I like that last sentence. . . . "because it's hard, not because it's
easy" . . . Reading recently about a Sleek Streak on the FF forum, I
wondered as in "marveled" at what an accomplished builder could do with a
mass produced, junk idea. I guess at base, a class that attracts beginners
is kind of off kilter. There has to be something else that attracts new
comers. That will usually amount to putting an alternative in front of
desperate or bored people that might appeal to them as worth exploring. I
was never attracted by the EZB which was supposed to be the beginner magnet
when I discovered indoor. EZB's attraction was as a step to the ones that
required very slow walking.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Ron Williams <groncan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - 19:08:29 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET