- Category: Archive 2015
- Hits: 53
- Comment of F1B Proposal - Andriukov
- Dear mr sen
- 2014 America's Cup Report and Final Results
*Comment on the Proposal - F1B*
Instant start gives about 80% of DPR advantage. Delay gives 20%. I began
using DPR with 0.8 or 0.9 sec. Now I use 0.2 sec - no difference, more
reliable launch. Some fliers use 0.01 sec delay for an instant start - is
it to be illegal? I know a few fliers that will not be able to launch
models without DPR/instant start. Should we kick them out of sport?
Dear mr sen
From: Gene Ulm
I would like to write that you are doing a public service by reporting on all the attitudes regarding rule changes and notions about how they would impact our sport.
While there may be mechanics of the rules process that make many of the proposed ideas difficult to address at upcoming meetings, rules makers would be well served to set aside arbitrary proposal/docket deadlines and listen to the voices of constituents.
Debate is healthy and also has put daylight on the rules formation process. While many may think the opinions of the flyers makes the process of representatives more difficult, representatives have an obligation to be informed about their constituents and how what they do will impact them. Secrecy by design or by accident makes the process arbitrary and disenfranchises people.
It forces our representatives to listen to people who may disagree with them. Isn't this an obligation of the job?
The bottom line is no (successful) rule making body changes rules without talking to the people impacted.
Those that do make decisions without consulting those impacted end up being drum majors with no parade.
Clearly there is a demand to do SOMETHING that impacts the flight envelope and increases the number of competitors. All while helping and not hurting. Three difficult challenges.
While there is a debate over what to do, to do nothing is whistling past the graveyard.
I for one do not believe restrictions on specific aspects of the aircraft will impact the ultimate nature of FAI flying. This has more to do with the flyer than the aircraft. Under a new set of rules, flyers will quickly develop a new ultimate and the creme will rise to the top. That's what these people do.
Over the years formula 1 racing, another ultimate, has banned moving wings, turbochargers, ground effects, active suspensions, sticky qualifying tires and lots of other ultimate technology. Ferrari still races and it's still the ultimate.
The note is that all these changes were made upon the consideration of the competitors.
Just my 2c. (May be worth less).
2014 SCAT AmCup Final Report
I’d like to start this report by showing the America’s Cup mission statement that has remained essential the same since its conception:
“The purpose of the America's Cup Competition is to foster the development of flyers and models across North America in the FAI F1 (free flight). This coast-to-coast competition requires flyers to attend multiple contests each year in the United States and Canada in order to win. To this end the Southern California Aero Team has formulated the following rules.”
In the last week SCAT has discussed if this mission statement has outlived or to put more positively has the mission statement been fulfilled and should a change in new direction be taken? Since the beginning many comment that the number of contests and the point system does not always select the best flyer in a given year. Namely the point system that awards full points to contest with less that 5 flyers- for example a single flyer gets the full 25 points does not seem right. The standing answer is all other flyers were perfectly free to go to that contest and compete for those points. In a larger practical sense these smaller contests benefit by getting flyers seeking AmCup points that normally would not travel to a small a contest.
From a practical sense, in most events winning the AmCup requires bonus points so the winners need to attend and win at least 1 and usually 2 major contests. The current and previous AmCup winners in my mind have earned the recognition of the best for that year. Clearly the number of bonus points available every year is reducing. Two years ago we reduced the number of entrants for bonus points. I’m afraid this trend will continue and so we’ll continue to assess the current scoring system. The conclusion for the 2015 season is there will be no significant changes.
On to the 2014 AmCup commentary. This year a first place change happened at the last contest of the season, the King Orange. In other events first place positions were secured midway through the season.
F1A: Jama Danier only placed in 5 AmCup contests as he was busy competing around the earth to also win the F1A World Cup. His top 4 contests resulted in 110 points. I ended up in second place but did not have sufficient bonus points later in the season to catch him. Shlomi Rozenzweig, 2014 winner placed third.
F1B: Hard to believe but this is Walt Ghio’s first AmCup win with 113 points. Last year’s winner, Tom Vaccaro placed third.
F1C: Gil Morris is the flyer that took first place at the King Orange thus robbing Faust Parker who had the lead for most of the year. Last year’s winner, Ron McBurnett, placed third.
F1P: Sad to see F1P slipping in participation. Bob Hanford won and was the flyer to meet the 3 flying sight requirement. Last year’s winner, Glen Schneider, placed 3rd.Only 7 flyers competed this year.
F1G: The small rubber class is as strong as ever with 35 flyers posting scores. Tiffaney O’Dell won with 106 point taking the lead in January and held on through the end. Tony Mathews challenged in the fall but came up short. Tiffaney’s flying partner and last year’s winner, Blake Jensen was fifth.
F1H: Bob Sifleet finally broke through and won. His NATs win with 2 bonus points was key to his 102 points. Brian VanNest challenged at the end of the year traveling to Eloy in December to tie Bob’s 102 points. Initially it looked like Brian won via the tie breaker but Bob’s win 4 weeks earlier at EEFFC gave Bob the tie breaker win.
F1J: Only one contest had a bonus point this year showing the decline of this small power event. Faust Parker won that contest and so scored 101 points which now gives him a string of wins to 4 in a row. Interesting the top four positions are exactly the same as last year: Jean Pailet, Bob Hanford and Gil Morris. This not the case until Gil Morris’s win at King Orange moved him into forth. Welcome first time in the top five Ray Boyd.
F1Q: F1Q has been going through growing pains but continues to draw in new flyers. Matt Gewain joined in this year won with a score of 103 points. Julie Parker the winner of the past two AmCup placed third. We have our first junior flyer in the top 5—Joel Yori.
F1E: I’m ready to rename the F1E trophy to the “Peter Brocks F1E Cup”. I can’t remember anyone else winning. Second place Tom Ioerger has been challenging him to keep Peter honest.
As in the past years, the 2014 AmCup Awards will be awarded at the SCAT AmCup Banquet in association with the 2015 MaxMen contest at the Wasco Elks Club, Saturday Feb 14, 2014. Make plans to stop and get a rose for your special gal and treat her to great meal and festivities!
The only modification to the 2015 AmCup rules is change to rule 10.
'Entry' means a flyer registered before the first flight start time and made at least one official flight.
Last note: it is time to send in the $30 AmCup sanction fee. All contests from 2014 season are carried into the new 2015 season. Please make checks to out to SCAT and send to: Jim Parker, 9524 Ruffner, Northridge, CA. 91343. If a club or CD does not wish to be part of the AmCup, please contact me.
Congratulation to the 2014 America’s Cup winners. Reminder to the AmCup first place winners to shine up the perpetual trophy, dust off your coat and tie to up-hold the award banquet standards.
Bold indicates 2013 first place winners and Jr indicates the highest placing FAI junior flyer.
Ron Mc Burnett
America Cup results - with individual placings
Key to competition abbreviations and number of sportsmen:
1 Danier, Jama 110 Ike-1 NAC-1 HC-1 USO-2* GGG-1
2 Parker, Jim 105 SWR-5* NAC-3* SCA-2* SAN-2* BAl-4* NWF-1 NW -2* USF-4* CFA-1 Ser-3* SWC-2 Pat-2* AZC-1
3 Rosenzweig, Shlomi 96 SAN-1 BAl-3* NWF-4* NW -1 USF-2 Pat-5* AZC-2
4 Barron, Andrew 95 SWR-2 Ike-4* NAC-2 HIC-1 SKA-3* USO-4* O&W-2 GGG-3* SWC-3* Pat-4*
5 VanNest, Brian 91 SWR-4* NAC-5* MM-4* SCA-1 BAl-5* CEn-2 USF-3* CFA-4* Ser-5* Pat-1 AZC-3
6 McKeever, Mike 88 SCA-4* SAN-6* NCA-2 BAl-1 NWF-3 NW -4* USF-1 CFA-5*
7 Tremayne, Garrett (jr) 75 SWR-1 Ike-5* NAC-4 MM-1
8 Jones, Kyle