Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)

[Jim Ivey]

>  Wow,Did you see that ? He called Buddy-- son.

Jim I
> From: "Richard Strickland" <richard.s at allied-callaway.com>
> Date: 2005/02/24 Thu PM 03:45:20 EST
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> Son, around these parts NASCAR is spelled with a capital 'N'.
> 
> Richard
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Tim Taylor 
>   To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>   Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:29 PM
>   Subject: Re: Weight rules discussion ( my opinion)
> 
> 
>   Buddy I think raising the weight rule to 12lbs or so will do a few things, it will make more arf's competitive and lower the cost of competing. You'll see less high dollar light weight stuff used in the average fliers airplane. You'll see less expensive, bigger displacement engines being used. This will IMHO fit 80-90% of the pattern fliers out there, the other 10-20% are going to spend whatever they have to to get the lightest airplane and the most current equipment and the cost be damned. Spending money doesn't make one a better flier unless it's spent on your fuel of choice and a coach. This is our sport and we should not let the minority rule the majority. Let those that fly FAI on the Worlds Stage worry about the Worlds Rules. Otherwise do like nascar does and use a one template rule and everyone flies the same plane same engine same radio and servo's.
>     ----- 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
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
> 
> 


=================================================
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.