Re: Re: A Braced EZB Challenge: It's Official!

From: Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:15:49 -0800

Many AMA classes have been unpopular for years, or even decades (Cabin,
Manhattan, HLS, Autogiro, Helicopter, Ornithopter). Why is EZB worth
saving over these other classes? Once F1L became an AMA event it was
inevitable that people would move away from EZB.


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:17 AM, N. A. Monllor <nmonllor_at_tampabay.rr.com>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Gentlemen,****
>
> ** **
>
> As Gary pointed out …****
>
> “In addition, I personally think it would be naive to not think that
> after Kang's challenge was complete there would be a rules proposal change
> suggested”. ****
>
> The only reason I bought this up to begin with was because, I’m still
> trying to get my EZB’s to fly for a respectable time and it would kind of
> stink for me to finally get respectable flight times, only to find out that
> they would no longer be worth anything. Kind of knocks the wind out of
> anyone’s sails, if you know what I mean.****
>
> By no means am I trying to quash Kang’s ideas. I think that Kang is truly
> a great indoor builder/competitor and I’d like to meet-up with him some day
> and pick his brain and do some flying. He has all of my respect and
> admiration. All I’m saying is before a rules change, add a class, i.e.
> Unlimited EZB or something like that.****
>
> ** **
>
> Ren****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Warthodson_at_aol.com
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2012 9:04 AM
> *To:* Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: A Braced EZB Challenge: It's
> Official!****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Bill,****
>
> The question was ask "Why limit the bracing to just wood?"****
>
> My reply to that question included the following "I think it depends on
> what the ultimate intent of this braced class of EZB is. I am assuming that
> at the end of this experiment there is a proposed rules change coming."***
> *
>
> In addition, I personally think it would be naive to not think that
> after Kang's challenge was complete there would be a rules proposal change
> suggested. If that assumption on my part turns out to be true then we need
> to consider the consequences now. ****
>
> To repeat, I am not advocating any specific position on this issue.****
>
> Gary Hodson****
>
> ****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
> To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 7:20 am
> Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: A Braced EZB Challenge: It's
> Official!****
>
> ****
>
> I haven't heard any mention of an EZB rules change proposal. My
> understanding is that this challenge was just a way to have a little fun
> for those who would like to try it. But maybe I'm just deaf.****
>
> On 12/17/2012 8:16 AM, Warthodson_at_aol.com wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> Mike,****
>
> That would not be the result of such a rules change in a class with no
> minimum weight limit. Bracing would be used to build even lighter EZB's.
> Especially if the bracing is opened up to boron, rolled tube motor sticks,
> etc. Restricting the bracing to wood is potentially the only option that
> might not result in lighter EZB's. Every event has rules/restrictions which
> at the highest levels of competition impose challenges. Fixing one
> limitation just moves the bar somewhere else. Do not get me wrong, I do not
> specifically oppose this potential rules change. I am simply saying lets
> not kid ourselves about the consequences of such a change.****
>
> Gary Hodson****
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mkirda <mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net> <mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net>
> To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com><Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 8:03 pm
> Subject: [Indoor_Construction] Re: A Braced EZB Challenge: It's Official!*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Hi Ren.
>
> I think the intent here is pretty simple - EZB is ironic. Simply put, it
> is the most difficult class due to the no minimum weight specification.
> Getting a motor stick to take the torque in the target weight range
> requires extraordinary wood. Kang is attempting to make the class simpler
> by allowing bracing so that one may use more ordinary indoor wood.
>
> Regards.
> Mike Kirda
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 17 2012 - 10:15:51 CET