SEN 2175
- Details
- Category: Archive Jan-Nov 2016
- Hits: 952
Table of Contents - SEN 2175
Because this is a long dialog we have put it in a SEN b almost by itself. We have highlighted key issues.
there was another similar discussion that expressd the same sentiments but in stonger language !@ I was not able to find it for inclusion in this SEN
There are 2 points - one specific to the Euro champs
1. it appeared in the Eurochamps that the split fly off rule was not being interpreted correctly - this was corrected
2. should there be 5 rounds and split fly offs any way ?
FB discussion of the split Fly off and associated items
Some editing for clean up and removal of extraneous comments
Bogdan Lemut: : FO1, two groups, 18:50 -19:00 and 19:10-19:20, 6 min
FO2 tomorrow morningu 6::00, 12 min
Bogdan Lemut: There was flyoff in 2 groups. Calcuating now who will enter tomorow's 12 min FO2.
Bogdan Lemut: Only the sum of final individual positions matters. We have to wait for FO2
Bogdan Lemut: Strange results of FO1
http://euchf1abc2016.vss.rs/.. etc - this showed 9 people in FO 7 from one segment and 2 form the other
Allard van Wallene: Rumours from field that only those who made the 6 minutes will fly the 12 min fly off. This is of course not according to the 2-group rule.
Ron Aßmuß: (Y)
Allard van Wallene: f) If the number of competitors in a flyoff is 12 or more and is greater than 25% of the number of
competitors in the competition, then the flyoff may be split into two groups:
1) The number of competitors in each group will be as closely as possible e...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · August 16 at 12:38pm
Allard van Wallene: Point 6)
Those with more 270 or more seconds 'may' proceed?
Chris Edge: Do we know how many maxed from each FO group ? CHE
Hugo Desloges Bazile: 7 from first flyoff and 2 from the 2nd
Chris Edge: So an additional 5 flyers from group 2 can FO as long as they've got more than 270s. Should be easy to work out. CHE
Allard van Wallene: You nailed it Chris. If they don't its gonna be a regular mess.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Is it a rule which must be applied or which can be applied...?
Allard van Wallene: Well, in this the rule is not 100% clear as the word "may' is used.
Javier Abad: do we know the results for each group?
Allard van Wallene: "may" can be interpreted as 'optional' but also as 'are allowed to'
Hugo Desloges Bazile: I first interpreted "are allowed to"...
Allard van Wallene: I think that is indeed the spirit of this rule, as the thermal conditions between two groups are never equal.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: I think that whatever the decision will be, it will be criticized...
Chris Edge: Well if there is some subjective aspect to the rules (the word 'may') then they could go just with the guys who maxed and it would be 'legal'. But if I was one of the extra 5 then I'd make sure I'd protest. But now back to the Olympics where the Brits (including us Scots) are winning more gold medals ! CHE
Javier Abad: I think this was implemented to compensate the different conditions that could happens in the groups
Allard van Wallene: I do hope the jury get their act together.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Who's in the jury?
Allard van Wallene: Willy Kamp, Gerhard Wöbbeking and Srdjan Pelagic
Javier Abad: me too
Bram Van de Kerkhof: Difficult to apply correct rule. When comparing to atletics the x number of heat 1 and heat 2 will proceed and the x number of time best. One can say in round 1 we have 6 maxes and in round 2 we have 2 maxes we will let go trough the number 1 to 6 of each round and the 3 time best of both rounds.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Apparently, people are discussing the rule on the field...
Allard van Wallene: What a mess.....
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Indeed!
Javier Abad: if they accept more people...will they be ready in the morning?
Allard van Wallene: Yes that is the question. They should be timely informed otherwise they will be disadvantaged
Dominik Andrist: Now all is clear 14 in Flyoff tomorrow
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Dominik, do you have names??
Allard van Wallene: That is how it should be!
Bogdan Lemut: I think the main problrm is the idea about splitting the flyoff by itself. The old rule was trying to give all competitors who made it to the flyoff equal or as equal as possible conditions. No mathematics can make this better. If the cause for such rule change was in too many competitors in flyoff and not having enough timekeepers, than why there was a reduction of rounds from 7 to 5 at the same time? Beat me...
Bogdan Lemut: Unoficially: Roland Koglot winner in F1A
Tapio Linkosalo: I'm not in Serbia so I cannot spectate the fly-off myself, but looking at the results it seems to me that the group thing was conducted right, and in these conditions showed to be the right way to go.
Flying a fly-off of 42 fliers would have been a mess. Where to find 84 timekeepers? In that group some would have for sure timed the wrong model, and finally that crowd would have spread on an area so large that it would have been a draw of luck what air you would have seen during the 10 minutes on your side of the field.
On the other hand, with the group split, 7 fliers made a max in the first group (or second, I do not know who flew in which group). The second flew in poorer air, as only 2 made the max, so the rule says to take 5 next best to the next round. Turns out that in this group 319 seconds was sufficient score to carry on. I can believe that in the first group the 6 guys who made more than 319 but less than 360 are annoyed, but that's how the rule goes. If you think if e.g. distance task in F3B, some guy may make 22 laps to score 1000 points where another guy in another group gets 800 points for making 22 laps. In F3B this is as it should be. Why not in FF?
Bogdan Lemut: Tapio - not 84 - 126 timekeepers!!! 1 more than in regular rounds. as the FAI Sporting Code commands!! But to get timekeepers should not be a problem, there were a lot of experienced fliers from different classes around in the field and the organizer had several hours to prepare themselves. If French organizers could make a flyoff with 62 participants in 2013 with help from all teams, this could go as well. The two group flyoff is simply UNFAIR, because competitors don't have similar air conditions!!!
Gil Hagay: Congratulation to all the winners
Tapio Linkosalo: Bogdan,
First, there are a lot of experienced aeromodellers on the field, but their task as team members is to help their fliers (including retrieving) in the fly-off, not act as time--keepers. I firmly believe that the task of finding 126 timekeepers would have turned out to be a mission-impossible.
Second, in RC glider classes people have bee flying in groups for decades and when compensating for different weather by adjusting the scores according to the best results of each group, this works with no problems for them. I cannot see how adapting similar system for Free Flight turns out to be unfair.
Bogdan Lemut: Well it is not easy to compare RC and FF... RC pilot can still try to fix some mistake he made after start, he can search for additional thermals during the flight, FF pilot can not... he depends solely on good start. and in the evening conditions usually change very quickly - in minutes. And - FF pilots have only one task - to keep the model in the air as long as possible. RC classes are usually a mix of several tasks - flying time, landing precission...
I wouldn't dare to compare FF and RC too much...
I guess more rounds and maybe (if weather and field size permit) higher maxes would do more for reduction of FO entrants...
Tapio Linkosalo: I agree that 7 rounds probably would reduce the number of full scores and would help with the fly-off problem. But with your comments that RC and FF are different, and therefore group flying fits RC but does not fit FF, I totally disagree.
Tapio Linkosalo: But having said that, these are just opinions, not facts, so we could carry on this argument to the end of the world and never agree...
Gil Hagay: Group flyoffs should be canceled asap. It creates a mess (on the last Eurofly also) and doesn't fit freeflight since the unequal conditions will always create unfairness.
7 rounds and 4-5 minutes rounds on first and seventh is better. Rubber weight and cables length should be reduced gradually also.
Drazen Domitrovic: on the 2009 WC in Korenica flyoff we also had 40 flyers and we had no problems
Chris Edge: I think it is fair to have these discussion now as it is the first championship contest to be flown to these new rules. I never understood the logic of reducing the number of flights as a way of reducing FO numbers and keeping models in the field (stated aim of CIAM). The reports I've seen (I'm in sunny Scotland, not sunny Serbia) state many models in crops especially on the extended last max, and big problems with retrieval. I was at the '91 champs at that site and it was the same problem with the crops. So we had a contest go ahead with a known problem and a contest format that would cuase retrieval issues for competitors - I expect similar reports today for B and even more for C tomorrow - is that a good thing ? I also don't understand having the extended max at a time of day when the thermals will be very strong. So really, with the reduction from 7 to 5 rounds you just know the FO numbers will be greater than can be practically managed, so having a rule that covers that (ie splitting in to groups) is a good thing BUT Eurofly showed the problem (very different air between the two groups) so clearly the whole process is a negaitive. CIAM should learn from this, go back to 7 rounds and ensure they are flown at sensible times of the day - extended maxes and reduced number of rounds have (surprisingly !) shown that it results in more people in FOs. I hope Lord Roger will put this discussion in SEN at some point. CHE
Allard van Wallene: Chris, NL will make a proposal to go back to 7 rounds. Time to start lobbying. I never understood this either. Main argument was that 7 rounds is too much of a marathon. Really? In Euro and World Champs retrieve teams are common and don't we like to present our activity as a sport?
