Rules Revision Process - Comments
Rules Revision Process 2006-2007- Comments
The RCP process for changing rules in the NAR Sporting Code a.k.a. “The Pink Book” is defined in the sporting code under section “f” of the appendix. The process can be reviewed online at http://www.nar.org/pinkbook/ if you do not have a hard copy of the pink book. The cycle for proposed changes now runs on a one year cycle. The following timeline will complete the current cycle. Four proposals were received prior to the deadline of June 30, 2007. The following that is printed here is presented in two sections, the first being the actual RCP’s along with the comments received. Take the time to read the proposals carefully. I also recommend that you discuss the proposal with fellow contest flyers for the pros and cons of the proposals. Some clubs even have discussion at business meetings to allow for opinions to be shared amongst members.
Every member of the NAR has the opportunity to vote on the proposals up for consideration. Your ballot must be postmarked by June 1st 2008. Ballots will be mailed to you. Send your ballot to my home address at:
Jim Filler
NAR Rules Revision Chair
6715 B Overton Circle # 13
Frederick, Md. 21703
When the ballots are tabulated, it requires a 66% vote for the proposal to be passed and become a part of the pink book effective for the new contest year July1, 2008. I would like to remind everyone that the opportunity for you to submit a RCP is as simple as writing up your idea or submitting it online at the link you can find at: http://www.nar.org/competition/pinkbookrcpform.html
Special note on this cycle for proposal number RCP2007-703. I have decided to allow edits to be put in place to help clarify the proposal. Per the sporting code rule F.11. Proposal Editing. For proposals having passed the RRC review and prior to the publication deadline for the Final Vote, the RRC shall include both the edited and unedited versions of the proposal on the Final Vote ballot. So you will see both the original proposal and the edited proposal. The edited version is what you are voting on. The comments received and published here are actually based on the original version of the proposal.
Comments Regarding the 2006-2007 RCP Proposals.
All members have the privilege to comment on RCP’s that come up to vote. The rulemaking requirement of the pink book requires these comments to be published for all to read. The following comments were received from members and are presented here for you to consider when casting your vote.
RCP # 2007-701
Delete the D through G category of Super-Roc Altitude and Duration
( Was submitted as a safety proposal prior to NARAM-49 and failed )
Submitted by: Robert G Kaplow NAR#: 18L
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Delete the D through G category of Super-Roc Altitude and Duration
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
With current composite motors, this event is an ever tightening balancing act between having a model that will work, but requires prohibited hard unsafe materials to do so, and having a model that meets the events frangible requirements that will fail in flight. While it is possible to build a NON COMPETITIVE model that meets the rules and will work, competition forces people to the extremes. Pushing the limits will result in either models that fail, or models that are unsafe. And no matter what the rules are, and how diligent the RSO’s may be, someone will push the limits outside the envelope, with disastrous results.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS:
Contestants will not be pushed by competition to fly unsafe models.
Records for D-G SRA and SRD will be retired.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR: SEC#
21.6. [Delete motor class D, E, F, and G]
33.5. [Delete motor class D, E, F, and G]
Comments Received:
Jon Stenberg-I would stand VERY much against eliminating this exciting class of events. With much respect to the proposer, this idea is ridiculous. I would be disappointed to see this go any further. At most, make these events follow the “away cell” rules of HPR.
My name is Alyssa (NAR#87476). I am 8 years old. Last year I built a G Superoc and I enjoyed doing it. What made it even better was that I was able to launch it successfully! I would hate to see all the high-powered Superoc events go.
Andrew Grippo-This is a "What If" change and not needed, Kaplow is off the mark and is not offering any evidence as to why the change is needed. The whole point of the competition is to be the person that overcomes the design challenges and comes out on top. I do not believe competitors are forced to cheat to compete in this event.
Al Gloer-As a senior NAR member and L2 flier I wish to register my strongest opposition to RCP #2007-701, concerning the elimination of the D-G Superoc classes. These are events that offer part of the bridge between low power contest fliers and high power rocketeers. The statement that these classes are inherently unsafe if flown competitively is too sweeping and I do not see any data to back it up. This change has already failed as a safety enhancement, and what I read that it is just a different vector on the same argument. If there is empirical data supporting that this is an unsafe activity, it should be posted as part of the RCP. In any case I would encourage a different approach if the appropriate safety committees decide there is a hazard, them perhaps requiring an increase to the safe distance may be in order. Eliminating these contests would be a mistake
Jack Sprague-I disagree with this proposal, there have been many meets that have flown these classes. And the safety issues have not been worse than other event classes, like PMC or Space Systems. These events ARE challenging but can be safely managed on an appropriate field. D and E class events are very popular and are flown about once every three years by our Texas sections, even if F and G are considered hazardous, the lower power classes should not be eliminated.
