SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
View Poll Results: Should the Zoom rule be changed?
Leave rule as it is. 27 50.00%
Change it for better clarity and/or direction 17 31.48%
Remove it 10 18.52%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 04, 2014, 08:53 AM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
Poll
Zoom rule Poll

ALES Community,

I would like to open a poll asking what you feel should be done with the zooming rule as is presented by AMA:

Quote:
(X).2 Altitude Limiters
All models must be fitted with an Altitude Limiter Switch (ALS) that
will shut off the motor when it reaches the designated altitude above
the ground. This device must also shut off the motor 30 seconds after
launch if the designated altitude has not yet been reached.
1. The ALS must not be enclosed in any material other than that
recommended by the manufacturer. It may not be positioned in any
part of the model which could result in distortion of actual air
pressure variations (e.g.–near forward facing air scoops or venting
ports),
2. Models must include sufficient static venting to ensure that outside
pressure is duplicated inside the model at the ALS location. In the
event of a launch exceeding 10% of the designated launch altitude
due to insufficient venting, the Contest Director may assign a score of
zero to the violator for that round.
3. The Electronic Speed Control must always operate via its series
connection to the ALS and not with direct connection to the receiver.
4. The connectors linking the ALS to the receiver shall be readily
accessible so that a check altimeter with appropriate interconnection
can be installed on demand by the Contest Director. Such check
altimeter will serve to verify Start Height while retaining the normal
operation of the competitor’s own installation.
5. 'Zooming' is defined as using kinetic energy (speed) stored in the
plane during the launch to exceed the designated launch height by
more than 10%. Zooming will be considered in violation of the intent
of the altitude limiter rule and the Contest Director may assign a
score of zero to the violator for that round.

6. Any attempt to subvert the intent of this Altitude Limiter rule set is
grounds for disqualification from the event as unsportsmanlike
conduct
I have highlighted the rule in question. The question is not whether this rule is an issue or will have an impact on the competition or not.

The question is to define if it is adequate as it stands is to brazen in penalties and should be changed or if it should be removed.

There have been discussion here and the most recent I have seen is:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2072918

Lots of comments have been posted with very good ideas and reasons for change or not.

Please enter your vote.

Thank you.

Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Last edited by Fly2High; Mar 04, 2014 at 11:03 AM. Reason: spelling/typo
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 04, 2014, 11:03 AM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
Feel free to post your reasons for your choice.

thank you

Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 04, 2014, 11:15 AM
Red Merle ALES
Curtis Suter's Avatar
United States, Mt, Helena
Joined Apr 2002
5,725 Posts
Okay, I was hesitating.

Rules in the AMA for soaring should not be subjective. Period. This eliminates animosity amongst our friends/competitors.

Soaring has taught me more about aerodynamics, structures, composites, the atmosphere and competition. If it weren't for the lack of subjectivity, contests would not be the same and you'd find much more animosity like other realms of our sport/hobby.

So the rule should be changed to a verification system that will stand the test of time taking the subjectivity out of it. When a group of extremely skilled pilots meet and the lift is marginal with low launches such as 100m or 150m this overshoot rule will make a big difference. The technology already exists to level that playing field so lets use what we have and remove any subjectivity. I bet someone is smart enough to make an addon device to the ever so popular Soaring Circuits CAM that will display the max altitude achieved by opening the sailplanes hatch upon landing. Of course making money for themselves at the same time. I'd buy one. The timer could easily check a box on the score card such as: Max Altitude Over Limit: Yes/No. Simple.

Now that there is a simple easy to verify rule and everyone is launching to very similar altitudes you will find that folks now are fine tuning their models to get to 200m in 30 seconds and not 10-15 seconds as then the advantage is using up all the available launch time under power.

Curtis Suter
Montana
Curtis Suter is online now Find More Posts by Curtis Suter
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Curtis Suter; Mar 04, 2014 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 04, 2014, 12:17 PM
Flying = Falling (Slowly)
dharban's Avatar
Tulsa, OK
Joined May 2004
2,666 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Suter View Post
Okay, I was hesitating.

Rules in the AMA for soaring should not be subjective. Period. This eliminates animosity amongst our friends/competitors.

Soaring has taught me more about aerodynamics, structures, composites, the atmosphere and competition. If it weren't for the lack of subjectivity, contests would not be the same and you'd find much more animosity like other realms of our sport/hobby.

