Andy:
Selection of classifiers are always the hardest part, as you know the
range configuration is the problem. I would suggest picking some
backs ups (I am sure you've already done it) and try doing a dry
(visualization) set up at the next match.


> Thanks for the feedback. Someone else suggeted field courses too. I
> was concerned that we might not have the props of the right
> dimensions. CM 99-52 has *some* movement and CM 03-16 as well (but
> not sure we can accomodate the angles safely).
>
> Any suggestions as to which field courses you think we could setup?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Andy
>
> --- In bauspsa@yahoogroups.com, "tyro480" <tyro480@> wrote:
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > The choice is yours to make since you've volunteered to take on
> this
> > task. However asking for suggestions is a positive to get people
> > envolved. TASC has done a lot of speed shoots or shall I say
high
> > HF classifiers. I would suggest looking at having a couple of
> Field
> > courses as a balance. The draw back is the step up time. You
can
> > count me in on helping to set those.>
> >
> > > There is a special classifier match scheduled in August
(pending
> > > approval) at which we plan to have four classifiers. I have
> > > proposed a few and wanted to get some inputs. Please let me
know
> > what
> > > you think.
> > >
> > > Proposed: CM 99-28, CM 99-52, CM 99-57, and CM 03-04.
> > >
> > > I thought CM 03-16 would be good as well, but I was not sure if
> we
> > > could have T1 and T4 at such tight angles at Chabot.
> > >
> > > Alternates: CM 99-08, CM 99-11, CM 99-42, CM 99-58, CM 03-02,
CM
> > 03-08.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> >
>