[NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

[brian young]

1. true
2. false
3. ignorance is bliss
4. so we can design bigger more effective planes using more of the expensiver lighter material
5. see item 3.

.....mostly tongue in cheek....except i believe item 4 would be tempered since F3A sets design parameters mainly.


________________________________
From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 3:38:12 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Weight limit in AMA classes

I have submitted a rules proposal to completely eliminate the 11 lb. Weight
limit in AMA pattern classes. (proposal 11-11).
I'd like to see some discussion on the pros and cons of this proposal on the
NSRCA e-mail list and the Pattern forum.

My reasons for submitting the proposal include the following points:

1. There is no competitive advantage to a heavier plane with the 2 meter
size constraint (in fact I'd argue a heavier plane is usually at a
disadvantage and perhaps a minimum weight makes more sense than a maximum)
2. The 2 meter size constraint is sufficient keep the weight of pattern
planes to reasonable limits.
3. The fact that AMA class planes are weighed only at the US Nationals gives
proof that the rule is not now enforced and not needed.
4. The 11 lb. Weight limit drives up the cost of pattern planes through the
necessary use of more expensive high tech materials. (If you don't believe
"light weight" cost a lot of money ask the people who race sail boats)
5. Removing the weight limit will reduce the manpower and cost associated
with running the Nationals And also perhaps increase participation.

OK, guys, what do you think?
What other "pro" and "con" points?
Dave Burton




_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091211/7aee4f99/attachment.html>