<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Just thinking out loud here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As I understand it, any weight rule we vote in will only affect the AMA classes, not FAI (they will still have their 5kg limit). If the AMA classes were allowed 11.5 lbs, then anyone can take a model intended for FAI competition and be able to make weight for the AMA classes without having cut every possible mg out of their models, like hollow titanium axles, more expensive batteries, etc. The companies and designers serious about their pattern designs are still going to aim for the FAI class (and weight) since the models flown by the top FAI competitors are the ones most likely to be successful in the market. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just a thought.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob R.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 8/19/10, ronlock@comcast.net <I><ronlock@comcast.net></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<DIV id=yiv889036947>
<STYLE type=text/css>#yiv889036947 p {margin:0;}</STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>An excellent discussion - especially the "unintended consequences" part. Thanks for the diatribe Mark !</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think we should be particularly sensitive to an increase in AMA weight standard resulting (in a couple of years) in larger designs that take up more room, cost more, and are no longer compatible with F3A.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ron Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV>Dist II CB </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>