RE: SEMPRA Members  
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 >> RE: SEMPRA Members Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 1:19:38 PM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2820
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

And Duane is right. RPM isn't the tell all story. Maybe a rule (for SEMPRA only) that let's the CD do protest tear downs without the fee having to be put up??


In any contest a fee does not have to put up in order to have an engine checked. It is the responsibility and the duty of the C.D. to ensure rules compliance with both engines and airframes. The C.D. has the authority to perform this duty at any time and his/her own discretion. At the 2005 Nats winning engines were checked after challenges and money was paid. this was totally wrong. Winning engines should have been checked as a matter of course.

If, after processing, all equipment is deemed to be legal and somebody still wishes to make a challenge, then a fee is paid. At the 2005 Nats, a no longer available wood prop was being used. I pointed this out to the CD. I was told to put up the money. I refused. The CD was made ware of a blatant rules violation. He did nothing about it. There was no interpretation of a rule here, it was an obvious violation. The C.D was wrong.

Until such time that we get enforced rules compliance we will always have these arguments. We will also continue to lose competitors who are fed up with the cheaters getting away with it.

Ed S

(in reply to luv to race)
       Post #: 26

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 3:31:04 PM   
luv to race


 

Posts: 465
Joined: 12/10/2002
From: Liquored, FL,
Status: offline 		Ed,

So the fee is only paid in protest if a competitor is question another competitor, after the contest has begun. But during the morning inspection, and request to tear someone down is free of charge...??

Randy

(in reply to Ed Smith)
       Post #: 27

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 3:44:34 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2640
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline
quote:

At the 2005 Nats, a no longer available wood prop was being used.


1) Material: Either wood or a chopped-carbon-
fiber filled injection-molded compound with
material and physical properties equivalent or
exceeding that of Ticona Celstran PA6-CF35-15.
These material properties, which shall include tensile
strength and other industry standard properties, must
be equivalent to the above product for temperatures
ranging from 30 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit.
Substitutions of polymers that fall outside these specifications
are not allowed.
2) Dimensions: No limit for wood. Injectionmolded
propellers shall have a diameter, pitch, blade
width, and blade airfoil identical to that of the
approved part numbers at every measurable station.
121
3) Availability, modification: Wood propellers
may be modified. Injection-molded propellers
shall be commercially available and stock except for
balancing, etc. as permitted by paragraph 7.5.2.
under “General Model Aircraft Requirements.”
4) Prior approval: APC part numbers in the
family LP07XXXC, where “X” signifies the three
numbers indicating diameter and pitch only, are
approved. Approval is considered temporary and
continued approval requires the manufacturer,
Landing Products, to inform the Chairman of the
Contest Board when propeller material or dimensional
specifications change, causing potential
changes in performance. The Chairman is then
required to determine if propeller performance still
conforms to the rules, and inform Landing Products
of continued approval. The chairman shall have 60
days to make his determination.
5) Eligibility for competition: A propeller
once approved shall be eligible for competition
aslong as it remains commercially available, as
defined in Section 2, “Defined Terms.”


I don't know Ed, once again you seem to have found a weakness in how the rules are written. To me it would appear that it only applies to APC props, since the wood prop may be modified by the contestant and never needed approval in the first place. Did this apply to someone using a CNC mill to carve a wood prop, or someone using an old Rev-Up that was carved down by hand?

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to Ed Smith)
       Post #: 28

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 3:51:47 PM   
daven



Posts: 6764
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		I belive it was a Rev UP prop. Not sure if it was reworked or not.

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 29

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 3:53:50 PM   
daven



Posts: 6764
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		I have a couple CNC milled wood quickie props I'd love to use

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 30

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 4:04:16 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2640
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline 		There was never a Rev-UP prop made specificly for Q40, so it would have to be reworked. They were all reworked for Formula One, since the stock diameter was either 8 3/4" (this is where that number now used in quickie came from) or 9". These were always clipped down as a starting point to around 8 1/4" for F1.

As far as quickie goes, a wood prop only needs 8 1/2" diameter Dave. But I think they do have to be commerically available, which is a very low bar to jump.

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to daven)
       Post #: 31

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 4:29:34 PM   
daven



Posts: 6764
Joined: 12/7/2001
From: Andover, MN, USA
Status: offline 		I'm as guilty as anyone, but lets get this topic back on track in regards to Sempra.

thanks,

_____________________________

Dave Norman

klasskote.com
supertrc.com

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 32

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 4:46:27 PM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Denver, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HighPlains

quote:

At the 2005 Nats, a no longer available wood prop was being used.


* * *

I don't know Ed, once again you seem to have found a weakness in how the rules are written. To me it would appear that it only applies to APC props, since the wood prop may be modified by the contestant and never needed approval in the first place. Did this apply to someone using a CNC mill to carve a wood prop, or someone using an old Rev-Up that was carved down by hand?

