[NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference

[Bob Richards]

I agree with most of what you say. I don't doubt it at all. However, I don't believe how giving an 8 ounce increase for AMA classes will drive up the cost at all. Seriously, who would redesign ANYTHING because of that? Now if the limit was increased by 5 lbs, yeah, I might see things changing. Gasoline engines come to mind. Oh, that would be cheaper fuel, though. :-)
 
I also don't get the proposal of a weight allowance for the bottom 3 classes, but not Masters. All the lower classes don't need the flight time or performace level, so smaller batteries/fuel or motors/engines will work. 
 
JMHO.
 
Bob R. 
 

--- On Tue, 8/24/10, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:


From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: weight difference
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 9:32 AM








Lol…just your pride.
 
I think what’s missing from this discussion is the simple truth that “Change” costs money in a sport where stable rules allow us to standardize around them.   Occasionally, a new technology inserts “change” without any rule change.   4-Strokes did that a while back (although that was really the result of a rule change too to allow double displacement to “even up” the gap between 4-strokes and 2-strokes) and we had a few years of turmoil and cost escalation as everyone slowly abandoned their .61 long strokes and moved to 4 strokes.  But the “Cost” wasn’t just a new motor.  
 
It was all the costs involved with LEARNING how to successfully run and outfit the new motor.  New pipe designs. A myriad of header designs and header braces, new fuels (more expensive 30%), Soft mounts, and several years of RAPID airplane evolution as we learned just how much a 4-stroke can pull.  Also the motors evolved rapidly at first until everything started to stabilize again.     
 
We had a brief period there where there was some stability, and some cost stability as well.  Stores like Central had confidence to stock Hatori Headers and pipes, 17x12 props, and a truckload of YS parts.  You didn’t need to own quite as much back up equipment because it was likely that you could borrow a spare header/plug/o-ring/whatever as most people were running the same or similar setups. 
 
Change not only directly affects the consumer, but indirectly affects them as well, when the supply chain takes a beating on unsold inventory, they have to make up for that with the new inventory that is selling.  Not to mention they don’t HAVE inventory because they can’t risk overstocking a fad. 
 
The cost of change is massive.   R&D up and down the entire product line.  Everything from new artwork for ads to training on how to repair stuff.
 
Bottom line, Change can be good…   But unnecessary change is just expensive.  
 
Currently we’re going through another technology change cycle with electric.  We’re probably about 2/3rds of the way through it, to where we’re starting to see that stability return.  Motors aren’t evolving quite as quickly, most have settled on 5s 5000 20C+ batteries in some form, low cost options for parts have started to come into the mix, and aircraft designs and SIZE (Volume, not length and width which has been stable at the limits for 15 years) is also stabilizing.  The Bipes were tried and mostly failed, etc.     ESC’s are well “baked” and coming down in weight. Stable rules have brought in competition for most parts which has brought the prices down on almost everything especially  motors and batteries (notice Hacker and TP no longer have a lock on the market and as such can’t begin to command the prices they once did – also, they no longer NEED the prices they once did as much of their R&D costs have been recovered). 
   On and on.
 
A major rule change (weighing without batteries, increasing the weight to 12lbs, etc) will start a lot of that process over again.   I know, I know…it’s an AMA rule not an FAI rule.  But SOME of the same will occur, and there are downsides to not being aligned with FAI.
 
The current rule on the table allows for a variance without changing the goal.  The goal is a 5Kg airplane.  If you’re a beginner, you get some slack… but you still know your goal.   If the goal is the same, the idea is we’ll avoid that evolution and just provide some leeway for those that need it for whatever reason.  Costs, used equipment, beginner building skills, whatever.   
 
I COULD see an argument for a larger variance.   I originally proposed a full lb for Sportsman, 8oz for Intermediate and 4oz for Andvanced…  idea being that you would slowly have to work into compliance.   But I think the thought there was that too many would have to change planes to change classes.   So the current proposal has approx a 4oz variance for the bottom 3 classes.
 
 
 

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com
 


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100824/5ceaf83c/attachment.html>