Scioly.org

Recording is an interesting topic. Many of the top competitions will announce in the room to not record other teams but this is not always the case. If in doubt, ask the ES to announce it before you go (could be tough in a gym setting, if not impossible). Even then, it is impossible to stop. I remember one top invite (will rename nameless for the sake of the teams involved) where a parent/someone that was not affiliated with the team recorded a perfect "run". As soon as a coach saw they were being recorded, there was a good deal of shouting in the room from the coach (I am glad the coach said something, we would have too). I do not know how, or if, this was resolved, but recording/pictures will always be an issue for a handful of events (especially for boomi/towers/bridges and the vehicle events). I do not think it is much of an issue for the flight events- everyone just times the team that is going. This might be somewhat of an issue for PPP.

Banning photography equipment would be tough, especially for teams that record their own events. We always try to record our own events, for analysis reasons, as well as just having the memory of it. At the end of the season or when an event cycles out, it is our goal to always post these videos on YouTube so others can see our builds and maybe learn from them for future years.

I too like videos also for analysis, memories, and also for showing off, so I hope it's not outlawed because of abuse. Frankly, I don't see how any real advantage could be gained anyways: if you're bad at building stuff, no video will fix that. Anything to be gained from an illicit video is readily available by just observing.

I won't speak for others, but anyone can video our boomilever or plane. Neither looks especially unique. We used publicly available knowledge and added an extra dose of meticulous execution. That won't show on anything but a close-up video such as we've already posted.

lechassin wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 7:28 am I too like videos also for analysis, memories, and also for showing off, so I hope it's not outlawed because of abuse. Frankly, I don't see how any real advantage could be gained anyways: if you're bad at building stuff, no video will fix that. Anything to be gained from an illicit video is readily available by just observing.

I won't speak for others, but anyone can video our boomilever or plane. Neither looks especially unique. We used publicly available knowledge and added an extra dose of meticulous execution. That won't show on anything but a close-up video such as we've already posted.

Agree with this.

For the events that I supervise (2 Invitationals per year), I post signs in the spectator area reminding to "have fun watching, no communication or assistance to the competitors is allowed after check-in and, please no pictures or video of competitors devices"

However, I leave the spectators to self-monitor this. It is impossible to know if a parent/interested party is taking video of their student's airplane or of another student's airplane. I don't care too much if people take video of my student's airplanes (close-up pictures we protect against) as long as it is not posted on the internet. As Eric notes above, about 10% of the project success is the airframe design and the other 90% is high quality testing and data analysis, including: very good winding technique, custom cut rubber, many propeller and trim variations and matching propeller to rubber.

Brian T

Somebody should be godly and make a table of contents for this thread and it’s pages

lechassin wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 7:12 pm We should drop this because it is not going to get resolved.

The rules explicitly state that students are to design the plane. If you didn't design your plane and you're using a kit, you interpreted the rules to maximum personal advantage.

Well, everyone is interpreting the rules to maximum personal benefit. Don't make this about morality.

The rules do NOT require the students to design their plane. They allow construction "from published plans, commercial kits and/or a student’s design".

I have no real issue with kits. they have made successful Wright Stuff, Heli, and ELG builds from schools that have limited support. Dave (FFM) has had a corner on the market for years, and presents a very thorough instruction manual, including flight trimming and optimization. He always leaves room for improvement, but his kits are excellent as-is. More recently several others have stepped in. Josh's gliders are legendary. Josh also has a series of videos online, available even if you do not buy a kit, and even posts full size plans online! LCP makes kits that are extremely easy to build, and will compete well at local levels. These kits are excellent starting points and help teams that see WS as one of 23 tasks that need excellence.

Two years ago, when Heli went to the Chinook bonus, Dave's kit was highly successful. I did not watch all of the schools compete, as I was watching WS B division all day. However, other than ours, I did not see any Chinook helis that were not kits. Not to say there were not any. Again, a highly competitive starting point, but still room for improvement.

Josh's gliders hit the market last year, and are extremely good. However, at least 2 of the top 3 finishers were custom design gliders rather than kits.

Of course, SO would prefer that you buy the Ward Science kit...

Kits ARE allowed in the rules, and not through any beneficial interpretation, but explicitly. As an ES at State, I can emphatically say that buying a kit does not replace careful testing, logging, and optimization.

Coach Chuck

Line one: "Prior to the event teams design, construct, and test free flight rubber-powered monoplanes or biplanes to achieve maximum time aloft".

I have nothing against kits either, and they are explicitly permitted, but the contradiction is glaring, and everyone takes full advantage of that, which I'm also fine with.

There is no contradiction...

The rules allow teams to design their own airplanes, but they specifically say that kits can serve as a supplement to that. Most kit manufacturers (especially FF) allow you to alter the plane design so it is your own, as well. I don't see why this is so big.

Personally, as a reader of this forum... I don't think this is a very important argument. Nobody here seems to be doing anything wrong, and if they are, I'm sure there are better venues for mentioning it. As I see it, no matter the result of the argument, people are not going to change what they are doing--especially late in the season--unless drastic measures are taken AND they are proved to be in the wrong. So before this blows up into something unpleasant, allow me to suggest that there are more productive ways to spend time and energy than arguing to, most likely, no avail.

It's all one sentence, so if line one is stating "design" as only a prerogative (it isn't), then it follows that "construction" and "testing" are also only a prerogative (they aren't). That's why the wording is a problem. You're all engineering type people, surely you see the logic.

lechassin wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 9:53 am It's all one sentence, so if line one is stating "design" as only a prerogative (it isn't), then it follows that "construction" and "testing" are also only a prerogative (they aren't). That's why the wording is a problem. You're all engineering type people, surely you see the logic.

Eric,

There are a couple of the General Rules and references in the Build Policy that somewhat clarify this.

Brian T