Re: Letter to the CIAM RE: F1D Rule Change

From: Chuck Slusarczyk <chucks2000_at_roadrunner.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:31:08 -0500

Nick,
Give me your off-list e mail.I'd like to sign on
thanks

chuck slusarczyk sr.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nick Ray
  To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:10 PM
  Subject: [Indoor_Construction] 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 - 09:31:02 CET