[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Mon Aug 23 07:22:33 AKDT 2010

I meant that the 40% penalty wouldn't kick in until the weight was up around
14 - 16 oz. over.  Weights from 1oz. to 9oz. over would gradually rise from
2-7% penalty. . .

I'm just "spitballing" numbers here for the concept.  The actual numbers
could be debated at length later.  Perhaps a graph of some sort?

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, <rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote:

> Vince I think the spirit is right but 40% is too much....I prefer the
> following, posted earlier:
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************
>  If we must keep weight checking at the Nats, I do not favor
> disqualification of any overweight plane and the scores it earned. That is
> too harsh a punishment. Rather, I favor a penalty, something like dropping
> scores by 2-5% or dropping the high round score, or something like that.
>
>
> *********************************************************************************************************************
>  The penalty idea has been re-hashed before. 5% max penalty is enough
> penalty to affect about the top 10 places in either Masters or F3A. That's
> all that really matters in regard to Nats trophies
>
> regards
>
> MattK
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone <vicenterc at comcast.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon, Aug 23, 2010 10:39 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>   Keith,
>
> Great idea.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:35:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>
>   Perhaps another compromise would be to raise the weight limit to 11.5 or
> 12 lbs., then have a weight penalty that starts at 11lbs and increases
> hyperbolically up to the max weight.
>
>   It could start at 2% at 11lb 1oz., 5% at 11 lb., 2oz., 7% at 11lb. 3oz.,
> on up to 40% score reduction at 12 lbs.
>
>   This rule wouldn't affect anyone at local contests nor guys who aren't in
> the hunt for hardware at the Nats. The top guys at the Nats wouldn't have to
> worry about being DQ'd for weight HOWEVER if you want to stay in the top you
> better have a light airplane. . . or be able to fly 40% better than everyone
> else . .
>
>  On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>  Tim,
>>
>> Yep…time will tell.  This topic has been a debate for many years….and the
>> “cushion” is the best idea/compromise I have seen since the weight became a
>> limiting factor.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>  *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Taylor
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2010 12:29 PM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>>
>>    Dave,
>>
>>  At this point we'll agree to disagree. The "cushion rule" is a good
>> thing and might just achieve what I want while maintaining the spirit of the
>> rules that you want.
>>
>>  Time will tell.
>>
>>  Lively discussion and debate brings out points from all sides the other
>> might not have thought of.
>>
>>  I enjoy it and often learn from it.
>>
>>  Tim
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 8/22/10, davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net>* wrote:
>>
>> From: davel322 at comcast.net <davel322 at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 12:07 PM
>>  Tim,
>>
>>  I'm well aware of where the rules changes came from (FAI), and how they
>> were followed by AMA, and it changes nothing with respect to my original
>> point.  When the limits have increased, increased costs have followed
>> without exception.
>>
>>  Pattern planes are quiet because we have a noise rule...even though it
>> is not enforced locally.
>>
>>  Pattern planes are limited in cost because we have limits...and the most
>> competitive are the most costly - that will never change.  Increase the
>> limits, and the costs for the most competitive setups will increase - it
>> always has, and it always will.
>>
>>  The current proposal to allow a "cushion" to the weight limit in the
>> lower classes is I think a good idea.  For the FAI based designs (the vast
>> majority), the lightest and most expensive equipment will not have to be
>> used.  For the AMA based designs (very few in number), planes will still be
>> designed to meet 11 lbs and therefore an increase in size/weight/expense is
>> very unlikely to happen.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  Dave L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tim Taylor" <timsautopro at yahoo.com>
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:25:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW:  weight difference
>>    Dave,
>>
>>  One minor detail that throws a wrench into the history and today.
>>
>>  All 4 of those changes that made huge changes in our sport were from the
>> top down.
>>
>>   FAI made those changes and we have what we have today.
>>
>>  The change we're talking about only effects the US in AMA classes, not
>> FAI.
>>
>>  There are no pattern kits currently being designed and built in mass in
>> the USA. Even if they were they'd likely be designed by guys in FAI. They
>> will NOT design an airplane that cannot compete at the FAI level. It just
>> wont happen.
>>
>>  What harm can it do if I build a Focus2 in Elect and show up 1/2 pound
>> over weight?
>>
>>  None.
>>
>>  What harm will it do if an Advance flier shows up with a 2 year old
>> airplane bought from an FAI pilot and he has heavier batteries or repairs
>> have now made the airplane over weight?
>>
>>  None.
>>
>>  Will you have a guy show up with a 50cc 2x2  3d monster from time to
>> time?
>>
>>  Yes,
>>
>>  does it matter?
>>
>>   No.
>>
>>   He won't pass the noise test anyway. :)
>>  Can any CD here honestly tell me that they'll turn a pilot down at a
>> contest (Besides the nats) because he's 3 oz over weight?
>>
>>  I doubt it,
>>
>>  Tim
>>
>>
>> --- On *Fri, 8/20/10, Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 5:54 PM
>>  Just noticed this didn’t make it to the list the first time……was too big
>> with all the RE:RE:RE:RE (trimmed now).  And…I’m off to a contest!  J
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Dave [mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 20, 2010 10:17 AM
>> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
>> *Subject:* RE: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>>
>> This whole discussion is one where history really does speak volumes –
>>
>> In short, there has always been a limiting factor (whether size, weight,
>> power, noise).  That limit has always been pushed by the top level
>> competitors, and the top level stuff is always the most expensive, and it
>> offers a competitive advantage over cheaper setups.  And the masses
>> (certainly 90+% anyway) follow the guys at the top.
>>
>> In short, everytime a limiting factor has been increased (for whatever
>> reasons), the size, cost, expense, etc has increased.  Cheaper options are
>> available now, and they are not as competitive.  Change the rules, and
>> cheaper options will still be available and still not be as competitive as
>> the new standard that will be achieved by the top level competitors that
>> push the new limits.  In the last 20 or so years, I’ve seen this cycle about
>> 4 times.  There is no magical rule or formula that will change this for open
>> competition…the cycle will repeat every time a limit is raised.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>  *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Alt
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 20, 2010 1:55 AM
>> *To:* NSRCA List
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] weight difference
>>
>>
>> I should have checked my building noes first - it was actually 10 lbs 4
>> oz.  But I'm not a professional builder either.  Point is, it can be done
>> within the existing rules.  You just have to get past the idea that it
>> can't be done.
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>  _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>  _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100823/3dd5dc47/attachment.html>