[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 08:36:09 AKDT 2012

Pattern ain't cheap for sure.  So, we should put ourselves in a country
club where only the people that can afford a discretionary fund that
exceeds what it has to should be able to play?  I disagree.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com>wrote:

> If cost is a reason for the rules changes.. Then you are fooling yourself.
> an aircraft set up is minimal to the cost of travel. If the price of the
> aircraft is such that big of a deal how are you going to make 5-8 contests
> in a year and the NATS for 5-7 days straight. More or less
>
> Simply put "pattern ain't cheap and never will be..""
>
> This will be my last comment on the issue.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony,
>   I definitely see your point but "maybe" it's not ignorance of the
> rules.  Maybe it's the fact the competitor couldn't afford the rules aka
> carbon prop, etc.  Maybe if the competitor can either afford to go to the
> contest or make weight, one or the other, he chooses the later.  There is
> much merit in how much it costs to go to local much less National
> competitions.  I just don't believe in the theory if you can afford to
> travel to contests, you should be able to afford the more expensive
> equipment that it takes to get that particular airframe at weight.  It
> shouldn't come down to a cost to decide if you will be able to compete
> legally.  Everyone is absolutely right, it costs a good chunk of money to
> travel to a contest.  Now it costs even more to make a weight limit that
> could or could not be enforced at a contest but definitely will if you go
> to the NATS.  On a tangent, there is much talk that unleaded fuel will be
> now $6 per gallon by summer.  Now granted, we're talking an extra $40 per
> tank in a 20 gallon vehicle but $40 per tank and 3-4 tanks of fuel round
> trip could be another $160.  Maybe that would be affordable to some but
> they have to buy that prop or this set of carbon gear or whatever.  Now
> we're at a crossroad.  I find it interesting that a lot of folks talk about
> how pattern rules are getting stricter and stricter and maybe that's a
> reason why participation has gone down yet, every rule that was submitted
> with the exception of one, reduces or loosens the belt of the rules.  Just
> before I get lambasted.....again, let me say I do not think that there
> should be a free for all.  I do not think we should just relax everything.
> It is my opinion that nothing will change as far a cost rising and I submit
> that nothing will change as far as a whole new world of 2000 sq. in
> biplanes because we simply increase the weight in AMA and change nothing
> else.  I do think that we could "potentially" allow more folks to
> participate at a lessor expense.
>
> Scott
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Scott,
>>
>> I have no problem with that situation. That competitor goes home after
>> several great flights and good competition bummed that his own ignorance of
>> the rules cost him a win. Under the current situation he just goes home or
>> doesn't try at all.
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:30:55 -0500
>>
>> From: scmcharg at gmail.com
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>>
>> 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*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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/20120313/5d1599f3/attachment.html>