SEN 3327
- SCAT Annual
- The Proposal for a 5-Gram Weight Reduction for F1B Motors
- F1B Historical Observation
SCAT Annual
March 15 & 16, 2025 Lost Hills, CA
The weather is almost always an issue in the week or so before the SCAT Annual and this year was no different. Lost Hills got a fair amount of rain and the possibility of wind, rain & snow over the Grapevine probably deterred a few modelers from the south. The turnout was not great and the roads onto the field were varying degrees of a muddy slog, but once on the field the conditions were darn near perfect. Thermal picking was a bit tricky but the field was covered with 4″ high green grass with no stickers. Light & variable winds and not-too-cool temperatures made for some great flying.
In F1A we only had one clean score and that was by John Mah-Gersting, one of our Junior Team members, who once again bested the adults. In F1B we had a great fly-off between Daryl Perkins, Blake Jensen & Larry Norvall that went to the 10 minute round before Daryl locked up the win. All fly-off flights easily stayed on the field. F1C won by Jeff Ellington & F1Q won by Clint Brooks were resolved without needing a fly-off.
The top score for the morning to-the-ground flight for the mini events was Blake Jensen in F1H with 236 seconds and Guy Menanno in F1S a close second at 227 seconds. Overall, mini event entries were pretty slim although Jerry Fitch (F1G) and Blake Jensen (F1H) did post respectable (perfect) scores even though they were flying alone. F1J had no entries. We had one fly-off with Guy Menanno, Clint Brooks & Larry Norvall in F1S. Larry missed the bubble, but Guy & Clint were well on their way to the 180 second max when Clint DT’d early and came up 9 seconds short.
I heard the rest of the day Sunday remained great for testing and a few competitors stuck around for some testing and general comradery. Blake’s brother Dane used the afternoon to put up several test flights to get his mojo back in F1B. Nice to see him back.
This meet is held at a time of year when the weather can be unpredictable, but by the same token, we have been rewarded with some incredible flying days and it makes the trip worth the gamble.
Bill Booth, CD
The Proposal for a 5-Gram Weight Reduction for F1B Motors
From: Mike Woohouse
Introduction
A proposal has been made for 5-gram reduction in weight for F1B motors. This change is being considered due to concerns that an increasing number of fliers are consistently making it to the fly-off stages in championships, leading to questions about the competitiveness and fairness of the current system. This report examines the reasoning behind the proposal, the implications for the sport, and potential alternative suggestions to address the issue.
Rationale for the Change
The primary justification for the proposal to reduce the weight of F1B motors is the observation that too many fliers are progressing to the fly-off rounds at championships. In essence, the assumption is that the current 30-gram motor weight is making it easy for more competitors to reach these final rounds, possibly undermining the overall competitiveness of the event.
It is argued that dropping the rubber weight will help reduce the number of fliers advancing to the fly-off stage. However, the proposal is not without controversy.
Challenges of Implementing the Change
While the proposal seeks to level the playing field, there are significant challenges and concerns. The suggestion to drop the motor weight could disadvantage fringe and developing fliers, who already face difficulties making it to the fly-off stages. By making this change, the playing field could become even harder for those who are still improving their skills and equipment.
On the other hand, it is noted that top-tier fliers have commented that reducing the motor weight by 5 grams will not significantly affect their ability to succeed. This raises the question: if the change won’t impact the best fliers, is there a strong rationale for implementing this adjustment? The main reason for the change assumes that the reduction will help cut the number of fliers advancing to the fly-offs, without addressing the root causes of the issue.
Underlying Causes of Excessive Fly-Off Participation
The real issue behind the increased number of fliers making it to the fly-off stage lies not in the weight of the motors but in the way thermal conditions affect competition. The ability to locate a thermal often determines the outcome of a flight.
In F1B events, competitors have a unique advantage over A and C class models. Once the motor is wound, F1B models can be launched at any time and aimed directly at a potential thermal. This gives experienced pilots an edge, as they can wait for the right air or the right moment to launch, potentially increasing their chances of success.
Alternative Suggestions to Address the Issue
Rather than reducing motor weight, alternative methods could be implemented to help level the playing field and reduce the number of fliers advancing to the fly-off.
Ban on Thermal Detection Devices:
* One potential change is to prohibit the use of mechanical or digital devices that help competitors detect thermals. Currently, devices that detect thermals have become an essential part of many fliers’ strategies. Prohibiting these devices would require fliers to rely solely on their own abilities or watch others to identify potential thermals. This would create a more equal opportunity for all fliers, rather than allowing those with the best technology to have a distinct advantage.
Time-Window for Launching:
* Another suggestion is to reduce the time allowed for fliers to locate a thermal and launch their models. This can be achieved by introducing a system where the flyer must call a specific window of time during which they will launch. Once the window is called, the flyer would have a set period (e.g., 10 minutes) to wind and launch the model. Failure to launch within that time window would result in a zero for that round.
* The length of the window could be adjusted by event organizers, providing flexibility based on weather conditions or other factors. This approach would effectively turn each flight into a “fly-off,” where fliers must demonstrate skill in both selecting the right time to launch and managing the limited period to do so.
Conclusion
While the proposal to drop the motor weight reduction may help address the issue of too many fliers reaching the fly-off stages, it does not fully tackle the root causes of the problem. The suggestion to prohibit thermal detection devices and introduce a time window for launching models offer more targeted solutions to reduce the number of fliers progressing to the final rounds without disadvantaging developing competitors. These measures focus on the personal skill-based aspects of the sport and offer a fairer way to ensure a competitive environment while maintaining the integrity of the event.
Michael J. Woodhouse
F1B Historical Observation
From
Daniel Berry
I would point out that a past NFFS Digest article tracked the Wakefield event and noted that EVERY time the rubber was reduced that actual performance of the planes improved. I would expect that dropping to 25 grams rubber that some part of the deign will change, just like every time in the past.
Dan Berry
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