[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 06:38:58 AKDT 2012

For me, it is my reluctance to have what I do driven by someone outside our country.  If we think something is a good idea, we should do it and not worry about whether it is within FAI rules.  Precious few of us will ever compete on the world stage and I don't think the world should influence what we do.  

The "world" doesn't even comply with FAI rules.  The FAI rules give a 1% allowance to physical limits because the measuring equipment "might" be in error, no matter how accurate the equipment is.  So, the real FAI limits are 5050 grams, 2.02 meter and even 42.42 volts.

The top pilots don't have any problem meeting 5050 grams, 2.02 meters and 42.42 volts, so changing our weight rules won't have any effect on the top pilots' success on the world stage.  However, easing the weight limits would have a dramatic effect on many lower class pilots.

Ron Van Putte

On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Anthony Romano wrote:

> So if FAI drives pattern, why do we want to change the weight rule in the US?
>  
> Anthony
>  
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:49:14 -0500
> From: scmcharg at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> 
> Bob,
>    I think one thing that everyone is either dismissing or not considering is this:  Pattern is not driven by AMA classes.  Pattern is strictly driven by FAI as FAI is worldwide.  If a manufacturer were to develop new technology for the United States AMA class, they would essentially exclude themselves from the rest of the pattern market worldwide.  No manufacturer is going to take advantage of a rule that only effects the AMA classes.  If FAI ever decides to change the rules, that's when you will see a change to pattern as a whole.  Granted, the US is different in that FAI is not "the only" destination class.  In the rest of the world, you are nobody if you are flying the development classes and "may" become somebody once you are in FAI.  The rest of the world "awards" the ability to fly in FAI.  You don't just randomly decide to go fly it.  You must earn that right.  So, basically new technology is not going to be developed because of an AMA-only rules change.  AMA has essentially stuck by what FAI has done always as the thought process was everyone wanted to make it to FAI.  That's no so much the case any more.  Dave Lockhart even said in an email to us all that flat out, FAI (or the top guys) drive what even the beginners do and buy and try (simply paraphrased).  That tells us even more so that this would not change the face of pattern.  Sure, there's going to be some extraordinary people here in the US that have the desire to try new things to take advantage of the weight rule.  Will it so severely impact pattern that more change will be necessary?  Doubtful.
> 
> Just a thought and hopefully to get y'all thinking about that facet as well.
> 
> With a due respect,
> Scott
> 
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:
> Dave,
>  
> That shows how much I have been paying attention. I thought all AMA classes were limited to 5kg now. With the 115 gram allowance, I don't see the need for a change. But I still don't see why people are getting so heated up over it.
>  
> You do bring up a good point about the 4S rule, though. We keep reacting to technology with new rules, and the technology keeps reacting to the rules with new equipment. I guess it is a part of competition that we have to learn to accept. If we accept it, then maybe we can get out of this reactionary cycle.
>  
> Back when they removed the displacement limit, I figured that it would make the engines less expensive. I was wrong. But I also predicted that the weight would then become the limiting factor and the airframe expense would go up. Generally, I think I was right with that one.
>  
> Every time someone suggested that a rules change would result in less expense, it probably hasn't and in fact may have cause more expense in the long run. In fact, I think your earlier statement about every rules change to increase size/weight limits having resulted in more expensive models is generally accurate. I would not have thought so 10 years ago, but I guess history has taught us that lesson.
>  
> One can argue that leaving the size/weight rules alone can actually decrease the cost. In the manufacturer's eyes, a rules change will obsolete existing equipment. Think about it - in most cases the manufacturers will change their designs to try to take advantage of the rules. They will have to spend more of their money bring new products to the market - an expense that is passed on to the pilot.  If they could stop shooting at a moving target they might start trying to recoup their cost over lots of 1000 instead of lots of 100. Maybe. I just hope the domestic manufacturers figure that out before China does. :-)
>  
> Bob R.
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 3/12/12, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> From: Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 6:59 PM
> 
> 
> The proposed weight change is for all AMA classes.  We already have an allowance of 115 grams for hand-me-downs…..if that is an important aspect, then why not make it 5615 grams for Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman?
>  
> “The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are already legal.”
>   
> 
> And the fact is that the 120 4C rule did not exclude 60 2C….but they rapidly became uncompetitive once the competition variety 4Cs were developed.
>   
> 
> I see the electric vs glow aspect a completely moot point…..it will all be electric (or close to it) soon enough….even with rules that many feel are biased against electric.
>   
> 
> Having the weight limit on the books, and checking it at the NATs is what keeps the playing field level.  Same as having a noise rule keeps the planes quiet, even if it not checked locally.
>   
> Regards, 
> 
> Dave L 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> 
>  
> Guys,
>  
> For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It opens up the possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern and competing in the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper classes has a plane that is at the weight limit, but is unable to repair the plane without it going over the limit, then it becomes a perfect hand-me-down for someone getting started. 
>  
> The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with a heavier plane might beat them. 
>  
> OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it done in the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the scene. Tell me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then I am really confused about weight limit discussions where someone says it is ruining things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it at local contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a rule that no one enforces except at the Nats?
>  
> I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to turn people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.
>  
> Bob R.
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> -----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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Scott A. McHarg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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/20120313/2cc5a6f2/attachment.html>