Re: BOM vs BAM

From: john_kagan <john_kagan_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:59:23 -0000

--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, joshuawfinn@... wrote:
>
> His times with said hub did not equal what I was getting with my own hub

Then he didn't know how to use it properly. Treger's hub isn't going to perform significantly worse than anyone else's, when used effectively.

> A hub which operates essentially as a two-position VP (I've seen this in person) is not optimal, and that's how Treger's hub operates.

Then it is not working correctly :)

Treger's hubs are composite versions of the Bernie Hunt design, and that changes over a range of torque. I know Treger's personal hubs do.

> the Treger hub is not the threat we believe it to be. It is optimized for Treger's flying style in the sites he frequents. When you take it into a Cat I site, it's totally out of its zone. I suspect it would be ok in a Cat IV site, but not Cat I or II.

When adjusted properly, Treger's hub will work well in all ceiling heights.

> ...I don't think there is any significant threat from letting people use completely bought VP hubs......In particular, no records have been set using non-BOM hubs...

I'm not worried about non-BOMers being more competitive. My concern is that by eliminating BOM completely, or by setting the BOM threshold to allow built VP hubs, we are removing a traditionally important aspect of the activity.

However, if we want to assess the impact of someone succeeding with a purchased hub, my experience has been different than yours. I've flow with people who either joked about using a purchased hub or actually did. They were legitimate threats for earning a team position and for finishing near the top of the WC's.
Received on Thu Oct 25 2012 - 12:59:27 CEST

This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET