Proposed Rule Changes to F1D
Compiled by Joshua Finn
The February FFn from the UK carries the 2014 FAI rules change proposals for F1 (free flight) classes. Included in this set of proposals is a significant change to F1D. The following is a summary of the proposal and FFn’s editorial opinion. This information is provided by INAV in an attempt to keep indoor fliers aware of current rules proposals and is thus provided without the opinions of INAV authors or staff.
F1D Indoor rules
From Hungary
In para 3.4.2.reduce the rubber weight and increase the model weight as follows
Minimum weight without rubber motor …………… 1.4 g.
Maximum weight of the lubricated rubber motor … 0.4 g.
Reason: The proposal intends to significantly reduce the flight times because of the decreasing availability of proper flying sites. Nowadays only two (!) large sites are available for world (Belgrade and Slanic) and one (Belgrade) for European championships! Both sites are facing privatization which might results the loosing of both because of the renting costs. The class has to be flown in smaller sites with shorter flights and shorter contests to survive.
The proposal keeps the surface loading in order to keep the beauty of the F1D models’ flying style. Besides the shorter times the 0,2 g addition to the model weight eliminates the effect of the only available heavier covering material, as the lightest plastic film is no longer manufactured since years. helps to make reliable variable pitch or diameter mechanisms and apply new, but heavier materials. Existing models will stay usable with 0.2 g spacers.
Hopefully these changes might encourage new flyers as it would be a bit easier to build down to weight. The top flyers might keep their chances to win but the gap could well be closed. Test flights were flown in Cat. II site (max. 15 m ceiling height) up to 23 to 24 minutes flight times which means about 30% reduction.
To help INAV better understand the thoughts of our readers, we have include a poll.
It is also recommended that all indoor fliers who fly F1D or are interested in future participation in this class express their opinions to the CIAM Technical Expert(s) from their respective nations, since many of these representatives do not fly F1D and would appreciate input from the fliers they represent. As an aid to fliers unfamiliar with their nations’ technical experts, a full list of the CIAM F1 Technical Experts is included below. Additionally, all CIAM Technical Experts are listed at the FAI CIAM website: http://www.fai.org/ciam-about-us/ciam-officials-experts/101-ciam/34849-fai-technical-experts-for-aeromodelling
FAI Technical Experts for Aeromodelling:
|
Argentina |
Daniel Hugo Iele |
aerostar@advancedsl.com.ar |
|
Australia |
Graham Maynard |
maynag@optusnet.com.au |
|
Austria |
Wolfgang Baier |
woba@gmx.at |
|
Austria |
Helmut Fuss |
helmut.fuss@tno.at |
|
Austria |
Wilhelm Kamp |
wvkamp@arcor.de |
|
Belarus |
Yaroslav Vasiliev |
|
|
Belgium |
Cenny Breeman |
ciam@breeman.be |
|
Bulgaria |
Valentin Savov |
valio@dir.bg |
|
Czech Rep. |
Ivan Horejsi |
info@horejsi.cz |
|
Finland |
Ossi Kilpeläinen |
ossi.kil@iki.fi |
|
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia |
Zdravko Todoroski |
zdravkot@t-home.mk |
|
France |
Pierre Chaussebourg |
pierre.chaussebourg@wanadoo.fr |
|
Germany |
Bernhard Schwendemann |
beschwende@aol.com |
|
Hungary |
Andor Harmath |
andor.harmath@invitel.hu |
|
Hungary |
András Reé |
ree@eik.bme.hu |
|
Italy |
Gianni Cesare |
cesaregianni2@virgilio.it |
|
Japan |
Masaru Koike |
mkoike@med.oit.ac.kjp |
|
Netherlands |
Allard van Wallene |
avanwallene@epo.org |
|
New Zealand |
David Ackery |
david.ackery@extra.co.nz |
|
Norway |
Tor Bortne |
email unknown |
|
Norway |
Ingolf Steffensen |
email unknown |
|
Poland |
Edward Burek |
msml@poczta.fm |
|
Poland |
Stanislaw Kubit |
gbit@digi.pl |
|
Portugal |
Jorge Gustavo |
jorge.gustavo@tvtel.pt |
|
Romania |
Cringu Alexandru Popa |
cringupopa@gmail.com |
|
Romania |
Viorel Salistean |
vasile.salistean@yahoo.com |
|
Russia |
Sergei Makarov |
makaros3@yandex.ru |
|
Serbia |
Svetozar Gostojic |
office@vss.rs |
|
Slovakia |
Jakub Drmla |
jdrmla@yahoo.com |
|
Spain |
Javier Hernandez Abad |
f1a498@gmail.com |
|
Sweden |
Per Findahl |
per.findahl@gmail.com |
|
Switzerland |
Christoph Bachmann |
chbachma@solnet.ch |
|
Turkey |
Mehmet Arslan |
arslanthk@yahoo.com |
|
Turkey |
Tamer Ekinci |
tamerthk@yahoo.com |
|
Turkey |
Hami Gurtunca |
hami.gurtunca@thk.org.tr |
|
United Kingdom |
Ian W. Kaynes |
kaynes@btinternet.com |
|
USA |
Chuck Etherington |
chuck.etherington@jeppesen.com |
Indoor News and Views 
While I understand the intent, modifying the models to make the flights shorter isn’t in the best interests of F1D. These are supposed to be high performance models. Making them lower performance previously didn’t make flying sites more available or double the number of fliers. F1D models are SUPPOSED to be a trade-off of decisions – where can I cut weight to do this? It will ALWAYS be difficult to make them to weight and THAT IS OK.
There is nothing inherently broken with the current rules.
If the lack of y2k film is the issue, raise the weight by 50mg to compensate for the difference.
Or allow Microfilm again.
Nothing in the proposal is going to make good flying sites in Europe (or the US for that matter) magically appear. This is entirely separate and completely unaddressable by FAI rules or changes.
Regards.
Mike Kirda
I have not found this proposal yet.
Has it already been proposed to CIAM? Or, will it be proposed to CIAM meeting in April?
When will this proposal be voted?
Regards, Aki
Mike, F1D already allows microfilm; it’s just so seldom seen because of the strength advantage of plastic films. If I’m not mistaken, Schramm uses OS film rather than Y2K/Y2K2. I think he’s a little overweight, but that’s the tradeoff. F1D tends to impose its own minimum weight because of materials constraints on the highest performing technology.
Aki, I believe it’s been submitted already and is up for voting in April.