<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="x_Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:x_link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:x_visited, span.x_MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
.x_MsoChpDefault
{}
@page WordSection1
{margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in}
div.x_WordSection1
{}
-->
</style>
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Stu, I think any straight horizontal line maneuver should have its baseline a straight line at a Kfactor of 1. This should boost those maneuvers by a Kfactor of one and would seem to be more in line with norms. A 4 pt roll would then
be a k4 and slow roll would then be a k3. A full roll would then be a K2. At least this is how I would interpret the way it should be.
</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I also think the Kfactor ranges spelled out for each class need a closer look see. If I remember correctly a while ago I plugged in the new kfactors for the 2015 Masters sequence and it was lower than the designated range for Masters.
I think it would be a good idea to plug in the numbers for at least the last 3 or so cycles of sequences to see if the ranges spelled out are reasonable. If the ranges aren’t closely examined it could have an unintended consequence of pushing the level of
difficulty even higher than we are already at.</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">
Mail</a> for Windows 10</p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 21, 2018 10:37:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> NSRCA Mailing List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NSRCA-discussion] New K Factors</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">I don't think I have seen any discussion on the list about the new
<br>
system for K factor designation so I thought I would start it off.<br>
<br>
First before any questions or criticism this was a big job and I like <br>
it, so thank you to the group that put this together. The new K factors <br>
run from 1-11 and are based on a basic maneuver with additional K's <br>
added for added elements. Using the old system there was always <br>
questions when new maneuvers were added, Some if the K factor some seems <br>
okay some high some low based on prior maneuvers. Sometimes it seems <br>
arbitrary.<br>
<br>
If you have not looked at the new documents, as I read it, the new K <br>
factor is determined by adding a base K factor for the basic maneuver <br>
and then looking at the added elements each with an assigned K addition. <br>
The element with the highest K is added to the basic maneuver K factor <br>
and then the rest of the element K factors are added up and divided by <br>
two and added on.<br>
<br>
For the most part this seems like it works, however I do not think that <br>
all of the maneuvers are computed properly in the catalog maneuvers. If <br>
I am reading correctly, the double I with knife edge flight did not half <br>
the elements before adding them on.<br>
<br>
Also when adding a basic knife edge element K factors are added for the <br>
quarter roll in and the quarter roll out. Maneuvers with simple knife <br>
edge flight in them would seem to get inflated K factors due to this. <br>
The double I with knife edge flight is listed as a K of 10. I think it <br>
should be a K of 8 based on the intended calculation (I don't think the <br>
dividing by 2 was done) .<br>
<br>
A slow roll only has a K factor of 2. A four-point roll a K factor of <br>
three. In the current advanced sequence we have reduced the K factors <br>
for these two maneuvers and increase the K factor total for the entire <br>
sequence. This markedly reduces the importance of these two basic <br>
maneuvers that often help to distinguish the better flyers.<br>
<br>
No system is ever going to be perfect and I think this is a step in the <br>
right direction. Just bringing these few points up to start a conversation.<br>
<br>
Stuart Chale<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>