Chris Edge: You have my full support Allard but many more will need to be convinced to get this corrected. Of course fewer rounds mean more beer time, so maybe we should think about this a bit more ....... CHE
Allard van Wallene: Chris, a beer tastes so much better after 7 rounds!
Tapio Linkosalo: Re: CHE and Allard, I agree that for Champioships the contest of 7 rounds would be a better challenge. After all the fly-offs are typically flown quite late in the evening (especially with the times starting at 6 mins now), so why wait the afternoon doing nothing (except the beer)? For World Cups the option to fly only 5 rounds on short winter days is good.
For the max, I'd see that more flexibility would be nice. In Serbian World Cup, they flew the first two rounds with 4 min max. Why not have even in the Championships fly e.g. the last round for 4 minutes, if conditions are good, but let the max be set to three if thermals and strong and retrievals long? For instance in Rinkaby the maximum is often adjusted for each round depending on the changing conditions.
Allard van Wallene: With 5 rounds the whole time keeping issue backfires. Time between last round and fly off is several hours, many go home / back to hotel. And after a well deserved shower and some drinks, who has the energy to go back to the field for the fly off? Result is that the fly off is flown without spectators and a time keeping problem....
Chris Edge: Yes, I thought the first two maxes to 4mins was a good idea for the Open International (OI). I assume the format for the Champs is more prescriptive (does anyone know ?) and hence you don't have that flexibility you are allowed in OIs. Maybe more flexibility for Champs would be a good idea with an 'allowance' of two (or 3 ?) long max flights, as long as the format is publicised well in advance (and maybe agreed with CIAM). For OIs you have almost infinite flexibility as long as you state what these when the calender is published, and I think this works very well - Sweden being a good example. CHE
Društvo Modelarjev Pomurja: SC4_Vol_F1 (2016)
3.1.7. Duration of Flights
The maximum duration to be taken for the official flights in world and continental championships is four minutes for the first round and, if conditions allow, for the last round and three minutes for the oth...See More
Mark Gibbs: I agree that going from 7 to 5 rounds was a step in the wrong direction. However, this is compounded by going for a later start, now time pressures have eased. I can't comment on yesterday's conditions, but certainly for the junior champs in Macedonia a few weeks ago , an 8.00 start for the first round meant there was positive lift around for much of the period. Whilst I recognise it's difficult and unpopular getting everyone, especially volunteer timekeepers, out for early starts, we should make use of these calmer, lower lift conditions.
Chris Edge: We need a good meteorologist on the case, Mark ! CHE
Tapio Linkosalo: One more comment on the group fly-off. I still feel that the outcome in F1A was good, but at the same time I must agree that the results of F1B group fly-off show the worst possible scenario: in one group almost all fliers (18 out of 21) made the max, which means that in a similar fashion majority of fliers in the other group will go on, provided that they fill the 75% rule. This is the result that there is the maximum time, if one group is blessed with a good thermal during the fly-off round, in kind of undermines the whole setup. I have not been able to figure out a way to avoid this scenario happening...
Dominik Andrist I believe introducing new rules should be supported by some experience, some test should be done in advance to prove that the new rule brings some improvement. I don't think this was the case with the new group flyoff rule.
Tapio Linkosalo: The group flyoff has been tried and tested for several years in Finland in our National Championships, and the rules that were applied at CIAM were adjusted according to the experiences in our national competitions.
Allard van Wallene: There is a profound difference in thermal conditions between an 'icy' fly off and continental summer conditions. I would say for this concept they can not be compared.
