[scaleguy]

OK I didn't think the whole thing through on the original poll so here is a revamped one.

[craigk]

I like the idea of consistency, - doesn't affect me
however, I think we should be moving toward tighter footprints. Many sites have less appreciative neighbours etc.
We should switch the concept - let the alternate sequence be the one with that may take more area.

[bigguy]

It's an alternate sequence for a reason.You may show up at a contest and they are not flying it.That would be interesting if you didn't practice it all year prior.The regular sequence can be flown without overstepping the footprint we witnessed it all summer.The alternate sequence could also cause problems if pilots consistently push the limits of the footprint.Just my two cents.

[Rick Kroeze]

How many contests actually even used the alternate sequence in the '09 season?

I suspect it's in the 0-2 range.

I think there's your answer. CD's option... if necessary but rarely needed.

As far as practicing 2 different sequences, compare them. They aren't different enough to make a fuss over. Basically roller removed to solve a Y-axis depth problem. X-axis length (footprint) remains the same.

Regardless of the results of the poll it is always the CD's option to change things to suit the local field requirements.

At the NC Region finals the CD's instructions were to move it out a bit (Y-axis) or keep the X-axis short. In close and left was a no fly over an angled road and in close right was over a house.

Moving it out is the correct choice there. Alternate sequence would have solved nothing at that field.

[50%300SFlyer]

Let's not forget that any of the current or future proposed rule changes within IMAC that "might" reduce the sequence footprint, will not take effect until 2011.

Having said that, I enjoy the challenge of the rollers as much as anyone; however IMO, anything that can be done to help reduce the overall footprint right now, is a good thing. This also includes club fields where there are no contests, but where pilots go out to practise the sequence.

It will help preserve the present contests for the future, and "might" even allow some of our past contests to be resurrected again, with the elimination of the rollers altogether, thus having a greater ability to control the "airspace" required.

Let’s face it; these rollers take up lots of airspace, despite pilots best efforts to keep them small.

These are my opinions for whatever it's worth...

[LEE]

I think that in the interest of tightening up the footprint that the current alternate sequence should be the norm and the "regular" one now should be the alternate due to its larger footprint with the roller.
I personally love the roller as it it a real challenge to make it look "pretty" but no matter what you do it does extend the depth a lot!

Looking forward to next year...lots of new pilots coming in at our end

Lee

[goneflyin]

Sequence design for 2010 is so much better (at least in the upper classes), it's a lot easier to keep a smaller footprint.

That alone will help.

You can fly a smaller (much smaller) roller if you try. The only reason they get big is by not being agressive enough with the 'bending inputs'.

I say leave them in there, and start setting examples of well flown, smaller rollers. You don't need the old school full throttle screamin rollers anymore.

It'll catch on.

Don

[Randy Brown]

Yeap and alot of the guys that did them in a mile of space where X toc pilots lol

small is good..big stay home

Originally Posted by goneflyin

You can fly a smaller (much smaller) roller if you try. The only reason they get big is by not being agressive enough with the 'bending inputs'.


.

Don

[tommy321]

I think that if you're playing in Advanced or Unlimited, it shouldn't be an issue at all to swap out a roller for a sharks tooth at the odd contest where space is an issue. The alternate sequences substituted maneuvers aren't even ones that require critical roll directions.

I also think we can all agree that the rollers are one of the toughest maneuvers to get repeatably correct. It'd be a shame to get rid of them. Even if it's just for comic relief

I vote for only using the alternate sequences where the CD feels they're necessary.

Tom

[goneflyin]

Agreed on all counts Tom (Beaker).

Don