FAI K Factors for F2B, Status Report

[Peter Germann]

The F2 Subcommittee has recently submitted, to the FAI Bureau in Switzerland, a formal proposal suggesting the implementation of a 2 years minimum trial period during which the current k factors shall be set to one (1). With a suggested setting in force by January 2009, the proposal shall be incorporated into the Agenda of the 2008 CIAM Plenary Meeting.

The F2B Work Group hereby re-invites the worldwide C/L stunt community to contribute to the opinion forming process of the F2 Subcommittee members and therefore uses the Internet platform http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/index.php  to recapitulate the reasons for such a trial.

Please feel invited to express your points and reasons whether to support or not the planned 2-year trial on this platform. Those preferring to address the F2 Subcommittee direct, may do so using this e-mail address: ciam-f2@fai.org

By end of November 2007, a voting tool related to the k factor issue will be made available on tthe same platform. The voting, same as the discussion with the forum,  serves the purpose of supporting the opinion forming process within the F2 Subcommittee and the CIAM Delegates of those nations not being represented with the F2 Subcommittee.

Please go ahead and register. The F2B Work Group and the F2 Subcommittee looks forward to learn what you think about k-fcators in general and about the no-k trial in particular.

 F2B Work Group Coordinator

[Bill Little]

Thanks for the update, Peter.  It will be very interesting to see how the "rest of the World" reacts to the removal of the "K" factor.

[Paul Smith]

So, are saying that the full K factor (1 through 18) is still in force for 2007 and 2008?

Also, you seem to be indicating that it's also too late to get it reduced to 1-through-1 even for the 2009-2010 cycle?

[Peter Germann]

So, are saying that the full K factor (1 through 18) is still in force for 2007 and 2008?

Correct

Also, you seem to be indicating that it's also too late to get it reduced to 1-through-1 even for the 2009-2010 cycle?

The decision whether to do the k=1 trial from 2009 on is taken at the March 2008 CIAM Plenary Meeting. Until then, the members of the F2 Subcommittee will decide whether to support or withdraw the k=1 trial proposal or whether to submit the issue for a vote at the CIAM Plenary Meeting. It is not too late, because what we do here is to support the opinion forming process of the Subcommittee members.

rgds

[Paul Smith]

Has anybody run a comparsion of data from an actual major contest?

Compute scores with both 1/18 and 1/1 and compare the order of finish. 

See if the impact is significant.

Perhaps the scoresheets from the US and Canadian Team Trials might be useful, if they still exist.

[Peter Germann]

Has anybody run a comparsion of data from an actual major contest?

Compute scores with both 1/18 and 1/1 and compare the order of finish. 

See if the impact is significant.

Perhaps the scoresheets from the US and Canadian Team Trials might be useful, if they still exist.

Both the 2006 World- and the 2007 European Championships have been 1:1 recalculated.
Results show differencies, however not very significant, and no clear trend is visible.
It is thinkable that, when a trial is run with the judges being aware that no k factors will be used, a trend could develop.

[SteveMoon]

Thanks for the info Peter. I sent an e-mail to the address listed.
I really appreciate being able to offer some input.

Thanks again, Steve

[Steve Helmick]

FWIW, ALL Canadian stunt contests this summer were agreed to be done to FAI Rules with no K-Factors. I judged at two of them. The Canadians have already got some data to work with, anyway.

Weighing airplanes outdoors for pull test (10G's) data is a PITA. The best way to do this would be hang them from the leadouts on a hook-equipped fishing scale, IMO. The actual pull test was not significantly different (a few pounds), and since nobody appeared to make up smaller diameter lines (and have to re-trim their planes), there was no worthwhile difference. Not having to do appearance points pretty much made up for the weighing hassle, but some of us like having all the planes together and getting scored. Others think it's a pain...

Getting the Judges' minds tuned into the 1-10 point system will take some doing. We used two systems at the two contest. One provided the Judges with a chart that gave the "metric equivalency". The other didn't, and the Judges used whatever system worked for them. I used a little mental math to figure out what the equivalent would be. I would be in favor of using 10-100, actually, or better yet, 10-40!  Steve