SEN 3374
- Answer to Mike Woodhouse proposal
- Changes in Rubber or other Elements in F1 ABCQ
- On F1B’s excessive performance
Answer to Mike Woodhouse proposal
From: Urs Schaller
I have read with attention Mike’s suggestion about a rule change, making it more difficult to pick good air.
In general, I agree with Mike’s approach, reducing rubber weight will influence very marginal the number of competitors reaching the fly-off. But limiting technologic means to detect thermals and reducing time to start the model is certainly a way to avoid mass fly-off’s or at least limit the number of full houses. Moreover, it doesn’t do any harm to beginners and alike.
To explain better the second part of my letter a short reminder. We all know flying fields where you can foresee the arrival of thermals almost with a stopwatch. These are fields with inhomogeneous ground, black buildings or streets, grass with high humidity, dry aeras, geometric interruption like houses, tree’s and so on. Other fields are just a wide area of grass, think of Salonta, where thermals may pass only once in a while and not predictable when and how often.
And here is where I disagree with Mike, a pen-pal friend for the last 70 years. If we want to give more importance to picking air “manually”, we must strictly separate the various phases of flying. To me winding the rubber, the same as refuelling or changing the battery, is part of the preparation and has nothing to do with picking the right moment of launch. So, limit the time between announcing a flight to the timekeeper and effectively launching the model. Just that without winding, or generally, preparation of the model.
Off course all that will not change the outcome of a World Championship where you have 1 hour time for 3 competitors, but can have a big impact on World Cup contests and other less important competitions.
At the end, the above idee should not be restricted to F1B, but applied to all classes, including F1A, F1C and F1Q. Once you say “go” you have 5 – 10 minutes to free the model!
Urs Schaller
Changes in Rubber or other Elements in F1 ABCQ
From: Can Tezcan
WHY?
I work as a strategist and product manager, and in my field we never make changes without supporting them with data (never touch a running system without proof).
Right now, we actually have all the data. We can calculate. Yet in this case—whether it’s about reducing rubber or other changes—ONE person, really just ONE, claimed we have too much performance and too many participants in the flyoff. And suddenly, like an avalanche, many followed this idea without question.
But how many of you actually dared to run the numbers? To check if the claim was correct?
I did. And the results are completely different from what’s being said.
So what’s really going on? Either:
* some want to change the rules to serve their own advantage, or
* no one actually did the math and people are just going by gut feeling because the flyoff looks too crowded.
We have the tools to calculate. I even trained ChatGPT to analyze WC data, and it gave me the real numbers. Based on this—WTF are we even trying to change?
Observations & Tentative Averages
From the data points of WC’s:
For F1A, the number of participants in individual WC events ranges from ~38 to ~114 (in large events / summary).
Fly-off sizes for F1A tend to be ? 8-11 in the events I saw.
For F1B: participants are fewer than F1A in many events (e.g. 27, 44), fly-off sizes also ~8.
For F1C: very small in some events (e.g. 4 in one, 10 in another), fly-off either absent or small (~6-8) when present.
So as a rough average (from these limited data):
F1A: ~ 60-70 participants; fly-off ~10
F1B: ~ 30-40 participants; fly-off ~8
F1C: ~ 5-15 participants; fly-off ~6 (if fly-off happens)
Based on this DATA, I completely deny any changes on the running system and we should advise the Technical Committee to stop the wrong estimations.
Schöne Grüße
Can Tezcan
On F1B’s excessive performance
From: Aram Schlosberg
On F1B’s excessive performance
A posting on SEN 3373 by Michael Woodhouse addressing B’s “performance” correctly points out that 1. Reducing the motor weight by 5 grams will not dent the performance of the best flyers much. 2. That most of us are flying the almost identical factory models.
(I’m skipping the proposal abolition of thermal sensing devices.)
The reason B flyers do well is because the flying line makes it very easy to piggyback any adjacent climbing B models.
Piggybacking is more difficult for C fliers who have start up their engines and judge thermal from overhead models downwind. A flyers are spread out not to tangle lines and whose flights are more difficult to judge overhead and downwind.
Mike suggested to grant B flyers a 10 minute window to wind-and-fly (WAF). (Basically, starting a count down watch.) If no flight was made, to chalk it down as an attempt. This reduces the density of flyers who could piggyback.
But instead of an attempt, require a 10 minute WAITING TIME (WT) to the next WAF period, starting either when the 10 minute ended or when the flyer decides to abort flying. (Basically, starting a count down watch again.)
The catch is that if a B flyer initiates a WAF window 20 or less minutes before the round end and does not fly, they are locked out from flying that round.
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