Glimpse of AMA`s Rules Board`s Smoke Filled Room


Moderator: hbartel

Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

My take is that contest board members are appointed by the VP and represent the membership of the district. While they represent the district, they vote for what they think is best for combat. Members are certainly free to lobby their rep but that doesn't mean he will vote how they feel! I don't think it is required by the rep to chase down members and see how they feel. It's their job to let the rep know what they think.
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

SSC has high participation and the reason people don't want to make it a rule book event is because they want to always have the ability to keep changing their minds and "tweaking" things.

[?][?][?]

You've got to be kidding. [xx(]

Part of what frustrates many people in any hobby, sport, or life is when their investment from last year is made obsolete by someone tweaking and adjusting things every year.

You can change rules once something is set, you simply can't waffle around every year.

If you want to leave things open to change then you need to define when you will ever be able to make a decision.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

JJ has it exactly right. Rules stability is important. Very important for people investing in fleets of airplanes who can't afford to trash it all and go with the next hot thing every year (or even 6 months! with the current RCCA provisional cycle).

I realize that this isn't an issue to many of the people on this board, but it's a HUGE issue to a large number of pilots out there. Every time you outlaw gear, you have guys who decide to go do other things rather than building for the new class. Maybe the new class makes up the numbers with new people, and maybe it doesn't. But when you move on such a quick schedule, only a very few can keep up.

We also have problems with people thinking that gear is legal when it isn't. And people who show up at a contest thinking the rules are one way when they may not be. The AMA cycle has a built in lag time between the approval of a rule to when it takes effect, and this lag is a good thing. The RCCA has no such thing, rules get voted on and take effect almost instantly.

Keeping changes to the rules on a slow, well thought out, and well defined schedule gives time for people to understand the changes, and deal with how it will affect thier models. As it is, the RCCA cycle is so short, a rules proposal can get enacted and be "in play" before half the RCCA knows about it at all. The best example of that was electrics in SSC. Another great example is what happened at Nats a few years back with the 3.5 vs 3lb rule in 2610.

Btw, I also think that the RCCA should not have duplicate rules with the AMA rule book. Right now, the RCCA has it's own rules for B and 2610, and there is nothing that prevents the RCCA rules from being changed and being differnet from the AMA rules. Which creates a ton of confusion.

The RCCA SHOULD be in the business of developing new rules, rules changes, testing new ideas, and promoting combat and new advances in combat. But all that can be done and should be done with out duplicating the AMA process. And Mature classes like SSC should be changed slowly so that things can be looked at and thought out.

Scott says that electrics may change things quickly. Personally, I think electrics were added to SSC way too soon, before all the ramificaions were even a little understood. They were even added mid-season! That's a huge change coming out of nowhere. There was no reason it couldn't have waited a little longer.

The big complicating factor is NPS points, actually. If it wasn't for NPS, I don't think anyone would care of someone flew a contest with "SSC rules plus some test electric rules". This is what's done in most other events. But RCCA rules won't allow those contests to have NPS points. And no one wants to hold a non-NPS event. (well, not "no one", but to be specific, the people arguing in favor of moving-target-rules here, from what I can tell).

Oh, and while it's true that an AMA district const board rep doesn't have to vote as the "majority" of their members, that's also true of the RCCA reps. And there are a lot fewer RCCA reps, many of whom have never set foot in large portions of their "districts". Just look at a map comparing the AMA districts to the RCCA districts. Then think about who might be more representitive of your personal interests. I'd argue that the AMA reps will generally have a smaller, more localized group to "get the pulse of". In other words, it's a lot easier to be disenfranchised by the RCCA board than the AMA contest board just based on numbers alone. So if you want to argue about who votes how, it seems to me, that is a rather strong arguemnt in favor of the AMA rules cycle.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Oh, in answer to Scott about 2610... 2610 could easily have been changed in the last rules cycle, but no one submitted any proposals. It's not like it is because of the system, but due to a lack of anyone, (especially the RCCA and it's members), using the system as it should be used. All of the "issues" with 2610 were around back in that rules cycle, there's nothing new that is the cause of the problems with 2610.

If you thought there was a problem, why didn't you put in a proposal?
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

re 2610 I didn't say I thought there was, and I/we still fly it when available. Lots of others don't fly it due to the "problems." I look to them to submit proposals.

I'm a bit perplexed/amused by the "obsolescence" argument and the allegedly knee-jerk RCCA rules change cycle, plus the E-in-SSC-too-soon argument. Can somebody cite for me the obsolescence that has been created by an SSC rules change of any nature, be it knee-jerk or otherwise, once we got past the initial span/thickness/area/weight issues in the infancy of the class? and for E, those rules proposals were debated ad nauseum. We were looking for a reasonable way test/tech for E in SSC (there did not seem to be a reasonable argument for keeping it out, the class was never written as an IC-only class) and the proposals seemed a reasonable approach at the time. We shall see, and if tweaks are needed, proposals can be made. Nothing you are flying, or have been flying, has been obsoleted. Just when did you or anyone else "trash it all" in this class? As to E "coming out of nowhere," there was a VIGOROUS debate on the forums over this. I presume you participated and made your opinions clear at that time???
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Scott, you misunderstand me in several ways.

E in SSC "came out of nowhere" for all the guys who don't read these forums. Reading these forums should NOT be a requirement to fly combat, and anything that can be a surprise rules change to someone who shows up at an event is a bad thing.

So, if someone wasn't reading the forums, and they showed up at an event and saw these electrics suddenly allowed mid-season, what would their reaction be? Maybe good ("hey that's cool") , maybe bad ("hey, that's not fair"). Depends. And unpreditable. And that's bad.

Do you honestly think all combat pilots read these forums? Do you think it's OK to tell someone "well, you didn't know about that rules change because you didn't read the forums, so tough luck"? There are a LOT of guys out there who fly SSC and combat in general who don't read these forums. Heck, I don't read them as much as I used to. I have more useful things to do with my time. The current 6month rules cycle is so fast that it basically makes the rules unpreditable.

I'll also add that the last mid-year cycle ran late. I expect that will always be the case. There just isn't enough time to test and evalutate and discuss and validate ideas in a 6 month rules cycle. Rules with unintended side effects are going to happen this way. E-SSC may or may not turn out to be one, it's too soon to tell.

Who knows what new change might occur in July with little or no notice. Sure, the addition of Electric planes didn't outlaw anything existing, but can you garentee everyone that it will never happen? How about this. If the RCCA ever outlaws any existing gear in any provisional class, then you pay me $100. Willing to take that risk? It's a silly concept. Of course no one can predict the future. And that's my point. Who knows what will happen next year, or even mid-way through 2007. People have been talking about increasing the weight limit in SSC on and off for a while. What if that goes through mid-year?

You could show up at a contest where the CD didn't know about the weight increase, now your planes are all heavier than the others. You could try to fight it out with the CD, but that's normally a losing situation. Or, you might show up with planes that fly ok at the old weight and fly like crap with extra ballast. You're at a disadvantage because you didn't have a chance to test out the effect of the rule on your gear before the contest. What if you'd spent several hundred dollars just to drive to the contest and that happened to you? Would you be happy?

About E-SSC and changes to classes in general, I agree that testing needed to be done. I think electric power was added to the rules before testing was fully done as I don't think that we really know enough at this point. I still think electrics have the potential to have a huge advantage in SSC for someone who has deep pockets in a way that non-electric SSC doesn't.

Oh, and your assertion that SSC was never written as IC only? Wrong. When the rule says that only engines of .15 dispacement costing less than X dollars are allowed, that means IC power only. Electrics don't have displacement, so they can't meet that rule. And don't you recall all the discussions about keeping the barrier to entry low and easy, all those discussions about why the dollar limit on engines was important even with the prop+rpm rule? All that was based around the class being IC only. And electrics totally upset that balance because you can spend as much as you want on the power system in an electric SSC plane. (after all, in an electric airplane, the batteries are by far the most critical component, the motor is a distant 2nd).

As for obsolescence, it's too soon to tell, isn't it. First, there have been plenty of proposals for SSC that could have had that effect, but were voted down for one reason or another. But you can't predict the future, and discussions about how you create rules are discussions about the future, not the past. So while it may not have happened yet, are you willing to bet that it will never happen? Second, I think it's too soon to tell if electrics with the current rules won't show themselves to have a serious competitive advantage.

(remember that in the AMA cycle, a rule is approved and is annouced and published almost 6 months before it goes in to effect on Jan 1st. That means that there is a LOT of time for people to find out about a rules change and alter their gear if necessary).

That actually brings up a point I haven't mentioned before. A rules change that happens as quickly as changes can in the RCCA system can give a huge headstart to the people doing the "research" compared to the people who don't have time to be doing R&D and instead wait until the rules are known before building for a class. While this effect is short lived, it is real, and with the possiblity of the rules constantly changing, it compounds the problem with people feeling like they have to be constantly replacing all their gear to "keep up". That perception kills participation.

Rules stability allows guys who have limited time to take part in combat. Fast changing rules means the only people who can compete are the very small pool of people who can keep up with all the changes and constantly throw away old planes in favor of newer ones.

I find it funny that on the one hand there are recurring discussions about getting more RCCA members, and yet the simple things that scare guys away aren't addressed. These changes do keep guys away. I've seen it plenty in this area.

Oh, and if you think the AMA cycle is too slow to address something unexpected, look at 7.3 "off cycle proposals". The AMA rules can be tweaked if something comes up that really honestly can't wait. But you gotta prove that it's that important. That's a good thing.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Personally, I'm hoping someone will emerge from the "smoke filled room" with a picture or an airplane or an internal combustion engine that they will post to tell us what they are doing with actual combat. I know it is hoping for a lot, but maybe just maybe someone somewhere is doing something with combat planes and glow engines that they would be willing to share with us.
AIM
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:22 am
Location: Montpelier, Ohio

Post by AIM »

Image
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

LOL that`s some cool stuff. Glad to see that someone is pushing the envelope in IC combat.
Cajun
Posts: 2020
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2001 10:22 pm
Location: USA

Post by Cajun »

Well, I vote with Scott. Make SSC provisional so it can continue to evolve as the worlds most popular class, retain the name "<b>SSC</b>" (we don't need no stinking Lim A)[xx(] , continue to work on the "E" aspect of the class, and <b><font color="red">LETS GO FLY</font id="red"></b>[8D]
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Funny, I agree with Scott that the RCCA provisional system works well to develop a class, but I agree with Kirk and JJ that at some point (ssc is at that point) we need to turn it over to the AMA system to give it more stability.

