|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 18, 2004 17:00:31 GMT -6
I found this on rec.sport.fencing:
[glow=red,2,300]triplette competition now has the new fie programs for foil and saber ready to go on to tca scoring machines. anyone with a tca scoring machine of any era may send the machine to tca for an update to the new program free of charge. the customer must pay freight only. the new program has current fie epee, current and proposed fie foil, and current and proposed fie saber all on the same chip, so the fencer can choose the program they wish to use at any time. please call to schedule the service for your machine, 336 835 7774. [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Jul 9, 2004 12:20:03 GMT -6
Now that there has been some (very) recent talk that the timing changes for foil may be made applicable to junior and senior World Cup competitions, is anyone looking to get the timing on their boxes adjusted in the near future? On the UK counterpart to Fencing Net, Barry Paul (as in Leon Paul) wrote: [glow=red,2,300]New Foil Trial Timing to be extended to every one. Many Fencing Federations have reported problems having their apparatus set to two different timings, for the proposed trials with Junior foil Fencing. The F.I.E. are sending out a voting form for each Federation to agree or not, to introducing the so called trial timing for everyone, Seniors and Juniors. If the federations agree the so called trial will become IMHO a permanent rule change. Every apparatus will have to be changed. Even worse news, is that a year later I expect a trial to get rid of off target at foil. The federations will have the same problems so the trial will be extended to every one and become a permanent rule change. So all the aparatuses will have to be changed once more in a years time. Barry [/glow] fencingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2469
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Jul 13, 2004 20:27:05 GMT -6
Now that there has been some (very) recent talk that the timing changes for foil may be made applicable to junior and senior World Cup competitions, is anyone looking to get the timing on their boxes adjusted in the near future? There's no urgency on this matter. The bunch of rule changes enacted by the USFA Board of Directors a week ago (effective August 1, by the way) did not include changing the boxes.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Oct 3, 2004 16:27:05 GMT -6
Okay, now there is some urgency. The rules about timing have just been changed by the USFA (see the thread about the rule details in the rules forum, campechesteel.proboards15.com/index.cgi?board=Rules&action=display&thread=1096841636). With the exception of J.O. qualifiers and Divisionals, nobody in the Gulf Coast Division needs to run out and get boxes changed. In fact, to do so right now might actually create problems. The details of the rules prescribe that ordinary tournaments can use all old boxes, or use all new boxes (or switch from old to new for the finals). But, ordinary tournaments cannot use freely intermixed old and new timings. If you get a box upgraded so it can only function with new timings, that box now becomes useless at a tournament which decides to use old timings! Further, if a box has to be shipped elsewhere for upgrading, the box will be useless for all tournaments until it gets back. The best single collection of information on upgrading of boxes is a thread on fencing.net ( www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13165).
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Oct 3, 2004 17:30:30 GMT -6
Thanks, Matt. I am really interested in seeing how much of a difference it will make in sabre, especially since I have 4 kids that might go to JOs.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Oct 3, 2004 19:36:57 GMT -6
- Eigertek -- makes a replacement chip (www.sonic.net/~schlae/eigertek/leipzig.html) which switches between the two timings (switching requires the back to be off) and is available for $25 through American Fencing Supply (www.amfence.com/html/leipzig.html) -- with the promise that this upgrade chip will be free if and when the new times become permanent
- Escrime Technologies (Fencing Technologies (St. George))
- SG-12 -- Depends on the version of SG-12. Escrime Technologies manufactures at least one version of replacement chip, which Blue Gauntlet estimates it will have available to the public in November. CAUTION: The model version numbers used by Blue Gauntlet appear not to conform to the manufacturer's actual model numbers! These are the manufacturer's numbers.
- Protruding rectangular lights and volume knob and no yellow lights (version 1)
- Protruding rectangular main lights and volume knob and small flush rectangular yellow lights (version 2)
- Flush rectangular colored lights, flush round white lights, small flush round yellow lights, and volume switch (version 3)
- Protruding rectangular main lights, small flush round yellow lights, and volume switch (version 4)
- LED lights -- (this is actually an NSG12, not an SG-12) must be shipped to Blue Gauntlet to have a new program loaded into the existing reprogrammable memory.
- SG-01, RSG-11, SG-11, SG-12 ST, SG-21, SG-31 -- details to be provided later.
- Favero
- FULL-ARM-01 -- Favero makes a replacement chip with the new timings and a replacement chip which switches between the two timings (see favero.com/pdf/T2005%20Favero%20info_FIN_ENG.pdf). They cost €30 and €20 plus shipping and handling when ordered directly from Favero. Sword Masters is offering them at $42 and $38 (plus shipping and handling of $4.30 for orders under a pound).
- FULL-ARM-05 -- Favero makes a replacement chip with the new timings and a replacement chip which switches between the two timings (see favero.com/pdf/T2005%20Favero%20info_FIN_ENG.pdf). They cost €40 and €30 plus shipping and handling when ordered directly from Favero. Sword Masters is offering then at $75 and $65 (plus shipping and handling of $4.30 for orders under a pound).
- Leon Paul
- FIE models
- Club models (image at www.leonpaul.com/acatalog/C605_foil_epee_sabre_club_recorder.jpg)
- older club models (over a year old) with no microprocessors -- require alteration of the hard-wired circuit board: Leon Paul will do this for £34.90 plus shipping. Some two-weapon boxes cannot be adjusted for foil without causing épée no longer to work according to the rules of fencing.
- new models (under a year old) with microprocessors -- Leon Paul has a replacement microprocessor available for £24.90 plus shipping, or will install it for £34.90 plus shipping.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Oct 18, 2004 11:27:25 GMT -6
CAUTION!Not all scoring box manufacturers have implemented the box timings identically. The key issue concerns whether foil off target hits are supposed to register if they last somewhere between two and ten mlliseconds, or whether they are supposed to register if they last 15 milliseconds.Clearly, recent rulebooks have specified different times for registration of foil on target hits and off target hits. But, past performance is no guarantee of future results. At this time, there are conflicting claims of possession of memos from the FIE which differ about how long off target hits must be to register. Preliminary indications are that some equipment now requires an off target hit to be 15 ms to register and some equipment still requires it to be 2 - 10 ms to register. - Changed boxes still require an off target hit to be 2 - 10 ms
- Eigertek -- confirmed by manufacturer
- Leon Paul (unless reworked or recently changed) -- confirmed by manufacturer (Naturally, Leon Paul claims to have implemented the rules correctly, but states there is now a second directive from the FIE with different specifications.)
- Changed boxes now require an off target hit to be 13 - 15 ms
- Allstar/Uhlmann -- confirmed by manufacturer
- Escrime Technologies (Fencing Technologies (St. Geourge (Blue Gauntlet))) -- confirmed by manufacturer's maintenance representative
- Favero -- confirmed by manufacturer
- Leon Paul (only if reworked or recently changed) -- confirmed by manufacturer
Pay attention for later developments. At least preliminarily, these seem to be what could happen: - If boxes must always signal a 10 ms off target foil hit, then allegedly Allstar/Uhlmann, Escrime Technologies, and Favero boxes all need to be corrected.
- If boxes must always wait until about 15 ms to signal an off target foil hit, then un-reworked Leon Paul boxes and Eigertek boxes need to be corrected, and (as has been alleged already to have been observed with non-Leon Paul boxes) certain off target hits, particualry glancing blows to the mask, will stop registering (with associated consequences to foil tactics).
- A compromise could be reached which allows boxes conforming to both interpretations to be allowed. A box could signal an off target hit as short as 2 ms but also a box could not to signal the hit until about 15 ms. But, there could be tremendous differences to the character of foil fencing between two different conforming boxes.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Oct 18, 2004 18:33:34 GMT -6
It's starting to look like the problem of new boxes which don't work the same as each other will boil down to an argument over who thought he was ordered to make foil boxes trigger for 13 - 15 ms for all hits, and who thought he was ordered to change the 1 - 5 ms (i.e., on target hits) to 13 - 15 ms and by default leave the 2 - 10 ms (i.e., off target hits) alone.
But, for what we in the Gulf Coast Division need to do for our boxes, we probably don't have to care about how this problem arose, or what legally is what the USFA and/or FIE actually voted. We need to worry about what we will need to be doing for the entire rest of the fencing year.
It's a safe bet that the USFA will do one of two things -- require old timings (like they were requiring until a vote happened on Oct. 2), or at least partially require "new timings". The USFA seems to have no interest in what exactly "new timings" is; they seem to care only that "new timings" is what the FIE requires. (Indeed, the actual USFA Board motion was a little vague on the exact technical details, probably precisely because everybody understood that the question was whether or not to go with FIE new timings, not what timings to pull out of thin air.) So, it seems safe to assume that if and when the USFA enters the fray, the answer will be that any "new timings" will be whatever the FIE is really requiring. So, we need to see what the FIE has to say.
What the FIE already did was vote that certain changes would be made. We see that not all manufacturers implemented the same changes. It appears that the President of SEMI has supplied conflicting information at various times to various manufacturers. It may or may not be relevant what the actual legal truth is, as the FIE might now just legislate on the fly what must be done. The "new timings" stem from votes by the FIE Congress in Leipzig, held Nov. 22-23, 2003. But, without actual minutes from the FIE Congress, one can't know what the actual legal truth is. And, it may very well turn out that what the Congress implemented was vaguely worded! (It's not out of the question that the people who ran the actual experiments with changed timings knew exactly what they tried, but gave an incomplete description of what was tried, and had their recommendations adopted on faith, without knowing the exact technical details. So, if one asks an FIE Congress member, the answer might be "I don't know if I want 2-10 ms or 13-15 ms off target hits in foil; I only know I want what the experiments used!")
