Ron
Although the dimensions are not the same, F1M was intended to serve that
purpose. In fact, the first trophy I won says F1D-B on it. F1M has not
proven to be very popular with anyone except me and Larry Coslick. A few
others have tried it and then vanished. I absolutely love the event because
it produces a large, slow moving, fairly sturdy model with hardly any
restrictions other than wingspan and rubber weight.
Some people have said or implied that "expert" fliers ruin beginner events.
If a bunch of new people wanted to try F1M I would retire my model and
watch them go at it. But then I would also expect the "experts to give up
LPP and A6 so that beginning and intermediate fliers would have a "more
level playing field".
Would this lead to more people getting involved in Indoor FF? Maybe but I
doubt it. I think most of the new (and old) people in this sport are doing
it because it's hard, not because it's easy.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Ron Williams groncan_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>> [Indoor_Construction] <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 - 18:16:31 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET