Letter to the CIAM RE: F1D Rule Change
At Chuck's request, Joshua Finn, and I have composed the following letter.
It would great to have some signatories in addition to ourselves for the
letter. If you would like to add your name, or think something should be
changed please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
Nick Ray
Dear CIAM Technical Experts,
The rationale behind changing the current F1D rules is based on several
misconceptions and the supposition that proposed rule changes will
alleviate perceived shortcomings. The proposal first cites organizational
considerations for changing the rules. Then the proposal contends that
model weight should be raised to compensate for the unavailability of
exotic materials. Lastly, the proposal states that current models will be
usable under the new rules and that changing the rules may bring new
participants into the event. By carefully examining the reasons behind the
rule changes and the foreseeable effects of changing the rules, it becomes
clear that this proposal is not in the best interest of F1D.
The first argument for changing rules cites a decrease in the number of
flying sites. However, the number of sites putting in world championship
bids has remained constant since the previous rule change. There is also
talk of a bid from a U.S. Category IV site for 2016. The current world
records already show a reduction in flight times as the ceiling height is
reduced. As such, it is likely that competitions in smaller sites would
naturally experience a reduction in duration. The proposal goes on to cite
a need to decrease the duration of contests to reduce costs. Indeed, the
cost of hosting a contest could be greatly reduced by flying three rounds
per day rather than two. Doing so would reduce the contest duration by a
full day without changing the models. Contests could also be shortened by
flying on partial motors (i.e. 0.3g rubber and 0.3g ballast), when
organizational needs dictate, without changing the current rules.
The proposal's position on material availability is logically unsound
because the proposal does not seek to ban exotic materials from
competition. Therefore, any advantage a competitor currently has will be
carried over to the new rules. Indeed, in an event that is the pinnacle of
its discipline, it stands to reason that materials should not be restricted
except when they pose a hazard to participants. Moreover, reliable models
and variable pitch and variable diameter mechanisms are being produced at
the current weight limit by Ivan Treger, Lutz Schramm, Brett Sanborn, and
many others. Increasing the weight limit will likely allow for innovations
such as tip-plates, electronics and more composite components. Thus, the
flying times will rapidly approach those currently seen in competition.
The proposal concludes its rationale statement by stating that the rule
change will likely make F1D more appealing to new participants and may
close the gap between top competitors and the rest of the field. The
previous rule change in 2000 also touted the potential for increased
participation, but as Brett Sanborn pointed out, the average attendance at
world championships was 34.667 participants from 1972-2000 and 34.667 from
2002-2012. It is possible that other factors convolute this figure, but
empirically, it would appear that rule changes do not have a great impact
on participation.
History has shown that the notion that rule changes close the gap between
competitors is fallacious. Jim Richmond weathered many such rule changes
and, in spite of them, won more world championships than anyone else in F1D
history. The problem with this notion is that it asserts the presumption
that the best fliers are successful because they have stumbled into a
paradigm that works for a particular event. It ignores the fact that the
best fliers tend to be the fliers who practice frequently, search out the
best materials, and innovate constantly.
In order to fly competitively, participants will need to exploit the rule
changes with new models. Reducing the motor weight will shift the center of
gravity forward considerably. Moreover, the shorter motor will lead to
redesigned fuselages. There is also some conjecture that because the models
built under the proposed rules have not been tested in high ceiling sites,
the models may not have enough power to fly well. Indeed, high ceiling F1D
may start to look more like F1B with steep climbs and long glides after the
motor is out of turns.
For the reasons stated above, this rule change proposal simultaneously
seeks to alleviate perceived issues that do not actually exist and make
changes that do not solve the problems that the proposal claims to solve.
Therefore, the CIAM Technical Experts are urged to vote against this rule
change proposal.
Thank you for your time and service,
Nick Ray
et. al....
Received on Fri Feb 21 2014 - 09:10:40 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET