UFCVM
7 posts
Sep 05, 2009
12:18 PM
|
By what means is the Roller hobby quantitatively proving their birds? Do we know exactly the rate at which our birds revolve i.e 9 revolutions per second, the exact depth at any given time i.e for 33 feet on the second turn and what are the average/exact frequencies of each turn? I think it would be wonderful to use some of today's technologies to start putting hard data and fact behind the performance of the Birmingham roller. I just have a hard time really knowing for sure that a particular bird rolls 25-30 feet when its 250 feet up and climbing/losing altitude at any given moment. I know a falling body is not a linear projection, and in a few seconds these birds( IF! treated as a falling body, though you have to account for air resistance, etc.) that in 2 seconds of free fall an object has gone 19.6 meters and in 4 seconds 78.4 meters using gravity(9.8m/s^2) as our rate of acceleration. Who thinks that a really balled up roller is probably falling close to what a tennis ball would do have you dropped it at the same time and same place as the bird? Just food for thought
|
UFCVM
8 posts
Sep 05, 2009
12:29 PM
|
Using that basic free falling body physics example a 25-30 foot spinner should only be falling for about one second. And a 5 second spinner would have fallen about 367.5 feet. that seems really extreme, And for those will roll downs, that were at any considerable height are hitting the ground at a damn quick speed. But some we know some survive. So perhaps they arent hitting exact speeds of a free falling body, I wouldnt think it should be tooooo far off.
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 12:31 PM
|
Pumpkin Man
158 posts
Sep 05, 2009
1:46 PM
|
I heard Clay Hoyle say one time that he had video taped one of his fastest rollers and someone had slowed the footage down to see how many revolutions the bird was doing per second. Seems like it was in the 11-13 revs per second range. He could tell you exactly. Heine Bijker uses a stopwatch to come up with the depth multiplier he applies to a kit he's judging. I'm not sure what his scale is someone else on here might know.
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3655 posts
Sep 05, 2009
1:57 PM
|
SPIN TIME & SPIN DEPTH
in seconds=in feet=multiplier
.56=5=0
.79=10=1.0
.97=15=1.05
1.45=20=1.1
1.60=25=1.15
1.98=30=1.2
2.15=35=1.25
2.44=40=1.3
2.59=45=1.35
2.79=50=1.4
2.94=60=1.5
3.22=70=1.6
3.52=80 =1.7
3.88=90=1.8
4.16=100=1.9
4.44=125=2.0
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Pumpkin Man
160 posts
Sep 05, 2009
2:05 PM
|
Wow,
Nick was on point with that. That scale looks like it would be accurate. I wonder what the limit a bird that is not a rolldown can do. I've never personally seen anything beyond 30 feet. But I haven't seen a lot of kits fly either.
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3658 posts
Sep 05, 2009
2:35 PM
|
UFC - we are getting better with cameras and other technologies. The scale I just posted is something I looked over other a fliers shoulder at and then put my own stop watch to just for verification. The multiplier is mainly my own thinking.
I Have never had any of my birds spin over the three second mark, but I have seen Jim Bowen's birds exceed it and Bill Roy's birds may have also(I did not have my stop watch running). The best kit of birds I have ever seen were all 30 to 40 footers and I think the ones that went 40 feet told the rest of the birds "my bad".
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 2:38 PM
|
BA Rollers
280 posts
Sep 05, 2009
3:09 PM
|
I hate it every time that scale is posted. Its so ridiculously off the mark of reality.
Example: according the chart above
.97 (one second)= 15 ft.
1.98 (two seconds)= 30 ft.
2.94 (three seconds) = 60 ft
3.88 (almost four seconds) = 90 ft.
4.44 (just over a half second more than 3.88) = 125 ft.
Lets do some comparison here.
According to this chart in one second a bird has started its roll and proceeded to roll 15 ft.
If it continues to roll for another second it has rolled another 15 feet (30ft), if it continues to roll for another second it has went from eclipsing 15fps to now 30fps. If it continues to roll for another second it has went another 30 feet (60 feet in two seconds) and of course should it roll for just a little more than a half second more it will cover 35 feet (in a half second????).
If anyone buys this scale I've got some land in the bayou to sell you.
Comparing duration (time) with depth (measured distance) is difficult to do with rollers because there are simply too many variables. The most profound is resistance. When a roller starts to roll it doesnt immediately (instantaneously) accelerate to its maximum achieveable rate of fall. Its wings are flapping, its muscles convulsing and it still has to burn off forward momentum from flight prior to beginning the rolling phase. When you lightly throw a baseball forward does it immediately fall straight down? No.
The comparison with a falling solid, resistance-lacking object ends there. A sky diver can greatly reduce his falling speed by increasing resistance. Each roller will have a different level of resistance depending on how much it is gyrating its wings, how tucked into the roll it is, where it is physically in relation to its axis and even its body weight. These are just some things that play into seeing differing results.
Ever see a bird that definitely appeared to roll for one second look as though it didn't actually separate from the kit? To most this would be "short" because they didn't see separation. This visual mostly happens with kits that fly directly overhead. If you note the kit from the lowest bird to the highest bird when they are flying off to the side, a lot of the time that distance is near 10 feet, sometimes more, sometimes less, but there is always a noticeable distance between the lowest bird and the highest. If a bird rolls from the top of the kit for one second, it "appears" it didn't separate and thus appears as if it didn't roll 10ft.
In addition, using the same kit as my example, if a kit breaks and all the birds roll the same time frame then pull out, some will appear to have rolled a shorter distance than others. Why is that? Because some were higher up in the kit than those below it.
Time is our only true useable tool when it comes to referencing depth. One second is one second. 20 feet to one guy is not 20 feet to another. This is why I am a firm believer that it is a detriment to competition and the hobby in general to reference depth, which is actually done so with absolutely no means of reference. The "my telephone pole in front of my house is xx feet high" is worthless. Unless that roller is rolling next to the same telephone pole, the comparison is mute. But time is universal.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3669 posts
Sep 05, 2009
4:03 PM
|
Brian, what you say makes some sense, but, how would you distinguish a shallow roller from a deep roller? How many feet is shallow and how many feet is deep? What are your reference points?
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3660 posts
Sep 05, 2009
4:26 PM
|
An object falling will gain speed until it reaches a maximum speed that a falling object can attain. So the distance an object falls within the a measurement of time will be longer as it approaches the maximum attainable rate of fall.
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3670 posts
Sep 05, 2009
4:36 PM
|
The faster an object goes, the slower time gets for that object. Einstein had some thoughts on this concept.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
|
BA Rollers
281 posts
Sep 05, 2009
4:42 PM
|
Tony, a shallow roller vs a deep roller is subjective. That is a individual perception. What is shallow to one person is not shallow to another. Obviously most would agree that a shallow roller is one that only rolls for what appears to be, for example, 20 feet or less. The most accurate means of determining depth, shallow or deep, will be duration, excluding those of course whose depth results in contact, at which point the depth becomes obvious..lol.
Nick, are you going to sit there and say a roller can eclipse a distance of 30 feet in one second?
|
Scott
2511 posts
Sep 05, 2009
5:00 PM
|
Brian, a bird rolling for a second will probably have seperation with or without drop, unless it is a huge break, when my birds are at top form duration is more prevailant than actual depth, I'm with you on the charts, they don't make a lot of sence.
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about moderated fortitude !! "
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 7:06 PM
|
winwardrollers
298 posts
Sep 05, 2009
5:32 PM
|
Not all roller drop at the same rate...some vialantly roll to the earth with hard wing strokes.. were others tuck and have a calmer wing stroke ... and a few spin hard with out traveling a lot of distance..more in place....It would be nice to have a chart for measuring distance with time..just to many variables to work.
