. 
However if people want them included at the STC for consideration, then by all means discuss here, but also their views need to be sent to Doug.

Incidentally, I have forwarded to Doug all the replies I received from the last time Andy Sephton wrote in the BMFA News about rules and combining classes 18months or so ago. 
So this is the next round of discussion somewhat modified by the last round opinions and how increasingly hard it is to get good judges or train new ones up to a good standard.

John M
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2019, 08:47:35 AM »

Sorry Bill, the wording of my post sounded like discussion was not allowed.
John M
No, John, I didn't take it that way. Discuss away!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,970




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2019, 11:32:08 AM »

Andy Sephton has made his  suggestions in the current BMFA News too. He thinks that it would be a good idea to combine CO2, rubber and electric into one class in indoor scale in order to make room for an intermediate scale class as a bridge from kit scale. He invites comment,  so once I've mulled it all over a bit more I shall tell him my views again and will tell Doug too as John suggests. Instinctively though, I really hate the idea of getting rid of open rubber as a stand alone class. It's the class I aspire to, it's the class I always enter (as well as kit scale) and it's the class I hope to get better at. I think that's probably what I said 18 months ago too.

On a more positive note, I don’t really mind how scale classes are judged so long as the rules are clear. So any changes which make judges’ lives simpler must be worth considering.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 12:22:19 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,866


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2019, 12:29:11 PM »

I've said before that I'm not at all keen to see the open classes combined ... I would rather see kit scale go first to be honest ... and I think Kit Scale is great.
We already have people capable of winning all 4 traditional classes at once, so why make the jump to open even harder by reducing the opportunities to compete in open?
Logged
TheLurker
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 738




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2019, 01:02:54 PM »

Quote from: Pete Fardell
Andy Sephton ... He thinks that it would be a good idea to combine CO2, rubber and electric into one class in indoor scale

...any changes which make judges’ lives simpler must be worth considering.
The Parish Idiot writes...

A question.  Does combining these three bias the flight element in favour of electric then CO2 over rubber powered models because of improved motor performance/endurance?

If that's true (and I accept it may not be) then some form of handicapping rule(s) will probably be needed to level out the differences in available power and power source endurance for the flight element.  This would complicate the judges lives, no?

Supplementary question.  Assuming that the available power to weight ratio favours electric over CO2 over rubber will this not also bias static scoring in favour of electric/CO2 as models using these power sources can afford the weight penalty of additional scale detail and coloured dope finishes?
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2019, 01:08:08 PM »

Quote from: Pete Fardell
Andy Sephton ... He thinks that it would be a good idea to combine CO2, rubber and electric into one class in indoor scale

...any changes which make judges’ lives simpler must be worth considering.
The Parish Idiot writes...

A question.  Does combining these three bias the flight element in favour of electric then CO2 over rubber powered models because of improved motor performance/endurance?

If that's true (and I accept it may not be) then some form of handicapping rule(s) will probably be needed to level out the differences in available power and power source endurance for the flight element.  This would complicate the judges lives, no?

Supplementary question.  Assuming that the available power to weight ratio favours electric over CO2 over rubber will this not also bias static scoring in favour of electric/CO2 as models using these power sources can afford the weight penalty of additional scale detail and coloured dope finishes?
Yes, yes and yes.
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,866


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2019, 02:14:47 PM »

I think Lurker has spotted the problem well. Why on earth create a handicap system that would take up more time than just running a separate class?
I honestly think that more "top tier" classes would be the answer ... including viewing kit scale as a top tier event . It would still have the easiest access for the less experienced.
Jon would then know for sure that he has beat all comers when he wins .... again!
Logged
Squirrelnet
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 636




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2019, 02:16:31 PM »

Quote
A question.  Does combining these three bias the flight element in favour of electric then CO2 over rubber powered models because of improved motor performance/endurance?

Quote
Yes, yes and yes

I feel the same about the outdoor classes. I feel it would inevitably lead to domination of the most successful form of power. An outdoor diesel powered model with a distinct glide phase is at a disadvantage to an electric model with its smooth transition and powered glide.

 Combining classes into the same running order, such as the Eddie Riding last week or so ago, to speed up the running is a great idea but I would be opposed to the combining of the class definition into a general open class I think that could lead to reduction in the diversity of the models which would be a real shame.

On an indoor note how about a flying only class? maybe to run along side the open classes. Could that attract some new entries with a stand off scale look and no static judging ?
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,866


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2019, 02:29:42 PM »

Flying only would be a good idea, Chris .... it could be run with static judged models as the flying judges do not need to know which models have been static scored. The reveal at the end could be quite exciting too.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,970




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2019, 03:17:05 PM »

Just to clarify... when I said, “Any changes which make judges’ lives simpler must be worth considering”, I didn’t mean changes to the classes themselves (ie scrapping or combining classes etc.) I just meant changes which speed up the judging of the classes as they are now. I don’t know- maybe something like letting owners of previously judged models submit the last time’s static score sheet with their docs, perhaps with a signature to say they haven’t changed anything since.

I think Chris’s indoor ‘flying only’ class has legs too. Works well outdoors for both free flight and RC scale and immediately widens the choice of more unusual subjects. I’m not quite sure how it would fit alongside kit scale though (which is so successful that it shouldn’t be much messed with in my opinion).
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2019, 04:01:11 PM »

I'm not sure what indoor flying only would achieve. Outdoors it sort of works because of the vagaries of outdoor flying. Indoors, where models just go round and round and hit walls if they don't, the temptation will be to build diaphanous models and they will be very difficult to separate. It's difficult enough separating them outdoors.

Incidentally, in BMFA News, Andy says entries are declining in the Open classes and rising in KS, but is that true?

Rubber and CO2/electric classes are not compatible indoors (and nor are electric and IC outdoors). Rubber will decline and the combined total entry also. It is not fair on those who have supported these classes for years. We could overhaul the rules, reducing the importance placed on detail, but really it's a red herring.

Prior to each Indoor Nats there has been concern about fitting it all in - we always do. Going to one judge on static would reduce time taken to a fraction
Logged
Squirrelnet
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 636




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2019, 04:19:48 PM »

My thought with flying only is it may prove attractive to modellers who have been entering kit scale but who dont fancy the extra step of building to a higher static marking standard or have finished in coloured tissue .It would be the sort of thing that something like Jon’s Camel could do well in and could suit other poorly documented designs. Ofcourse it could produce a raft of similar designs but that hasnt really happened in kit scale, if anything its making some modellers try to  build something different

I appreciate it could get close in judging it

Chris
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,970




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2019, 04:56:05 PM »

Andy says entries are declining in the Open classes and rising in KS, but is that true?
Don’t think it is. Or at least it’s not the whole picture. Even if numbers have been quite low in the open classes lately it seems to me that a lot of people in kit scale are gradually gearing up to entering an open model, and a swelling of numbers in those classes  this year or next wouldn’t surprise me.

Bill, what are the arguments against your one judge idea? Are some judges against it?

(Incidentally, the predictive text feature on my phone just tried to change ‘kit scale’ to ‘zeitgeist’!!
Spooky!)


Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2019, 05:21:01 PM »

Bill, what are the arguments against your one judge idea? Are some judges against it?
Well, if the one judge doesn't know what they're doing, you're in trouble. But the only judges I've come across who have fitted that bill have been at RC world champs.
I've mentioned it a few times but never got a response - perhaps they didn't think I was serious. One judge could do an Open class in under an hour.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2019, 05:43:27 PM »

Andy seems hell bent on making changes to the rules, the reasons for which I cannot fathom.  I have said it before and i’ll Say it again leave it alone...

I've said before that I'm not at all keen to see the open classes combined ... I would rather see kit scale go first to be honest ... and I think Kit Scale is great.

Yeah seems logical, get rid of the most popular class, makes sense - defo easier for the judges if you remove half or more of the entrants... Roll Eyes. Russ you’ve never really hidden your distaste for kit scale before, why is it suddenly “great”?  I’m confused..  Huh

If the rules change and I don’t like them I won’t enter.  I refuse to get into any further yearly (it seems) rule bashing and arguments and discussions that we have.

Andrew
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 52
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,703



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2019, 02:59:28 AM »

If the rules change and I don’t like them I won’t enter.  I refuse to get into any further yearly (it seems) rule bashing and arguments and discussions that we have.
I agree Andrew. The rules have been evolved carefully over nearly 50 years. Tinkering with them never brings in more entrants; never has, despite what people might say. Only very rarely does a major innovation like Indoor (and outdoor) KS have an impact. People who fly KS like it, and so do those in the Open Classes and Peanut. They should all be accommodated. Debates about number of judges are a red herring; they volunteer and do not receive payment. Rules should only change if there is something wrong. And the same goes for outdoors, where we have classes for all tastes.
However please don't assume that doing nothing will suffice. Whatever our views, it is vital to send them to the whole STC:
https://scale.bmfa.org/
If you don't want this, you have to say so. We know what happens if you 'assume' a result.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,970




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2019, 03:30:57 AM »

Yes, a quick email saying “Please leave it alone” doesn’t take long at all.

In recent years though, there has been one new thing that’s given a huge boost to the long term prospects of scale flying competition in this country and is inspiring many more people to be take part...

it’s called the Vintage Model Company!  Grin
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,866


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2019, 05:34:09 AM »

Andrew,
I don't know what planet you are on sometimes?
My only problem with Kit Scale is that some want it as a top tier event whereas exclusions apply that do not quite allow that to happen.
I prefer the top tier option with no restriction on expert entry ... so please, not "distaste" ... I would just prefer a slightly different angle.
Please remember that there was a time before Kit Scale ... It was a great event then ... It is a great event now.
Another crass way in which you have jumped on my posts.
Logged
FreeFlightModeller
Russ Lister
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 67
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,866


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2019, 06:02:58 AM »

Can I just say that nothing has pleased me more than the way that Jon has competed in Kit Scale for the last couple of years.
Nothing has pleased me more than to see the likes of Mike Stuart entering Kit Scale.
Nothing has pleased me more than being able to help with the running of the event in the past few years when I have not entered.
I could go on.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2019, 03:37:17 PM »

Oooh!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Scale Rules Review
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2019, 04:36:36 PM »

If the rules change and I don’t like them I won’t enter.  I refuse to get into any further yearly (it seems) rule bashing and arguments and discussions that we have.
....However please don't assume that doing nothing will suffice. Whatever our views, it is vital to send them to the whole STC:
https://scale.bmfa.org/
If you don't want this, you have to say so. We know what happens if you 'assume' a result.

Thanks Bill good point.  Done to Andy, Mike and Jon...in summary it simply says “leave things be”

Andrew
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2019, 05:32:21 PM »

Had a reply.  Apparently leaving the rules and classes as they are isn’t a valid opinion or option to be considered, apparently there must be changes to them...

Andrew
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,887




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2019, 06:05:18 PM »

I think I have lost the plot..........change for changes sake..... will come back in the morning  to see if I then understand.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   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!