RE: Re: Exact Builder of Model Rule
Jake,
I am sorry that my first sentence was so ambiguous: I did not mean that I
wanted the equipment to be as similar as possible but that that was what
Ruling Bodies aimed for. On your second point about diversity in F1D
design, I agree that there has been a steady progression over the years but
recently it seems to me that diversity did not bring home much silverware
unless the flyer had good tan2 and a VP hub.
John
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jake Palmer
Sent: 03 February 2014 18:05
To: Indoor Construction
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Exact Builder of Model Rule
"However, talking strictly of F1D, I return to the fact that this is an
International Class. International Classes almost always are seeking for
the best participant in a particular sport or pastime and to that end the
equipment used should be as similar as possible."
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. F1D has always had a wide
range of diversity in design. Why would we want to reduce that diversity?
If everyone is flying the same model, then the only difference is who's
better at adjusting the screws on their hub, and who got the most winds into
the best rubber. That's far less interesting to me.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:48 AM, John Barker <john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com
<mailto:john.barker783_at_ntlworld.com> > wrote:
Mark,
I find it interesting that, in the past, when discussing items arising on
forums we have always been in accord but on this occasion I am in complete
opposition! My earlier comments on BOM received no response, perhaps
because I was talking about BOM in general and because I don't fly F1D.
However your, 'Who does the gluing?' suggestion (and indeed most other
responses) just remind me of how the BMFA rules kept getting more and more
complicated with no chance of satisfying more than a small group of people
and that is why BOM was removed in England, I think to the relief of most
flyers.
However, talking strictly of F1D, I return to the fact that this is an
International Class. International Classes almost always are seeking for
the best participant in a particular sport or pastime and to that end the
equipment used should be as similar as possible.
A minor point, but still important to the rule makers, is that simple rules
are preferred because International rules need to be translated into many
languages and it is not simple to convey nuances of meaning between them.
In many ways the traditional method of trusting people over the BOM has
worked well but that world has changed and won't go back.
This discussion has arisen over VP hubs and whether they can be bought
items. I suggest that the only simple answer; and the one likely to be
accepted by the International rule makers is to ban VP hubs altogether.
John
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
f1diddler_at_yahoo.com <mailto:f1diddler_at_yahoo.com>
Sent: 03 February 2014 00:17
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] Re: Exact Builder of Model Rule
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 Mon Feb 03 2014 - 16:16:48 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET