[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 08:56:04 AKDT 2012

Why not just apply the existing 115g allowance to masters also.
Jim H

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Scott McHarg
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:45 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Through Advanced but there are others out there that would compete in
Masters who can't because of said limitation.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Dave Lockhart < DaveL322 at comcast.net
<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> > wrote:
Ummm….we did ease the weight limit by 115 grams?

Regards,

Dave L

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>  [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Ronald Van
Putte
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:39 AM

To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

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 <mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com>
To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> > wrote:

From: Dave Lockhart < DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> >

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
To: "'General pattern discussion'" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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>  [mailto:
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.nsrc
a.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20120313/04f46b00/attachment.html>