"If this was a perfect world and computers judged the pattern, Joe's rig would *beat* the fancy big rigs because he can actually fly 45 degree maneuvers (something that appears to be lost in the judging world of today) with a very tight corner (what Sparky has been talking about) which garners no extra points whatsoever."
This appears to be the "My homebody (or myself) could win the Nats, but the judges are predjudiced against him/the color of his plane/his clothes." argument.
If you could make an automated stunt judging system, I'm sure the guys who have to recruit and train judges and print and tabulate scoresheets would gladly welcome it. Go for it. Sparky says it's easy.
I spent some time mulling over my answer to this question….because type of response to my comments simply makes me hopping mad.
It seems that every single time that anyone (especially me) questions the effectiveness the “system” that we use to decide stunt contests, oftentimes the immediate reaction is to jump straight toward the idea that I am somehow echoing some kind of “my homebody got screwed by biased judges conspiracy theory” (this is, of course, followed by the inevitable “whiner” comments about how I want to change the system to suit “my whiner buddies”).
While I would be more than happy to discuss the “halo effect” or the “homeboy effect” (which is very, very real), the “halo effect” has no bearing whatsoever to my comments above.
Indeed, my comments above reflect my view that our current system of judging does not typically reward the flyers that fly closest the *actual* shapes defined by the rulebook. This is not a new argument, and I certainly did not invent it. Many other very smart, capable, non tinfoil hat wearing stunt people have made the *exact* same arguments before at multiple times in the history of stunt competition (of course, many of these same flyers, were indeed labeled “whiners”, “troublemakers”, etc).
I was simply trying to make the point that I *agree* with Robert on several points if we define what we are actually talking about.
Lighter planes with less barbell effect are more acrobatically capable (this is simple physics) and should win contests over heavier planes with heavier extremities *if* the goal at each contest was to fly closest to the *actual* shapes defined by the rulebook.
Stunt contests, in their current form, are not about flying shapes that are closest to the *actual* rulebook. That is just a fact proven by Bill Netzband about a million years ago.
I (as well as others) have said multiple times that bigger, heavier stunt ships win the majority of important contests. This seems to really frustrate Robert. I think if he understood the meaning of what I was trying to say (I cannot speak for anyone else), he might understand that I am not *arguing* against his ideas *if* we both understood the *purpose* of the stunt ship as currently defined by the event.
The purpose of the modern stunt ship is to fly shapes defined by the rulebook *reasonably* close to the standards defined by the rulebook so as to not look ridiculously soft, with no bobbles, and perfect bottoms. The purpose of the modern stunt ship *is in no way* designed to fly as close to the *actual* shape standards defined by the rulebook. In short, the modern stunt ship is designed to fly the shapes and “look good” or “locked in” through the pattern.
Also, this airplane must be able to perform as described in turbulence, wind, etc and still retain its element of “smoothness” and still appear “locked in”.The airplane design that Robert is advocating, is *not* going to be superior to the higher wing loading plane when the true goals for “contest superiority” are defined.
That is why I say that in a perfect world of computer scoring (or even TOC style judging that separates shape judging from corner judging, bobble judging, and size judging) the smaller, lighter plane would be proven superior. That is physically obvious and I think Netzband proved that some time ago also….
However, in a world where rocket hard corners and tight maneuvers are not rewarded any “bonus points” over smooth, large patterns, with constant bottoms it makes no sense whatsoever to build hyper light. Planes that are too light will only detract from the flyer’s scores. I also make the argument that there is no sense for the pilot to try to fly “harder” than the *other guy*, as the judges are simply not looking for harder corners and have no standard defined in the rulebook to reward sharp (more correct) corners.
The judges are looking for BOBBLES and CROOKED LEGS because these are simple knock offs. Rewarding tighter corners and smaller patterns is an after thought.
Keep in mind hard corners and smaller patterns *cause* bobbles and crooked legs. The “bonus points” will never outweigh the resulting “knock offs” that will inevitably occur.
Soft corners and heavy planes *mask* these things and make the true scoring goals more attainable.
Topic: A Conservative estimate on a new stunter (Read 13583 times)
