as bill said, historically, there has been very little interest in mini-mac, its origins trace back to only a few people. and at one time in one place there are never more than one or two people with an interest.

that being said, any limit in imac has never worked. the engine limit came and went, the 10% limit was ignored/unenforced, and again, there is talk of a new limit. the problem is that every limit has two things in common - one, they have no basis in logic, and two, they suit the agenda of person proposing it. take a 20" prop diameter - a 29% AW Edge, with a BME 50 and guided by a high end radio can compete. Against what? A .60 size GP Extra with a low end four channel radio? Does that level the playing field? Of course not. There is no way to make this work, and that is one of the reasons that mini mac failed - it is simply impossible to come up with rational methodology for a cut-off.

as for the bigger flies better garbage...the point that aresti is trying to make, and that i will echo, is that skill does not increase with wingpsan. wingspan don't mean squat when the pilot overrotates his snaps, misses points, has varying roll rates, go 90 over in a spin entry, or a litany of other things that are peculiar to the pilot's skill, regardless of what he is flying. to suggest that a 35% airplane has a fighting chance against a 40% airplane is absurb - like the 35% pilot is the underdog. but you want to really see people go nuts? show up at an imac contest with a scale inspired pattern plane - suddenly no one cares about wingspan, but they hoot and holler cause the pattern plane flies so good....

[X(] different people, same rhetoric.