2004 Nat's finals for lower classes

Mon Jul 21 06:08:32 AKDT 2003

Eric is correct, in my view.  There is a "magic number" that pretty much
requires us to go to the matrix system at the NATS.  Whenever we go under
that number, we can go back to the standard contest format.  I believe that
this will be addressed as well and "break-points" established to determine
which system is used.

Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henderson,Eric" <Eric.Henderson at gartner.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: 2004 Nat's finals for lower classes

You could, of course set entry limits???

"Incoming"

E.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Henderson,Eric
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 9:54 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: 2004 Nat's finals for lower classes

Well said Tony.

If we step back a moment you can see that this all comes about from having a
league system. The intent was to be fair to a large entry in a class, as
opposed to creating a finals-formula.

The first time I saw it was when there were 50 pilots in a class and you
could not get in one round, in one day, on one flight line. To get all of
the pilots in front of one set of judges is a good goal but then you get
good air in the morning and bad air in the afternoon issues etc. etc. If you
did half on one flight line and half on another then it took two days to get
in one round on each flight-line

The league system is practical with large numbers. With about 30 pilots you
can probably run a regular six round event. One site, two flight-lines and
two set of judges see the pilots once each. Above that you need the league
system. This is what should determine whether you have a finals in any class
except 406. FAI has two schedules for a national level contest. (It also has
unknowns for team trails). The 406 class at the Nat's is an AMA event and
not a full FAI event, and as such employs  qualifying rounds with P-03 and
uses the international semifinals F-03 routine as a finals.

Regards,

Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tony Stillman
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:59 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: 2004 Nat's finals for lower classes

Another point about the number in the finals.  I finished 13th in FAI, right
behind Raiko.  I would have been the next choice for the warm-up flights.
As it ended up, the 11th place pilot had never flown the finals sequence,
and neither had Raiko or I.  Raiko did go practice it on Wednesday, as he
knew he might be the demo pilot.

My point here is that we took too many in FAI, when those just out of the
finals never practiced the pattern!  The 20% should have resulted in 5 in
the finals.  I could see taking 6, but going to 10 was just too many.

It also results in a very long, difficult day for those judges that sit
through 30 flights!  The idea is to be able to pick the winner, not give
everyone a chance to fly in the finals just because they want to.

However, the big thing to me is changing the number once the event starts.
If we are going to use the 20% rule, THEN USE IT!  If we want a different
number, THEN PICK IT AND STAY WITH IT!

Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Budd" <jbudd at QNET.COM>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: 2004 Nat's finals for lower classes

> >Ron
> >OK
> >Another Question Did anyone who was in the finals, who would have
> >been cut if 20% would have been used this year end up above the 20%
> >group had it been used this year?
> >Just curious
> >Buddy
>
> I did.  I qualified 9th in Masters and finished 7th.
>
> Rusty Fried qualified 10th and finished 6th.
>
> Based on the ~40 entrants in Masters both Rusty and I would have been
> left out of the finals.
>
> Nonetheless, I support the idea of a fixed number, or a % of the
> total entrants, whichever is greater.
>
> The bigger issue is that it needs to be discussed, and decided upon
> in advance of the contest.  When some of the Masters competitors
> inquired as to how many competitors would be carried into the finals
> they were told "at least 8, maybe more".  That seemed to violate the
> most basic of tenents for running a contest which is that you publish
> the rules in advance.  You don't make it up as you go.
>
> So for Masters next year I would propose 8 or 20% of the total
> Masters entrants, whichever is greater.
>
> Jerry
> -- 
> ___________
> Jerry Budd
> Budd Engineering
> http://www.buddengineering.com
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#

============# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#