So, practically speaking, we're all on tenterhooks waiting for the FIE to disambiguate, and some of us may end up spending money a second time to bring already-changed boxes back into compliance. (I am envious of you. My club is one of only two clubs in the Division which will host the only two divisional tournaments all season which absolutely must have at least some fully-legal new boxes.)
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Oct 20, 2004 9:39:26 GMT -6
An answer seems to be developing. This information is all second hand, being filtered through a manufacturer, but it seems that the FIE itself has conceded that there has been conflicting information from the FIE.
The FIE has now indicated that off target timings should be the same as the new on target timings (13 - 15 ms).
This means that Leon Paul boxes and Eigertek boxes will need to be changed a second time.
Leon Paul has already written of seeking financial compensation from the FIE, in consideration of the work already done incorrectly (yet at the direction of the FIE) to boxes.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Nov 19, 2004 21:23:01 GMT -6
There is new word from the USFA both about requirement (or lack of same) for "new timings" boxes and for what "new timings" must be for foil off-target lights. This will make for a very long post, so I'll break it up into one about required usage and another about technical characteristics. This post is about required usage.
Concerning where required, a simple reading of the USFA Board resolution indicates that JO qualifiers and Divisionals (and Sectionals) have to be using "new timings" boxes. However, it appears that in practice the FOC is using an interpretation that while "new timings" cannot be ignored entirely, the latitude allowed sectional and divisional tournaments to be "old timings" until the finals, then "new timings" thereafter will be extended to the qualifier tournaments. In other words, our JO qualifiers and our Divisionals do not have to use "new timings" boxes in foil and saber until the round of eight (if DE) or until the final (and probably only) pool round if there are no DEs. This will decrease the required amount of "new timings" boxes for both qualifier tournaments, but it would create the strange situation that in Divisionals, men's foilists will qualify for Division III and probably at least one for Division II without ever fencing a bout with "new timings"!
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Nov 19, 2004 21:33:20 GMT -6
There is new word from the USFA concerning what "new timings" actually is for foil off target lights. There is both a clear legal/technical answer, and a slightly fuzzier and contradictory pragmatic answer!
Legality
The rulebook specifies that the off target light must be 2-10 ms. The resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on Oct. 2, as authored by Bill Oliver (who admits to having copied from the British equivalent motion, which in turn was translated from the French equivalent motion), and then adjusted at the meeting, clearly specified that the on target lights should change to 13-15 ms, but clearly never mentioned off target lights. Hence, the USFA requires that off target lights continue to conform to the 2-10 ms specified in the rulebook.
Practicality
Real life will be entirely different. The FOC is taking the attitude that if an LOC upgrades its machines in good conscience using what is made available by the manufacturer, then it will be presumed to be conforming. And, lest anyone point out that, for example, a Favero "new timings" box is clearly in violation of USFA requirements for foil off-target timing, it should be noted that Escrime Technologies (Fencing Technologies (St. George (Blue Gauntlet))) boxes implement the very same (illegal) 13-15 ms. The USFA de facto standard scoring box is illegal. But, given no practical alternative, and considering that this is how boxes in FIE competition will be found to be behaving (without regard to what the FIE did or did not actually legally decide), and considering how many Escrime Technologies boxes the USFA is already committed to using for the national tournaments, what we have is that anything which acts like an Escrime Technologies box is good enough.
The Eigertek Conundrum
Indeed, this raises an interesting issue. At this point (with Leon Paul reworking boxes which already were changed), only Eigertek boxes are known still conform to what the USFA actually declared! All the European boxes, including the USFA's Escrime Technologies boxes, are "illegal" in a mutually consistent way. It will be difficult for the USFA, without an action of the Board of Directors, or the Executive Committee in its stead, to change policy so the Eigertek is illegal. So, nobody will be able to be forced to stay away from an Eigertek. But, would it be advisable for foilists to stay away from Eigerteks specifically because they are the only truly legal boxes, or at least avoid them in competition and remember during training that any white light might not have been a light had the same action happened in a competition?
|
|
|
Post by JEC on Nov 19, 2004 22:04:08 GMT -6
Are you adding this info into the Fencing Net thread?
FYI: the 11/04 USFA rule book is out in the FOC website. The off target is described as 2-10 msec.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on Nov 20, 2004 11:42:15 GMT -6
Are you adding this info into the Fencing Net thread? Not yet; I'm a little queasy about the possibility that the story is still changing. I get the impression that I was the source of a USFA discovery that it already had in writing a specification that off target was already supposed to be (hence must still be) 2-10 ms.
|
|