Dave Fitch-G Superoc was held at NARAM-49 in complete safety ... In my opinion, the concerns expressed in RCP # 2007-701 are unfounded and the proposal received the proper treatment when it was previously voted on.
Stephen Maire-Seems reasonable.
O. Lee James-RCP #2007-701 is unnecessary. G Super-Roc at NARAM 49 showed that the current state of the art is sufficient for consistently safe G Super-Roc flights. The USMRSC should not be changed in a vain attempt to placate a whining minority. Adopting this rule would hurt those who want to fly it and accomplish nothing positive.
Joseph Peck-The proposal makes several good points about competition pushing the envelope on rocket design, and the subsequent failure rate of those high performance attempts. However, I don't see how this concern can be so limited to just Super-Roc categories. This argument applies to almost any of the competition categories, and in most contests almost every event has a failure of some sort. Boost and rocket gliders shred their lightweight wings and become flying sticks. Duration rockets fail to deploy their giant mylar parachutes and come in ballistic. Egg lofters separate and the egg capsules come crashing in. Interestingly enough, it seems to me that Super-Rocs usually have a relatively safe failure mode: they tend to fold in half and spin around a few times, then flutter to the ground. I just don't see how we could remove D through G Super-Roc competition without removing many other events. But to be clear, I do NOT support removing any of the current events from competition.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2007-702
PINK BOOK RULES CHANGE PROPOSAL FOR FAI-STYLE EVENTS
Submitted by: Trip Barber, NAR #4322
Summary of Rules Change Proposal: Add appropriate Pink Book paragraphs and event classes to permit those events which are currently being flown at the World Spacemodeling Championships under international (FAI) rules to be flown as contest events in the U.S.
Logic and Intent of Change: The FAI “Space Models” rules that govern model rocket competition in every other country in the world have significant differences from current U.S. (NAR) model rocket competition rules, largely by requiring minimum rocket body sizes, and by having longer “maximum” times in multi-round duration events. Because US fliers do not regularly compete under FAI rules, US teams have an experience disadvantage when they go to compete in the biennial World Spacemodeling Championships (WSMC). This proposal adds to the US Model Rocket Sporting Code the most popular of those 8 FAI events that are officially designated as the events that must be flown at a WSMC, with a weighting factor equal to the equivalent current US event. This will give US modelers wishing to develop the skills to compete internationally the ability to practice these events in NAR contests.
Effect on Current Competition and NAR Records: None , adds new classes to existing events without changing the rules of any existing class or event.
Exact wording of proposed additional new rules, submitted as a single package proposal:
9.13 FAI Events. Models flown in the “FAI” class of an event must comply with the following construction requirements of the FAI Sporting Code, Section 4, Volume SM “Space Models” for that event. First, the minimum length of the enclosed airframe of the model must be 500 millimeters and at least 50 percent of this airframe length must have a minimum diameter of 40 millimeters in the launch configuration. Second, in events where multi-staging is allowed the booster stage must deploy a recovery device, the upper stage must be at least 18 millimeters diameter over at least 75 percent of the upper stage length, and any boat tails on that stage must be at least 18 millimeters base diameter.
31.2.1 For FAI class streamer duration, the streamer must have a length-to-width ratio of ten to one (10:1) or greater. The cord attaching the streamer to the model may be attached to a loop of thread which is attached to each edge of the narrow end of the streamer.
20.2 Altitude: Add classes “FAI A” with weighing factor 10 and “FAI B” with weighing
factor 11.
30.2 Parachute Duration: Add class “FAI A” with weighing factor 7 and multi-round maximum of 300 seconds.
31.4 Streamer Duration: Add class “FAI A” with weighing factor 8 and multi-round maximum of 180 seconds.
32.4 Helicopter Duration: Add class “FAI A” with weighing factor 20 and multi-round maximum of 180 seconds.
36.3 Boost Glider Duration: Add class “FAI A” with weighing factor 18 and multi-round maximum of 180 seconds.
Comments Received:
Jon Stenberg-I strongly support doing something here. However, I would recommend it be an added option to current events just like the multi-round is an addable option (along with additional CF weighting).
Andrew Grippo-Barber is right on the money with this proposal. The U.S. has been at a disadvantage for years due in large part to the lack of experience. The only disagreement I have with the proposal is that instead of having only certain events I would have them all. Competitors can decide what is more popular, not the NAR.
