SEN 3324
- Regarding F1B.
- 30g to 25g and the banning of flappers in F1B:
- Pro 35?
- Other ways
- I will Grudgingly Comply
- Is it me ?* OR There are other things beside F1B to worry about
Regarding F1B.
from: Editor
After numerous requests for data I posted some excerpts from a conversation I was having with Blake Jensen. He saw the post and let me know he had not intended for his out of context comments to be posted. But since they have been he thought he should write a summary of his thoughts, which is posted below. Since then even more stuff
30g to 25g and the banning of flappers in F1B:
From: Blake Jensen
The Technical meeting where rules proposals are discussed, before the actual voting takes place at the Plenary, has already happened. The recommendations are now public. This has sparked opinions to be shared on this forum, social media, WhatsApp groups set up for another purpose, and even initiated a petition for people to sign their name against the change. I’m reluctant to engage in public forum debates. But, after reading Charlie Jones’ comments regarding model performance, contest management, and legislation, Peter Martin’s post calling for a study of data trends, and Bernhard’s comments of support, I feel compelled to at least share my thoughts.
Which boils down to three questions:
-Can we make these changes? Bernhard’s comments speak to this. Yes, we can.
-Do we like these changes? The petition and other’s comments speak to this. No, we do not.
-Should we make these changes or is there a compelling need to do so? I would like to speak to this. I don’t think so, not really.
Reduction of performance has been an ongoing discussion for the sub-committee (Those who advise the actual voters at the Plenary). Sometimes the changes they recommend are necessary and years after the fact we can see that a previous change was correct, even if we didn’t agree with it at the time. Sometimes actual practice shows that what seemed like a good idea on paper just didn’t work in practice, like the wind one motor before the opening of the flyoff window modification, which was just confusing. This was realized in practice and a quick correction was made to eliminate it for the next cycle. I think the current example is a little different. Over the years the perception of a problem has grown and is fed each time someone can remember a specific data point of a contest that had large and extended flyoffs, the reasoning behind the proposal. But, I found those instances to be less common than most think.
Surely there must be a whole bunch of contests where mass flyoffs went into several extra rounds to decide a result? I decided to put on my Contest Directors hat and look at the results of all of the World Cup contests that were held last year. How many of those flyoffs would concern me – as a CD? I was surprised to learn that it is rare for a contest to go past the first flyoff flight. Here is what I found:
There were 59 World Cup contests held in 2024. Of those only 9 required a second flyoff and the second flyoff decided all but one contest.
-50 contests were decided with one flyoff.
-The only time a third flyoff was required was when there was a tie for a lower placing in the second flyoff.
-There were just 13 contests with more than 10 people in the flyoff.
-There were only 5 contests where there were over 20 people in the flyoff and 3 of those were held in the U.S. and contest management was not a problem.
-The Altimeter flyoff option was used at 9 events.
Is there a problem that needs to be solved? Would the proposed changes solve it? How much of an effect would this change have at a large contest in good weather? As we know weather is the single biggest factor in determining flyoff size. I have seen results where two contests have been held on the same field, several days apart, with the same competitors and while one contest had 30~40 in the flyoff the other would have just 4~5. The only difference, weather.
There are risks associated with any change and these, for me, raise greater concern.
-Participation. F1A and F1B have maintained good numbers in an era where Free Flight overall has been on a decades long steady decline. F1C on the other hand, the event that has seen several recent changes, has seen an accelerated decline. I can’t see this change increasing participation but can certainly imagine a decrease in participation. A decrease would have a doubling effect on the next risk.
-F1B is unique. As we are all aware, for decades, there has been exactly ONE supplier of suitable rubber supporting our sport. We are a small player in this company’s grand scheme. It is only because of years of hard work by Charlie and Geralyn Jones who have been able to maintain the relationship with this company that we are able to fly at all. I think that any move away from the status quo could make that more difficult and I would consider ANY change to the current business model unwise.
Where do we go from here? I suggest we pump the brakes this cycle while we see how the newly implemented and rapidly improving tools we now have at hand can help manage contests. Certified Altimeter challenges in flyoffs. Altimeter Flyoffs when the weather does not allow traditional flyoffs on smaller fields. Ten years ago the same rubber reduction proposal was voted down, not much has really changed since then, except we now have more tools to verify contests are concluded fairly. These tools are getting better by the moment. Let’s give them a chance to mature. I would love to see this proposal withdrawn, for the time being.
Thermals,
Blake Jensen
Pro 25???
From: Can Tezcan
After the Email of Bernhard Schwendemann, I would like to remind 2 important points.
1- Bernhard is personally PRO and the majority of German F1B Flyer are AGAINST the 25gr and as Represent of Germany, he has been asked to vote as NO.
2- Many people are, like Bernhard, concerned about the Future of F1B. If these people are really sincere, they must be also concerned about the fact, that we might not have any rubber anymore if the production stops, because of the lesser take.
If no one is aware of the fact, I want to repeat here.
In case of a reduction, if the purchases goes back, it might happen that the production stops and we have NO MORE F1B to reduce the performance.
Best
Can
Other ways
Re: SEN 3323
From Pete Reinhart, Retired F1B Sportsman,
I offer this observation:
If you want to limit performance limit the span. Quick and easy to check for compliance, everyone starts off even with the new rule, Charley Jones still sells the same amount of rubber, maybe more with new flyers entering the lists. A new wing set doesn’t obsolete existing equipment either.
The usual suppliers of equipment have a whole new business to keep them going, etc., etc.
The 15 Meter Standard Class glider (full size) has enjoyed a stable rule for 40-50 years now and all of the technical advances have moved the performance envelope up only very little. A well-flown LS-4 (ca.1980) can give the latest and greatest a run for their money. Heresy I know, but maybe a better solution than 25 grams. The cost of a new wing set is down on the toy fringe cost-wise considering the overall cost of competing.
Let the brick bats fly!
I will Grudgingly Comply
From: Ross Jahnke
It seems that 25 grams will be the rule and I will grudgingly comply. But the discussion makes me wonder how the Free Flight Subcommittee and CIAM evaluate proposals. If they used the 2024 World Cup Contest data, provided in SEN 3322, they would have seen no evidence for the change, with reasonable numbers in the fly-offs, and very few 2nd or 3rd fly-offs. But the anecdotal evidence, or the use of one or two difficult contests as evidence of a chronic problem abound. Also in abundance are competitors who have solutions for the F1 events and are looking for a problem.
It seems like some tenacious and time consuming data mining off the last 25 years of World Cup Contest results could provide a definitive answer. Someone with Exel and statistical analysis abilities who knows where to find those contest results could graph the history of 30 gram F1B performance in World Cup competition for all to see. Contest results could be cross references with technological advances during the 30 gram period, such as molded carbon and foam flying surfaces, flat-fold prop hubs, 4 position stabs, and cross referenced with Tan II and Tan Sport energy storage data. No more anecdotes, no more hyperbole and only meaningful debate based upon hard data.
Is it me ?* OR There are other things beside F1B to worry about
From:Chris. Edge
*quote from BBC national treasure, Terry Wogan
To Roger (for SEN) and Ian (for FFn),
I just read the proposed CIAM Technical Committee rule changes for model timings in FAI events and must comment.
Proposal F1.2.7 Electronic Evidence of Flight Time
Summarising wording from the proposal :-
1) The use of an altimeter is voluntary. – That’s very clear isn’t it.
2) The altimeter serial number must be recorded before the flight. – That’s also very clear isn’t it.
3) The competitor must provide any altimeter evidence before the next flight. – Perfectly clear.
4) If the moment of launch and landing can be determined from the altimeter trace then the time can be corrected from that provide by the timekeepers, otherwise it’s as they recorded. Got that.
Except we also read that the Contest Director (CD) can challenge any recorded time at any point for any reason. They can do that after the flight and if no altimeter was fitted (it’s voluntary remember) or the data is poor then the competitor gets a zero, that a ZERO score; wow !
Let’s look at a few scenarios.
a) Gerald launches in the last second of the 4min round with the model landing behind a tree line for a timed 3:59. With a typical 5mins between rounds for the CD and team to get the new round started in time (remember France 2023 ?) and only 1min to retrieve the model, Gerald is unable to present his protest before the next round. The rule does suggest that Gerald ‘should contact the CD’ in such cases but then what ? There is no obligation for the CD to even consider Gerald’s protest; his 3:59 remains.
b) Alicia has 6 maxes, is leading the contest but is down to a basic model for the last flight in calm conditions. She tows up as models come over and carefully releases her model with no stall at 50m, the model just missing the max at 2:58 but which subsequently proves to be good enough to win. The CD came over to watch and time but picks up the wrong model in the air which he sees DT. He disputes the time and asks for a altimeter trace, but Alicia didn’t have one fitted so her time is ZERO; she goes from 1st to 13th place and bursts in to tears.
And I could go on with many more plausible scenarios for which this proposed rule will have a significant detrimental effect on a competitor’s score; I have done this previously in Free Flight Down Under Vol 56, #4 where I identified flights from previous Champs that couldn’t have been timed with certified altimeters correctly. It is clear that my items 1) to 3) can’t be followed in all cases and that an altimeter is incapable of recording legitimate flights (and we all know this to be the case) leading to, in some cases a ZERO score. And don’t forget as written this rule is for all FAI contests, not just Champs.
Proposal F1.2.8
Same sort of idea except now you get a ZERO if you can’t provide acceptable altimeter data if you’re in the top five of a flyoff. Let’s consider this scenario :-
Felicity has made it to the Junior Champs flyoff along with three other fliers. She fits a certified altimeter and makes a perfect launch in to a massive thermal to DT down in full view of all timekeepers, the CD, the Jury, all supporters, a local indigenous tribe previously unknown to man, two haggis and a donkey; there is no dispute on her flight time and it is even confirmed via her on-timer (but non certified) altimeter system. The other fliers miss the thermal and congratulate Felicity on her win. But the altimeter trace is blank caused by one of dozens of possible factors and she is therefore given a ZERO. She goes home, kills her pet bunny and later runs for government.
Ignoring the fact that devices exist that can better record the flight time that altimeters can’t, these proposed rules will directly affect the legitimate scores of competitors. They are written with inconsistencies, little apparent understanding of the consequences and for what benefit ? Certified altimeters would be de-facto mandatory for all flights as I’ve shown and yet the cost of performing the partial pressure test to certify is un-necessary when only the relative altitude is required and available via many alternative products already fitted to models, eg in Felicity’s case.
The proposals were passed by 16 and 18 votes respectively so my question my must be, why ! Did the CAIM Technical Committee not consider such scenarios or are Gerald, Alicia and Felicity just collateral damage that is acceptable ? Clearly the rules should be pulled before voting later this month or else a debacle will ensue when they used for real. If not pulled, then I urge all national delegates to vote against, for Felicity’s sake if nothing else.
CHE
SEN Status
Our new web site is online with archives of SEN going back to 1997 plus many items about FAI Free Flight. It can be found at http://www.faifreeflight.org
Existing SEN subscribers can update their preferences by following the update your preferences link at the bottom of this page.
New users can sign up at this link http://eepurl.com/crOnvj
or at the SEN website
…………..
Roger Morrell