Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)

[Ken Thompson III]

Buddy,
That is exactly what I was trying to say in my posts on this subject, however, you put much more eloquently than I.  
I'm sure your opinion, considering your years in this Pattern endeavor, carries more weight than mine.  It's time to look at the desired expansion of Pattern, and maybe make a change toward that goal.
I have read many posts pertaining to the inevitable "planes getting much bigger while staying in the 2x2".  A 12.1 lb. cap only allows so much size.  And as for the comment of "if we allow an increase in weight, someone, somewhere, will find a way to work it to their advantage".  And the problem with that is?  All of us try to do things to gain the advantage, even if it is only perceived.  Those with the deep pockets will always have better planes than I will, I'll just have to practice a lot more to become competitive.  Well, hurt my feelings, I have to go the field more this year!!

Thanks for your post.

Ken Thompson 
D4 Sportsman, again
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:33 PM
  Subject: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)


  Since the whole message was to large to post following is my opinion.

  After a thorough weighted comparison of the items listed in my previous post I have arrived at the following conclusions.

   It is most important that we strive to make pattern an inclusive sport, which I feel is necessary to increase participation in the future. In order to do that one of the first item that should be addressed is that of eliminating the illegitimate double standard in the weight rule. There are two possible solutions; the first would be to enforce all rules, which many agree in this case would not be in patterns best interest. That leaves us with only one solution and that is to change the rule.        

   In doing that we must consider the overall impact of such a change to insure that it serves to protect all the other aspects concerned as much as possible. After careful review and acknowledging that maintaining the two-meter rule is in fact the limiting design criteria for pattern I suggest that a change in the rule upward to twelve pounds or in light of current FAI considerations, to 5.5K would be an appropriate solution.

  This change could possibly effect other aspects of pattern design in the future but given the known requirements some of which are listed in my previous post that are necessary and practiced extensively today I have little fear that this change will result in any major design changes that would present a problem or afford anyone an unfair advantage in the near future.

   If you study the items in my previous post it will also become apparent that there are many listed that offer the potential to increase our participation and make pattern more inclusive. 

  Should anyone have any other items to offer that I should include which may require further evaluation concerning my conclusions and suggested weight change please forward them to me.

  Buddy Brammer

   

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050224/35da66dd/attachment-0001.html