As many have pointed out an 8% motor weight limit will lead to very expensive hand crafted motors. But this requirement has an even larger impact by knocking out all the geared in-runners, as a gears typically weight about 75% of the motor. Itâ€™s evident that whoever wrote this proposal only uses the lighter out-runners. Personally, I think rules should not impact technology; that choosing a geared in-runner, which is more efficient but heavier, is a decision left to the fliers.
F1Q, being an electric event, means that motor runs are naturally defined in terms of energy â€“ watts, volts, amps, (seconds and grams), converted to watt*sec/grams or energy/weight. This simple ratio determines the maximum altitude models can each, each with its own motor run. It creates an open event, with many model types - atypical to older F1 events - which, in my opinion, is the beauty of F1Q.
Under an energy/weight formula, the battery weight limits are no longer relevant. Why? Matti and Heikki are pulling an astonishing 7.2 watts/grams (650 watts/90 grams) for 5-6 second climbs. Evidently, they use motor/prop combinations that can pull that draws such a large current without frying the battery. But hyper powered models will have very short motor runs under an energy/weight formula. (Of course this would depend on the ws/g value selected.) However, if such models will be considered as being too dangerous (=fast and heavy), we could impose a wattage ceiling, implementable via the controller or a PEL, but only as a last resort. (Plan D.)