[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 18 16:15:06 AKDT 2012

"Why should I have to spend extra $$  to meet a rule that has a built in
inequity to electric system?"

Because you are gaining a performance advantage.  Higher performance, with
rare exception, costs more.

Regards,

Dave L

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:29 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Del, Where in any of the rules proposals is there any mandate to fly heavier
planes? You can still fly an under 5Kg plane and have a performance
advantage. I'm not proposing to bend any rules, I want to change the rules.

I don't want to fly glow any more. I want to fly electric. My choice is to
accept a performance penalty to save a few bucks (About $100.00/oz usually).

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del R
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Dave.. 

So if you chose not to spend the dollars you can chose to use glow... Both
are viable means of campaigning on the trail. The choice is do you want to
try to bend the rules or comply within the rules and fly electric. If
electric is such a expensive choice the glow is the more affordable solution
for some. Why force a mandate because a few don't want to pay to play the
electric solution. Many are doing it quite well. Maybe time for a new plaque
for the contestant who places in the top 3 spending the least on the
airframe.. lol.. 

Now that would be novel.. lol.. Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

    Del 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:08 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Because it cost me more to buy CF stuff, lighter servos, etc! Why don't you
get that!

And how does the weight change make your glow stuff oobsolete!

You don't know me - what have I said that's p**** & moan? I'm trying to make
a rational argument that you can't seem to grasp.

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del R
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 6:49 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

If the advantages are so great to fly electric then why p*** & moan about
making weight. Making all the glow powered aircraft obsolete does what to
help promote the sport.. Of `` I forgot.. That's not what is really
important. 

    Del  

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 2:06 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

George,

Yours is an interesting post. In an environment where we are all flying the
same power systems I think you would be spot on. However, what I'd like to
see is a change that accounts for the fact that glow planes must make 5Kg
without fuel and electric must make 5Kg with fuel. In order for comparable
planes to comply with the weight it's necessary for electric to use more
hi-tech and expensive components, lighter less durable building techniques,
more expensive and lighter accessories, etc. thus increasing the cost.
Almost every glow 2M plane takes off above 5Kg and flies at above 5Kg the
entire sequence. I know there are exceptions but I think it's generally
true.  I know I could choose to fly glow and not have an issue. However I
want the advantages of electric without having to pay a significant cost
penalty to do so. Let's fix the inequity of this in the AMA classes.

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of George Kennie
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:41 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

My understanding is that the 5Kg weight rule was adopted because of the
International standard,

and as part of the copendium, would have no less adherence than any other
rule, after all, a rule is 

a rule and by vertue of being a rule becomes a stipulation requiring
adherence.

In spite of the fact that a 2 meter airframe powered by a glow motor appears
to have little difficulty 

achieving compliance with the standard and 2 meter airframes powered by an
electric motor pose

additional challenges, this in no way should bring into contest adherence to
the standard. "A RULE 

is a RULE !"

This problem introduces a choice to be rendered on the part of the
participant. It would appear that

the choices become either fiscally based or possibly a downsized effort in
order to comply with the 

standard.

Downsize ???, you say. How can I downsize when all my competition is
utilizing full 2 meter airframes?

Is it possible that someone might compete with a Wind 110 S and actually fly
well enough to actually

place in the upper eschelon in the upper classes?

Can I remind you that just last year Frakowiak flew a 40 sized Sequence
airframe in Master's and 

cleaned everybody's clock. "Oh yeah, but that was Frak" comes the responce. 

Aha !,.......we may just be coming to a newly realized conclusion. "Could it
possibly be that I don't fly 

well enough to beat my competition no matter what size airframe I am
campaigning?"  " Maybe it doesn't 

have as much to do with the RULE as it does with me. Could it possibly be
that I could benefit from

a more comprehensive practice routine?"

You can see where I'm going with this I'm sure and that is, all RULES are to
be honored and not 

approached from the perspective of " How can I adjust/modify this particular
RULE so that what I personally

am currently unable to do becomes, for me, possible?"

So the bottom line, for me, becomes, I am the one who needs to adjust and
not the RULE to maintain

balance in the proposed statutes.

Just some ramblings guys as I see things.

Georgie

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

"If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be
enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future
where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you
achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to
renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building.
This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy
"grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group."

Interesting idea, But NRSCA couldn't do this even if it wanted to IMO.
First, most CDs probably wouldn't care to measure and weigh, and second,
NSRCA has no authority to mandate it. After all it's still an AMA event, not
a NSRCA event.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Ford
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:18 PM

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

We are our own worst enemies...we wouldn't be having this conversation if
the rules had been enforced as intended by everyone all the time. 

Since we have had different enforcement depending on the CD, depending on
the ED, depending on the contest, etc, we now force each successive Nats ED
to play "bad guy" in a way that tries to annoy or alienate the least number
of people. 

Let's face it, I think that Arch has inherited a "no win" scenario here and
we shouldn't put the onus of the solution on his shoulders. 

Today, the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" plane is limited to
how much glue was used or the choice of paint, prop, or brand of
battery...it isn't because the heavier plane is packing a game-changing
feature that gives it the advantage (I didn't see the contras shut everyone
out in 2011, either). If one is looking to disqualify a pilot because they
feel they can do so on a technicality fed by years/decades of ambiguity and
lack of enforcement, then things are really getting ugly.

The mere fact that we are having this discusion has created a situation
where a significant number of pilots are considering not attending the Nats
(significant, because last year, there were several who knew they didn't
make weight but at the same time knew they were not in the hunt but enjoyed
flying at the Nats). 

The solution isn't black and white, nor is it going to be fixed overnight. 

If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be
enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future
where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you
achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to
renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building.
This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy
"grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group.

Just my opinion, and by the way, my planes make weight.

John

--- On Sat, 3/17/12, Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:

From: Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 7:25 PM

HMMMmmm!!!  Why both having rules if they are only occasionally adhered to.
In fairness to all honorable contestants, rules should be honored whether
PATTERN police are present or not.  I sure would not want to bust my butt
spending the buckaroos and committing the time to be legal at any local or
regional or national event to know that some can show up to beat up on me
because they spent their time practicing, but not flying a legal plane.

I have never understood the desire for some to encourage hollow victories. 

    Del      

----- OriginaI Message ----- 

From: John Gayer
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@comcast.net>  

To: General pattern discussion
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org>  

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Arch,
I certainly was not objecting to you enforcing the weight rule at the Nats.
I'm with  you 100% on that and any other rule enforcement at the Nats you
can afford to do. You have to admit that your decision to weigh every plane
created a lot of "discussion" on this list.
Can't see anyone going to the Nats knowing they are going to get just a
tearsheet and a bunch of zeros for their efforts. Again, this is not to
imply you should be doing anything different, just that we should change the
rule to encourage participation in the future.
John

On 3/16/2012 7:55 PM, Archie Stafford wrote: 

Hey, all I did was decide to enforce an existing rule. Actually, I didn't
have to say a thing except for how it was going to be enforced. Frankly, if
I had the number of people available to strictly enforce every rule, I
would.   If nothing else my decision has at least sparked the debate about
the rule. It has never made sense to me to never enforce it. Personally I
think it needs to be left alone, but others don't. Even this year, no one is
saying you can't fly a heavy airplane. You just wont get to keep the scores
for that round. I seriously doubt someone with a real shot at winning would
show up with a heavy airplane anyway. People can even have their tear sheets
for the round. It just wont be listed in the results. 

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2012, at 9:48 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@comcast.net> > wrote:

Point taken about having to serve notice that you are going to enforce a
rule at a local contest. Note that Arch had to do that for the Nats this
year and such a clatter did arise....

On 3/16/2012 6:53 PM, Dave Burton wrote: 

John, one issue about waive a rule notification in really bothers me in your
suggestion. Having to post in advance 30 days that a CD will enforce a rule
is counter to any other process I've seen. 

It becoming clear -eliminating the max weight rule is the only system that
really works. LOL

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@list
s.nsrca.org>  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@list
s.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:20 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

This won't work very well, in my opinion. Who is going to the Nats if they
start out 5-10% behind? This does nothing to increase attendance and is
detrimental to operation of local contests. All it takes is an unhappy pilot
feeling he was home-towned protesting vociferously about the heavy airplane
that just beat him and demanding a weight check that might reverse the first
and second places. 

IF the CD denies the protest, you've lost a pilot. If you do a weight check
and it fails, then you've lost a different pilot. To prevent this, a CD must
waive the weight rules on his sanction which is not normally done now,
although it should be. So extra work and/or hassle for the CD and extra work
for scorekeeper/scorekeeping systems. For what gain? A rule that will not be
enforced locally and will keep pilots away from the Nats just as much as no
weight allowance at all. 

At the very least, preface the rule proposal with something like:
This weight rule will be enforced at the Nats. If a CD  chooses to include
this rule at a local contest, he must publicize that fact appropriately to
all potential attendees at least 30 days prior to the contest. 

At a local contest, this officially leaves us with no weight rule at all in
AMA classes. That's probably OK as we could reject on size if needed.
Personally I would only turn someone away if they brought a 42% Extra to fly
in Masters and maybe not even then...

Cheers
John

On 3/15/2012 7:54 AM, ronlock at comcast.net
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ronlock@comcast.net>  wrote: 

Hi All,

Here is a copy of another proposal for consideration by the Contest Board
along with the others that have been submitted.

This one does not disqualify a model for not meeting weight limits.  It
imposes a score penalty, but still allows the 

model to participate.

Ron Lockhart

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.
org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20120319/0e02f6cf/attachment.html>