Dave Fitch-I favor the expansion of NAR Competition, in general, and the inclusion of "FAI-Style" Events is good in principle. However, as we both know, "True FAI Competition" requires the use of exotic materials and equipment, namely mandrels. This could actually have a detrimental effect, by excluding less-experienced modelers and/or those with limited budgets . . . If it required the use of "Standard Model Rocket Tube" (those commercially available), as opposed to the "Std. FAI Construction" it would be more widely accepted, in my opinion.
Stephen Maire-I am not certain how much effect it will have, but it at least opens the option to gain FAI experience and thus a good idea.
O. Lee James-The FAI fliers have long been complaining that they cannot practice with the same motors that European fliers use. I don't see how "competing" with American motors will help them. This is a silly rule. However, it doesn't seem to have a downside, so I would not oppose its adoption.
_______________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2007-703 Allowance of Electronic Altimeters in Altitude Events ( Original Version )
Submitted by: Tom Lyon, NAR-16558
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Allow the use of "NAR contest approved" electronic altimeters for altitude events to those contest directors/sections that do not have or can't use theodolites needed for optical tracking. Theodolites will still remain the preferred method under Rule 14.1, but altimeters can be used as an alternative method for reporting altitude. Both methods can NOT be used at the same time. Specific check-in & return procedures described herein will aid in creating a level field and to prevent abuse of event rules and intentions.
LOGIC:
Altitude events in NAR contests have dwindled due to the lack of the availability of theodolites or personnel that can use them. This will provide the alternative needed to increase interest in flying altitude contest events. Tracking scopes will still be the main and preferred method for altitude reduction; the use of electronic altimeters can provide a back-up choice. The two cannot be used at the same time at a contest; it’s one or the other. All tracking at a meet will be done the same way. Also past R&D has shown the inaccuracies due to weather and regional meteorology as well as electronic capabilities. I had tried to have this proposal go thru twice before; this time will remove the chances of applying for a performance record due to lack of accuracy. Without the performance records being used then there’s no reason to limit the use of altimeters in only certain events that way keep them open for all altitude events that are physically capable of flying an NAR Contest Approved altimeter. Another problem experienced is people not fully reading the proposal, just going on the hear-say from others and joining the band wagon. So a lot of the complaints and assumptions about lack of info already have the answers included here, just read them.
EFFECTS:
Events flown under Rule 14.1 - none
Events under proposed Rule 14.10 - Depending on event, either new models will have to be designed and constructed, or existing designs modified. Range processing time should remain the same, time and effort also should remain the same. This should encourage competition and skill. Because of inaccuracies of climate changes and commercial model rocket altimeter manufacturing, no performance records will be kept by entries that use electronic altimeters.
EXACT WORDING: add the end of Rule 14.6 Error Check
Any altimeter reading reported by an entry that was optically tracked using theodolites will NOT be officially considered and Rule 14.9 will NOT apply.
EXACT WORDING: add the following to Section 14
14.10 Electronic Altimeters
The use of theodolites will remain the preferred method for altitude tracking, (as described in Rule 14.1) . Approved electronic altimeters may also be used. All entries at a sanctioned meet are to be tracked using the same method, meaning, all entries will be tracked using theodolites, or all done with altimeters, not both. The sanction request form submitted by the contest director must state under "Special Provisions" whether all contestants will fly using "Theodolites (14.1)" or "Altimeters (14.10)". The contest director will also assure that all announcements and publications for the sanctioned meet will tell all prospective entrants the same.
Only altimeters approved by the NAR Contest Board may be used. These are not to be altered, modified (including power source changes) and must remained stock as manufactured. The approval process includes but not limited to: commercially manufactured, availability, size, ease of use (mainly for check-in & returns), barometric sensing, ability to produce an immediate after-flight repeatable reading using audio or visual output, ADC resolution of 12 bit or higher, and other factors as deemed necessary. At this writing the approved altimeters are:
• Adept A1
• Perfectflite Alt15K/WD
• ( Others may be added to the list if this proposal passes )
14.10.1 Safety Check-In Procedure
The flight ready entry with the altimeter removed must be presented to the safety check official for inspection to verify the altimeter is unaltered and completely stock. The altimeter's power source (battery) should be removed; the model's breathing port for the altimeter is located per manufacturer's suggestions. The safety check officer may request the "owner’s manual" for the altimeter if any questions arise. The make and model of the altimeter will be noted on the contestant's flight card under the "remarks" section
The altimeter's power source will be turned on in the presence of the safety check official, and verified after boot-up, the altimeter is in "stand by" mode. The battery is allowed to be taped in.
