Re: RE: Survey of U.S. F1D fliers before 55 cm rules change

From: Nick Ray <lasray_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:29:33 -0500

I personally don't like that pushing a 0.6g motor the point required often
leads breakage on the model. I haven't heard if this was a common problem
before. It is nice to have a set motor limit from an adjustment standpoint
though.




On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jake Palmer <82.jake_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> It's unclear to me how 0.6g is better than unlimited. Everything about
> the rubber restriction is a negative in my opinion. It's not like outdoor
> where they have maxes and field size restrictions.
>
> It didn't make sense to me 16 years ago, and it doesn't make sense to me
> now.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:01 AM, <ykleetx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brett, I think the 0.6g rule was a positive change. I think it is better
>> than what it was, which was unlimited.
>>
>>
>> It had the consequence of lowering performance as well as requiring a
>> more aggressive launch. It also had the consequence that many people did
>> not like this new style of flying.
>>
>>
>> But if I were forced to say "positive" or "negative", I would say
>> "positive."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 07 2014 - 12:29:33 CET