Standard vs. Expert  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> General Racing Discussion >> Standard vs. Expert Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Standard vs. Expert - 8/13/2002 1:10:29 AM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by kane
Utttt OHHHH,

I am in no way asking anyone who runs APRA to change their rules. I HONESTLY BELIEVE, 424 AT THE NATS WOULD BE A GOOD THING!!!!! And I am trying to do is eliminate the possiblity of getting high performance engines into this event. My understanding of these posts and previous posts is that with the current wording in the rule book it is possible. I agree opinions are like _________ and everyone has one

[/QUOTE]

Mike,

I am quoting myself above. All I am attempting is to make AMA 424 like APRA/NEPRO. These two groups have somehow eliminated the confusion into what is legal and not legal. Why can't AMA 424 be that cut and dry??

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 126

Standard vs. Expert - 8/13/2002 5:53:00 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		First and foremost, let me pull up my skirt!

Being a former school teacher my problems were having the boys pull up their pants. I like this anology better. So everyone pull up your pants and wear a belt!

I truly believe some people are saying the same thing.

Mike, you got it brother. You have hit the nail on head several times with your posts. Now all we need is to tie all this information together.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 127

Re: 424 "unification" - 8/21/2002 7:00:03 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CrashBevil
As I understand it from the AMA rulebook, it is up to the hosting club to set engine rules in advance of the event to keep it even. Pick an RPM limit or a claiming rule or whatever it takes to keep the field level and commit.

If you want to encourage new racers and make 424 a national event, do what the local clubs have been doing and what the AMA says to do in the rules: When (if) AMA makes 424 national, have them post whatever engine limits they are going to enforce somewhere public when they make the announcement to race.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your input "CRASH",

Sounds good on paper, let the local clubs do what they are doing and have AMA publish new rules if and when 424 is run at the nationals.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. IF, 424 was run at the NATS, it would have to run as published in the rulebook. There is no National engine list, etc. This is a local thing. The national rules restrict engines per their given RPM.

All I have attempted to do was to gather input on an agreeable format for 424 in the AMA rule book. I am not trying to drive away "NEWBIES" what ever that means.

I hope that everyone understands that if 424 was to be run at the nats with the current wording, you could see Nelsons, Jetts (if they choose to produce a un-piped muffler) and composite airframes. Which to me says that if I was competing at a local level with my predator and TT40, I need to go buy the fast stuff to win. I don't want this to happen. It is supposed to be an entry level event without all of this other stuff (that is what 428 is for).

The real question is should 424 be run at the NATS??? I say yes. If NO, you are correct this was a waste of time.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 128

Standard vs. Expert - 8/21/2002 11:18:23 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		If a proposal is written as "URGENT" and passed the contest board, the NATS could be run using this new rule. How long will this take??? If it was initiated now it "could" be down prior to the NATS next year.

If the proposal was written to fall into the normal 3 year rule cycle, the rule would not take affect until the completion of this time period.

As to running the NATS with a deviation from the published rules. It is not out of the question but is highly unlikely. There is a long process and the AMA does not like to deviate from the rules.

I spoke to Steve Kaluf and he felt that the precedent for having a approval list has been set with the airframe process in QM40. Therefore, we could have a committee generate an approved engine list for 424. However, this is not in the current wording.

Regis, I hear what you are saying! However, the 16.5K rule is unclear and this still does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS. This is what I want to prevent. This is the exact reason 428 is what it is. As to wood vs. composite, I will agree that the advantages are minimal. The problem is with perception. If a New person sees someone flying and winning with a composite the perception is that a composite is needed to be competitive. In turn, spending X$$$ to compete. This should not be in the equation for 424. If a composite plane was offered at a reasonable price, I would say let it in.

The biggest question to all of this is how to fit it into the NATS??

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 129

Standard vs. Expert - 8/22/2002 12:28:28 AM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by R.Bridge
[B- Man, I sure need to start spending my money elsewhere. I'm sure that any "woodie" would certainly be less money than these composite planes right? [/QUOTE]

Randy,

you spend money???

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 130

Standard vs. Expert - 8/22/2002 6:27:00 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by regis


What part of the 16.5K provision is unclear? I don't see any wiggle room at all. As for "... does not prevent any engine Mfg from entering the game at the NATS." Why do you want to [COLOR=green]prevent any engine from entering the game at the NATS[/COLOR] that fully meets the AMA 424 specs? The 16.5K provision levels the field but restricts no engine otherwise legal - not even the TT40 (in my opinion, I have a couple) providing. All this whining about the 16.5K provision makes me wonder about the motives. [/QUOTE]

The part that is "UNCLEAR" is 16.5K checked on the ground. What does that mean in your mind? "PEAKED", "PINCHED", "SANDBAGGING", "I DON'T KNOW", "HMMMM, SOUNDS GOOD TO ME", "LOOK MY TACH SAYS 14.2", AND SO ON.

I don't want any engine mfg entering the game at the NATS, because I feel the engine should be tested first to see if it is an appropriate choice for 424. Also, I would like to keep the expense of the event down to a minimum. So if the 16.5K is appropriate for sport engines and not HIGH performance engines keep and a clear up how it is checked. Make it cut and dry, "SIMPLE".

My "MOTIVES".....I am secretly plotting to rule the world, whowhooHAAAAHAAAAAA! I am going to build the bestest, fastest, coolest, betterest 424 model in the world and I will dominate the 424 scene. SHHHH, I will do all of this by making it look like a TT 40, that turns 16.5K on the ground.

Who is WHINNING? I am not a WHINNER, just ask. Honestly, I don't whine. Why are you guys picking on me??

As to The MASTER, Randy, I spend lots of money, Bridge, I would graciously accept the responsibility of 424 coordinator for the NMPRA, I think it should be counted seperatly anyway.

As to the NATS, I agree with Mike there is wiggle room to run 424 in its current format. We just need to beat up on Mike Condom until he says yes. I will also take on that responsibility!

Last but not least, NMPRA rules and AMA rules are two different animals.

Least, Don give a sneak peak at the composite quickee, please!!!!

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 131

Standard vs. Expert - 8/22/2002 10:56:27 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		RB,

I have decided to stop allowing you to "TOOT" your own horn on these serious pages. KNOCK it off, Randy, "I won 10 trophies in 3 years", Bridge. NOW go to bed and NO dinner for you!

Send all applications to TEAM KANE.ORG, entrance into my club requires that you send me a new VORTEX every day for 2 MONTHS!

RANDY, please don't reply to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



NO SERIOUSLY,




DON'T DO IT MAN!

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 132

Standard vs. Expert - 8/22/2002 11:35:26 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		Gary, your entrance fee has been covered thank you for joining!

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 133

Standard vs. Expert - 8/23/2002 6:11:12 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		Regis,

One more KICK!

Complete the sentence. "CAPABLE" of what? 16.5K, yeah, we got a winner. Next question where? On the ground, excellent we have another winnner.

Now put it all together as a complete sentence.

capable of turning a stock 9 x 6
APC propeller at over 16,500 rpm on the
ground.

The quibbling is in the definition of capable on the ground. If I set my engine so that it is NOT capable of exceeding 16.5 on the ground because of the way the needle is set. Then I am legal under the AMA 424 rules. I have satified all requirements for having a legal engine.

End of story, I wish discussed things like this when we...

wrote the rules for QM-40 (THANKS JIM GAGER!!!!)
Made Q-500 a national event and everyone had to throw away their perfectly good $225 Rossi's to buy Nelson's.

If you and others honestly believe the best thing to do is to leave the rules alone, Hey I am all for it. Less work for me!!!!!

PUT these words away and save them for a rainy day. IF 424 is run as is you will see an entirely different animal than the animal you are flying in NEPRO, APRA, or here in the midwest with FP 40's.

However, I am not going to sit back and watch it happen!

By the way if a rule proposal is to be submitted it needs to be done prior to the end SEPT.

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 134

Standard vs. Expert - 8/24/2002 1:09:11 AM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		Regis,

I too am tired and don't want to play anymore!

The problem as I see it is, YOU and I can't agree! How can it be fair to all participants If your and perception of the rule is different from the CD's? Let's attempt to take that decision process out of the hands of the CD and just clarify the rule.

All I want is 424 to be run at the NATS, and for all participants to play on the same level field to START with, and with the same understandings of the rules.

DONE, I hope!!!

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 135

Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pylon Universe - RC Pylon Racing >> General Racing Discussion >> Standard vs. Expert
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 5 [6]





Jump to: