ORIGINAL: combatpigg
I say that 2 pounds and 60 mph is ridiculous, it is potentially lethal, if not just totally inappropriate for a safe park atmosphere.
There is no way to dispute the fact that our "key players" were already sitting on huge inventories of those pastel colored 60 mph and 2 pound ARFs, before PPP was ever concocted. The electric RC ads were everywhere already, the models were in every LHS waiting to be consumed long before PPP ever broke ground.
If you are not with me so far with the histrionics of this PPP deal, there is no point in me continuing. You either accept what I've sketched here, or you don't.
I believe that I understand the point you are trying to make. You believe that the weight/speed limits were set for the benefit of the manufacturers, and not with park flying safety in mind. Is that correct?
If so, it boils down to whether the EC agrees or disagrees with your assesment of the danger. If they disagree then it becomes a difference of opinion. If they agree, and went ahead with the limits anyway then you have a point. I think that would be an interesting question to pose to the chair of the marketing committee.....ie, how were the weight and speed limits arrived at, and was existing inventory factored in over and above park safety. Why don't you pose the question to Mark?
The wormy part of the deal is that the PPP was designed to help unload existing inventory and all of the promotion to do so is provided by us free of charge.
I suspect that the marketing expenditures made by the distributors far exceed any expenditures by the AMA.
A truly well intentioned and thought out PPP could have been set at 1 pound and 40 mph, which is more than enough leeway to allow 3D, pattern, sport, etc. in a safe and park friendly package.
Do you have any idea of what percentage of inventory which received or will receive the PPP logo falls above the 1lb/40mph limit you suggest? It's not a rhetorical question. I don't know and it would take a lot more hours than I'm willing to invest just to make a very rough estimate.
A lot has been said about nothing though, as long as PPP continues to flounder.
The program was introduced 8 months ago. I think it's way to early to conclude that it's floundering or won't succeed. Another interesting question would be to ask how the EC and the Marketing Committee would define success for the program. I would hope that with a major initiative like this that AMA has a specific goal in mind both in numbers and time frame. Otherwise how does one know whether to continue or to punt?
Both of those questions may best be asked of Dave rather than Mark, but both should be able to answer.