Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
May 18, 2022, 12:41:37 PM *
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 1263 times)
Tmat and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
john bowerman
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 9
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 83



Ignore
« Reply #25 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
Logged
Jack Plane
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 43
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,219




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2022, 03:50:01 PM »

Very well expressed John!
Logged
Squirrelnet
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,070




Ignore
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 386



Ignore
« Reply #28 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 ?)
Logged
Antonin Alfery
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Czech Republic Czech Republic

Posts: 44



Ignore
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
DHnut
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 1,029



Ignore
« Reply #30 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 
Logged
Nigel M
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 157



Ignore
« Reply #31 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."
Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 71
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,851



Ignore
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2022, 05:02:56 PM »

What is the purpose of the ROG bonus?
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 386



Ignore
« Reply #33 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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2022, 06:34:37 PM by Gary Dickens » Logged
billdennis747
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 71
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,851



Ignore
« Reply #34 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
Logged
Nigel M
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 157



Ignore
« Reply #35 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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2022, 07:00:22 PM by Nigel M » Logged
Nigel M
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 157



Ignore
« Reply #36 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  Huh Huh I thought I had made up my mind.

Nigel
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 386



Ignore
« Reply #37 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,666


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
Nigel M
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 157



Ignore
« Reply #39 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
Logged
Slowmatch
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 79
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,891


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #40 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  Roll Eyes or good enough to beat Richard C/Mike H Cool

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?
Logged
Gary Dickens
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 386



Ignore
« Reply #41 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
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,666


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #42 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.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 06:56:01 AM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Antonin Alfery
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Czech Republic Czech Republic

Posts: 44



Ignore
« Reply #43 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.


Logged
Jack Plane
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 43
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,219




Ignore
« Reply #44 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.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 167
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 6,666


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #45 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.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 10:06:43 AM by Pete Fardell » Logged
ffscale
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 38
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 328



Ignore
« Reply #46 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.
Logged
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 29
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,565



Ignore
« Reply #47 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."
Logged
Slowmatch
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 79
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,891


Jon Whitmore



Ignore
« Reply #48 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!)
Logged
Squirrelnet
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,070




Ignore
« Reply #49 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
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!