--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, Warthodson@... wrote:
>
> My apologies, if this is a duplicate
> 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...>>
IMO, "intent" should be the result of what the specific rules force, rather than referring to the concept "intent," which amounts to lazy rule making. However, admittedly, commentary about "intent" within the rules can at times function toward settling a controversy among gentlemen.
<<using any materials available>>
Isn't "availability" relative to the one who obtains a material?
<<It is not the intent of the BOM rule that the contestant grow his own balsa, make his own steel, etc>>
Pretty interesting how a rule (above) can be an obvious overreaction to a critic's hyperbole.
> Any sub-assemblies/components/mechanisms not made by the contestant are prohibited unless specified otherwise in these rules.">>
Under the above, a VP kit having a modern carbon screw holder should be illegal, at least if you accept that a (currently typical) carbon/foam/carbon layup employed to make this component could be called a "sub-assembly," or "component not made by the contestant." Either that, or you would need to specifically allow this part, as well as other similar.
<< but not purchasing a pre-assembled VP mechanism or entire airplane.>>
But can't a "partial airplane" be rightfully distinguished from "an entire airplane?" This is part of the problem that happened when AMA adopted the legality of whatever commercial kit makers chose to include a kit. Don't think this was ever a problem with indoor, nevertheless builder/competitors should now get to tell kit maker what a kit means, not vice versa (at least for BOM competition.)
Thanks, Gary.
Mark
Received on Thu Oct 25 2012 - 09:56:18 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET