- Category: Archive 2015
- Hits: 1296
- F1C and the CIAM
- Chris and Damjan on FB
- RDT on FB
- Who attended the CIAM FF Tech meeting
F1C and the CIAM
We received Damjan Žulič's posting below. Seeing this posting addressed a previous posting on FB from Chris Edge we have included Chris's posting so that Damjan's would not be taken out of context.
These posting address 3 different issues, the two technical changes to the F1C rules and the CIAM process. In Danjan's posting he addresses both procedural and technical questions so it was not possible to separate them out. We did separate a question from John Lorbiecki on RTD into a separate item.
In a posting below we list the people and the countries they represented at the CIAM Free Flight Technical meeting
Chris and Damjan on FB
Chris Edge: Given the long discussion about the rule changes for all classes, including those for 'simple models' I doubt that the National Aero Clubs (NACs) didn't get comments from flyers involved in FF like Damjan, so to suggest they don't fly FF is irrelevant. It would be remarkable indeed if the NACs weren't strongly briefed (the USA even did a poll of all flyers on each rule change proposal) so we much conclude that the voting was based to a greater extent on what the FF flyers wanted. And if flyers (like you and me) didn't comment back to the NACs on what was proposed then they have no right to complain now. To continually read that 'proposals are not written by flyers' and that the NAC representatives 'don't understand FF' is simply an insult to those present. So let's stop this unnecessary commentary please. CHE
Damjan Žulič: I don't quite understand how can someone place themselves to become a prejudical arbitrator and telling us what can we write about on FB and which of the comments are inappropriate and unneecessary. A dissagreement with a proposal doesn't necessary mean an insult to the proposers. So I will keep writing comments and my opinions for the goal of improvement even though not everybody will like it. I think it is right to debate criticise and compliment when the proposals are given. And If the new rules doesn't affect the FF in a positive way I still think that criticism is still well deserved even if the proposals are already accepted.
Even though it is not the first time that not everybody likes my comments I think that FB is a democratic media, where restrictions and boundries ass apose to redundancy and unsuitability on my comments aren't appropriate. I still believe that as well as my comments, tests and proposals as well as all of the above from other people were given and forwarded to NAC comittee and members of the FFSC as far back as last year. I am still sure that those proposals were given out and accepted without any field testing or analysis as to why are they even neccesary and what are we even trying to achieve with those changes. SEN and FB debates before the CIAM meeting are only proving that my theory is right. The majority of the proposals unfortunately wasn't given on the basis of field testing or analysis or even a little bit wider circle of debate between the organizers and competitors. I can atest to that because I am an active F1A,B and C competitor and also a world cup organizer. So I believe that it was the right thing to remove the majority of the proposals. I still can't figure it out why the F1C engine restriction wasn't removed because as well as me as the majority of F1C competitors i hope think that it is not necessary because the results of F1C models in the fly off doesn't derogate significantly from the other FF categories.
Even more incomprehensible is the fact that despite the main idea that those proposals would enable fewer costs and increase the number of competitors the CIAM commitee accepted the proposal about the 4sec engine run in the F1C category which only improves the difference between the hi-tech models and the classic direct drive models, which could still be used up until now. The second reason that will definetly decrease the number of competitors is the mandatory RDT on the model. Many of us don't have a chance or money for that kind of modification, which can financially cost us as much as 600 € for 4 models. And at the same time that rule can't even prevent the accident or the danger of a model crash because those things can also happen because of a technical error. I am very interested in the number of competitors in F1C category next year and even more the comments of the defenders and proposers of those new rules.
Comfort of the writer that the eventual costs of those changes will be lower than the costs of the competitions is unnecessary cinical. The fact is that everyone can adjust the the costs of the competitions. You can enter fewer competitions, you can choose those which are closer to your home, you can set a common transportation with your FF teammates. You can't do those things as appose to technical changes. You have to invest the whole value for a new model if you even want to make a single start in the upcoming season.
I think that the right way to accept those rules should be that the condition and problematics of them shoulh be mandatory evaluated. Then we should put every idea for a solution together in a certain deadline ofcourse. In that time we could thest those proposals and see what those cnahges would actually bring to our FF competitions. And out of those proposals we would form the final proposals the timeline of the changes and the options of the eventual adaptations of the changes.
Randy Secor: Please share on Sen if you have not already done so.
Colin Crowley: Could have not said it better myself!
RDT Question (from FB)
John Lorbiecki In respects to rdt, I know of no way that a rdt can be added to a standard mechanical timer system. If there is a way, please present it. Yes, rdt can be added after all the systems gave been activated but how would it be done before the bunt?
John Lorbiecki , I believe some local California AMA gas flyers have system where they have a module based on the Airtek RDT that cuts the motor then D/Ts the model after about a second delay. I do not know if this would be suitable for F1C. It would not be too difficult for the suppliers of the "standalone" RDT units that typically drive a servo to activivate the servo in two step - one immediately and another a second later to give the RDT unit 2 functions. This is not as effective an elctronic timer that can give more flexabity.
Who was at the CIAM FF Tech meeting
The official minutes of the CIAM Bureau and Plenary meeting are not out yet. But Ian Kaynes listed in FFn who attended the FF Technical meeting. It appears that this meeting is important because here people as 'experts' discuss and vote on the proposals and the result goes forward to the plenary as a 'recommendation'.
In a previous posting by John Cuthbert he questioned who where the F1C experts at the meeting and asked why people like Evgeny Verbitsky or Artem Babenko were not there. I spoke with friends in the Ukraine who said that their countries participation was limited by the current political suituation in their country. Other countries clearly do not not sent people to the CIAM meetings for budgetary reasons. Air travel is expensive and Lausanne an expensive city.
If one's country was not represented at the meeting, contacting the NAC would not do much good. In the list there are 18 counties. Typically 30 to 40 attend a World Championship. Only 2 countries from outside of Europe are represented.
And for the conspiracy theorists, even though there are 2 people from some countries, each country did only get one vote !
Finally it is my understanding that members of the FFTSC vote and individuals, with their personal opinion, that may not conincide with the position of their NAC. But the national representative at the FF Tech meeting votes representing his NAC. This could mean that a person in two roles may vote differently.
Wilhelm Kamp Austria
Cenny Breeman Belgium
David Loveday Canada
Karsten Kongstad Denmark
Cesare Gianni Italy
Sandy Pimenoff Finland
Jari Valo Finland
Jean Paul Perret France
Bernard Schwendemann Germany
Andras Ree Hungary
Zdravko Toporoski FYR Macedonia
Allard van Wallene Netherlands
Narve Jensen Norway
Alexander Popa Romania
Srdjan Pelagic Serbia
Per Findahl Sweden
Christoph Bachmann Switzerland
Ian Kaynes UK
Peter Halman UK
Chuck Etherington USA