[NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

No he isn't Jim.

Jeesh, SINCE when did Pattern become a "geometry at any cost" sport?  
Geometry IS the main criterion to judge by but is not the only one. Never has and I 
hope never will. 

Clinical precision and the great deal of effort that has gone into defining 
it, is the mainstay of Pattern, true enough. No doubt in my mind that this is 
well spent effort.

BUT, say all you want about clinical precision, Pattern always has had the 
element of Art and some of that will always be undefined. I hope that the Art 
requirement of Pattern never changes. I really don't see the verbiage 
"Smoothness and Gracefulness" as being wrong or not belonging in the rules. To me, it 
has nothing to do with "impression" judging presently, although it probably did 
20 years ago

If clinical precision is defined by line segments, angles, rolls, and 
loops.......smoothness and grace define some of the color of these elements as they 
are being put together into your tapestry. Things such as constant roll rates 
or constant radii and other similar words, all speak to S and G more than they 
do to clinical execution. To me, it's a significant portion of the means by 
which you perform your art. Why would you not present it so the judge can love 
it?

In meantime lets continue to improve the wording but lets not "improve" it to 
the point where "choppy" (but clinical) scores the same, just so we  can be 
politically correct. 

My apologies for the soap suds
Matt

In a message dated 10/2/2006 4:45:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jim.woodward at schroth.com writes:
“Overly-tight” and “non-survivable” radii?  Your kidding right?  I don’t 
know – but maybe we should bring those words back so that the little “pivot” 
radius used by a lot of electric fliers could be downgraded J   Although done at 
a lower speed, I think the “pivot” or “dink” radius is definitely down 
gradable when flown as an entry into, lets say:  1.  entry in the Cuban 8 with 2/4 
and 2/8 from the top, ½ reverse Cuban 8, goldfish, etc. – meaning where the 
pilot does a “pivot” in the pitch access, then even a small sized ¾ loop is 
still near infinitely larger than the “pivot” entry into the maneuver..  
 
Just a bone of mine with a lot of the electric flying styles I’ve seen.    
When flying slow, they in many instances, are not “carving” entry radius into 
maneuvers (or when “exiting”’ maneuvers), that match the actual looping 
segment of the entire maneuver.  
 
Jim W.
 



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dean Pappas
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring
 
In my heart, I agree, but ...
Do you know how long it took us to get the original wording, regarding 
overly-tight radii and non-survivable "G" levels, out of the rule book?
Would scaled-down people survive greater "G" levels, like ants and 
cockroaches seem to be able to survive almost anything?
Still it took eons to get rid of that language.
The bear is that the smoothness and gracefulness criteria is more deeply 
buried in the rules/ Judges' Guide.
When the four basic criteria were ordered in rank of importance, the 
"positioning is #2 and S&G should be #3" crowd lost the argument! Oh well ...
It's an argument worth having again, but look at how broad the consensus 
would have to be!
I'm afraid that the best we can do is to educate our judges, then water and 
rest them often enough that their attention and energy
is sufficient that they don't have to fall back on overall impression, in 
order to keep up with the unending "next maneuver" assault.
 
later,
    Dean
Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:56 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring
John,
 
I couldn't agree more, and I'd like to see "smoothness and gracefullness" 
completely removed as a judging criteria as no one has ever been able to quantify 
what the downgrade should  be, or how a geometrically perfect maneuver can be 
outscored by a more "graceful" maneuver.
 
Standing by with a bucket of water...
 
Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/3adf7174/attachment.html