I
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:16 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 - 18:59:29 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET