SEN 3134
- Thank You All!
- Answer to Pierre Chaussebourg
- Bino Contest from Dino
- My Precious
- Summary ?
Thank You All!
From: Mike Roberts
I would like to thank all the wonderful people that posted photos from the World Champs in France on FB. Great to see everyone and kind of feel their success.
Thanks Again
Mike
Answer to Pierre Chaussebourg
From: Can Tezcan
Answer to Pierre Chaussebourg
The claim that international sport tribunal would not accept the results is totally wrong and subjective opinion of Pierre Chaussebourg and has no legal base!
In the sporting code it stays since at least 3 years the usage of an altimeter and under which circumstances. If he did not read it or read but did not understand it, I would encourage him to do so.
Here are the facts im basic:
– timekeeping is still by timekeeper, that was also in France.
– only on flyoff the competitor CAN carry a certified altimeter and let record its number by the timekeeper on his scorecard before the flight.
– after the flight if he is happy with his score it is the score, if not he can protest and let the jury read his altimeter. In this case what comes from altimeter it is his score.
These are the facts and rules, written in the Sporting Code. In France the organizers applied exactly this as it is, without any conflict. Claiming than an international tribunal would not accept this score is just nonsense or a populist claim, which has no base under it.
The son of the former World Champion lost in Junior EM with one second after reading the altimeter, because both flyers got lost behind the same building. If the former World Champion don’t put a certified altimeter on his son’s model, I would call this not unfair, but something else. Since the rule of altimeter is there, I have in each model of my daughter one certified altimeter.
Again I want to emphasize. If we want more competitions in more quality without cheating and mistakes, we need to work on electronic scoring because this will help us to organize better competitions. Many organizers, who stopped to organize because of timekeeper issues, will return to business.
Bino Contest from Dino
From: Michael Achterberg
Hello.
Question. Anyone who has flown Freeflight over the years has lost a contest or 2 that he actually won or know of this?? We call those binocular contests… Last guy in sight wins!! It’s always been that way. But we now have technology available to make event accurate and true winner actually Wins!! Is there something wrong with that concept?? Why would anyone complain about that?? Please explain…
This invention I look at as a savior of freeflight. Not a detriment…Also, stop throwing up cost when people are paying $2000 to $3000 per model. Pretty much everyone has GPS to find their models.
The mini neuron has added altimeter to GPS
so use it for at least verifying time to the ground. What a silly argument not to use it!!
Why not ban electronic timers? We didnt have those 50 years ago either!!
When everyone start using this stuff years from now as the timing devise all will say best thing that ever happen to freeflight. The winner was actually the Winner!! What a concept
Just my opinion.. But my guess is about 95+ % agree with me. There is No downside.
Can Tezan is absolutely correct!!
Dino
My Precious
From: Jeremy Fitch
The elephants must be reproducing because I saw a fourth one: The Root of the Problem Elephant.
Do we really need 8 minute flyoffs to enjoy this sport? The electronics are fine but does not solve the problems of models in and behind distant trees, behind fences, chewed on by cows, and multi-kilometer chases with all the ancillary problems of time, physical demands, etc.
So this elephant is about performance limitations. 25 grams of rubber and 40 meter towlines. Before somebody blows a gasket, remember we were perfectly happy, once upon a time, flying Dragmasters that would do 2 1/2 minutes and F1B’s that did 4 minutes. We don’t want or need to go back to that, but clinging so desperately to our “my precious” performance gains is going to sink us with field problems, timing problems, daylight constraints, flyoff management problems, and retrieval problems. The traditional bogeyman about reduced participation doesn’t hold water. Participation is going down anyway and is unrelated to the joys of 2 kilometer chases and tree-climbing.
This topic seems to have “3rd-rail” status but needs to be discussed.
Comment on the Elephants
The 3rd Elephant is that our model out fly both the flying site and the time keepers. It is the root of the problem. Maybe it should be elephant number 1.
The fear is that by changing the rules we will reduce participation.
Your suggestions for A and B are simple because existing models can be easily adapted
The real elephant is F1C. We have reduce the engine run to a ridiculously small amount that in reality cannot be accurately be timed by current methods, has created an environment where independent timekeeper get abused so won’t time it any more and …. I anm the CD of a Fab Feb event and have considered not including because the engine run cannot be timed fairly. Well that’s enough of that. The C lobby is strong and has resisted
The questions is how to reduce F1C performance …
Note that the other class Q does have a way by decreasing the energy allocation and that is already being used
Summary
Models outflying the site and timekeepers is the biggest problem.
What to do about it. F1C is the most difficult and where a model specification would be the most disruptive
On board timing is a good thing to do . It is in the sporting code but some people are confused about it as was seen in France at the Champs and preceding events. E.g comments from Kovalenko
On board timing as it is cumbersome for the event organizer.
Any solution must take into account requirements of civil and aviation authorities
We have not discussed how to make change like this quickly and we do not want to change things without verification and testing (e.g. F1P – not test flown before it came into effect) and member NAC approval.