FIE SEMI Commission Opinions concerning FIE COngress recommendations.

[Mr Epee]

It's very hot in the desert these days.

[Barry Paul]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

i wonder if any of the manufacturers who post on here would care to comment on how long they have been aware of the "microbreaks" issue and whether they think the timing changes have made any difference. Or are they the ones writing the emails?

Never heard of micro breaks in 30 years. However before microprocessors the analog apparatus were not very percise. use charged capacitors ect to measure time. So micro breaks would not be seen.

With modern microprocessors they can be as accurate as you like. all the present apparatus which have been approved by the semi clearly pass the f.i.e. testing which cannot introduce micro breaks, why would manufacturers react in any other way than they have. No one has mentioned micro breaks (if they exist) and any apparatus which allowed micro breaks would not be following f.i.e. regulations and in theory be non regulation.

The timng changes have introduced problems which do need addressing, but don't blame the manufacturers all we can do is follow the regulations as proscibed by the f.i.e. barry paul

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

Never heard of micro breaks in 30 years. However before microprocessors the analog apparatus were not very percise. use charged capacitors ect to measure time. So micro breaks would not be seen.

With modern microprocessors they can be as accurate as you like. all the present apparatus which have been approved by the semi clearly pass the f.i.e. testing which cannot introduce micro breaks, why would manufacturers react in any other way than they have. No one has mentioned micro breaks (if they exist) and any apparatus which allowed micro breaks would not be following f.i.e. regulations and in theory be non regulation.

The timng changes have introduced problems which do need addressing, but don't blame the manufacturers all we can do is follow the regulations as proscibed by the f.i.e. barry paul

Well, doesnt it depend on how "micro" the microbreak is? I mean, how long do the new machines wait before they decide that the circuit is complete again in foil?


.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by the doc

realistically, i don't think that the average epeeist would have to worry about the full body lame, as long as all the other rules of target area stayed the same. as everyone notes, roch is only interested in the top level, and so only top level fencers would have to deal with those problems. after all, the majority of bfa tournaments that i do have no metallic pistes but we get on with it ok.

as for the changes in foil, i really have no opinion. i have been fencing since 1992 and i still can't see the point of foil.

I think you may be wrong. Both the wireless and regular box work the same way in Sabre. If you hit a lame' you get a touch.

Originally Posted by Sabreur

There used to be, before electric scoring. When they went to electic scoring, they did away with the off-target to simplify the electrical scheme. Doesn't really affect the game very much.

I am afraid you have your timeframe wrong. When Sabre went to electric scoring, there was still off-target. When they got rid of the Sensors and went to the fully shorted Sabre, THEN they got rid of the Off-target.

[KD5MDK]

I think everybody is trying to forget that time period.

[DHCJr]

True, how true. I still have a few, especially one from Triplette, which was one of the most unique designs. Not the best, but it was unique.

[oso97]

arrggggg... and I thought I could go the rest of my life without hearing the words "sabre sensor" again...

*shudder*

I need a hot shower now....

Those whiney foilists think THEY have problems now? They should have tried fencing sabre in the early 90's!

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by the doc

as for the changes in foil, i really have no opinion. i have been fencing since 1992 and i still can't see the point of foil.

You don't have to see the point to fence foil. After a while, you can pretty much feel where the point is by the angle of the blade. Once it's in motion, it's not necessary to track the point but is sufficient to target the blade for most the actions.

[the doc]

[quote=DHCJr]I think you may be wrong. Both the wireless and regular box work the same way in Sabre. If you hit a lame' you get a touch.

i get that. i was just suggesting that you can fence epee fine even if the ground is not earthed, if you are willing to have floor spotters. as such, if no other changes were made to epee, you wouldn't need a full body lamé, as you would not be differentiating between floor or person.

and as for everyone else who is worried about my eyesight, i can see the point of A foil just fine. the point of foil as a sport, however, is where i struggle...

[KD5MDK]

I would say floor spotters, as corruptible and fallible individuals, are a far worse solution (and if flown in for an FIE event, expensive) than metallic strips.

[shlepzig]

Fallible or infallible floor spotters do not solve the problem in epee, any epeeist should be able to attest.

1. Fencer A- point hits floor, Light goes off.

2. Fencer B hits Fencer A.

We all know Fencer A's light was not valid, but was Fencer B's touch good or not, there was no light, he got locked out by the floor shot. With a grounded strip the floor shot has no effect on the lights and Fencer B's touch would stand.

This happens all the time and results in tipped scales one way or another in bouts without grounded strips often. You must be able to tell the difference between hitting fencer and hitting not-fencer. The cheapest solution is grounded strip since that would probably cost less than a single full-body lame.

Shlep.

