Thanks John,
I’m sorry I’m writing so much on this subject, but this seems like an good opportunity to communicate with the indoor FAI community about the process of identifying problems. First of all, FAI is made up of what I would categorize as two distinct functions. At the top is administration (FAI & CIAM) and below that is the operational (rule change) level consisting of Country Delegates, Technical Subcommittees, and the Flyers they represent. Regarding this statement; “I just think that the FAI should have had some discussion with interested parties to see if any action was required.” If you mean administration, it sounds attractive for FAI to monitor each class within each discipline for irregularities and potential problems, then address them with interested parties, but that would have at least a couple of unwanted consequences: 1) FAI administration has no staff nor process in place for that. Adding that function would likely add operational expense and FAI would have to pass the cost on to the NACs (National Airsport Control) which would, in turn, pass them on to you. 2) Giving FAI “big brother” control over our hobby would not be desirable. The process, as designed, requires the competitors themselves to identify problems within their own events. The only way concerns about 5/99 rubber could come into focus is through discussion among flyers with specific actions proposed. Using input from the flyers, the Tech Subcommittee (representatives) would debate and vote on the proposal(s), and, if necessary, advise their countries’ Delegate how to vote in the Plenary meeting. Only then would the FAI administration be advised what the flyers and their representatives have identified as a problem and what they want to do to address it. FAI administration has neither the power to approve nor reject. The comment; “Even a statement that the FAI had looked into the matter and decided that no action was required,” would make more sense if the abbreviation “FAI” was replaced with “the flyers and their representatives.”
- Chuck
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2017 4:43 PM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Indoor_Construction] TAN II Rubber
William, Chuck and Don,
Thank you for your well-argued responses to my support of Tim Stone. Talking first mainly to William and Don. You have given neat short essays about the considerable work necessary to take advantage of the situation as it is now (i.e. with 5/99 and a host of other rubbers) Don also gives some interesting statistics on recent batches of Tan SS. I largely agree with you both so I guess you have me on the canvas but that wasn’t really what I was fighting so a will turn to Chuck’s post.
Chuck, I am aware of the procedure for altering rules but I must say that over many years I can’t recall an occasion when a rule change was made without a kerfuffle about whether it was done correctly. However I was not looking for a rule change. I just think that the FAI should have had some discussion with interested parties to see if any action was required. Even a statement that the FAI had looked into the matter and decided that no action was required. I am not a great record keeper but if someone has the information as to how many records have been broken and how many Championships won using 5/99 rubber in the last eighteen years I should be interested to know.
Perhaps I should mention that this does not affect me personally. I did some rubber testing years ago but stopped because I realized I was wasting my time. As a married man with a family I have never spent more than I needed on my hobby so if I buy a box of rubber, that is my rubber until the box is empty. I would never junk rubber because the energy level was low in the hopes that the next box was better.
John
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 14 May 2017 19:04
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] TAN II Rubber
Rubber is only part of the puzzle on an indoor model. Having 5/99 will
not take a 15 minute F1D and boost it to 25 minutes. I fly 10/97 almost
on all my models with the exception of a few models which I fly 3/02 as
I have rubber cut in the sizes they use. I have set records on these
batches and do well in competitions I go to without any 5/99 rubber in
my arsenal. The last batches of TSS I have been testing 3/2016, 6/2016,
and 3/2017 energy wise are quite good, equal to my 10/97 (actually a
little better than my 10/97) but to use it successfully you need to make
a loop the same weight but about 10% longer to get similar turns (as the
stretch ratio is a little lower) and similar torque to batches like
5/99. In a recent conversation with John Kagan on the TSS subject he
told me he did a 27 minute flight in F1D at Lakehurst on TSS (6/16) and
his loop was around 6.7" long which is about 10% or so longer than his
normal 5/99 loops. So the reason I am not doing 27 minutes in F1D has
nothing to do with 5/99 or Tan II etc he did it on current rubber. So
that means I need to sharpen my pencil and work on optimizing my model.
There have been really bad batches of Tan II in the past and my dad and
I have spent a lot of money and thrown out a LOT of rubber over the
years. Good and bad batches was just a part of indoor flying. You bought
5 pounds tested it , and hoped you did not waste your money. The next
batch you did it again and so on. The TSS I have been testing the past
year or so, the 3/16 and 6/16 batched and now the 3/17 batches all test
within a few percent of each other and equal to or better than my 10/97.
Is TSS going to replace 5/99 at the world championships anytime soon? I
doubt it, but for the majority of flying these current batches will do
just fine.
Don Slusarczyk
Received on Mon May 15 2017 - 23:06:23 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET