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. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:whodaddy10@gmail.com">whodaddy10@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>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</div>
<div><br></div><div>Simply put "pattern ain't cheap and never will be.."" </div><div><br></div><div>This will be my last comment on the issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Gary</div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><div class="h5"><div>On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Scott McHarg <<a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Anthony,<br> 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.<br>
<br>Scott<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Anthony Romano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anthonyr105@hotmail.com" target="_blank">anthonyr105@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
Scott,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Anthony<br> <br>
<div>
<div></div>
<hr>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:30:55 -0500<div><div><br>From: <a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<br><br>Anthony,<br> 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.<br>
<br>Scott<br><br>
<div>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Anthony Romano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anthonyr105@hotmail.com" target="_blank">anthonyr105@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Scott,<br> <br>I can appreciate that opinion as well as the effort that has been made here. <br> <br>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?<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>Anthony<br> <br><br> <br>
<div>
<div></div>
<hr>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:27:09 -0500
<div>
<div><br>From: <a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<br>
<br>Anthony,<br> 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.<br>
<br>These are just my opinions sir, I'm sure not everyone will like them.<br><br>Scott<br><br>
<div>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Anthony Romano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anthonyr105@hotmail.com" target="_blank">anthonyr105@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">So if FAI drives pattern, why do we want to change the weight rule in the US?<br> <br>Anthony<br> <br>
<div>
<div></div>
<hr>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:49:14 -0500<br>From: <a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<div>
<div><br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<br><br>Bob,<br> 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.<br>
<br>Just a thought and hopefully to get y'all thinking about that facet as well.<br><br>With a due respect,<br>Scott<br><br>
<div>On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bob Richards <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com" target="_blank">bob@toprudder.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-LEFT:1ex">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<div>Dave,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. :-)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bob R.</div>
<div><br><br>--- On <b>Mon, 3/12/12, Dave Lockhart <i><<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net" target="_blank">DaveL322@comcast.net</a>></i></b> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px"><br>From: Dave Lockhart <<a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net" target="_blank">DaveL322@comcast.net</a>>
<div><br>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<br></div>
<div>To: "'General pattern discussion'" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br></div>Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 6:59 PM
<div>
<div><br><br>
<div>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">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?</span><br>
</div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span><br></div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">“</span>The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are already legal.”<br>
</div></div></div> <br><br>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">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.</span> </div>
</div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span> <br><br>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">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.</span> </div>
</div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span> <br><br>
<div>
<div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">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.</span> </div>
</div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span> <br><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Regards,</span> <br><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"><br>
Dave L</span> <br> <br> <br> <br><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span> <br><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';COLOR:#1f497d;FONT-SIZE:11pt"> </span> <br><br>
<div>
<div><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';FONT-SIZE:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';FONT-SIZE:10pt"> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bob Richards<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM<br><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals</span> </div></div><br>
<div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;PADDING-TOP:0in" valign="top">
<div>Guys,<br></div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>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?<br>
</div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div> <br></div>
<div>Bob R.<br></div>
<div><br><br> <br></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><span style="FONT-FAMILY:'sans-serif';FONT-SIZE:10pt"> </span><br>
<div><br>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br><br>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div></div><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
</blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="COLOR:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="FONT-FAMILY:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br><br>_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="COLOR:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="FONT-FAMILY:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br><br><br>_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="COLOR:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="FONT-FAMILY:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br><br><br>_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</div></div> </div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br>