Isn't it about time we took a look at this BOM thing from the perspective of what will help promote the sport and bring in new blood? Shouldn't we also look at it from the perspective of what has been allowed for all these years as being essentially good things in respect to participation and development? If we don't "open" the rules a bit, there will be darn few new fliers coming into this event in the future.
If you take that literally, it leads to a lot of generally silly results. Maybe we should get rid of the hourglass and square 8, those seems to be a real stumbling block. A 440 in track is pretty difficult, essentially, a 440 yard sprint. If you knocked it down to 50 yards, it would open it up to a lot more people who can't sprint for the entire current distance. Point being, there's a lot of places in the world where you could make something easier by fundamentally changing it. As far as I am concerned, that's exactly what you are proposing, in principle.
But given our stunning success and relatively good growth curve, why do we need to fundamentally change it? Look at almost any other modeling competition event - competition, not park fliers or RC sport - and tell me what is happening to them.
I might also note that in no way does this inhibit the development of new technology. Somebody can make all the graphite molded wings they want - as long as they do it themselves. When I wanted to try foam wings, I got some foam, made the bow and power supply, and read how you did it. It wasn't as nice (I looked at the foam rudder you cut for Elliot Scott and *marvelled* at how you managed to cut that severe a taper without all sorts of hesitation marks) but it was serviceable. Walt Perkins published an article on how he made graphite fuselage shells for his Team Racer, that tells someone how to do a wing, too. That's a HUGE part of the event, getting rid of it is a very fundamental change.
I have pointed out many times that I think pre-sheeted foam wings should probably be allowed. If I was king of the world, a Tom Morris "quick kit" would probably be OK. The only reason to prohibit them is because leaving one loophole makes the argument about other loopholes (the ones I and others *don't* agree with) easier. It's called a "compromise". I understand that you don't agree and I would rather not roll back anything but that's the reasoning behind it.
As far as allowing anything goes, that seems to be a closed issue. It's perfectly clear from both the survey and the informal inputs I have gotten for the last 12 years as a PAMPA guy that the competitors WANT a BOM. Overwhelmingly so. It would be entirely irresponsible for PAMPA to pursue any other course. The only real question is how it should be worded, not whether or not there should be one.
Brett
Topic: Foomph! ??? (Read 6231 times)