Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
July 03, 2022, 04:54:02 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   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: BMFA Peanut Rules  (Read 1609 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« 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).
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
BMFA Peanut Rules
BMFA Peanut Rules
Logged
Slowmatch
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 79
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,898


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #1 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 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.)
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 404



Ignore
« Reply #3 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2022, 10:56:10 AM »

Thanks, Gary. Here's the link: BMFA SCALE RULES
Also screen shots of the Peanut pages (112-114) attached.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: BMFA Peanut Rules
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 11:06:57 AM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Slowmatch
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 79
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,898


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #5 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?
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 404



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2022, 11:36:48 AM »

Yep, now it's triple your best score...
Daft.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2022, 02:47:45 PM »

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?
Logged
Squirrelnet
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,136




Ignore
« Reply #8 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
Logged
DHnut
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 1,044



Ignore
« Reply #9 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
Logged
TheLurker
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 43
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,809




Ignore
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 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.
Logged
Squirrelnet
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,136




Ignore
« Reply #12 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
Logged
DHnut
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 1,044



Ignore
« Reply #13 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 404



Ignore
« Reply #15 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 07:53:08 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Jack Plane
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 43
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,302




Ignore
« Reply #17 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!
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 71
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,892



Ignore
« Reply #18 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
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 540



Ignore
« Reply #19 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #20 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?)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2022, 05:41:50 AM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 404



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2022, 06:51:18 AM »

I give up....
Logged
Jack Plane
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 43
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,302




Ignore
« Reply #22 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...!
Logged
Slowmatch
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 79
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,898


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #23 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?  Shocked

I hold no strong opinions on this - just trying to understand the compromises!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,703


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   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!