[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 07:30:58 AKDT 2012

Anthony,
   That's not a bad idea at all sir.  I guess my only contention would be
if we gave a penalty such as what you suggest, we then begin to base scores
off of equipment instead of the pilot.  If a new guy comes in with a heavy
airplane and blows away the competition but looses because he receives a
penalty for being overweight, who really won?  I'm not saying your idea
doesn't hold merit because, it does.  That would be my only concern at the
moment.

Scott

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Scott,
>
> I can appreciate that opinion as well as the effort that has been made
> here.
>
> The idea is to encourage the "casual competitor" who doesn't have the
> time, money or desire to push to the limits. So why not change the penalty
> instead of the rule? Instead of being overweight being a fatal flaw why not
> a 1% score penalty?
>
> For the "casual competitor" who is not going to be on the podium what is
> the harm? They still get to test and improve their skills without being
> worried every time the CD walks by. The incentive is still there to learn
> good building technique and proper component selection but there "on the
> verge" airplane isn't useless. As their flying skills grow they can spread
> some of the purchases of the super components over time and grow their
> equipment as well. Could give us the same result without having to have us
> fall farther down the slippery slope that we have started on.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:27:09 -0500
>
> From: scmcharg at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
> Anthony,
>   In my opinion?  Because 5000g limits those that can compete in pattern
> with ships that are "on the verge".  Because AMA has it's own destination
> classes unlike anywhere else in the world.  Because there are those that
> would compete on the national level in AMA if their airframe was at weight
> and because, again in my opinion, a lighter airplane does cost more
> especially in an ARF dominated market.   When you have to buy the $80 prop
> vs. the $15 prop to save 60g and people are taking heat syncs off their ESC
> to save 10g and people are removing their cases from the ESCs to save 6g
> and people are wanting an arming plug (or more rightfully spoken) not able
> to put on an arming plug because it would send them overweight.  Mainly, I
> totally agree with Dave L.'s comment that the top guys and the FAI folks
> are what drives even the new guys and this is exactly why things won't
> change.  The difference is, here in America, not everyone strives for FAI
> even if it is the driving factor.  Do I think that we will have a huge
> influx of participation?  Absolutely not!  Do I think it will drive up
> costs?  No sir I do not because again, the market is driven by worldwide
> FAI.  Just because there is an allowance there does not mean you MUST be at
> that allowance.  If you want to keep your plane at FAI weight limits, do
> it.  I'll tell you this, I will.  All of my aircraft will remain at FAI
> weight regardless of what's decided by the AMA Rules Committee.  Why?
> Resale value.  When I'm ready for my next planes and ready to sell my De Ja
> Vu's, I want to be able to say, these planes are at FAI weight.  Not to
> mention, I still say lighter airplanes fly better period.
>
> These are just my opinions sir, I'm sure not everyone will like them.
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.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
>
>
>
>
> --
> *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
>

-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120313/a42ca1bd/attachment.html>