John,
"Nick, I'm not following your argument. Are you just making stuff up?"
I chose "If" very carefully. Kirda said a rule that required the model to
be constructed from all commercially available materials would eventually
ban materials like Harlan bearings and wood. I like Harlan bearings, but I
fully agree that there are other alternatives. My point was that its
reasonable to say that the model has to be built from still purchasable
materials. If something is truly critical someone will find an alternative,
like OS film was to Y2K(2).
"Y2K2 isn't required either. I haven't used Y2K2 or Y2K since the early
2000's, my planes are down to weight, have all the latest gadgets, and have
achieved reasonable success."
I just did 35minutes under 90' with an OS film covered model that
required ballast. I completely agree with you. Yet a whole room full
of brilliant people agreed that we should change the F1D rules because Y2K2
wasn't available anymore. I think this reasoning is a non-sequitor, but it
may stem from a feeling that something isn't fair with the current rules.
So I'm asking the question, is there a way to give legitimacy to this
feeling by changing the rules in a way that actually addresses the concern.
"What alternate reality are you living in? Didn't you just benefit from a
program that supplies 5/99 to people who need it? I don't see the
situation you are describing."
You are absolutely right, I am very fortunate to be part of the strongest
F1D program in the world. Even when disaster struck me personally, my
country helped me get back on my feet. What would I do if were from another
country? Our program is so strong that we have won better than half of all
World Championships. Now imagine you are from a small country without film
or rubber, wouldn't you want to change the rules so didn't have to compete
against us from a materials standpoint? The F1D rule change has very little
to do with wants of American program participants. There were 12 countries
at the last World Champs. 30 countries voted 8/22 on the rule change,
presumably because they could empathize with the under resourced, trying to
compete against powerhouse programs like ours.
So I ask again, what would a F1D utopia look like?
Nick
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Don Slusarczyk <don_at_slusarczyk.com> wrote:
>
>
> More rules and more restriction is never the way to go. An argument an be
> made for any aspect of the model that should be regulated for "fairness"
> or "equaling the playing field" be it rubber, VP props, covering, balsa
> wood quality, who has access to more places to test fly than another, eye
> vision, hand eye coordination, winding abilty, etc.... Less rules is what
> is needed not adding more. All this talk about Y2K2 but indoor FF existed
> just fine before any plastic covering was ever used on indoor models. When
> Y2K2 came around I proposed lifting covering restriction on events like
> EZB, and Int Stick as my reasoning was that the covering weights were
> similar and what will happen when Y2K2 runs out then those who have it will
> have an advantage, so by allowing microfilm to be used you would not be at
> a weight penalty at all and microfilm is much cheaper than Y2K2. My
> approach was not to ban Y2K2 but allow other covering choices in those
> events so more freedom of choice. It was voted down. Now there was a vote
> taken on Y2K2 by the Indoor board as to if it was considered "commercially"
> available since it was an experimental roll of film and some AMA events
> require the covering to be commercially available. At the time there was
> suppose to be another bulk roll of the film so it was allowed as another
> roll was in surplus but it seems after several years it was thrown out so
> the promise of lots of future Y2K2 went down the drain and that is when the
> trouble started in availability. Personally I fail to see how trying to
> ban Y2K2 being meaningful in any way on a 1.2 gram model or the upcoming
> 1.4 gram version on the basis of it giving a competitive edge. I do not
> want to sound like a broken record but 65cm models were much bigger and
> longer and were 1 gram and flew on much heavier rubber, I used 14" loops
> weighing 1.4 grams and launched at torques up to .7 in oz on 14" motor
> sticks. Going form 9" chord to 7.8" and span from 65 down to 55cm and
> increasing the weight from 1.0 to 1.2 gram and much smaller cross section
> rubber made the models much easier to build to weight with either plastic
> or microfilm, the two I build for USIC 2013 were ~1.1 grams with VP and I
> had to ballast up. So I am having trouble understanding all the posts about
> how a few mg covering difference from Y2K to OS film is of such
> significance on a model that weighs comparatively so much to its
> predecessor, even more so with the upcoming 1.4 gram weight. The way I see
> it now, to get a model to balance with a 7" stick under the new 1.4 gram
> rules you probably need a microfilm covered wing, and a Polymicro covered
> stab to get the CG back far enough!
>
> Don S.
>
>
> On 4/17/2014 6:43 PM, Nicholas Ray wrote:
>
>
>
> I think our thrift may actually be working against us. We officially ran
> out of Y2K2 10 years ago, but the people who were around back then have had
> not seen fit to change the rules until they experience the problem
> themselves.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don Slusarczyk
> www.DonsRC.com
> Home of the Wicked EDF Motors!
>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 17 2014 - 17:39:39 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET