PDA

View Full Version : Scale Competition RCP


Ironnerd
03-16-2012, 08:51 PM
ALSO POSTED ON TRF:

I was looking at the RCP forum and found this one to be a bit confusing...

Summary: Remove the incentive to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events by making damage cumulative. Crashing the model and flying a model that has been patched together and looks terrible will no longer be rewarded. The exception is models that undergo a catastrophic failure, damage will not include damage done by the catastrophic failure.

Logic: It has become an accepted strategy in many craftsmanship events to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events. As damage is not cumulative, any damage from a first flight crash is not counted against the modeler on a subsequent reflight, allowing badly damaged models to place using this strategy. This is harmful as it goes against the spirit of the rules to produce nicely crafted flyable models; it encourages unsafe rockets to be flown and encourages disposable models that can not be entered competitively again.

Effect: Craftsmanship events strategy will have to change, models will not be able to be flown, "re-kitted", put back together and reflown without penalty. Test flying will be encouraged and unsafe models will not fly as frequently.

No records are kept in craftsmanship events, so no effect on NAR records.
Wording: Add the following rule as number 50.15, 51.6, 52.8, 53.15, 54.8, 55.8, 56.8, P57.9:

5X.X Damage
Damage shall be judged cumulatively with each flight, assessed from the judged condition of the model to the condition presented to the judge post-flight. The only exception to this is damage caused in the course of a catastrophic failure under rule 11.5, in which case such damage shall not be counted against the flight points.

My question begins with the first line; what incentive can there be to fly untested/unsafe rockets that crash?

Rule 3.7 states that models my fly in a stable manner.
Rule 3.5 states that models must have a suitable recovery system.

Rule 9.3 states that models my fly in a stable manner or be disqualified.

Rule 11.4 states that the CD can disqualify and contestant from an event
or meet if he/she fails to practice or observe reasonable safety measures...

Rule 11.5 states that if a rocket crashes because it was not stable, the flight is not official.

Rules 50.1, 53.11, 54.5, 55.4, and 56.6 all state that failure of a rocket to fly in a safe and stable manner means disqualification from the event.

It seems to me that if a rocket is "Unsafe" and crashes, it should be removed from competition. AND if it has flown once and CRASHED, then the RSO should boot the model from any other events - or at least impound it [Rule 9.10]

So, I'm asking the contest-types with far more experience than I - "What the futz, Gus?" What is going on int the craftsmanship events?

Keep in mind, the author is stating that this is a safety of flight issue, not a fairness issue, not even a rule-bending issue -- a safety issue. The claim by the author is that contestants are flying unsafe/unstable models that crash, they are then putting them back together, and flying them again.

-John
__________

chanstevens
03-16-2012, 10:02 PM
I often efer to the existing rule (some would call it a loophole) as the "flying carcass rule" and have benefited GREATLY from it over the years. That said, I think it's a terrible rule and the RCP should go through. It would substantially change the nature of the craftsmanships back to emphasizing craftsmanship over flight.

It's not that obvious unless you've been to a few big-time competition events, but here's the basic way the existing rule can be played. You've got a terrific model that could be flown to push the envelope doing assorted "mission point" activities such as clustering and staging. In order to place in the top 4 of an event, though, you not only have to score well on craftsmanship but also have a successful qualified flight. Your score for the event is your craftsmanship score plus the best of two flights. Now here's how we use the damage points rule to our advantage today, using a real life example of mine...

Plastic Model Conversion, my teammate built a model that he had not been able to previously fly. This isn't unusual for a NARAM-level event, where the "boilerplate" often lacks many of the time-consuming details such as missiles and landing gear that go into a final model, leaving the modeler to use his own judgement on stability, motor choice, etc. We knew given the model weight that it would barely go 150-200 feet on a pair of D12's, so were debating a -0 delay or -3, and if the D12's weren't enough oomph, we'd have to go crazy risky and cluster composite 24mm's (this was a jet, with outboard motors, not central).

Our model was in good shape after static score, not top 4 but in the neighborhood and often the top few will drop out for DQ's. Our first flight w went with -3 delays. Model was pretty stable, but the delay was way too late, and it crashed before deploying, a clear DQ. That was terrific news, though--all those pretty missiles, bombs, landing gear that added weight and drag were wiped out, we'd confirmed that the model was reasonably stable (now much more so), and that the -3 delay was too long. We duct-taped the carcass back together, taking a model that was horribly disfigured but actually fairly flyable back for flight #2. It went up, deployed, came down safely, so flight score was perfect. Since there was no incremental damage on that SECOND flight, there was no deduct, and we took a top place. Had the damage been cumulative, we would have had no chance to place. Basically, if you're willing to sacrifice the model, it's a sound strategy to build something that's pushing the envelope and scoring a high static, let any major problems flush themselves out on the first flight, then do whatever it takes to get the carcass back up in the air for a qualifying second flight.

That's not to say we'd ever intentionally fly something unsafe, unstable, etc., just that it's not that hard to exploit the non-cumulative damage score rule to put a piece of junk back up for a second flight, get a perfect flight score, and qualify and/or even win the event. I think any damage on the first flight ought to affect the score for the second.

Heck, I'd even be open to the idea that if you go for a second flight, you give up any flight score from the first, but there would be zero chance of that ever passing. There would be fewer of the more entertaining mission-point flights, but they'd be much more dramatic with so much more on the line.

Ironnerd
03-17-2012, 09:49 PM
So the rules, as written, do not judge the rocket post flight, but the RCP would add that requirement. I like that idea.

My original confusion was caused by the author’s statement that this would somehow remove the incentive to fly an unsafe/unstable model when this is clearly not permitted under the USMRSC. Other confusion has many sources – like it’s totally obvious (to me) that in a craftsmanship event, a model that crashes should receive some sort of post-flight re-judging.

Since the PRC would add such a post-flight re-judge, it takes care of the rules loop-hole as well as any configuration changes that may occur when several parts get knocked off during a bad landing – and don’t get put back on for the second flight.

Thanks for helping me figure this out guys.

Ez2cDave
06-08-2012, 02:26 PM
SIMPLE CURE . . .

All CRAFTSMANSHIP event models get ONE FLIGHT . . . Unstable or Unsafe = DQ ( "bye-bye" from the Event ) . . . No "qualifier flight" and then an all out "missions flight" . . . FLY or DIE ! ! !

Dave Fitch