sandpaper

This is a private forum for the Rules Committee

Moderator: hbartel

mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

sandpaper

Post by mad »

As I see it we are being asked if the rule as written allows for sandpaper on the leading edge. As I read it I would have to say no. I haven't had time to go back and find the last discussion on this but if memory serves that was the ruling last time as well.
Don got me back on so I will go and search some tomorrow.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
User avatar
lightning
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:53 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by lightning »

Not sure how we are going to resolve this one.
In hindsight I have to agree that a strict interpretation of the rules does not allow sandpaper as "a device". My first inclination was that it did not constitute a "device" but that is obviously subject to different interpretations.
The argument that the sandpaper gives the Pilot an advantage for cutting but disadvantages the other contestants is also valid (but a bit weak). I have seen a few pilots using sandpaper and they did not appear to lose their streamers any more than those using other methods. I had no objection to its use at those contests.
Personally I would MUCH rather see pilots use sandpaper than bird repellant - that stuff gets everywhere!
Banning ALL forms of cutting aid will benefit pilots who are first to the streamers and will result in nothing left for the rest of the heat, so I'm not sure that is a satisfactory solution either.
My vote would therefore be to recommend a temporary waiver of the rules to allow sandpaper on an interim basis, with perhaps a review scheduled at the end of the year.
Would that work?
Keith Jones
AMA CD #7601
Radio Control Club of Detroit
and proud member of the OGC
mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by mad »

All we can do here is interpret current rules and as written I would have to say no. We have no power to grant waivers here that goes back to the board and then only if requested.

We used sandpaper for years here in Tn for one reason. It would cut ribbons and would release them.
I don't really have a problem with it but we have to ask what is better for combat as a whole....Who would this benefit the most,, with out a doubt it would benefit the better pilots. they are the most likely to get cuts early. I think there are options to bird repellent without allowing this one. I think our best move is to always interpret rules to favor the bottom 2/3 of the field.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Re: sandpaper

Post by sgilkey »

I've reread the current thread and the 2009 thread, and talked with Mike F. about his recollections of the original intent of the rules. I believe Mike is a good perspective on this, as he was around in the early days of ASDA/RCCA rules, he has always been a serious and top-scoring competitor, and he has experience with seeing sandpaper in use in Russian combat.

My impression is that the intent of the "no structure, or devices" rule was to prevent things such as hacksaw or knife blades, sawtooth/jagged leading edges, nails, hooks, or pieces of wire embedded in the LE and/or extending the LE to grab streamers, etc. Personally, when I first started flying combat, it was not under RCCA rules, and I can recall seeing wings with most of these features in actual use.

I do not believe the rule's use of the phrase "aid in the cutting..." was meant to differentiate something that cuts/saws/abrades a streamer (such as sandpaper, or for that matter a propellor, might do), from something that grabs/sticks to a streamer, such as glue or tanglefoot might do. I believe cutting and breaking of a streamer were/are interchangeable with obtaining what is generically called a "cut," or "cutting a streamer."

I believe sandpaper is not, strictly speaking, a "sticky fluid or spray." However, I also do not believe it was considered a "structure or device" and was not envisioned as something that needed to be banned, as opposed to those features listed in my second sentence. Furthermore, I do not believe two-sided tape is, strictly speaking, a "fluid or spray," however it has been determined to be acceptable for use (and I agree).

I believe that, at the time ASDA rules were drafted, the planes were relatively slow, light, and low-powered and getting a cut required a prop hit, or a good solid wing hit. Cuts were relatively rare, a three-cut round was considered remarkable. The use of sticky stuff was allowed in order to reduce the incidence of drapes and increase the likelihood of a cut, and recognized that people were already using stuff like 3M77 etc. sprayed on the wings- this was considered acceptable, while unsafe methods such as listed above were to be disallowed.

I'm not sure that the use of sandpaper will result in an advantage to the user. It might, or it might not. Making it an accepted/allowed alternative would eliminate "advantage" as a concern. If a contestant felt it was advantageous, they could use it. If not, they could use something else, or a clean wing.

It is possible that sandpaper will reduce the number of "secondary" targets, though this has not been demonstrated as far as I know. It is also possible the use of sandpaper will increase the number of primary targets, since it may be less effective than sticky stuff.

I believe that the application, use, and clean-up of sticky stuff is one of the most annoying aspects of combat, but most competitors do it in order to be as competitive as possible. I believe the use of sandpaper will allow a competitor an alternative that is "better" than a clean wing, without being as inconvenient and messy as sticky fluids, or tape. I think anything that helps make combat less annoying, inconvenient, and messy will help promote participation.

Some recent posters seem to characterize the 2009 thread as having come to a conclusion that sandpaper was not legal. I don't agree, there were some vocal posters that said they felt it was not legal, there were others who had good rationale for it being allowed. Michael (mad) said that he had historical experience with use of sandpaper and "it did not really cut the ribbons, it more held on to them to allow them to break, much like the sticky does today." He then said "I would not recommend using it because sticky is far better for getting cuts." I believe the 2009 thread was inconclusive.

In the recent thread, Keith (lightning) posted that he saw "no competitive advantage" and would "support a rule that allows it...." regarding sandpaper. I have not seen anything that indicates he has changed that opinion, I don't believe.

Therefore I vote that the Rules Committee issue an interpretation that says that "sandpaper, tread tape, and similar abrasive strips are allowed to be used on the wing leading edge." This would preclude the doomsday scenario of folks embedding glass particles in glue and other such concerns people have voiced about this somehow opening some kind of flood gates of abuse.

I would also suggest we should state that we recognize this interpretation raises some concern about the reduction of "secondary" streamer targets, and therefore this interpretation is valid for (insert timeframe, I suggest the entire 2012 season, or at least for "all contests prior to 2012 Nats"), and will be re-evaluated at the end of the specified timeframe.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Scott Gilkey
RCCA# 330
User avatar
lightning
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:53 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by lightning »

Scott, I think we are in agreement - allow the use of sandpaper with (I would suggest) a review at the end of the 2012 season.
I think that is 2 out of 3 of the Rules Committee supporting this so it looks like it should go forward to the Board as a recommended rule change.
OK?
Keith Jones
AMA CD #7601
Radio Control Club of Detroit
and proud member of the OGC
mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by mad »

First we all have to agree that the rules as written does not allow for sandpaper. There for we need a rules change which will not take place till mid year. We cannot just change the rules here or as the board. The best thing to do is to get some to apply for a waiver that will last until the next change cycle. Someone can put in a change. If there are no bad side effects it can be voted in by the board and the rules would be the same for the entire year.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Re: sandpaper

Post by sgilkey »

I don't agree that the rules as written do not allow for sandpaper. That's what my whole rationale above layed out. I'm suggesting that the rules as written allow for the interpretation that sandpaper be allowed, with the Rules Committee issuing this interpretation to add clarity to the subject.
Scott Gilkey
RCCA# 330
mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by mad »

3.4 Artificial Devices/Substances. There will be no structures, or devices allowed on the model that could aid in
the cutting of an opponent's streamer. Sticky fluids/sprays are permitted. Wing tip skid plates are allowed, but
must not extend forward of the leading edge of the wing tip.

Scott, this is all we are dealing with. It can easily be said that Sandpaper is a structure, It can easily be said that that it sticks forward of the leading edge even if it is just the amount of a piece of sand. It can easily be said that it aids in cutting an opponent's streamer. Any of these points should be enough for us to recommend that a rules change is needed to add the use of sand paper.
You said yourself it is not a sticky fluid which are the only exceptions.

If people want this there is a process to get it. get the waiver before the first contest.
put in a rules change . I would personally vote to allow it.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
User avatar
lightning
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:53 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by lightning »

I am in full agreement with Michael - waiver for 2012 and a rules change as part of the normal cycle.
How do we proceed?
Keith Jones
AMA CD #7601
Radio Control Club of Detroit
and proud member of the OGC
mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by mad »

Someone who plans on using sandpaper on their wings needs to ask for a waiver to allow it so real stats can be collected. this should be done asap. They should ask that the waiver be allowed until the date of the mid year rules change. also someone needs to put in a rules change proposal for this cycle so if it is determined to be ok, the rule change will take over for the waiver. If not it is put to rest.

If someone plans on doing this some good house keeping would be to add two-sided tape in the wording of the proposal. Kind of kill two birds with one stone.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Re: sandpaper

Post by sgilkey »

Well we keep going round and round on this but as I laid out in my rationale, I don't believe that sandpaper is a "device or structure" as was envisioned when the rules were framed. Just because it's not a "sticky fluid/spray" does not make it a device or structure. It's a gray area which is what interpretations are meant to clarify. And my interpretation is that it is not a device or structure and is therefore allowed.

Frankly I'm not clear on the waiver process. My recollectoin is that waivers were intended to allow "experimentation" and therefore were not meant to be for a whole season or even a whole month- they were to be applied for on a contest-by-contest basis, by the CD of the contest, and the CD was required to write a report of the findings of the "experiment." It was intended to be a way to gather real-world data prior to a rules change proposal.

Running under waiver would be fine. If the process allows it, an all-year waiver would be fine. if it has to be done contest-by-contest, the CD would have to apply, and I doubt all CDs will apply.

An interpretation is a different step from a waiver. "Waivers" are meant to allow temporary violations or changes to the rules for a specific purpose. Interpretations are meant to clarify unclear areas of the rules and are permanent, unless stipulated otherwise. I believe we have an unclear area of the rules, and we don't need to authorize a rules deviation via waivers.

An excellent example of a use for a waiver would be to run a contest where NO streamer-grabbing add-ons of any type were allowed. Now there's a rules change I'd LOVE to see!!!

It may be semantic. I don't really care how it happens, I believe that sandpaper should be allowed, for the principal reason that it gets rid of the most annoying aspect of combat (other than building/repairing) and therefore makes it more enjoyable, and encourages participation.
Scott Gilkey
RCCA# 330
mad
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: sandpaper

Post by mad »

Scott, There are several precedents to use waivers until the next rules cycle. You proposed one for SSC yourself.

Maybe we could report that rules as written do not allow for sandpaper but, since it has been used before we as a committee request a waiver to to allow the use of sandpaper until the next rules cycle to collect data on the effects.

You write some up to send to the board and we can get this ball rolling.
Michael DeWoody
RCCA# 548
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Re: sandpaper

Post by sgilkey »

I don't remember proposing a waiver for SSC. Not saying i didn't do it, i just don't remember, and if i did it was so long ago I don't recall the process. SOOOO, I read the waiver procedure in the P&P. Good news, it's in there, and it does NOT have to be on a contest-by-contest basis, it can be for a specified period of time. HOWEVER, the purpose of a waiver is to gather data on a RULES CHANGE PROPOSAL, not simply to bypass rules. and here's the bad news, the P&P says waivers are for PROVISIONAL classes.

I'm back to, a waiver is not really what's called for because in my opinion we are not authorizing testing or a violation of the rules. We are interpreting an ambiguous area of the rules and all we need to do is issue such an interpretation.

Some people will say sandpaper is clearly a "device" and by the strict definition of "device" it's hard to disagree. However, I would also argue that two-sided tape is no less a "device" and furthermore it is not strictly a "sticky fluid or spray." So we're already half-pregnant in terms of issuing "interpretations" on this issue. My contention is that sandpaper is not a "device" as envisioned by the original intent of the rules and was not something that was specifically meant to be banned. Stuff like what I mentioned in my original post was what was being considered at the time as being inappropriate.

SOOOO, I don't see a waiver as being required, or in keeping with the STRICT interpretation of the P&P (since we're not talking about a PROVISIONAL class, but ALL classes), and I already stated in my original post what I would suggest as the text of an "interpretation."

Respectfully submitted with hugs and kisses (getting warmed up for Valentine's Day!!!),
Scott
Scott Gilkey
RCCA# 330
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Re: sandpaper

Post by sgilkey »

guys, I have clicked "subscribe forum" at the bottom of the forum page, but I'm not getting emails to notify me that people have made new posts. Am I doing this right? Any ideas????
Scott Gilkey
RCCA# 330
User avatar
Donduck73
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:48 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: sandpaper

Post by Donduck73 »

Scott you may need to update your email on the forum by clicking on the user control panel
Donald Grissom
RCCA# 722
RCCA Webmaster
[img]http://www.rccombat.com/images/rccombatsignature.jpg[/img]
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Committee Forum”