Jean-luc Drapeau Ok with ALLARD
No adapted rules
To much complications for organise and big possibilties of contestations ...See More
Chris Edge: It is also clear that IF a single FO could have been arranged, rather than the two group method, then it could have been scheduled later in the evening. The evidence from Serbia is that this would have resulted in fewer FO maxes. So the real issue is still the fact that too many people get through to a FO; I agree with Jean-luc. CHE
Allard van Wallene: As said, a 2-group system on a frozen lake in winter will show more even results over the two groups compared to a continental summer fly off. As Chris said, the results are the evidence.
Tapio Linkosalo: On a frozen lake the variation in weather over time is probably less over time, so you get more consistent conditions between the groups. But, is this really necessary? In all RC glider classes where people have flown in groups for decades, the results are based on comparison within the group only, there is no intention to compare results between the groups. Why should this be in group fly-offs in Free Flight? The aim (in group FO) is to win your own group and proceed to the next round.
Allard van Wallene: Both systems have their merits. A fly off has an input (number of participants) and an output (sportsmen having maxed or reached the 75% score to equalize the groups). Since the 2-group system appears to have a higher output (see F1B fly off at the Eur...See More
Roel Lucassen: Some observations from yesterday on the field of the F1B fly offs; 1st group of F1B flyers had good air and as a result a lot made the 6 minutes; second group being 20 minutes later for sure did not have this same type of air...
Actually I think the two group system created a problem later on; the second fly off was planned to be flown 19.20 but in the end started around 19.30 because of organising timekeepers and getting the papers to the timekeepers... At 19.30 dusk was already setting (cloudy sky, so earlier then normal) in and in the opinion of many created an unsportive result... If you did not have a blinker/flasher there was now way the model was seen for it's complete flight...
Tapio Linkosalo: One more aspect about the groups fly-offs is the timekeeping: I just got a report from our Finnish power flier Kuukka, who RDT'd his model down at 6+ minutes just to find out the the timekeepers had seen a model gliding down at 5... It makes a big difference, whether there are 20 or 40 models flying in the same thermal, for the probability of the timekeepers to loose track of the model and time the wrong one!
F1B Update
from the field - the 3rd flyoff in F1B will be on Friday morning at 7 am.
...........
Roger Morrell
- FB rules discussion
- F1B update
Because this is a long dialog we have put it in a SEN b almost by itself. We have highlighted key issues.
there was another similar discussion that expressd the same sentiments but in stonger language !@ I was not able to find it for inclusion in this SEN
There are 2 points - one specific to the Euro champs
1. it appeared in the Eurochamps that the split fly off rule was not being interpreted correctly - this was corrected
2. should there be 5 rounds and split fly offs any way ?
FB discussion of the split Fly off and associated items
Some editing for clean up and removal of extraneous comments
Bogdan Lemut: : FO1, two groups, 18:50 -19:00 and 19:10-19:20, 6 min
FO2 tomorrow morningu 6::00, 12 min
Bogdan Lemut: There was flyoff in 2 groups. Calcuating now who will enter tomorow's 12 min FO2.
Bogdan Lemut: Only the sum of final individual positions matters. We have to wait for FO2
Bogdan Lemut: Strange results of FO1
http://euchf1abc2016.vss.rs/.. etc - this showed 9 people in FO 7 from one segment and 2 form the other
Allard van Wallene: Rumours from field that only those who made the 6 minutes will fly the 12 min fly off. This is of course not according to the 2-group rule.
Ron Aßmuß: (Y)
Allard van Wallene: f) If the number of competitors in a flyoff is 12 or more and is greater than 25% of the number of
competitors in the competition, then the flyoff may be split into two groups:
1) The number of competitors in each group will be as closely as possible e...See More
Like · Reply · 2 · August 16 at 12:38pm
Allard van Wallene: Point 6)
Those with more 270 or more seconds 'may' proceed?
Chris Edge: Do we know how many maxed from each FO group ? CHE
Hugo Desloges Bazile: 7 from first flyoff and 2 from the 2nd
Chris Edge: So an additional 5 flyers from group 2 can FO as long as they've got more than 270s. Should be easy to work out. CHE
Allard van Wallene: You nailed it Chris. If they don't its gonna be a regular mess.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Is it a rule which must be applied or which can be applied...?
Allard van Wallene: Well, in this the rule is not 100% clear as the word "may' is used.
Javier Abad: do we know the results for each group?
Allard van Wallene: "may" can be interpreted as 'optional' but also as 'are allowed to'
Hugo Desloges Bazile: I first interpreted "are allowed to"...
Allard van Wallene: I think that is indeed the spirit of this rule, as the thermal conditions between two groups are never equal.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: I think that whatever the decision will be, it will be criticized...
Chris Edge: Well if there is some subjective aspect to the rules (the word 'may') then they could go just with the guys who maxed and it would be 'legal'. But if I was one of the extra 5 then I'd make sure I'd protest. But now back to the Olympics where the Brits (including us Scots) are winning more gold medals ! CHE
Javier Abad: I think this was implemented to compensate the different conditions that could happens in the groups
Allard van Wallene: I do hope the jury get their act together.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Who's in the jury?
Allard van Wallene: Willy Kamp, Gerhard Wöbbeking and Srdjan Pelagic
Javier Abad: me too
Bram Van de Kerkhof: Difficult to apply correct rule. When comparing to atletics the x number of heat 1 and heat 2 will proceed and the x number of time best. One can say in round 1 we have 6 maxes and in round 2 we have 2 maxes we will let go trough the number 1 to 6 of each round and the 3 time best of both rounds.
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Apparently, people are discussing the rule on the field...
Allard van Wallene: What a mess.....
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Indeed!
Javier Abad: if they accept more people...will they be ready in the morning?
Allard van Wallene: Yes that is the question. They should be timely informed otherwise they will be disadvantaged
Dominik Andrist: Now all is clear 14 in Flyoff tomorrow
Hugo Desloges Bazile: Dominik, do you have names??
Allard van Wallene: That is how it should be!
Bogdan Lemut: I think the main problrm is the idea about splitting the flyoff by itself. The old rule was trying to give all competitors who made it to the flyoff equal or as equal as possible conditions. No mathematics can make this better. If the cause for such rule change was in too many competitors in flyoff and not having enough timekeepers, than why there was a reduction of rounds from 7 to 5 at the same time? Beat me...
Bogdan Lemut: Unoficially: Roland Koglot winner in F1A
Tapio Linkosalo: I'm not in Serbia so I cannot spectate the fly-off myself, but looking at the results it seems to me that the group thing was conducted right, and in these conditions showed to be the right way to go.
Flying a fly-off of 42 fliers would have been a mess. Where to find 84 timekeepers? In that group some would have for sure timed the wrong model, and finally that crowd would have spread on an area so large that it would have been a draw of luck what air you would have seen during the 10 minutes on your side of the field.
On the other hand, with the group split, 7 fliers made a max in the first group (or second, I do not know who flew in which group). The second flew in poorer air, as only 2 made the max, so the rule says to take 5 next best to the next round. Turns out that in this group 319 seconds was sufficient score to carry on. I can believe that in the first group the 6 guys who made more than 319 but less than 360 are annoyed, but that's how the rule goes. If you think if e.g. distance task in F3B, some guy may make 22 laps to score 1000 points where another guy in another group gets 800 points for making 22 laps. In F3B this is as it should be. Why not in FF?
Bogdan Lemut: Tapio - not 84 - 126 timekeepers!!! 1 more than in regular rounds. as the FAI Sporting Code commands!! But to get timekeepers should not be a problem, there were a lot of experienced fliers from different classes around in the field and the organizer had several hours to prepare themselves. If French organizers could make a flyoff with 62 participants in 2013 with help from all teams, this could go as well. The two group flyoff is simply UNFAIR, because competitors don't have similar air conditions!!!
Gil Hagay: Congratulation to all the winners
Tapio Linkosalo: Bogdan,
First, there are a lot of experienced aeromodellers on the field, but their task as team members is to help their fliers (including retrieving) in the fly-off, not act as time--keepers. I firmly believe that the task of finding 126 timekeepers would have turned out to be a mission-impossible.
Second, in RC glider classes people have bee flying in groups for decades and when compensating for different weather by adjusting the scores according to the best results of each group, this works with no problems for them. I cannot see how adapting similar system for Free Flight turns out to be unfair.