[the doc]

i wasn't talking about high quality events like world cups, just run of the mill local opens, for people worried about the expense of the full body lame. obviously the grounded piste is the best solution, but 90% of british opens are fenced without grounded strips for everyone and things work fine.

all i was trying to get at was, without any major changes to epee target area, i can't see 99% of epeeists needing to get a full body lame even if they were made compulsory at a grade level. local federations would be crazy to even try and force them through.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Your memory has badly let you down.

There were 4 calls--yes, no, abstain & off-target.

Off-target would stop the action.

--Philistine

Yes; you, Sabreur and Mr Epee are right; I am wrong. ( And that's my quota for the year. )

Funny how we can put unpleasantries right out of our memories...

From the 1987 edition of the rule book ( which has yielded some amusing reading the last few evenings ):

411 A touch which is made on any part of the body other than the target
( whether directly or as the result of a parry ) is not counted as a valid touch, but stops the phrase and annuls all touches which are scored thereafter.

How foil-like. Brrr!

[DHCJr]

[quote=the doc]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I think you may be wrong. Both the wireless and regular box work the same way in Sabre. If you hit a lame' you get a touch.

i get that. i was just suggesting that you can fence epee fine even if the ground is not earthed, if you are willing to have floor spotters. as such, if no other changes were made to epee, you wouldn't need a full body lamé, as you would not be differentiating between floor or person.

and as for everyone else who is worried about my eyesight, i can see the point of A foil just fine. the point of foil as a sport, however, is where i struggle...

I think I made my statements unclear. If a box only goes off when the tip hits a lame how will you get a touch without a lame'. What I am saying that if the FIE makes the specifications for a touch to register it must hit a lame'.

I just thought of something. How are they going to hook up the lame'? All 3 lines are taken.

[Frank Pratt]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I just thought of something. How are they going to hook up the lame'? All 3 lines are taken.

Actually, if the machine is programmed to only register touches on the “bodysuit” lame and ignore all other touches, would you even need a ground wire connected to the fencer's weapon? If not, the C line could be used for the lame. Touches to the ungrounded bell would not register in this new setup, so the epee could start using the existing foil/sabre body cords.

[garyhayenga]

Originally Posted by DHCJr

I am afraid you have your timeframe wrong. When Sabre went to electric scoring, there was still off-target. When they got rid of the Sensors and went to the fully shorted Sabre, THEN they got rid of the Off-target.

Actually they got rid of off-target in sabre fairly quickly after electric's introduction. Like 1 year. The capteurs unfortunately lasted quite a bit longer than that.

gary hayenga

[KD5MDK]

Why is the FIE so concerned about metallic strips? They cost oh, $3000 a piece for the sectional aluminum ones? That's expensive for a club, but mine owns two, and I should imagine that the FIE (or somebody else) could probably make a business out of buying them and leasing them for tournaments. Certainly compared to the requirements for FIE scoring boxes, extender lights, etc it isn't excessive.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Frank Pratt

Actually, if the machine is programmed to only register touches on the “bodysuit” lame and ignore all other touches, would you even need a ground wire connected to the fencer's weapon? If not, the C line could be used for the lame. Touches to the ungrounded bell would not register in this new setup, so the epee could start using the existing foil/sabre body cords.

Excellent Catch! Boy, that was a stupid miss of mine.

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

Never heard of micro breaks in 30 years. However before microprocessors the analog apparatus were not very percise. use charged capacitors ect to measure time. So micro breaks would not be seen.

With modern microprocessors they can be as accurate as you like. all the present apparatus which have been approved by the semi clearly pass the f.i.e. testing which cannot introduce micro breaks, why would manufacturers react in any other way than they have. No one has mentioned micro breaks (if they exist) and any apparatus which allowed micro breaks would not be following f.i.e. regulations and in theory be non regulation.

The timng changes have introduced problems which do need addressing, but don't blame the manufacturers all we can do is follow the regulations as proscibed by the f.i.e. barry paul

Thanks Barry,
i wasn't blaming you or any other manufacturer. Mr Roch or the SEMI seemed to think "micro breaks" have been known about for 25 years, so it is interesting to hear that you had not heard of them. i get the feeling that the SEMI seems to be reacting somewhat childishly to valid criticisms of the new timings which inspires no confidence in their further proposals and constnat tinkering.

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by Insipiens

Thanks Barry,
i wasn't blaming you or any other manufacturer. Mr Roch or the SEMI seemed to think "micro breaks" have been known about for 25 years, so it is interesting to hear that you had not heard of them. i get the feeling that the SEMI seems to be reacting somewhat childishly to valid criticisms of the new timings which inspires no confidence in their further proposals and constnat tinkering.

Whose timing? SEMI did not recomend the 15ms. Their proposal to the Executive committee, that anything over 10ms would cause some straight attacks Not to register. Also, if as Mr. Roch says micro breaks have been known for 25 years, why didn't they show up in boxes, that go off it there is Any break. Don't blame SEMI