Executive summary:

-        Purchased VP hubs violate the Builder of the Model Rule.  This is a rule enforcement issue, not a rule interpretation or clarification issue.

-        Allowing purchased VP hubs at the WC, in violation of the BOM rule, negatively impacts competitors who spent time building their own hubs.

-        Someone winning the World Championships with a model that does not comply with the rules would be an unprecedented disaster.  The longer the BOM rule goes unenforced, the more likely this scenario becomes.

The Sporting Code states, “The competitor must be the builder of the models entered”.

The Cambridge dictionary defines “build” as: to make a structure or something else by putting materials together in a particular way

Merriam-Webster’s definition is: to form by putting together parts or materials.  (Interestingly, this dictionary’s example is, “He spent hours building a model airplane from a kit”!)

Clearly, a VP hub is a structure that is made by putting together parts and materials, so it is “built”, and it is part of model.

Here are some of the arguments presented in an attempt to justify the use of purchased VP hubs, followed by a counter-point:

-        Argument: “A purchased VP hub is a ‘sub-component’, and therefore not in violation of the BOM rule”.  Counter-point: An F1D propeller makes up about a fifth of the entire model weight, and an even larger percentage of the model’s complexity and building time.  It is a critical factor in the model’s overall performance.  It strains credulity to claim that such an important and time-consuming portion of the model is “less than a component”, and does not need to be built by the competitor under the current rules.

 

-        Argument: “A rule change is required to ‘ban’ purchased VP hubs”.  Counter-point: The current rules require the competitor to build the model, which includes the VP hub.  A rule change is required to remove the BOM, or to make a specific exception for purchased VP hubs.

 

-        Argument: “There are certain materials/components that are harder to categorize as ‘built’ or ‘not built’, therefore nothing can be categorized”. Counter-point: The conclusion does not logically follow the premise. A borderline case does not preclude a clear-cut case.  Materials such as carbon fabric could be somewhat ambiguous since it is “built” from unidirectional carbon (although I’d argue that it is just the same source material “woven”, not a component “built” from materials), but nobody can honestly say that a VP hub doesn't involve a significant amount of building.

 

-        Argument: “Lots of people are doing it". Counter-point: I'm not sure how many people plan to compete with purchased hubs (I know more than a few people who aren't), but even if they are, that doesn't make purchased hubs compliant with BOM rule.

 

-        Argument: “Purchased hubs have been used for a long time, why disallow them now?” Counter-point: This is like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by saying I always drive 50mph in school zones.  Just because someone has not been caught using a purchased VP hub in the past doesn’t mean that the rule no longer applies.

 

-        Argument: “Isn’t building everything but the VP hub the same as building a model from a kit?”  Counter-point:  The FAI sporting code BOM rule does not reference kits, but building a model from a collection of materials in a box is pretty much the same as building from materials obtained separately.  Similarly, a VP hub kit consisting of materials that are assembled would meet the BOM rule.  Purchasing a fully assembled VP hub does not.

 

-        Argument: “Lots of people will be impacted if purchased VP hubs are not allowed at the WC”.  Counter-point: There are also people who built their own hubs. Should they be forced to compete against models that don't comply with the rules? The time they spent building hubs could have been used for other purposes, such as test flying or making motors, so there is a definite advantage to buying instead of building.

 

-        Argument: “There is no way to prove that someone built the model or hub, so the BOM rule does not apply”.  Counter-point: Every builder-made VP hub I’ve seen has unique characteristics, either intentionally or unintentionally.  You can tell mine because they look like they were cobbled together by a 6 year old at summer camp. 

But, even if there is no way to distinguish, the model processor can ask if the competitor built it.  Sure, if someone chose to cheat the BOM rule, they could claim they built a purchased hub, but they could also cheat the minimum weight rule by removing ballast, or the maximum rubber rule by swapping motors after a flight.

Hopefully competitors wouldn't do any of those things. Rule changes, like requiring the FAI Unique ID to be written on the motorstick, are one recourse if they do.

 

To be clear, this is a difficult situation, but allowing purchased hubs, even temporarily, is not a victimless solution. People are going to be impacted either way. 

The only, and right, thing to do is follow the existing rules, and then change the rules for the future if we, collectively, don't want the BOM rule, or we want to make specific exceptions.  If we do otherwise, and someone manages to win with a purchased hub, there will be a permanent asterisk.