CHANGE BARCS ELG RULES

[PeteMitchell]

BARCS members will have received or be receiving in the next day or so the first BARCS Bulletin 2017. As will be seen, one of the items covered is a proposal that I have put forward for members to vote on at the coming AGM.

My proposal is to replace our existing electric rules which are out dated and no longer used as far as I know.’

Many forum only members will not see this bulletin, but thoughts and opinions would be welcomed, and I set out my proposal for comment here.

 I propose that we drop BARCS ELG rules and replace them with the rules used in the very successful ‘Bartletts League’.

These rules allow for 3 wingspan classes in one competition. A competitor may enter any 2 classes, with 2 different models. But not one model in 2 classes.

Basically, all models must have a readable AMRT, set to 30sec motor run time along with a cut off height set to no higher than max 200metres.

All launch heights are recorded, anything over 200metres is penalised with a 3point per metre penalty, but there is no advantage for launching lower than 200metres.

To encourage pilots who only have the CAM type of height limiter which cannot be read, these are permitted, and automatically score a 20 metre height penalty.

One relaunch in each slot is allowed.

Everything else is normal BARCS league, 10 min slot etc,etc.

There is now more interest in F5J, and some say that we should reduce the number of electric gliding classes because of it. This proposal would go some way towards that end, but still encourage those BARCS members who fly electric powered thermal soarers, but who either consider their model not suitable for, or who don’t want to fly in F5J.

The full rules I am proposing are attached.

 

Proposer     Peter Mitchell                BARCS    1568

Seconder     Paul Wainwright            BARCS    3044

Seconder     Brian Austin                    BARCS     230

Seconder     Nick Jackson                    BARCS      3570

 

All comments are welcome, but please keep them clean

 

 

BARCSElectroSlot.pdf

[Nicholls]

The only constructive comment I would make is naming the Rule Electroslot when something like "ELG200" would better depict what the competition is based on pending a change to "ELG150" when we realise, or accept, we don't need to go that high. Also sorry I wasn't a "Seconder"    

[PeteMitchell]

Thanks for your comments Ian. I am not too concerned about the name, I jut like Electroslot as a title

What do you think of the proposal?

 

[Nicholls]

As I said Pete "sorry I wasn't a seconder" to your proposal. I therefore I agree with it. I like and understand both F5J and Bartletts Rules. I don't like the alternatives that are used in the UK and no I'm not going to elaborate.   

[Jef Ott]

Hello Pete 

What is the thinking behind not allowing entry of two classes with one model?

This is not something that I would do nowadays (personally I am against double entries), but I used to enjoy double entering BARCS Open and F3J comps with 100" models and wondered what the perceived disadvantages are.

Best regards,

Jef

 

[PeteMitchell]

7 hours ago, Jef said:

What is the thinking behind not allowing entry of two classes with one model?

It is already seen by some, that allowing 2 entries in a competition gives that pilot an unfair advantage even if it is with 2 different classes of model.  An 100 model entered in both 100 and Open class, or a 2M also entered in either Open or 100, despite being under spanned in the ‘other’ class, would still be seen as giving that pilot an unfair advantage having twice the airtime with the same model.

 

7 hours ago, Jef said:

This is not something that I would do nowadays (personally I am against double entries), but I used to enjoy double entering BARCS Open and F3J comps with 100" models and wondered what the perceived disadvantages are

It is so long since I flew Open or F3J that I do not remember all the rules. But I am pretty sure double entries with the same model were not allowed then (certainly not in F3J).

In time past a competitor in Open was allowed, at the discretion of the CD, to use a 100” model if their Open model could no longer fly. But there had to be a double entry with 2 classes of glider

[wixy]

Hi Pete, though I would prefer BARCS to adopt F5J as their premier  competition .

Anything that helps to eliminate the dreadful Bmfa  esoaring class must be a positive step forward.

The only change I would like to see to your proposal is.

;Basically all models must have a readable AMRT set to 30 secs motor run time  ;.This part is Fine, (but personally I don't see the need for this.)

;along with a cut off height set to no higher than  200 Mtr s .;  As the proposal gives a penalty off 3 points per Mtr over 200 Mtr s 

its not needed

By removing that sentence ,you would allow F5J competitors to use their AMRT set at F5J without continually having to reprogram  for  each different competition .

 

 

 

[PeteMitchell]

19 minutes ago, wixy said:

Basically all models must have a readable AMRT set to 30 secs motor run time  ;.This part is Fine, (but personally I don't see the need for this.)

Good points Graham, but most pilots like the idea that they all launch to a limited height which gives them all a chance. So this is to stop zooming etc, and it works well.

 

21 minutes ago, wixy said:

along with a cut off height set to no higher than  200 Mtr s .;  As the proposal gives a penalty off 3 points per Mtr over 200 Mtr s

This can be changed to read: - ' can be set to a cut off height no higher than 200Mtrs' rather than 'should be set' etc. This would mean you have to judge your own height as per F5J, if you want to. But still alows pilots to use a 200metre height limiter.

 

28 minutes ago, wixy said:

you would allow F5J competitors to use their AMRT set at F5J without continually having to reprogram  for  each different competition

Hopefully this would encourage more competitors to enter this type of comp, but most will still have to change their AMRT settings if they want to fly F5J.

[Mike]

  I'm fairly open minded about Wix's suggestions re: setting AMRT's, as most of us should have worked out that (say) a 25sec motor run should get  as close to 200mtrs as makes no difference...

  Now it remains to be seen if BMFA esoaring league could be replaced with 'electroslot'? rules should the proposal be successful, and whether the diehard e-soaring participants would cross over... 

  I have a sneaky feeling that some would persevere, & we'd still have 3 different electric launch thermalling disciplines.

Not a good thing.

 Mike.

[wixy]

As mike says it's easy to work out your rate off climb for the proposed competition .( F5j is a different ball game)

and if you fly  Futaba  just set the tx vibrator at the height you require  to turn motor off .

g

[Kikapu]

Wixy it's not difficult to change the Altis settings.  A couple of clicks on the 'competition' tab is all that's required.  You can do that easily while you're polishing your models the night before.

I don't think the method you use keep your launch height below 200m is an issue.  The point is that no one should gain an advantage by launching above the height set by the rules of the competition - in this case 200m.  Within the Altis gadget itself you can set the height you want and/or vary the anti-zoom function, but I can't see a problem if you want your Futaba to give you a buzz - if that's the kind of thing you enjoy.

Essentially, the rules lead to a simple format for competition and is more likely to encourage new entrants to give competition a try.  Even so, there are some interesting tactical decisions to be made:

• The 30 second motor run rule does allow the pilot to fly out, horizontally, some distance away
• In strong sink conditions it can be advantageous to abort a flight, land and re-launch before the others decide to follow suite leaving a longer remainder of the slot time to fly.

Peter  

 

[wixy]

Pete I know it's not difficult to change the Altis settings ,

i just think it's unnecessary with the proposed rules .as you are penalised for flying over 200 Mtr s anyway.

Also it means I have to carry my laptop to RG as I wil be flying F5J next day .

G

[PeteMitchell]

Yes I agree Graham, I am going to change the wording of the rules from 'must be set' etc to now read 'CAN' be set.

It still means you have the reader to show launch height, but the option is now there for the pilot to set it to whatever he is comfortable with.

You can either judge your launch height, or you can set your limiter to whatever you want upto 200mtrs.

Either way you will be penalised for going over 200mtrs

 

[Peter]

This week I helped run a club competition for foamies designed to persuade the many slopers in my club to try their hand at flat field soaring. This is the second year of the competition series and in the first year the only motor run restriction was a time limit. Not surprisingly launch heights varied enormously! This year we had a bit of reinventing the wheel and introduces height limiters originally set at 200m. After a short testing session the pilots decided that 200m was far to high, some of them were having trouble seeing a 2m models, and the launch height was reduced to 150m. It was the same for everyone so it worked fine.

The point of bringing this up is that the original idea of setting a height limit was to launch to a height comparable to hand towing or launching on a winch. Using these methods a height of 200m would only ever be obtained on a windy day. On a calm day it can be hard even to obtain a full 150m line length and, if there is lift about, many pilots would choose to launch below even this height.

In F5J when there is lift about launch heights will be much lower. If we are to be competitive internationally we should be trying to teach our pilots to try to find lift at relatively low heights when conditions permit. Even the rules of E slot permit the CD discretion to reduce the launch height limit if they think that 200m would just result in a launch and land competition.

