RE: Re: Exact Builder of Model Rule

From: <f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 02 Feb 2014 16:17:09 -0800

average kit”
  
 <<If I was a beginner and wanting to get into this or any sport, why would I buy an “average kit”? Would it not be better to buy one that is “above average”?
  
 From this standpoint the rule itself makes zero sense.>>
 

 Ditto, Joe 'keen. The rules should not be hinged around what some kitmaker wishes to make available or not--what a moving target! So since we're in "old-men-repetition-mode" I will make one final cast here--final because I no longer have a dog in this hunt myself, and I received only one note of support previously from one Indoor competitor (a notable Indoorist, in that case.)
 

 The following concept should be relatively simple and doable, if we can hit upon some good language. This would require some compromise from both sides. But it removes the whim of the kitmaker from the equation, and also does not burden the CD except to ask a simple question about compliance. (Those who want to cheat still can, but simplicity will support natural compliance.)
 

 The builder/competitor must simply be the one who glues anything and everything together, and that's almost the whole proposition. A kit maker (or whatever helper) wanting to provide as much "above averageness" as possible would be allowed to cut and form anything (such as a preformed wing tip bend) but the competitor has to attach to spar. A helper could roll a motor tube blank, but the builder would have to glue the seam, and attach to rest of model. The kitmaker/helper could provide a preformed F1d prop outline, but not with the root joint preglued. The kitter/helper could provide exactly trimmed ribs, but competitor must do all gluing to outline. Similar concept applies to covering processes. The competitor must handle and apply the adhesive for covering model. .
 

 A few kinks around this idea probably exist in use of composite structures, and would require some tedious language to sort out what "a component" is or should be. Seems consistent to say let's allow any carbon layup component to be considered "a preformed part" analogous to preformed balsa, even though the epoxy resin is a glue of sorts. But (here's the awkward part) where two different material types are laminated (such as carbon-foam-carbon) the builder/competitor must perform the additional gluing processes.
 

 What could possibly go wrong? (Just kidding, there.) But PM me if you are a stakeholder (which I probably no longer am) and we can attempt an actual BOM rule revision, instead of (per Kagan, I borrow) Old-Mens-Repetition every time we remember again.
 Mark B
Received on Sun Feb 02 2014 - 16:17:09 CET