Design > Stunt design
Propeller precession
Brett Buck:
--- Quote from: Mark wood on October 13, 2021, 07:47:19 AM ---Keith
First this divergence of the thread should move elsewhere. I think we recognize what the rule says and that is specifically what is objectionable to a number of us ( I thought I was alone). The fact that it restricts the technology to only the 2.4 Ghz devices. The other devices on other frequencies have just as adequate lack of interference and do not require impoundment. The specific rule for CLPA requires a non reversible function. In both cases the 833 Mhz devices meet the intent of the rule. Therefore, a rule change is in order. Unfortunately, this has come up outside of a rule cycle.
--- End quote ---
This has been in there for at least 8 years - 4 entire rules cycles - and there was a fairly extensive discussion of the entire topic here when I wrote the proposal about it for CL Stunt something like 6 years ago.
For goodness sake, this happens every two years - no one pays the slightest attention to the rules cycle, despite it being posted, for more than a year, and despite Keith and others keeping everyone informed here, and lots of discussion threads. Then the vote results are announced, and sometimes the very next day, someone starts complaining that "they changed the rules!" or "they didn't fix the rules!", "or that was stupid they should have said THIS...!" or some variant.
When the first proposal for Spectra lines was made, and failed (for perfectly obvious reasons), literally the next day someone - who admitted that he had never heard there was a proposal at all and had never made a single peep about the topic - said they "might just as well quit CL". Over the failure of a proposal they had never heard of until afterwards?
You know why the rules didn't change? Because no one made the slightest effort to change them, or even suggest they be changed, or even have a comment about it either way. If you don't do anything, then nothing is going to happen, or it will happen in a way you don't like.
I would also note - the alternative to 2.4 GHz is not some other frequency - it is *no RC at all*. To be honest with you, I would support a change to CL General to disallow any form of radio or other EM emissions in CL, as not conforming with the idea of "Control through Lines". I am seriously considering removing the current rule for CL Stunt and just disallowing it completely.
Brett
Mark wood:
--- Quote from: Brett Buck on October 14, 2021, 11:20:30 AM ---
I would also note - the alternative to 2.4 GHz is not some other frequency - it is *no RC at all*. To be honest with you, I would support a change to CL General to disallow any form of radio or other EM emissions in CL, as not conforming with the idea of "Control through Lines". I am seriously considering removing the current rule for CL Stunt and just disallowing it completely.
Brett
--- End quote ---
Well, some of us have not been around this forum and have been participating in other activities. So, give us a break and allow us to be ignorant. By all means disallow any kind of RC to be spiteful which is certainly a solution. Taking such a stance is not very becoming and I realize I am particularly good at soliciting such responces. However, it is much simpler than that, when the cycle comes around again, simply remove the reference to 2.4 Ghz and replace with transmitter and receiver compliant with FFC regulations for open use which will not cause interference with others. In the specific section for CLPA simply state no proportional control of engine or electric powerplant allowed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version