HighPlains,

You quoted the rule for Q40, but I think Ed was talking about Q500, where all props (both wood and APC) must be "commercially available and stock." An old Rev-Up may be stock, but it's no longer commercially available.

Ed,

Right?

Dave,

Sorry for the continued digression, but I thought that point deserved to be clarified. It might also help the folks at SEMPRA with their local rules.

Mr. Gross Net Barrister

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 33

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 5:04:45 PM   
HighPlains


 

Posts: 2640
Joined: 3/2/2003
From: Over da rainbow, KS, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the clarification. It never occurred to me that anyone could still be using a Rev-Up in Quickie since the APC's have clearly dominated the past decade. Even though my fastest radared speed was with a Rev-Up (a set-up that was not in race trim).

_____________________________

In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman - Margaret Thatcher

(in reply to DHG)
       Post #: 34

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 5:10:09 PM   
kane


 

Posts: 255
Joined: 6/28/2002
From: Arlington Heights, IL, USA
Status: offline 		I will speak for ED, and he was specifically talking about Gino DelPonte running old Rev-UP props in Q-500.

Dan

_____________________________

Dan Kane

(in reply to HighPlains)
       Post #: 35

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 5:45:39 PM   
Ed Smith


 

Posts: 2820
Joined: 12/29/2001
From: Brantford, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

I will speak for ED, and he was specifically talking about Gino DelPonte running old Rev-UP props in Q-500.


Correct, it was in the 428 event that this happened.

Ed S

(in reply to kane)
       Post #: 36

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/13/2006 6:17:12 PM   
DHG


 

Posts: 896
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Denver, CO, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed Smith

In any contest a fee does not have to put up in order to have an engine checked. It is the responsibility and the duty of the C.D. to ensure rules compliance with both engines and airframes.

Everyone should have this page bookmarked: http://www.modelaircraft.org/comp/0506Rulebook/rc-pylon.pdf

If you look there, you will find section 5, "Challenges to Legality." There are two subsections.

Subsection 5.1 is entitled "Challenge by contestant." It provides for an individual challenge and the posting of a $25 challenge fee.

Subsection 5.2, entitled "CD's option," states: "At any time, the CD or the CD's designee may inspect an engine or aircraft entered in the contest without requiring the posting of a challenge fee."

I don't know how it could be any clearer than that. A wood propeller in Q500 would stick out like a sore thumb. Figuring out whether it was legal should have been even easier than weighing the airplane between heats, and that's standard procedure. IMHO, the CD should not have insisted on a challenge fee for something that basic.

(in reply to Ed Smith)
       Post #: 37

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/14/2006 2:33:08 PM   
dwbebens


 

Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2005
From: Dickson, TN, USA
Status: offline 		A few more items to consider:

Another factor to consider is the additional burden that detailed technical "tear-down" type of rules enforcement would put on the host club. One or more memebers of each hosting club would have to become expert in the details of the TT Pro 40 engine. They would need precise measuring equipment and would need to know how to use it. I would expect that if I were approaching a club to try to get them to host a 424 race, this issue very well could become a stumbling block.

The race at Mulberry last weekend did run very smoothly. The random RPM, muffler, and weight checks blended-into the race proceedure without any appreciable disruption. It was obvious that the planes were fairly evely matched in 424, which is exactly what we're after, isn't it? I would say that rules enforcement efforts at Mulberry were very succesful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the SEMPRA rule rules don't exactly prohibit a full protest-type tear-down inspection after the race, do they? In my opinion, the RPM rule that SEMPRA uses goes a long way toward eliminating the necessity of tear-downs and minimizes hard feelings. I would think that for every actual tear-down episode, there are many more times where people are silently griping about who they think are "bending" the rules. Most people who suspect something won't initiate an official protest, especially novices. They will just become dis-enchanted with pylon racing and may eventually leave racing altogether. With the RPM and other checks throughout the race, people can feel more at ease. I think this is an important psychological benefit that should not be ignored.

I might suggest that the hosting club (or SEMPRA ?) supply the APC 9-6 C2 props. Then check the RPM before the race and either offer the pilot the option of shimming to get below 16,500 or to exchange props to see if that would do it. Then, continue with the random RPM checks throught the event. It might be wise to ID the props in some manner such as was suggested in an earlier reply.

Doug Bebensee


(in reply to DHG)
       Post #: 38

RE: SEMPRA Members - 10/15/2006 12:22:04 AM   
Sandbag Special



Posts: 84
Joined: 12/9/2003
From: Jupiter, FL, USA
Status: offline

quote:

The race at Mulberry last weekend did run very smoothly. The random RPM, muffler, and weight checks blended-into the race proceedure without any appreciable disruption. It was obvious that the planes were fairly evely matched in 424, which is exactly what we're after, isn't it? I would say that rules enforcement efforts at Mulberry were very succesful.

Doug Bebensee


That is what I thought too, and all I myself am trying to get across.

Matt


_____________________________

Matthew Fehling
Fly Fast Turn Left!

(in reply to dwbebens)
       Post #: 39