If anyone is interested in doing some lobbying. You can find your countries
F1 Technical Expert. I.e. the person voting for your country by going to:
http://www.fai.org/ciam-about-us/ciam-officials-experts/101-ciam/34849-fai-technical-experts-for-aeromodelling
For the US, Chuck Etherington is our representative. He can be reached at:
chuck.etherington_at_jeppesen.com
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM, <joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think Don S. has hit on the issue. There are already indoor classes
> which fit the bill for what this proposal is seeking. F1M is already out
> there and represents a full technology event which is easy to build and
> transport. They fly well in small sites, though they don't turn as tightly
> as F1D's, and so on. If you want a class where a nearly all carbon model is
> possible, well there you go.
>
>
>
> And that brings out the bigger issue (let the rant begin). Now that Leo
> and others have made the connection for me, I can see now that a real
> motive behind the move for a rules change is to force *more* technology
> into F1D. Honestly I cannot understand the mindset that would come off with
> this stuff. I've got a long list of new technology that I'd like to try on
> F1D's, but even my self centered contest program does not extend to
> lobbying for a rules change so that I can put my gadgets on a plane without
> paying a penalty for it. And yes, I have contemplated an electronic VIT for
> F1D models, but to advocate for a rules change because I can't find a
> battery light enough to do so without going overweight, no, that's just
> wrong.
>
>
>
> If you want technology on your model that cannot be accessed without going
> over the minimum weight, then that's your problem. I shouldn't have to
> build heavier just so you can have more gadgets which will make my models
> uncompetitive so that I have to buy or build your gadgets.
>
>
>
> Good flying,
>
> Joshua Finn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 06 2014 - 06:34:06 CET