Being kind of house bound (it's *cold* here), I've been using more than my
usual capacity for attention to this discussion of "beginners" classes.
It's a recurring Quixotic effort. The main reason for that is that it's
always based on a description of a plane that can be improved by the more
expert builder.
How about a class that has the same dimensions as an F1D but has to be
*heavier,
*without allowing a ballasted high-tech marvel? Yes, as the class matured,
it would engender argument and discussion, bit it's as easy to modify rules
as it is to create new classes and leave them set as in the realm of the
EZB.
It wold be nice to have a discussion that disects the basic premise for a
beginner's competitive class rather than repeating the same routine again.
On Sunday, February 14, 2016, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think there's antway to avoid voting on the proposal. This will be
> done by the indoor contest buard. I f you have opinions one way or the
> other then you need to bend the ear of your contest board representative.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:05 PM, joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com');>
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com');>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don,
>>
>> My opinion is that more research needs to be done. The discussion thus
>> far has revealed potential deficiencies in the definition of the event. It
>> should remain unofficial at least until those issues are addressed. The
>> proposers did not consult the rest of the indoor community, so these issues
>> are predictable just like what happened with the F1D rules change proposal
>> in 2014.
>>
>> If we as an indoor community do indeed want a serious beginner's event
>> in a heavier weight class, there needs to be more research (see, Don
>> DeLoach, I'm not in complete opposition to the idea!). I still say a more
>> open-ended event is a better idea. We're pulling kids in three different
>> directions--TSA has their event, and SO has theirs which changes annually
>> (and currently has a terrible awful no good set of rules).
>>
>> So. Let's have P-18 at the nats, and let's wait on the rules proposal.
>> Revisit when this has been hashed out fully.
>>
>> -Joshua Finn
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 14 2016 - 17:37:34 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET