SEN 2215 9 Nov 2016

Table of Contents - SEN 2215

  1. Percentage Chaos in F1E
  2. No Percentage Chaos in F1E
  3. Need more Percentage
  4. Rules of Free Flight
  5. Mike Roberts F1J rules

Percentage Chaos in F1E
From: Wolfgang Gerlach
Dear F1E friends,
see below for my personal thoughts to the     "Percentage Chaos in F1E".
Thanks for reading and publishing in SEN.
Many regards
Wolfgang Gerlach

Percentage Chaos in F1E
The principle of FreeFlight is based on the flown time. This is valid for all classes we have.
We take the time by 2 timekeepers, normally well educated, they have to have binoculars, a tripod,
we use digital stop watches showing hundredths of a second, we middle  the stopped time of each timekeeper, round it  plus-minus to a final FlightTIME in full seconds. This is the elexir of total FreeFlight.
We are able to add the seconds of each round to a total sum “by head” with our given brain, without any pocket calculator.
This is standard in all F1-classes, since  FreeFlight exists -- but not in F1E.
In F1E the flown seconds become castrated to an irrelevant, empty, artificial number, 2 digits beside the comma!!
Why, for what reason?           Here is the reason :
SC4_Vol_F1_FreeFlight_16,                 3.5.8. F1E  Classification
a) In each round, the time in seconds recorded by each competitor shall be expressed as a   percentage of either (i) the declared maximum time, or (ii) if no maximum time is recorded by any competitor, the highest flight time achieved in that round.
This percentage is entered as the competitor's score for the round.
The percentage scores should be displayed on the scoreboard rounded to the nearest value to 2 decimal places (0.005 rounded up).   [ this completion , invented by I.K. / GBR (??), was created after  apparent divergences in scoaring at ECh 2014 ]
All scores from the five rounds will decide the final classification. ……
To keep the scoreboard in the field official, you need at least a calculator, and for the results a PC with a complex Excel-program.
The stupidty of this percentage procedure becomes obvious in the following examples:
ECh 2016 Turda
1.  The second placed Junior Nils Finke / GER flew 1 (one) second less than the winning girl.
One second, anybody knows what a second is, worldwide, a second is a second : twentyone – twentytwo - twentythree.
In the result list we can read 479.58% against 479.17% , wow!
A difference of remarkable 0.41% -- what a sensation!
In a german Aero magazine was reported “…he was second with a difference of 0.41%…” What does this say to a normal Freeflighter, common with flighttimes in seconds : nothing.
Ian Kaynes , though one of the percent-fathers, did it better. In FFn 1608 he wrote in perfect style, without any XX.xx% :
”The results gave victory to little Laura Kozuchova from Slovakia followed by Nils Finke of Germany. They had both scored four maxes and dropped time in round 4, with Laura scoring 191 and Nils just one second behind with 190. Third place went to Polish flyer Jakub Wisniewski, also with four maxes but in his case he had dropped round 3 with a flight of 181.”
2.  In alternating Max-times in the rounds, the percentaging brings also disadvantages for competitors, who have a bad round and lose seconds to the Max.
Junior Nick Finke / GER is placed 13th with 392.08%.
But his result in seconds is 916, this would give him place 11 in any other F1-class!
Sorryly this 916sec are not in the result list . Seconds are banned, you have to add the rounds by yourself!
So Nick is cheaten by a comic rule and he loses 2 places in the result list.
This happens to 3 more Juniors.
3.          The Seniors Competition had 5 rounds with the same Max : 240 Sec.
In this case it’s obvious that the percentage account is rubbish, because placing in percents is equal to the ranking in seconds. Outsider ask, for what reason do they need the percentages, when seconds are the goal as FreeFlight standard?
ECh winner F.Kanczok / POL had flown 1153 seconds of total 1200, this is what we want to see, not the naked, unexplainable number 480.41%.
While evolution in F1E stagnates since introduction of the Flop-start, the repeal of the percentages could be at least a bureaucratic progress in F1E.
Nov 2016              Wolfgang Gerlach

No Percentage Chaos in F1E
Dear Wolfgang,
I don't understand at all what you mean!
I do think that in F1E class, the use of percentage is the best solution to the fact that we don't have the same max, or even sometimes no max at all in each round, and so, percentage is the best way to do.
I even think that this percentage rule could be used as well in F1A, F1B, F1C and other F1 free flight classes, it would be probably better than "group Fly-off" rule.
Best regards,

Need more Percentage  
From: Marian Popescu
Dear friends.

I agree with Pierre. Could the rule with the percent  be applied to all the
classes ? The groups of  *Fly off* are not reasonable and some
competitors are in advantage and others are in a disadvantage. The European
Championship from Serbia proved this thing. It should give up to this

Best regards, Marian

Rules of Free Flight

From:David Ackery
3 rules of Free Flight , my favourite,

" If it was easy, anyone could do it."


Mike Roberts F1J news.
From: Gary Madelin
Good to see that Mike Roberts is encouraging an upsurge again in F1J, and
look forward to seeing these lovely models fly during Fab Feb. I am not a
power flyer, so not really qualified to comment, but my view is that the
introduction of F1P is to blame for the reduced numbers in F1J. From the
little I have seen of F1P, the models look uninspiring, look difficult to
fly and who would want to bother flying one. In total contrast to the
sprightly F1J models which I recall a decade or so ago, when the Max Men
fly-off had a dozen participants, and was a spectacle. I timed the winning
flight by Austen Gunder at over 8 minutes. Spectacular, and let's hope the
power guys bring the class back to that level.

I do know for sure that two of my friends from GBR will be at the Fab Feb
events, each with F1J models in the box. All good news I say.

Gary Madelin.

Roger Morrell