Tony,
I'm glad we agree reducing the weight limit would be a bad idea.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Dave,
And ''IF'' you would read what I post you would see that I never said you said ''damned if we do''. I am saying that if we accept your conclusions, then that is the case. And again, I don't accept that.
Obviously I believe in my own predictions. I want it to be clear that I am not saying "damned if we do, and damned if we don't". A prediction I have made is that absent any rules changes to the event, the number of electric flyers in the event will continue to increase, and as the relatively new electric technology matures, it will decrease in cost, resulting in a decreased cost for the event. I see that as a positive thing for the event. Another prediction I have made is that if changes were made to the event that would favor electrics (even if this change is fixing the current bias we all seem to agree exists), the obselescence of IC would be accelerated, and some IC flyers would be lost from the event. I see that as a negative thing for the event.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Dave,
And I never said you made a proposal to reduce the weight. Please re-read what I wrote.
I never thought you were attributing a proposal to reduce the weight to myself, but after re-reading some of the posts, I can see where you thought that.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Dave,
You say that if we were to reduce the weight limit substantial numbers would leave the event. I agree. I also believe that is basically what we have done with the 5kg limit.
I think the 5kg limit is problematic when paired with unlimited displacement and 2M x 2M. AMA is in this predictament having followed FAI rules changes. Now that AMA is in this predictament, how/if/when it can be improved is where we differ. I certainly would not want to make any changes on the premise that FAI will not change the current limits in FAI.
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Dave,
Is there a possibility that I could be wrong? Of course. And can you admit that there is a possibility you are wrong? I would hope so. Now my personal opinion is that the first possibility is small and the second is larger. That's my opinion based on flying in pattern for 34 years, through a lot of changes and at, and I apologize if this comes across as prideful, at a high level. And that is why I am pursuing this change. It is two-fold. To remove the obvious bias when you don't process all models at the same state of readiness. And to try to bend the cost curve on the constantly increasing costs of the event.
I think I understand your goals (and I agree with them) and that you'd like to achieve them sooner than later (also good), but I respectfully don't agree with your approach.
I think the existing bias will be moot soon enough as even with the bias, electric will become dominant, and the cost of the event will decrease as electric matures. This is not a "do nothing" approach akin to"damned if we do, damned if we don't", it is a prediction of what will happen if the event is allowed to mature within the current rules structure. If the bias could be removed and costs reduced sooner than later, that would be great, but not if it means -
- accelerating the obselescence of IC.
- achieving the goal of no bias in exchange for 5.4 kg electrics (more expensive) vs 5.0 kg electrics (cheaper).
You could be 100% correct, and I might be 100% correct, and I'd be most willing to bet the future is somewhere in the middle. In any case, I'd be happy to buy the first round.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
ORIGINAL: DaveL322
Tony,
Hope you had a good day of flying...too cold here for that....let alone the 35+ mph winds.
IF you actually read the full breadth of what I've written, you would see I am not concluding ''damned if we do and damned if we don't''. IF you considered outcomes other than what you specifically want to happen (cheaper pattern, which I think everyone would like), you just might see other potential outcomes. If the weight limit were reduced to 4.5 kg (which I have never proposed), I bet the first thing that would happen is substantial numbers of IC and electric flyers would leave the event.
With regard to the IMAC cost comparisons.....they show how similar dimensions but higher weights can result in higher costs (to have equivalent performance). They show how cost increases to be competitive at the highest levels of competition. So far as comparing an IMAC 50cc ARF for $600 and a $400 gas engine to a 2M pattern plane, I don't see this as valid at all. At that price, the IMAC style plane will have far less thrust per pound, less speed, and be much louder than a 2M pattern plane. To equal the 2M pattern plane, you'd have to spend at least as much money - the extra weight and drag of the larger plane (in volume, not necessarily length and span) will require more power to get equivalent performance, nothing more than physics at work.
Donatas used a relatively high KV AXI and 6S for his WAG winning EF Extra, and the routines are aeromusical freestyle - very different power demands than pattern. EF makes some great planes, and I'm sure the Vanquish 2M will fly well and be <11 lbs with the recommended setup. No doubt it will be good for pattern.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
ORIGINAL: TonyF
Boy, you go flying for a day and look at what you've got when you get back!
Dave says if we increase weight we will increase expense. I don't see how that is in any way a correct prediction. Say, with the current 2-meter rule we made the weight limit 4.5Kg. What would happen to costs? Of course they would go much higher. So if we buy into Dave's theory that higher weight would only lead to higher costs, then were damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't accept that. It is only reasonable to assume that if our 2-meter models could weigh more then they could be less expensive.
As to all the IMAC comparisons, the only legitimate comparison is in the 50cc class of models. You can buy IMAC 50cc ARF airframes for $600. Equip it with pretty much the same radio gear as in a 2-meter pattern model. Then put in a $400 gas engine and you're ready to compete. You have much less money into it then a 2-meter pattern model. It probably weighs 16-17-18 pounds. Now if it had a maximum weight limit of 12 pounds, what do you think it would cost. Of course, much more. To compare a pattern model to a 120'' IMAC model is comparing apples to oranges.
And then of course you have the basic inequality of weighing the different power systems in different states of flight worthiness. An unfair situation that in itself is a good reason to change the current rules.