Rules don't grow sports!

Grow Pattern pattern4u at comcast.net
Wed Feb 9 06:02:10 AKST 2005 

It's not the "driving away" that is the problem. It may seem that way, but 
attrition is normal in any sport. The really big problem is "attraction".

I keep a close eye on the ages of the folks joining and the ages of the 
folks leaving. the leaving is pretty normal. The joining age group is very 
sparse in the below 20, and the 20-30 range.

This tree has no soil around its roots.....

I would submit to you all that what we debate over size, weight etc. has 
very little to do with whether a new person joins or not. If you are new, 
you tend to accept the rules as the challenge, and go fly. You have no 
history so are not that concerned. There are much brighter lights gaining 
your attention, not least of which is the thrill of competing.

What is more critical than any rule is the complete lack of promotional 
material, lack of tools for our VP's and members to use to promote our 
sport. You don't even have a handout/brochure any more. No video to do a 
"show and tell" at a club night. No formula for growth at all.

Imagine if all of the effort that we put into debating a rule was used to 
put your teeth into something that we could all use out there at the WRAM or 
Toledo show. Imagine flight demo-tapes running in continuous loops, Aresti 
diagrams hanging from the walls, THEN wake up to the reality of running the 
judging tape at your booth....

I know and acknowledge that there are some individual points of light out 
there where great work has been done, but it is not a concerted effort or 
coordinated NSRCA plan, or intent.

It really is time to get the NSRCA galvanized in to some real activities for 
growth.

In publishing we say "Publish or perish!. In a sport it is "PROMOTE or 
PERISH!"

Regards,

Eric.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey


> Show me the changes in last 20 years that hasn't also turned some away...? 
> One of the reason not as many participate as once did...   Leave it alone 
> unless you want to drive more away.
>
>  del
>    nsrca  473
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Wayne Galligan" <wgalligan at goodsonacura.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:29 AM
> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>
>
>> Nat,
>>
>> Your right... look at the last three years at the Nats and what took top
>> honors in the masters class.....an ARF that cost less then $600.
>>
>> WG
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Nat Penton" <natpenton at centurytel.net>
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>
>>
>>> Some of you are over estimating the importance of the airplane and
>>> underestimating the potential of the pilot.                   Nat
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Bill Southwell" <bnbsouthwell at bellsouth.net>
>>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>>
>>>
>>> > Tom how so?  If there are available engines that actually hold up but
>> are
>>> > a bit more porky....but also a lot cheaper to own both in intial
>> purchase
>>> > and in up keep how can it lead to a more expensive airplane. Cost of 
>>> > the
>>> > present designs are due to the materials and mathods of production
>>> > required tokeep the weight down. A little more room would make more
>>> > pedestrian material like balsa , ply. and foam to come back or at 
>>> > least
>>> > make the average builder have hope.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tom Shaw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You guys need to leave well enough alone.  With the unlimited engines 
>>> >> a
>>> >> higher weight limit is just going to ecourage larger more expenseive
>>> >> airplanes.  That will amount to fewer flyers.
>>> >>
>>> >>     ----- Original Message -----
>>> >>     *From:* Gray E Fowler <mailto:gfowler at raytheon.com>
>>> >>     *To:* discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>>> >>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:25 PM
>>> >>     *Subject:* RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     Here comes the dreaded weight debate again....
>>> >>
>>> >>     Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too
>>> >>     smart to have a plane heavier than it needs to be.  But, lets
>>> >>     pretend there is a hot new Sportsman named uh lets see..... 
>>> >> Chuck.
>>> >>     Chuck tears up 401 after 3 contests, and he is flying his best
>>> >>     airplane that most FAI guys would consider a toy (and I do not
>>> >>     mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months Model Aviation
>>> >>     being held by  a guy named "Chuck")  and so moving up to
>>> >>     Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were
>>> >>     quite a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway!
>>> >>     In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and
>>> >>     gets a used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight
>>> >>     heavy hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is
>>> >>     good and pumped up and I would place money that this theoretical
>>> >>     person could place at the NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!!
>>> >>     one more !
>>> >>
>>> >>     Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we 
>>> >> will
>>> >>     not let you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k
>>> >>     more on another plane.
>>> >>
>>> >>     The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not
>>> >>     let Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI 
>>> >> rule
>>> >>     makers are happy.
>>> >>
>>> >>     Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board
>>> >>     and for the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align 
>>> >> with
>>> >>     FAI.  Chuck will have a 5Kg plane *BY THE TIME HE REACHES 
>>> >> FAI-*and
>>> >>     the French can be happy then*.*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > =================================================
>>> > To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>> > To be removed from this list, go to 
>>> > http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>> > and follow the instructions.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -- 
>>> > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 1/17/2005
>>>
>>> =================================================
>>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>>> and follow the instructions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> To access the email archives for this list, go to
>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>> and follow the instructions.
>>
>>
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
> 

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list