[NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring

george w. kennie geobet at gis.net
Tue Oct 3 10:12:33 AKDT 2006


I don't know about anybody else, but I'm in agreement with you on this one Mathiew.
G.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Wind correction scoring


  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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/16f3d204/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list