When Heine Biijker Judge my birds a few years back He didn't used a stop Watch.
bwinward
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 5:37 PM
|
Scott
2512 posts
Sep 05, 2009
5:59 PM
|
No Brad they most certainly don't all drop at the same rate, nor are all the breaks consistant with depth,quality ect. , stop watches won't work either, no one is that fast,and there are many things to take in on a break other than fumbling with a stop watch.
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about moderated fortitude !! "
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 7:11 PM
|
Ty Coleman
700 posts
Sep 05, 2009
6:09 PM
|
There are to many variables to cosider in order to make this a reality. You would have to speed index every bird we own and on any given day the birds velocity can change due to a million different variables.
----------
Ty
Vapor Trail Lofts
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3671 posts
Sep 05, 2009
6:27 PM
|
Brian, again, you are right, determining the depth and speed of roll is subjective. Now if we are to be consistent, then I guess the only thing we are left with is the "ooh and ahh" factor in determining the quality of a bird?
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
521 posts
Sep 05, 2009
6:54 PM
|
Time to throw the BS flag. Nick's scale reflects an accelerating static object falling until it reachs terminal velocity. No comparison to reality when it comes to a spinning aerodynamic Birmingham Roller. BMacs supposition is probably closer to reality. I have had too many scotch's tonight to do the calculations but will do it tommorrow. At first blush I think Brian is probably pretty close!!
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
Last Edited by on Sep 05, 2009 7:01 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3672 posts
Sep 05, 2009
7:10 PM
|
Where's the land?
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
|
michael salus
54 posts
Sep 05, 2009
8:28 PM
|
Nick , I don't understand the multipliers that you posted at all. A BIRD THAT ROLLS 30' IS ONLY a 1.2, I sure wouldn't want you judging my kit.I've seen a lot of deep birds, but i don't think I ever saw a bird roll 125' and keep it together for the whole time. We have to get real when we use the multipliers. I think everyone of those multipliers is way off. A bird that rolls 30' should get a 1.5 at least. Just my thoughts.
----------
MJ
|
BA Rollers
282 posts
Sep 05, 2009
8:41 PM
|
Tony, I wouldn't drag quality of a bird into it, that's another beast altogether..lol
In terms of the topic discussed, look at it like this. We can desire to have factual, undeniable information in terms of depth. Since we live in a world today that provides pinpoint accuracy for many things, naturally we would like to have such tools available to "know" without question exactly how many feet a bird rolled. There is nothing wrong with curiosity. The problem we have is that our subjects are not peforming in a controlled environment which would provide for the opportunity to utilize common technologies. But lets say such an opportunity existed, maybe a university study of some sort. What would the information provide that could be tranferred over to a judge standing in a backyard, a judge and backyard NOT equipped with the same technology and equipment the study used? Lets say the study results yeilded what most people know, that rollers roll various depths and various decent rates. I use that description because it is absolutely true that rollers do roll different depths and speeds of decent. The results could provide basically two things.
One. A spreadsheet listing the data retrieved for each subject (roller) in terms of what depths and fall rates it performed during the study.
Two. An average based on the sum results from each subject.
If half of the subjects rolled consistent depths and consistent decent rates, and half rolled inconsistent depths and different decent rates than the first half which were consistent, you end up with a skewed average in terms of what is being looked for. What is being looked for??? A way to know without question how far a bird rolled. Using an average won't be any more accurate than a person with normal roller flying experience. We can't use the individual bird data simply because each bird is different.
In the perfect world we could retrofit each bird with a gps recorder/transponder which could record altitude and time. In an even more perfect world this kit could be flown over a digitally mapped field with sensors placed at every square foot to retrieve data from equipped birds to actually isolate roll points and thus, altitude variations. At the same time the kit could be video recorded so the isolated roll events could be viewed and the actual time and decent depth data specified for each bird.
Reality:
We don't have the opportunity, and if one did exist, it would be an isolated study on specific birds, data that would not be transferrable to each and every roller being flown. While it could be used as an educational tool, the end result In My Opinion would be no more accurate than good old fashion assumption of time in the roll. Ah, assumption. Assumption isn't accurate. But it is the best tool we have available that across the board is universally more accurate than anything else we have to base depth upon.
If Joe Blow in Tennessee says his birds consistently roll three seconds, Jim Blow in California will have a pretty good understanding of how deep those birds roll.
If Joe Blow says his birds roll 40 feet. Jim Blow's definition of 40 can...and usually is...different.
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
528 posts
Sep 05, 2009
8:44 PM
|
Amen Brian
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
fhtfire
2071 posts
Sep 05, 2009
9:27 PM
|
Good Post Brian...you are so right..to many variables....I have had birds spin as fast as hell and drop slower then a wing switcher.....it is all up to the birds and how it rolls...its style...not talking quality..style....is a short stroke roller or a long stroke roller....is there wind...what about updrafts...and down drafts....bit time during the cold nights switching to early mornings....you can have birds rolling like crazy..but the up drafts keep them from dropping as fast...
Each bird is different....each day and moment is different.....do they break flying into the wind...or out of the wind....up drafts..down drafts....think air and thin air....humidity..more water in the air..more resistance....and the list goes on and on....then you have the birds...moulting....feathers all jacked up and sticking out.....it all has something to do with it...almost impossible to use a times stick....not even close....you just have to have an eye for it...
SOme have a good eye and some do not....for example...I can take my 105' Aerial ladder truck...and I can damn near stick a building perfect every time...while maintaining my 70 degree climbing anlge....so you have to position a certain distance away from a building....and then determine if you have enough ladder to reach...and you dont get to try it a bunch of times...a good Truck operator will stick it every time.....cause at a fire you only get one chance..you take two..you are a retard....the other is when you are really good..you can stand in a spot look at a building and say...I will be shore 15-20' or I will reach it no prob..etc etc......
my point being..there are some that just cant do it..no matter how much practice...there depth perception is WAY off.....its the same with the birds...I am pretty good for judging depth from distance due to my job ....you compare everything to a ladder length or a 50' length of hose.......there are times guys will say that was 30'....and I am like...no dude that was more like 50'...people usually judge the distances a bird rolls SHORTER then actuality....people rarely take under consideration....DISTANCE....the further away the shorter it looks.....most of the birds people say are 10 are actually 20'....or more,,,,
At 5-600' in the air....you would notice very little separation from a bird when it rolls....
Brian is a hunter and shooter....so I am sure he has a good eye for distance....most hunters can judge distance based on how far you gun will still have knockdown and accuracy....I will tell you this...at 100 yrds....10' looks like 5'
and most think there birds are only 300' in the air...and they are higher then you think....my uncle called my..flying his little plane above my house....my birds were in the air and he was just even with them.....he told me they were at 600'....and they were still scorable.....I though it was more like 400'....go figure...
Just remember a 8-9 story building is close to 100'
rock and ROLL
Paul Fullerton
|
UFCVM
14 posts
Sep 06, 2009
5:17 AM
|
BA ROLLERS. GPS is the next step. Well start cheaper first.
Ima try to make something for myself, with just an altimeter. We will see.
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 6:59 AM
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3661 posts
Sep 06, 2009
8:59 AM
|
Well, lets all go back and re-draw the scale. The one I gave came from the last WC judge and some changes from my own observation I put with it. I had no bird that could spin for more than three seconds so anything above that was not modified. Distances where all estimated and the distance I stood from the spinning bird of couse varied. I was not able to get a camera on each break used. I do have a range finder that helped to keep a lot of things in prospective. It does take a while to verify before a change can be made.
--------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Scott
2520 posts
Sep 06, 2009
9:04 AM
|
Nick, it isn't this complicated, with some much going on within the fly and averaging it all out it boils down to pure overall impression of the kit where the multipliers are concerned.
And the fact is it is the rare fly that the top kits couldn't be put in the correct order without even keeping score.