Personally I would like to see the nominal launch height reduced to 150m which would make it harder for the experienced pilot and easier for the novice to see the 2m model which they may be flying. At the least the CD should have some discretion if the conditions warrant it

[PeteMitchell]

16 hours ago, Peter said:

If we are to be competitive internationally we should be trying to teach our pilots to try to find lift at relatively low heights when conditions permit. Even the rules of E slot permit the CD discretion to reduce the launch height limit if they think that 200m would just result in a launch and land competition.

Personally I would like to see the nominal launch height reduced to 150m which would make it harder for the experienced pilot and easier for the novice to see the 2m model which they may be flying. At the least the CD should have some discretion if the conditions warrant it

My aim in making this proposed rule change is to try to encourage more of the BARCS membership to fly electric launched thermal soaring, because we all can see just how low membership participation is now. I don’t think making things more difficult for the experienced pilot is going to do much to encourage the less experienced.

Without checking the views of the seconders to this proposed revision of BARCS rules, I would say that I am not against amending the proposal to allow the CD to set a lower launch height max if it is felt this would make for a better/safer comp.

A lower max height could be decided and announced prior to the comp day which would give every one time to make the small change in their AMRT. But when this has been tried out by our eSoaring friends, it has been found that making a change at a comp is not easy, because not everyone can take a laptop with them, or have a card devise to make the change on the field.

[EssexBOF]

The limit of 200 metre cut off works OK as far as I am concerned, those who think they can fly for 10 minutes from a lower launch are at liberty to do so. Last week at Bartletts, some slots were not flown out due to sink etc, even from 200 or less height.

Does cutting the motor from a TX signal/vibrator take into account any zoom height gain? as would the Altis

I have flown 2 metre models for some time with no problems as to seeing them even at my advanced years, but launching 2 metre models at a lower height will place them at a disadvantage to bigger models, which with % scoring will give a lower score. If it were solely 2 metre models only there is no problem.

I did raise the question with Peter Mitchell on Thursday on what I read into 2 entry's in the comps which I had interpreted the wrong way. A 2 metre model flown as a single entry in a Bartletts comp counts as an Open score as well as does a 100S score i.e one flight per round. If you fly 2 models they only count in there prospective classes

 

The rule change as to ELG, is to bring it into line with modern thinking, which evolves over time. F5j will be the main class.

There is little chance of the BMFA changing E Soaring rules IMHO, as they are a law unto there selves.

[Peter]

The reason that I brought up the question about the 200m launch height was that it was the newcomers to thermal soaring who were finding it difficult to fly the model at that launch height and wanted it lowered. It was the same for everyone so the fact that most of the slots were not flown out made no difference to the results

We should also recognise that model development has moved on in recent years. This may be an event designed to encourage newcomers but the serious competitor who is prepared to pay silly money for one of these models will also be competing. Given a nice calm day 9 1/2 minutes is achievable even without thermal assistance (the other 30 secs is taken up climbing with the motor on). This is supposed to be an event where you have to find a thermal in order to fly out the slot.

We used to fly in 10 minute slots from 150m (if you were had a good towman!) with bits of balsa, ply, foam and film with an E193 wing section and if you missed the lift you were down in 3 minutes. Wasn't it quite popular?

[satinet]

Pete i think you make a good point about launch height for non flat field pilots. When i went from slope to flat field it was hard to adjust to flying far away.

But for intro comps you can bring the height down to what you want i guess. 150m does sound like it has it's merits with modern air frames.

[Hairy Haggis]

Pete I would like to know when the 200 M reading point is in the flight.

1 When the motor stopped. ?

2 After the motor stopped + 10 secs, ( F5j height )

3 Or when.

Attached is a flight log from Kilsyth on the 2nd of April 2017, please interpret using Bartletts Rules.

 

[Kikapu]

As with F5J rules, I believe.  That is, highest height between motor off and motor off + 10 seconds. 
The height shown on your Altis gadget.
No points for this flight though.  Overflew by three minutes!
Congratulations for choosing a flight showing a maximum flight of over 700m (what a cracking flight) when you could have chosen a graph showing a more modest height.