[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Derek Koopowitz]

I think you'll see some changes in the next rules that germinated in the US
based on input I received from several people.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> Just wondering:  When was the last time an idea from the U.S.A. was adopted
> by the FAI.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>
>  Tony,
>>
>> This issue has come up time and time again... they just aren't interested
>> in changing the way it is currently done, nor in increasing the weight.
>>
>> -Derek
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tony <tony at radiosouthrc.com> wrote:
>> Derek:
>> My take on Mike’s point was that they should weigh models without the
>> batteries for the motor.  I don’t think he was asking about increasing the
>> weight.  I believe there are other FAI events where the batteries are
>> removed when the models are weighed, so this is not a new concept to them.
>>
>>
>> Tony Stillman, President
>>
>> Radio South, Inc.
>>
>> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>>
>> Brunswick, GA  31525
>>
>> 1-800-962-7802
>>
>> www.radiosouthrc.com
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
>> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:37 PM
>>
>>
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>>
>> I've talked at length about the weight issue with the other F3A
>> representatives and there wasn't much support at all for increasing the
>> weight limits.
>>
>>
>> -Derek
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Dr Mike <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> I think all of that is too complicated.  As you are all aware, it is
>> really FAI rules that is the problem.  I recommend we urge our FAI rep to
>> change the rule to weigh airplanes without batteries.  This argument has
>> been presented before, but I think it needs to be pressed.  Batteries are
>> just fuel.  A fuel weight limit could be imposed.  I fly IC and loaded with
>> fuel it is 12 lbs 4oz at least.  All of this is old, old news, but it should
>> be pressed, I believe.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
>> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:35 AM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> 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://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://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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100823/2018fa77/attachment.html>