[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

Mon Aug 23 09:32:28 AKDT 2010

Agreed, that's why I want to eliminate the weight limit for the lower classes. Maybe just the lower 3, Or just allow the lower classes 12lb and be done with it. At least this will NOT increase costs in any measure contrary to what others believe.

I have a Focus 2 I was looking at for electric. I can make weight with it at 12 pounds with "Cheap" stuff. I can also make current weight if I spend another grand.

Or I can build/buy a new plane and spend 3 grand or more. Mostly more I think.

Tim

--- On Mon, 8/23/10, GEORGE KENNIE <geobet4 at verizon.net> wrote:

From: GEORGE KENNIE <geobet4 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 12:44 PM

#yiv174236478 P {
MARGIN:0px;}

I'm not so sure. I kinda feel that making a small allowance in the three lower classes might have some 
merit as the average guy who is overweight will probably determine with experience that he is operating 
at a disadvantage and make an effort to remove the penalty.

On the other hand, if the percentage penalty is implemented, my gut tells me that if I know in advance
that I have what I consider to be an insurmountable deficit before I even compete, I'm probably not going
to bother showing up, further reducing the turnout in the lower ranks which is the segment I thought we
were trying to reach. Sounds counter-productive to me.

Georgie  

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Monday, August 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://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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100823/91848509/attachment.html>