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about ********* fortitude !! "
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 4:32 PM
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
3662 posts
Sep 06, 2009
9:10 AM
|
Scott - I agree. In all of the judging trips I have been on I have yet to disagree with the judge in order of finish in the competition and I did not possess the score card. The best kit has always been obvious.
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
476 posts
Sep 06, 2009
9:12 AM
|
Scott... Yes, through the multipliers out the window , and go back to the old judging system.Top kits are going to prevail, JDA
|
Scott
2521 posts
Sep 06, 2009
9:25 AM
|
No Joe, the multipliers are an essential tool for trying to keep in line the judging of Birmingham Rollers over slop and or tumblers.
(Scott... Yes, through the multipliers out the window , and go back to the old judging system.Top kits are going to prevail, JDA )
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about ********** fortitude !! "
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 4:33 PM
|
UFCVM
18 posts
Sep 06, 2009
9:27 AM
|
I just wish we had better quality video of performing kits. Much like the "wholly Roller" video on youtube that really catches detail and proximity. Maybe they are out there, but most show birds as specs, and theres no way to slow it down with quality maintained. Anyone ever try to video tape their birds by attaching a camera to a remote controlled helicopter?
|
Windjammer Loft
929 posts
Sep 06, 2009
10:22 AM
|
So, after all these comments "NO ONE" has come up with a positive solid answer to UFCVM's first asked question...
It looks like, what's one mans preception of rate of fall and depth is not he same as another mans preception of same... Now that's something to "think" about.
Fly High and Roll On
Paul
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 10:26 AM
|
UFCVM
21 posts
Sep 06, 2009
11:00 AM
|
Good point. And by no means was it meant to be argumentative. I just ponder about selling said " 30 foot tight and fast" roller.
It would be nice to get any genuine champion birds "specs". Similar to EPD on bulls. Cause there is lots of information(genetic evaluation based on what they put out) that gets put into those things, and I would be nice to see that for a roller. Just trying to spice things up a bit...haha... Whatever keeps me from studying... ;)
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
477 posts
Sep 06, 2009
11:16 AM
|
Should have known,And the fact is it is the rare fly that the top kits couldn't be put in the correct order without even keeping score.
----------
Scott Campbell
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 12:38 PM
|
Scott
2525 posts
Sep 06, 2009
4:20 PM
|
Joe, the same holds true for any competitive event, I think that it is worth adding that wouldn't hold true with judges that judge by no quality standards.
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about ********** fortitude !! "
Last Edited by on Sep 06, 2009 4:34 PM
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
479 posts
Sep 06, 2009
4:38 PM
|
This statement is true that you said they will stand out on there own.And the fact is it is the rare fly that the top kits couldn't be put in the correct order without even keeping score.
----------
Scott Campbell
JDA
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2041 posts
Sep 08, 2009
9:30 AM
|
BA
I think the time may have come to see if we can agree that "duration of spin" is a better, more universal way to ESTIMATE depth than the age old educated guess. This idea of using time to estimate depth is not new but it may meet resistance just because traditionally most would rather remain stuck in the past. The chart describes a falling object in a vacum and doesn't really work for a pigeon with feathers and wind resistance falling through air.
But with Nick now espousing the need to re-examine different ideas.....I'm optimistic!
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2044 posts
Sep 08, 2009
1:24 PM
|
Scott
Separation is a part of the puzzle, but do you think that it is always able to be viewed and judged? I understand that being directly below the kit often gives the best angle to observe the "quality/wing position" but this angle also makes separation almost impossible to see clearly. The best way to estimate depth in this instance would be duration of spin.... maybe the only way. I noticed in my young bird kits this weekend that some birds actually spun from the front of the kit, through the kit and out the back a few yards. Not that this is what I am looking for in a scoring roller, but my guess is that most of these 15 footers would go unnoticed or be judged as twizzlers or something.
I also noticed that my comp teams stayed almost directly overhead the entire time. How many times have we heard of kits that stayed directly overhead? Quite a lot, I'd say. These kits must be scored without the benefit of separation. I believe that separation is not necessarily the best way to estimate depth or scoreability, but it is certainly the easiest when the judge has horizontal perspective on the kit. Duration of spin is the only real constant at every angle at every distance. So why do we not support duration of spin? Probably because I don't know how we humans could estimate the duration of spin of 5 to 15 rollers in a spin simultaneously with any degree of accuracy. I am just saying that the judges should "practice/train" themselves to estimate depth using a stopwatch.
Then we can haggle over the conversion of time into feet. :')
Cliff
|
Scott
2545 posts
Sep 09, 2009
9:28 AM
|
You don't have to use a stop watch to know whether the duration was long ,short or inbetween, same as you don't need to try and guess at the depth to know whether it was short,deep or all points inbetween.
----------
Scott Campbell
"It is about testicle fortitude !! "
|
winwardrollers
306 posts
Sep 09, 2009
11:09 AM
|
Scott
I agree...there is really no need to use a stopwatch.
It is just one more thing to preoccupy the judge and keep him from watching the kit...I think we can count 1..2..3 easy enough..
bwinward
Last Edited by on Sep 09, 2009 11:17 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2050 posts
Sep 09, 2009
11:58 AM
|
bwinward
However you chose to use a stopwatch to HELP you learn how to estimate depth, is up to you. I would suspect that if 5 guys used a stopwatch to estimate depth of a bird spinning, they would be generally be within a range that would be closer than if 5 men used nothing but an educated guess.
I don't see how shallow or deep would be harder to judge depth using a stop watch.
MOST roller breaks scored in a 20 bird fly would range in depth from 10-15 feet (3/4-1 sec.) as the shallow end to 30-35 feet (2 1/2 sec to 3 1/2 sec) on the deep end ... AVERAGE. The range would be greatly influenced by ones eyesight and reflexes. Sure there are exceptions where a special kit could average 40 feet or better but those are the rare exceptions indeed, but still I see no problems using the stop watch to help gauge depth. The stopwatch is a tool to help us learn how to estimate depth, nothing more.
Cliff
|
UFCVM
35 posts
Sep 09, 2009
12:45 PM
|
Why cant you just video tape the kit and then you can use the time that the camera keeps to know exactly how long almost every single bird rolled for. Of course you have to slow it down and watch it over a few times. I was just seeing if any one explored more technologies. I think I got a good impression.
----------
Kevin
~Portable Flyer: Backyard flyer that flys in someone else's backyard.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2052 posts
Sep 09, 2009
1:16 PM
|
Kevin
As you can see, not much modern technology has been employed judging Rollers in the last century or two.
A wrist watch or some other time piece and a pencil for the score pad, is about it. A judge has to learn to travel light.
Just remember, we don't even approve of binoculars and whatever is suggested must be used in all scoring for all flyers, no favorites here. The problem with trying to score an optical illusion is, some prefer the illusion, to reality.
Cliff
|
UFCVM
36 posts
Sep 09, 2009
4:45 PM
|
Well, I wasnt really getting at the competition aspect. Just for personal knowledge and gain.
----------
Kevin
~Portable Flyer: Backyard flyer that flys in someone else's backyard.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2053 posts
Sep 09, 2009
5:37 PM
|
Kevin
GO for it! As you can tell we don't do a lot qualitative/quantitative studies on depth or velocity/RPS. Whatever you can do to substantiate what you can, would be interesting. I just call it eye candy, deep is deep and fast is fast, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Cliff
|
UFCVM
37 posts
Sep 09, 2009
5:52 PM
|
I will! It would be cool to have something that works, and functions without impeding the bird. Like I said, altimeters first. If it doesnt work, so what. If it does, ill be taking orders...lol
----------
Kevin
~Portable Flyer: Backyard flyer that flys in someone else's backyard.
Last Edited by on Sep 09, 2009 6:20 PM
|