RE: RE: Exact Builder of Model Rule
Mike Kirda said there was nothing from England – here is something though you may not want it!
I have never wanted to fly anything I haven’t made (and designed) and even now I don’t fly P30 because one must buy the propeller. So I was quite content with the BOM rule and never thought much about it until I had a spell as Chairman of the Free Flight Technical Committee of the BMFA and then I had to think hard but truth to tell it was a ‘No Brainer’ for International Classes. One look at the Rule Book, a jumbled half a page of what you could and could not buy capped by the phrase that, if asked by the CD, the competitor must explain to the CD how he made the part. It was obvious that a sensible BOM rule could not be written or enforced. I moved over to support those in favour of removing the BOM rule (except for classes such as scale) and this occurred a few years later. There were endless acrimonious arguments about the BOM rule when it was still in force but in the 10 years or so since it went there has hardly been a ripple of discontent.
I should like to enlarge a little on the words I italicised above ‘for International Classes’. International Championships are for finding the person (or persons) who wins under the rules for the class. Some Championships use complicated equipment: Gliding, Sailing, Model Aeroplanes, Motor racing, others much simpler: tennis racquets, golf clubs, skis, bobsleighs and so on. In almost every case the equipment will not be made by the competitor and I think that neither the organisers nor the competitors nor indeed the general public would want them to be. I think in aeromodelling it is much more likely that the organisers will suggest standard machines for all flyers so that the result reflects the skill of the flyer and not the depth of his pocket! I believe that the possibility of a return (or even a continuation) of BOM for International classes is unlikely.
However I feel that the good side of the above is that it gives the greatest opportunity that aeromodelling has had for many years. The International flyers are a great and talented group and I follow their exploits with interest but most modellers are too old and too poor to fly at that level. What is needed is new classes that flyers can build in their own workshops. Perhaps a class that suits small fields. Don’t rush things, talk about it, and try it. And don’t be afraid to change things again in a couple of years; new classes bring out new design and foster interest.
John Barker - England
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don DeLoach
Sent: 29 January 2014 19:45
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Cc: Indoor Construction
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] RE: Exact Builder of Model Rule
And BOM is not impossible to enforce? Please tell me how to enforce it. Require video evidence of guys building their models? Sworn affidavits?
DD
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com <mailto:82.jake_at_gmail.com> > wrote:
"I still like my BOSOM rule -- Builder Of Significant part Of Model. Say, in F1D, you must built at least 80% of the model, by weight. You can choose which 20% to buy, trade, receive as gift."
Kang, this would be difficult to write as a rule and impossible to enforce at competitions. Either we have BOM, or we don't. There is no realistic middle ground.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:46 PM, <ykleetx_at_gmail.com <mailto:ykleetx_at_gmail.com> > wrote:
The wording of the AMA rule seems fairly lenient, and an unfinished carbon prop outline may be allowed under the rules. (This is my reading of the rule. I may be biased because I think many pre-made items should be allowed.)
I still like my BOSOM rule -- Builder Of Significant part Of Model. Say, in F1D, you must built at least 80% of the model, by weight. You can choose which 20% to buy, trade, receive as gift.
Received on Wed Jan 29 2014 - 16:35:00 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET