Teppo Rules Cycle

[Tony Shepherd]

Well done Klaus, Dan and Pete!

Having flown F1Q for a couple of years by adopting a simple approach, I've kept quiet on this topic as I can't even begin to take an interest in the over-complicated, super-tech views being talked about.

We've flown it in UK and the most complicated we've come up with is auto-rudder and VIT and as a result, the numbers have gradually grown. I gave a talk on the simple approach at our Free Flight Forum last year, and a few started to express an interest which was good news.

At the Stonehenge Cup in May, we were all beaten by Lindner's model which was better than our's - there's nothing to add to that. The UK guys acknowledged that fact but we didn't start looking to immediately change to the rules.

When there are loads of us flying the class then start to look at how to change it but if you can't get them to join in in the first place then there's no point in looking to the future. Don't try and make it a techno class or no one will join in, and the luddites, like us in UK will stick with our Open Electric and the future of F1Q will never come!

Cheers - Tony

[Q_Power]

Hello Tony,

your comment are right, that we should try to hold the rules uncomplicated. But F1Q is an international, world cup listed class. In the future we hope it will be an class with international championships. This means that the flyers will be competitive. Currently we have the situation that the tech level is very different. At the left hand you have models like yours, at the right hand the Finnish models. To my opinion is this a good thing to have so a wide spectrum of designs. Now we must find a solution to make comparable this spectrum.
That can’t work with a exclusive restriction of the power components. I think this will start a endless run of the newest, high performance components which are more and more expensive. And you MUST have the best components if you want competitive. This is not a good way.
Why not use the energy /weight ratio solution ? Here are some ways for this discussed. It must not be the limiter, Aram have shown a solution with less tech.
Everybody of us can find and use his own way to fly. If we insert an energy / weight ratio,however, in the rules we have also in the future a tool to adjust the performance without changes at the models. This way can give potential interests in F1Q more confidence as if we don’t make nothing and the rules will stay incalculable.

Andreas

[Aram Schlosberg]

There are at least two energy/weight proposals I’m aware of (by Germany and the USA) that are quite similar. There is probably a good chance that others would pen similar approaches. Hopefully CIAM will adopt this approach – as it creates a true level plying flied across all F1Qs, small and large, locked and auto surfaced, unlike any F1 class we have. The nice thing that each model would have its own motor run and all could reach the same potential altitude. The more efficient models would get higher, with better odds of winning.

As noted before, motor runs can be calculated using a wattmeter to back out the average wattage of a specific motor run. Average wattage multiplied by the motor’s time is the energy used in watt-seconds or Joules. Dividing it by the models weight will give a ration, between 3 and 5 watt-sec/gr (the value will be selected by CIAM.) The higher/lower the watt-sec/gr the hotter/colder F1Q will become. With a high watt-sec/gr ratio F1Qs will outperform F1Cs, and a low watt-sec/gr ratio F1Qs will resemble power models from the 60s. (In effect, customizing the event.)

Energy Limiter (EL) or programmable EL (PEL) is just a black box that figures out the motor run all by itself, and might inform the e-timer that the motor is on the verge of being shut off so that things remain synchronized (as discussed earlier).

The American proposal calls for the coexistence of both methods. Lower powered models (100-300 watts) could back out their (longer) motor runs by using wattmeters. Powerful models (500-700 watts), with very short motor runs, are likely to use PEL as a way to avoid timing errors and pushing the envelop. And if CIAM adopts this dual approach, most of the fliers in the first group will just continue using their 10-15 second motor runs. (Forget the PELs!)

[Tapio Linkosalo]

What are the two mentioned proposals, then?

[PeeTee]

I too would be interested in seeing the proposals. Has the American one been endorsed by the US F1Q community, or is it just one man's view?

[Tony Shepherd]

Me too on that one.

Tony

[Aram Schlosberg]

Rule change proposals have to be submitted by November 15th. The proposals are made public following a CIAM planning meeting in December, and can be found for example in FFn. Our representatives on CIAM’s technical committee, George Batiuk, will solicit opinions on all the official proposals prior to attending the March 2011 meetings. So our English friends could express their views to Ian on this matter once all the proposals are made public.

As to the process of making up FAI rule proposals. This follows many discussions, some of which have appeared on this forum. The proposal is then submitted to the TSC for review and comments and then to the AMA. Then it is screened by AMA’s FAI committee, chaired by Dave Brown. I have consulted Dave Brown a number of times on how to approach this issue, as Dave flies electrics and is very knowledgeable on electric technology and its organizational aspects. (Of course, this does not mean that he endorses this particular proposal!)

[Pete]

So,
since today is November 17, it seems the appointed time for proposal submittel is already conveniently past. Thanks for the info.
I guess those of us who are not part of the inner circle will be stuck with the submission of whatever back room deal has been already worked out.
Is that what you're telling us?
I certainly haven't seen any mention of a formal proposal regarding F1Q here or on SEN or on AMA websites, which seem to be the main sources of info about these matters.
Best to leave things like rules changes to the elites, I see.
Oh well, back to the AMA classes where things are a little more out in the open.

[PeeTee]

Pete

I don't see why you still can't have your say. It may be too late to submit new proposals, but at least you can encourage your FAI rep to vote in the way you would like.

If you like what is being proposed, say so, if not tell him what you don't like. If enough people contact him he should be prepared to act. This is what we are trying to do here in the UK

Better to have tried & failed - and all that!

Another Pete

[Roger Morrell]

Pete

There is a CIAM free flight technical subcommittee that is chaired by Ian Kaynes of the UK, George Batiuk of the USA is on that sub committee. Strictly speaking the members are appointed as individuals but is it usually done in alignment with the NAC - AMA in our case. This group does analysis and make recommendations. they do not vote. In reading some of what people are saying they "like" ELs. If you have an opinion you should communicate with George.

the AMA has one vote vote at the CIAM meeting and in the past the AMA president has attended to CIAM meetings and cast that vote. It appears that the current AMA president has asked the previous AMA president to represent the AMA at the CIAM meetings. Dave Brown is very familiar with FAI process. In the past a free flight person [and control line, etc] has attended the CIAM meetings as an observer and to advise the official AMA delagate on FF matters. The most recent person to do this is George Batiuk. However the AMA delegate goes to the meeting with a position that he thinks is best for the AMA and it's members. he can do this because the proposals come out in December of the March meeting. Most times but not always the AMA ask the opinion of people involved the particular discipline about proposed rule changes sometime between now and the March meeting. Typically these are people entered in the FAI programs. They also go the the FAI Team Selection Committee.

It seems to me that if you wish to lobby that the TSC member for your AMA District, the District VP, George or Dave would be people to lobby.

I expect that the text of the proposals the FAI have received will see the light of day before the end of the year.

As PeeTee says not decision has been made yet.

Roger

[rivers]

Roger,
Thanks for the explanation on the workings of the CIAM, and for the names of the key people to lobby.

I have a couple of questions though:

1. Does the FF subcommittee make recommendations only on the proposals that have been submitted? Can they recommend modifications to those proposals, or even introduce new rules ideas?

2. Once CIAM votes when do new rules go into effect? Can there be a trial period? For example, energy limiters are a big change, so time is needed for development.

Dick

[Roger Morrell]

Dick

I believe they can propose a rule. I think they did the original F1P rules.

There is almost always a delay before the rule is put into effect because some level of development is almost always required. Exceptions would be safety related rules changes.

Clearly in this case there could be quite a lot of development if it involved firstly the development of the EL and then the adaptation of the timers in the current airplanes and finally the possible re-trimming of the airplanes or building of a new design to better work with rules. This assumes no air frame specification changes, area, weight etc.

Roger

[Pete]

Roger,
Thanks too from me for your explanation of the rule making process.
It appears that proposals from individual modelers are not at all welcome unless agreed to be put forward by their "National Organization" and also that all of the discussion regarding E.L.s etc. here in this forum has been rather pointles because of the following:
I read in SEN 1464 comments regarding possible new rules by Klaus Seltzer that the CIAM technical subcommittee is enamoured of the E.L. idea and that the plenary session which will actually vote is dominated by r/c flyers who are adamantly for the concept. All of that, irrespective of the fact that to my knowledge there is no proven equipment suitable for Free Flight use ready for purchase today and moreover test equipment for such is not widely available for nominal cost.

The alternate proposal is a motor weight limit. I can't tell if that is in addition to a battery weight limit or not.

The issue, as I see it is whether or not the rulemaking body will come up with something that will encourage growth or strangle it with unworkable and or complex and expensive technical requirements. It seem a little too early to be trying to limit the perfomance progress that can be seen on the horizon to the detriment of generating a participation base broad enough to make it a viable class.

Once again thanks for the explanation and the interest.

Cheers!

[TEPPO S]

Hallo!
I have let made a specialmotor for my wakesize-F1Q. I got it last week and now I have tuned it more. It's feightweight is 18,8 g.
In "Austrian" rules it makes modelweight 235g.
Pim ( in SEN ) liked 13%. It makes modellweight 143 g??? Don't worry! I think it is very difficult to build contestflying wakesize F1Q modell under 180g.
I can run my specialmotor ( after the manifactorer) with 12V and 16 A for short time. So I can give it 192 W and motorweight is 18,8g. Power/weight ratio is 10,2 W/g. As we know bigger motors have better ratio. When we look Mattis NeuMotor 1105, he gives 900W to 70g motor. Ratio is 12,9 W/g.
As we maybe get 600 g as the maximum weight of modell ( very good!!!).
The maximum weight of motor will be ( after Austrian) 48g. After my calculation to that size of motor, we can give power 570W ( 11,9W/g ).
If we give 20 sec motortime to "Austrian"motor, it meens that we give now to 600g model energy 11424 J ( 19 J/g ).
Somebody have indeed slept, as Pim writes in SEN.

If we have to take the second best alternativety after EL, the best would be :
1. 8% motorweight from model's flightweight
2. normalrounds 3 min flighttime with 10 sec motortime
3. first flyoff 3 min flighttime with 5 sec motortime
4. next flyoffs with 5 sec motortime with 5 min flytime, 7 and so on

Anyhow I am planing the new specialmade motor. I think I can get it under to 17 g and I can put in it some more Watts...

Yours

[Aram Schlosberg]

Teppo,
Personally, I think your example of cutting down the weight of a motor and then backing out the model’s weight shows how flawed the motor weigh% approach is. Motors are driving model's designs!. If one switches to a lighter motor, the model is over weight by 12.5 grams to every (motor) gram saved; while each gram of a heavier motor will require adding 12.5 gram ballast. In short, the tail is wagging the dog.

Instead, (as you might have guessed by the bottom line) an energy/weight rule, expressed as watt-sec/gr, are the most suitable for electric events. Even if ELs or PELs (Programmable ELs) are still in the state of inception, it is evident (at least to me) that these issues will be addressed and solved in a the next few years. In the mean time, wattmeters can be used to back out the motor runs (as noted elsewhere in this chat room).