So the rule should be changed to a verification system that will stand the test of time taking the subjectivity out of it. When a group of extremely skilled pilots meet and the lift is marginal with low launches such as 100m or 150m this overshoot rule will make a big difference. The technology already exists to level that playing field so lets use what we have and remove any subjectivity. I bet someone is smart enough to make an addon device to the ever so popular Soaring Circuits CAM that will display the max altitude achieved by opening the sailplanes hatch upon landing. Of course making money for themselves at the same time. I'd buy one. The timer could easily check a box on the score card such as: Max Altitude Over Limit: Yes/No. Simple.

Now that there is a simple easy to verify rule and everyone is launching to very similar altitudes you will find that folks now are fine tuning their models to get to 200m in 30 seconds and not 10-15 seconds as then the advantage is using up all the available launch time under power.

Curtis Suter
Montana
I agree with you.

But for those who might panic that we are making it too technical and complicated, consider that a good rule would specify HOW the rule would be enforced. We often fly at variance with our rules as it suits local sensibilities.

Nothing would necessarily prevent groups from waiving local enforcement when it suited their sensibilities. While our eyes glaze over at some of the technical provisions in rules for measuring and "proving" planes or devices in some classes, the common practice in most of these cases is to not enforce them except for large, important, competitions.

Having a credible procedure in place, however, should serve as a reasonably effective deterrent to non-compliance even at the local level.

Happy Landings,

Don
dharban is offline Find More Posts by dharban
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 09:31 AM
MrE
Registered User
MrE's Avatar
United States, WA, Gig Harbor
Joined Aug 2007
2,822 Posts
I cant vote either way unless I know the exact wording we are talking about

Also, changing definitions of things like zoom and launch altitude are very different from changing enforcement or compliance requirements.

One might be ok while the other may not - and wording is important.

This is too vague to vote on
MrE is offline Find More Posts by MrE
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 11:24 AM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
rule enforcement is a given. You cannot call a Chevy a Chevy if it is made by Toyota. ALES is defined by rules and it is assumed that all the rules are to be enforced. Otherwise, it is not ALES. It is something different.

I think most desire some form of the altitude limitation but would like a better way to enforce it.

Leaving it as is allows the CD to ignore all overzooms and could drive the format to super ships with mega power systems bringing back LMR issues again.

As for being vauge, we are looking for if your desire is to keep them or change them. If you want change, are you looking to eliminate or to improve with the same intent in mind.

It is up to you if you want to vote or not. Of course, I appreciate you input and would like to have it.


I guess not voting also tells a lot so thank you either way. at this time 28 votes have come in. Thank you to everyone for posting, voting or posting and not voting. your input is appreciated.
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 11:46 AM
MrE
Registered User
MrE's Avatar
United States, WA, Gig Harbor
Joined Aug 2007
2,822 Posts
Frank, in the other thread Ed posted a possible rules change that had some good points and some not so good points. You cant vote yes or no unless you can balance out the good vrs bad.

You need specific proposals with details - or at least I do.

How can you vote YES/NO unless you know what you're voting for?

Do I want to change the rules? It depends on the wording. Maybe yes maybe no.
MrE is offline Find More Posts by MrE
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 12:27 PM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
I understand your point. I guess what I was looking for was to determine if there is a desire to change them. When it comes to what the result of a change will be will both take time and lots of suggestions that need to be combined.

If there is no desire to change anything, then it is a wasted effort to determine if we need to expend the time to determine what to change to.

I am sure, whatever we come up with now, will undergo lots of revision and lots of minds may change as we all become more educated. I cn admit I have already learned a lot.

just looking to see if we need to or is it simply the desire to delete.

Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 01:53 PM
MrE
Registered User
MrE's Avatar
United States, WA, Gig Harbor
Joined Aug 2007
2,822 Posts
I have - very reluctantly - moved over a little closer to the "change the rules" side than I started out.

Im still not all the way there yet. Its going to depend on the wording of the proposal.

So I have to abstain for now
MrE is offline Find More Posts by MrE
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2014, 03:13 PM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
Contribution is more important than the vote and I am happy with your contributions!!

The vote is just for a gut feeling.

Keep the comments coming. It is always good to see different sides of things. Only makes things better.

As for abstaining, I am sure you have like company. I hope they too will post why. Only way to make it better.

thanks
Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 05:30 AM
turn, turn, turn.
Athol, Massachusetts
Joined Oct 2005
10,440 Posts
I voted yesterday to leave the rule as it is.

I like the rules, I think they cover everything, and it works.
Kenny Sharp is online now Find More Posts by Kenny Sharp
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 08:56 AM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
I will admit that I voted for change.

To me, the rule as it is allows the CD to ignore overzooming by not giving out penalties.

My fear is that without limiting zooming, we will have a contest where you will need to have a super molded plane and a top power system to compete. All this says to me is money, money , money. Also, money can by an edge. Neither do I like.

If everyone had a more consistent launch height max, I think it would open the door for more competition of skill, not pocketbooks.

Also, it would prevent the desire to go to high power systems. We want this to be about soaring, not about how fast you can go.

Also, it puts back a need to learn the skill of tuning and setting up a plane not to go beyond the limits. This would be the same idea that it takes skill to winch launch. For electric, tuning for launch would replace winch launching skill.

I also feel that ALES needs the limitation of zooming enforced in some manner so this is why I feel leaving as is and deleting it are not an option.

I have current ideas for how the rule should change but I need more time to learn from others comments and ideas for rules before I could offer a suggestion.

Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 12:54 PM
Registered User
United States, NY, Hopewell Junction
Joined Sep 2004
155 Posts
My thought on this (voted to eliminate the rule) is to state a simple fact or two. Larger, more powerful systems are made of larger, more powerful motors and larger, heavier batteries. So at least to some extent, the "super" powered sailplane will suffer in the glide as compared to a reasonably powered, lower weight model.

With all of the work that has already gone into maximizing the airframes for ALES and for F5J, it is very apparent that another side of the power question has proven it's worth - no sense in going any higher than you need to to max out! In F5J, you suffer higher penalties for higher launch heights. In ALES, it is silly to waste time gliding within the allotted 30 second motor run time as you would with say a 10 second motor run time. Now you will require 10:20 gliding time for a 10 minute max. Putting in just the right amount of power to reach 200m in 30 seconds is the prime consideration - this allows smaller, lighter motor/battery systems to be used thus saving weight and not pre-ballasting your sailplane.

My opinion only - remember - everybody has one!
rcglider is offline Find More Posts by rcglider
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 01:05 PM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,117 Posts
rcglider,
I thought the same thing until don (dharban) posted the following in the ALES and Zoom thread:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
can't run that kind of power full throttle for 30 seconds...without adding a ton of weight.
Kenny,

I can take your 1000 watt Supra to 2000 watts for an additional 6.5 ounces of weight -- motor, batteries, the whole shooterie.

Just sayin'

Happy Landings,

Don
He had done other testing and found that

Quote:
Without any restrictions on zooming, ALES can reasonably expect to go the same way. Maybe that is not the end of the world. But without restrictions on zooming it is an absolute certainty that competitors will work to maximize the trade-off between power and altitude as our planes move toward more or less common design parameters. And while there are still people out there who seem to believe that the added weight of more power will quickly offset the altitude gain, I can promise you that is not true. Based on my testing and calculations it is possible to put minimum weight planes in the air with 1500 or more watts. And without a zoom limit this will likely become just the starting point.
(taken from his post http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...&postcount=691)

Nowadays, they redesign the wing spar and the 6 ounces or so go away so you end up with the same weight as a TD plane on the moldies.

The issue is many guys are thinking of running far and then climbing fast, 10-15 sec to 200M fast. This will allow for 30, 40, 50 and even 70+ meter zooms. Do you want planes to fly this fast, zoom so high in competition or do you prefer a more level playing field? One guy getting 70/200 = 35% more altitude to me doesn't seem fair. Also, what would guys who fly Radian and like sport flyers say when they have to fly with these rockets with a prop? Lackof enforcement allows for them to exist.

If I had to suggest someone who really is in the know, Don in the other thread really did lots of calculations that made me second the idea of dropping or allowing people to ignore issuing penalties for over zooming. Very knowledgeable guy

Frank
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 01:06 PM
Registered User
USA, CA, Chico
Joined Feb 2011
3,244 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Sharp View Post
I voted yesterday to leave the rule as it is.

I like the rules, I think they cover everything, and it works.
Me too,, but ,, now that I read the reasons for changing them,, I'm thinking maybe at the bigger events a verification of launch height???
Airman74 is offline Find More Posts by Airman74
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Lipos have the 20% rule, do NiMH batteries have a similar rule? DrewC Batteries and Chargers 2 Jan 03, 2014 08:28 AM
Discussion Rule of Law rule of schmaw...Obama issues "parole in place" decree MtnGoat Life, The Universe, and Politics 52 Dec 10, 2013 12:32 PM
Discussion Ford Rule vs Reagan Rule Yort69 Life, The Universe, and Politics 8 Oct 24, 2013 05:29 PM
POLL: zoom blade question thanhTran Mini Helis 4 Dec 15, 2004 03:17 AM
POLL: Please vote for this AP contest rule eBird Aerial Photography 23 Sep 25, 2003 08:05 PM