Bogdan Lemut: Well it is not easy to compare RC and FF... RC pilot can still try to fix some mistake he made after start, he can search for additional thermals during the flight, FF pilot can not... he depends solely on good start. and in the evening conditions usually change very quickly - in minutes. And - FF pilots have only one task - to keep the model in the air as long as possible. RC classes are usually a mix of several tasks - flying time, landing precission...
I wouldn't dare to compare FF and RC too much...
I guess more rounds and maybe (if weather and field size permit) higher maxes would do more for reduction of FO entrants...
Tapio Linkosalo: I agree that 7 rounds probably would reduce the number of full scores and would help with the fly-off problem. But with your comments that RC and FF are different, and therefore group flying fits RC but does not fit FF, I totally disagree.
Tapio Linkosalo: But having said that, these are just opinions, not facts, so we could carry on this argument to the end of the world and never agree...
Gil Hagay: Group flyoffs should be canceled asap. It creates a mess (on the last Eurofly also) and doesn't fit freeflight since the unequal conditions will always create unfairness.
7 rounds and 4-5 minutes rounds on first and seventh is better. Rubber weight and cables length should be reduced gradually also.
Drazen Domitrovic: on the 2009 WC in Korenica flyoff we also had 40 flyers and we had no problems
Chris Edge: I think it is fair to have these discussion now as it is the first championship contest to be flown to these new rules. I never understood the logic of reducing the number of flights as a way of reducing FO numbers and keeping models in the field (stated aim of CIAM). The reports I've seen (I'm in sunny Scotland, not sunny Serbia) state many models in crops especially on the extended last max, and big problems with retrieval. I was at the '91 champs at that site and it was the same problem with the crops. So we had a contest go ahead with a known problem and a contest format that would cuase retrieval issues for competitors - I expect similar reports today for B and even more for C tomorrow - is that a good thing ? I also don't understand having the extended max at a time of day when the thermals will be very strong. So really, with the reduction from 7 to 5 rounds you just know the FO numbers will be greater than can be practically managed, so having a rule that covers that (ie splitting in to groups) is a good thing BUT Eurofly showed the problem (very different air between the two groups) so clearly the whole process is a negaitive. CIAM should learn from this, go back to 7 rounds and ensure they are flown at sensible times of the day - extended maxes and reduced number of rounds have (surprisingly !) shown that it results in more people in FOs. I hope Lord Roger will put this discussion in SEN at some point. CHE
Allard van Wallene: Chris, NL will make a proposal to go back to 7 rounds. Time to start lobbying. I never understood this either. Main argument was that 7 rounds is too much of a marathon. Really? In Euro and World Champs retrieve teams are common and don't we like to present our activity as a sport?
Chris Edge: You have my full support Allard but many more will need to be convinced to get this corrected. Of course fewer rounds mean more beer time, so maybe we should think about this a bit more ....... CHE
Allard van Wallene: Chris, a beer tastes so much better after 7 rounds!
Tapio Linkosalo: Re: CHE and Allard, I agree that for Champioships the contest of 7 rounds would be a better challenge. After all the fly-offs are typically flown quite late in the evening (especially with the times starting at 6 mins now), so why wait the afternoon doing nothing (except the beer)? For World Cups the option to fly only 5 rounds on short winter days is good.
For the max, I'd see that more flexibility would be nice. In Serbian World Cup, they flew the first two rounds with 4 min max. Why not have even in the Championships fly e.g. the last round for 4 minutes, if conditions are good, but let the max be set to three if thermals and strong and retrievals long? For instance in Rinkaby the maximum is often adjusted for each round depending on the changing conditions.
Allard van Wallene: With 5 rounds the whole time keeping issue backfires. Time between last round and fly off is several hours, many go home / back to hotel. And after a well deserved shower and some drinks, who has the energy to go back to the field for the fly off? Result is that the fly off is flown without spectators and a time keeping problem....
Chris Edge: Yes, I thought the first two maxes to 4mins was a good idea for the Open International (OI). I assume the format for the Champs is more prescriptive (does anyone know ?) and hence you don't have that flexibility you are allowed in OIs. Maybe more flexibility for Champs would be a good idea with an 'allowance' of two (or 3 ?) long max flights, as long as the format is publicised well in advance (and maybe agreed with CIAM). For OIs you have almost infinite flexibility as long as you state what these when the calender is published, and I think this works very well - Sweden being a good example. CHE
Društvo Modelarjev Pomurja: SC4_Vol_F1 (2016)
3.1.7. Duration of Flights
The maximum duration to be taken for the official flights in world and continental championships is four minutes for the first round and, if conditions allow, for the last round and three minutes for the oth...See More
Mark Gibbs: I agree that going from 7 to 5 rounds was a step in the wrong direction. However, this is compounded by going for a later start, now time pressures have eased. I can't comment on yesterday's conditions, but certainly for the junior champs in Macedonia a few weeks ago , an 8.00 start for the first round meant there was positive lift around for much of the period. Whilst I recognise it's difficult and unpopular getting everyone, especially volunteer timekeepers, out for early starts, we should make use of these calmer, lower lift conditions.
Chris Edge: We need a good meteorologist on the case, Mark ! CHE
Tapio Linkosalo: One more comment on the group fly-off. I still feel that the outcome in F1A was good, but at the same time I must agree that the results of F1B group fly-off show the worst possible scenario: in one group almost all fliers (18 out of 21) made the max, which means that in a similar fashion majority of fliers in the other group will go on, provided that they fill the 75% rule. This is the result that there is the maximum time, if one group is blessed with a good thermal during the fly-off round, in kind of undermines the whole setup. I have not been able to figure out a way to avoid this scenario happening...
Dominik Andrist I believe introducing new rules should be supported by some experience, some test should be done in advance to prove that the new rule brings some improvement. I don't think this was the case with the new group flyoff rule.
Tapio Linkosalo: The group flyoff has been tried and tested for several years in Finland in our National Championships, and the rules that were applied at CIAM were adjusted according to the experiences in our national competitions.
Allard van Wallene: There is a profound difference in thermal conditions between an 'icy' fly off and continental summer conditions. I would say for this concept they can not be compared.
Jean-luc Drapeau Ok with ALLARD
No adapted rules
To much complications for organise and big possibilties of contestations ...See More
Chris Edge: It is also clear that IF a single FO could have been arranged, rather than the two group method, then it could have been scheduled later in the evening. The evidence from Serbia is that this would have resulted in fewer FO maxes. So the real issue is still the fact that too many people get through to a FO; I agree with Jean-luc. CHE
Allard van Wallene: As said, a 2-group system on a frozen lake in winter will show more even results over the two groups compared to a continental summer fly off. As Chris said, the results are the evidence.
Tapio Linkosalo: On a frozen lake the variation in weather over time is probably less over time, so you get more consistent conditions between the groups. But, is this really necessary? In all RC glider classes where people have flown in groups for decades, the results are based on comparison within the group only, there is no intention to compare results between the groups. Why should this be in group fly-offs in Free Flight? The aim (in group FO) is to win your own group and proceed to the next round.
Allard van Wallene: Both systems have their merits. A fly off has an input (number of participants) and an output (sportsmen having maxed or reached the 75% score to equalize the groups). Since the 2-group system appears to have a higher output (see F1B fly off at the Eur...See More
Roel Lucassen: Some observations from yesterday on the field of the F1B fly offs; 1st group of F1B flyers had good air and as a result a lot made the 6 minutes; second group being 20 minutes later for sure did not have this same type of air...
Actually I think the two group system created a problem later on; the second fly off was planned to be flown 19.20 but in the end started around 19.30 because of organising timekeepers and getting the papers to the timekeepers... At 19.30 dusk was already setting (cloudy sky, so earlier then normal) in and in the opinion of many created an unsportive result... If you did not have a blinker/flasher there was now way the model was seen for it's complete flight...
Tapio Linkosalo: One more aspect about the groups fly-offs is the timekeeping: I just got a report from our Finnish power flier Kuukka, who RDT'd his model down at 6+ minutes just to find out the the timekeepers had seen a model gliding down at 5... It makes a big difference, whether there are 20 or 40 models flying in the same thermal, for the probability of the timekeepers to loose track of the model and time the wrong one!
F1B Update
from the field - the 3rd flyoff in F1B will be on Friday morning at 7 am.
...........
Roger Morrell