[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 08:59:34 AKDT 2012

Jim,
   I have absolutely no answer for you.  As an offlist discussion between
you and I, personally I feel 5500g is too much.  When we went to the BoD
and voted, I honestly and sincerely thought the board was going to turn it
down.  I would be very happy at 5200-5300g across the board.  I did not
expect 5500g to pass the board 9 to 1.  The committee felt as a whole that
5500g should be stuck to and take to the board as written based on the
survey results.  There isn't one person to blame at all.  I just felt it
was a little too high.  Honestly, I don't think there's a snowball's chance
in heck that it goes through the AMA.  I hope there is some compromise
between what Joe L. proposed and we proposed.

Regards,
Scott

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

>  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>
> 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] *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
> 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****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120313/6dee87f1/attachment.html>