Re: Re: BOM vs BAM

From: <Warthodson_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT)

Significant typo, see correction below.
Gary


-----Original Message-----
From: Warthodson <Warthodson_at_aol.com>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: BOM vs BAM


  
    
                  

Interesting challenge, Mark.
 
The rules for many events include a statement of intent such as: "It is the intent of the BOM rule that the contestant build/assemble/construct the model himself using any materials available unless specifically prohibited otherwise in these rules. It is not the intent of the BOM rule that the contestant grow his own balsa, make his own steel, etc.
Any sub-assemblies/components/mechanisms not made by the contestant are prohibited unless specified otherwise in these rules."
 
I would interpret the above as allowing building an entire airplane or a component such as a VP mechanism from a purchased kit but NOT purchasing a pre-assembled VP mechanism or entire airplane.
 
Gary Hodson
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark F1diddler <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>Sent: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 2:54 pm
Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: BOM vs BAM


 
  
    
                  

The context of this discussion was the challenge from across the pond that, "No one can write a sensible BOM rule." It's time someone disproved that, whether this goes anywhere or not.
MB


    
             
  
 


    
             

  
 
Received on Tue Oct 23 2012 - 16:13:04 CEST