The E`s are being batted around pretty good with some misinformation being stated, I`d like to clarify a few things.

1) SSC was thoroughly tested through the RCCA system. For several years the RCCA board granted waivers for E`s to be flown in NPS contests. That seemed to work fine until late `05 when Slam and Drew came up with a combo that was competitive.

2) Jan `06 I asked the Board for a waiver for the LSN (E`s had been flown at LSN for the past few years with the Board`s permission). Permission was granted grudgingly, and a significant number of Board Members stated that they thought enough testing had been done. They also indicated that they would probably not grant any more waivers.

3) Drew, Slam, others like Sheepy and Scott Stockwell and now I, had done the R&D and gotten some good things going, and now were being told that they might not be allowed to fly.

4)That`s when I proposed an optional waiver that a CD could use up until 7/31/06. However in order to get it past the Board, I had to include a provision that no more waivers would be granted after 7/31/06.

That`s the main reason that there was a mid-year rule change in `06.

BTW the only complaint made on this forum by anyone who has flown against E`s is that they are easier to start, and that was just one guy.


Kirk, Mid year rule changes are a part of the provisional system. If you don`t like the system, you serve on the Rules Advisory Board and the Executive Board, you are very able to submit any changes to the system that you wish.

Also Kirk, as far as supper batteries go that will make people with deep pockets sure winners... I have yet to find a battery (at any price) which gains power as you use it. You start with a given power level and then it`s downhill from there. Some hold their power better than others, but at the end of a heat, you will ALWAYS have less power/rpm than when you started. No exceptions. I haven`t tried solar panels though.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Aaron, that contol line plane looks like it has a Thimble Drone Space Hopper engine. I think its a Space Hopper because it looks like it has a tube on top of the tank and one on the bottom. Because its black it might be a Queen Bee. I remember that Baby Bee's had two tubes at the top on each side of the needle valve.

Can't guess the plane. Because it has a solid wing it could be a Guillows, Scientific, or Goldberg kit with reshaped lines. What is it?

Does it have cloth hinges? Looks like it does. Those were the days. I got many hours of fun out of flying 1/2A planes in the 60's.

By the way this thread has been re-titled several times. The next time the titled is changed I'd like to suggest we quote Shakespeare and title it "Much ado about nothing", because this thread is about nothing.

There is no consequence to the sport, participation, or the planes we fly by not making SSC and AMA rule book class.

Nothing has done has been to the detriment of combat by the vote of the AMA RC Combat Committee Board for not voting in SS.

No one has been hurt nor has the sport been limited by the AMA RC Combat Contest committee actions.

I believe that what they did was absolutely the right thing to do because we know from experience that putting events in the rule book has been the kiss of death. Once they are in the rule book, and are subject to the AMA's two year rules change cycle, people believe the event cannot be changed.

Combat fliers are nothing if not perpetually dissatisfied with one or more classes or rulees at any time. Putting a class in the rule book, which freezes changes for 2-4 years, causes folks to go about inventing more classes of combat, because they can't change the ones that exist fast enough to suit them. They also have plenty of folks on this forum and others to agree with them and cause them to think they are really on to something.

This is what I and a number of other people are afraid will happen to SSC if it is put into the AMA rule book. We've seen it over and over. If Open B and Scale 2610 were provisional, where we could change them as needed, there would be no Limited B or 2548 because we would be changing our existing classes to improve them rather than inventing new ones that obsolete the ones we already have in the rule book.

Face it, combat fliers have never been happy nor are they likely to be happy in the future about rules and classes, because by nature they are both competitive and inventive. If we are never going to be satisfied with our rules and classes, and continue to argue about what will make a class better, we will need to keep our classes changeable, i.e. "provisional".

If we have to argue about some event in combat, lets find one that really has some bearing on the overall future of the sport to argue about, OK?

PS: I can no longer contribute to smoke filled rooms because I quit 9 weeks, two days, 9 hours, and 5 minutes ago (but whose counting?).
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Lou, that`s the most cynical bunch of BS that I`ve ever seen you write. You know they have medication for feelings of gloom and despair. You might want to consult your doctor. LOL
AIM
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:22 am
Location: Montpelier, Ohio

Post by AIM »

I'm not sure what cox engine it is. I think it's one that I used to run when I was about 12. The plane is simply a few pieces of balsa glued together from scratch. I used to build these all the time when I was a kid.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Lee,
How can any reply to a thread titled <u><i>"Glimpse of AMA`s Rules Board`s Smoke Filled Room"</i></u> be called cynical?
Post Reply

Return to “Trends in Participation”