However, Leo's piece was contradictory. The relatively new to indoor world champ didn't use
a V/P hub after all.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:28 PM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Leo:
>
> Thanks for this thoughtful analysis. It wasa very good read.
>
> DD
>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 5:46 PM, leop_at_lyradev.com [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just because something has been available for use or purchase for more than twenty years, it does not follow that its use is legal or within the contest rules. Just because someone has used such a non-conforming device in the past, does not make its use within the rules today. This argument is no different from saying that because some people have robbed banks for a long time and some of those same people have not been caught, it is now okay to rob banks.
>>
>>
>> The sport of golf makes a good comparison. Non-conforming clubs have been available since before the turn of the century. Their early use by some pros was caught by other pros and the situation got heated. The matter did not cool down much when the use of the non-conforming clubs was firmly and strongly dealt with and the manufacturers stopped providing them for sale. Today, the use of non-conforming clubs is again being raised. Many of the major club manufactures have again made and tested prototypes. Such non-conforming clubs could be on the general market in a matter of a few months. The arguments for their use are familiar to the indoor flying community. The non-conforming clubs are said to make it easier for the less skilled golfer to play and to play with more success and fun. This is thought to be important because the general public's active participation in the the sport is declining and some think that making golf easier (and by the same argument, more fun) will increase participation. Some in the sport of golf realize that making things easier with more technology does not necessarily lead to more participation (history may support this contrary view). Nevertheless, golf and its ruling organizations need to take a look and determine the path that golf should take in the future.
>>
>> Some would say that indoor duration needs to be made less complicated, especially on the building side, to attract more participation. Some say it is too hard and takes too long to master the sport. I say that such arguments are incorrect. The current Open World Champion flew his first AMA events (F1L and LPP) almost exactly four years before winning the WC last April. The current Junior WC flew built and flew his first plane (Science Olympiad) only just more than two years before winning the WC. Both are skilled and hard working competitors but what both did in such short relative times belay any argument that the sport is too hard and takes too long to master.
>>
>> The sport of indoor duration is at a similar crossroads with respect to the BOM rule and the increased availability of complex parts and assemblies for purchase. The ruling bodies (and many competitors) need to stop looking the other way and tackle the issue head on. They and we need to take a sober look at all sides of the issue and come to a decision soon on the BOM rule or it's abandonment.
>>
>> LeoP
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 08 2015 - 20:45:31 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET