[NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals

[Monte Richard]

We had a pilot at the Cajun Nats finish second place with a PHOENIX 7 against at least 5 other 2 meter planes. With the 10% no one could even have a chance against him.

It certainly isn’t right to give a lesser pilot the win over a better pilot like John suggested, just because he flies a smaller plane. That certainly isn’t what our sport or competition is about.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 18, 2019, at 6:07 PM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Keep in mind, for analysis below, no consideration is being given to whether pilot 1 and pilot 2's planes were different.  What we don't know is how much 'better' a pilot flies a 2M vs. a 1.75 or smaller airplane to critique the 10%.  We'd be hard pressed, I think, to get a firm, accurate number to represent that difference.  We'd have to have a single pilot fly both sized planes in front of a set of judges, probably multiple times, to know if there was any real difference at all.
That said, it's a penalty - something a pilot must choose to work with or around.  If we want to discourage 2M, then pick a high number.  If it's to level the field, pick a lower one.


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
To: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com<mailto:johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Fri, Jan 18, 2019 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals

I was thinking that 10% was a bit high.  Could also do a lower % or Int than Sportsman.

John, I hope the idea of any of these rules proposals is NOT to allow the lesser pilot to win!
We just are talking about leveling the playing field to account for equipment.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:32 PM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
Monte
I sort of arbitrarily picked 10%.    Do the math and suggest a better number.   Although I think the idea is that the newcomer should have a good chance of placing/winning even though he/she may not be the best pilot.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf Of Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:18 PM
To: Monte Richard; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new rules proposals

I just went into one of last years contests in intermediate. Pilot one’s first round scored a raw score of 350 and 331, his average raw score was 340.5 (he won the round). Pilot two’s raw score for round one was 338 and 324.5, his average raw score was 331.25, add in the 10% handicap and it becomes 364.375. This moves him to first place in the round by a high margin. Totally changes the results. Add to that the normalizing and it becomes almost insurmountable, considering pilot one outflew pilot two.
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Monte Richard <mrichard at compassengineering.com<mailto:mrichard at compassengineering.com>> wrote:
Add in the Kfactors and in Sportsman the total raw score can be 250 making the 10% handicap 25 points.
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Monte Richard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
10% is a lot. sportsman has 18 maneuvers so a perfect flight has a possibility of 180 points in raw score, 10% of that is 18 points. A flight with all 9’s would be a raw score of 162, 10% is 16.2 points. That pretty much means a pilot without the 10% advantage has to beat the pilot with the advantage by 1 point per maneuver on all the maneuvers to beat him, if they tie more than 2 maneuvers, then the handicap beats him. 10% is a high factor to overcome.
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 18, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Underkofler via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
John,
 I think you've got a wording problem in your -05 proposal.
You say: 10% when "length/width DOES exceed 71in"
I think you meant: 10% when" length AND width DO NOT exceed 71in"

Dan

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
FYI for all.

There are 3 new rules proposals on the AMA website.    Suggest folks take a look.

John Fuqua
cell 850-974-6655

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

(c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto. Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  ­­
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

(c) 2019 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto. Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.  ­­
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20190119/cf9c2086/attachment.html>