FAI Weight Thread > Handicap System

[brianyemail-nsrca at yahoo.com]

If there are two judges a $5 hanging out of each
pocket per .5 lb overweight might do.....er...maybe a
$10?????




--- spbyrum <spbyrum at hiwaay.net> wrote:

> How would those of us who come up owing the Judges
> pay our debt???
> 
> Steve Byrum 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of Joe Dunnaway
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:11 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
> 
>     How about a handicap system.  Say a 10%
> deduction off your score for
> 
> every half pound over 11 lbs.   If you want to fly a
> heavy plane you
> will 
> still be legal but it would be to your advantage to
> get it under 11 lbs.
> 
> Joe Dunnaway
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Lockhart" <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:58 PM
> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
> 
> 
> > John,
> >
> > Definitely an interesting parallel you presented.
> >
> > Quite honestly, I think the pattern rules were the
> safest, easiest to
> > enforce, and least controversial when either the
> 60 displacement or 60
> 2C 
> > /
> > 120 4C displacement rules were in effect.  The
> 2x2m and 5 kg weight
> limit
> > rarely were factors and any of the planes pushing
> those limits weren't
> > competitive anyway.  I preferred the era of the 60
> 2C displacement
> rule
> > because the overall cost of the planes was cheaper
> making the event
> more
> > accessible to a larger number of potential
> competitors.
> >
> > Given the current state of the rules, it might be
> very interesting
> indeed 
> > to
> > give something new a try - along the lines of
> pylon - a displacement
> limit
> > and minimum weight.  Practically, I think this
> would be close to 
> > impossible
> > to do with the complexities in assessing
> "equivalent" power levels for
> 
> > glow,
> > gas, and electric.  It could maybe be done with a
> constantly adjusted
> > formula relating currently used glow, gas, and
> electric power plants,
> but
> > that would do little to encourage further
> development of any of those 
> > forms
> > of motivation - any advances would simply be met
> with a "penalty" to
> bring
> > them back in line.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave Lockhart
> > DaveL322 at comcast.net
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> > To: "NSRCA Discussion" <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:33 PM
> > Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread
> >
> >
> >> Dave,
> >>  Yeah, apples to oranges but the point is it's
> the same arguement
> even
> >> though the requirements are totally opposite. We
> have a MAX weight
> rule,
> >> they have a MIN weight rule. We're both trying to
> build lighter
> airplanes
> >> AND make it easier to attract participants
> (ARFs). That's the part I 
> >> found
> >> interesting.
> >> John Pavlick
> >>
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> >> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
> >> Behalf Of David Lockhart
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:43 PM
> >> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >> Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread
> >>
> >>
> >>   John,
> >>
> >>   Interesting point - but I don't think it really
> applies to pattern
> > because
> >> of HUGE difference between pylon and pattern -
> pylon has a
> displacement
> >> limit, pattern doesn't.  In pattern adding weight
> will not level the
> > playing
> >> field or allow the heavy planes to compete (at
> the rare contests
> where
> >> weight is checked) - because the engines will
> also get bigger, and
> the
> >> planes have plenty of room to get bigger (the
> bipe you mention).  My
> bet
> >> would be that the "new" bipes would develop and
> evolve and push the 
> >> weight
> >> limit - until the weight limit was raised until
> at least 16+ pounds -
> > adding
> >> weight to the big bipe beyond that would start to
> become counter
> >> productive - just like adding weight to an 11 lb
> current day pattern
> > model.
> >>
> >>   You are absolutely correct that hindsight
> clearly shows the
> resulting
> >> unintended consequences of multiple iterations of
> rule changes that
> >> ultimately lead to the larger more expensive
> models.  I find it
> rather
> >> interesting that people seem to have no qualms
> about implementing new
> > rules
> >> that will obsolete the current equipment - but
> only when the new rule
> > allows
> >> escalation and not the other way around.
> >>
> >>   Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >> Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release
> Date: 9/1/03
> >>
> >> =================================================
> >> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===

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