The altimeter will now be placed in the model and secured in the presence of the safety check official. The entry is now ready for pad assignment.
14.10.2 Launch
The RSO or contestant will verify immediately prior to countdown the altimeter is "standby" mode.
14.10.3 Returns Procedure
The model and altimeter must be returned as recovered, unopened. The returns official and contestant both will concur on the reported altitude. Any other specific event rules may also apply.
If the altimeter can NOT be returned, and is not DQ'd for any other safety or event rule violations, then that flight can be considered “Track Lost” and Rule 14.9 can be applied. If the altimeter fails to report an altitude, or reports a grossly inaccurate altitude, and has not been DQ'd for any safety or event rule reason, then that flight can be considered "Track Lost" and Rule 14.9 can be applied.
14.10.4 Performance Records with Altimeters
NAR performance records for entrants using electronic altimeters will NOT be kept in any event classes and age divisions per Section 17.
Comments Received:
Jack Sprague-I disagree with this proposal. Although I am in favor of this eventually becoming a possibility, until there are at least three reliable altimeter choices that are under $50 each, then the potential for inappropriate actions in the event is too high, and too easy, and undetectable. At the $50 price point, the contest host section can supply the event altimeters and assure their pristine "stock" condition. Unless the proposal includes the altimeters being supplied by the sections and NOT by the contestants then I will continue to disagree.
Andrew Grippo-I fully believe altimeters should be allowed at events but not until there is a system in place for calibration and verification of results of each one. There are too many folks out there that can and will cheat to come out ahead. I wonder what is the reasoning behind not allowing both methods at the same time. This proposal is unclear and should be rejected until the details of use can be worked out.
Dave Fitch-Of all the RCP's submitted, this one makes the most sense to me, although I know there is a lot of disagreement among Contest Flyers on this issue. Clubs, for the most part, do not fly Altitude Events, mainly to avoid the tracking issue. So, they fly duration and craftsmanship events. The use of altimeters in Competition, provided there is a suitable way to verify their accuracy and calibration, before and after the flight, is something that I feel would help to re-energize interest in the altitude events . . . The only negative aspect, as I see it, revolves around the costs associated with the hardware . . .
Donald A. Laskey-Rule 14.10 should not restrict the altimeter being used for four reasons:
1) It would disallow individuals from building there own altimeter.
2) It could give Perfectflite and Adept a monopoly on the altimeter market.
3) Anyone who has all ready bought an altimeter that is not on the list would have to buy a new one.
4) Since it would disallow individuals from building an altimeter and most likely push smaller companies out of the altimeter business, the technology would likely not improve.
So I would recommend for next RCP have a way of field testing altimeter.
Stephen Maire-Allowance of electronic altimeters in altitude events. My concern here is that modelers without the expertise in electronics are left out.
O. Lee James-RCP #2007-703 is unnecessary. Rule 14.8 allows altimeters. We should allow the local Contest Directors and Regional Contest Board Chairs to work out rules that fit their fliers. The state of the art of altimeters is not sufficiently advanced as to provide the same level of accuracy that theodolites do. This RCP is overly complex, would only confuse the issue further while accomplishing nothing positive and, again, is not needed.
Joseph Peck-It is very rare in my area for altitude events to be included in contests or record trials due to the difficulties associated with theodolites. Not every club has them. Relatively few people have actually used them. Only a small number of people want to spend the day sitting out by a theodolite instead of participating in the launch. I have manned a tracking station on multiple occasions, including at one NARAM, and having a viable option for not sitting out in the sun trying to track rockets with insufficient tracking powder over and over again (remember, people are trying to push the edge of performance) would be great. However, I am concerned technically about the use of altimeters as proposed. Is supporting data available that shows the relative accuracy among the altimeters being considered? What is to keep a competitor from buying several altimeters of the same type in order to find the one that reads higher than the others? Several years ago a club member of ours put two altimeters of the same model in his rocket at the same time, yet they returned a fairly significant difference. No, I don't recall the model or the particular error. It seems like there are at least three options that could allow for altimeters in a contest. 1- Provide supporting data that the altimeters do not demonstrate significant measurement variation from one altimeter to the next; 2- Require that the accuracy of each altimeter be verified at the contest (with a vacuum chamber or similar); or 3 - Require that a single altimeter be used by all competitors in a given event (yes, they would have to share and risk damaging the altimeter).
RCP # 2007-703 Allowance of Electronic Altimeters in Altitude Events ( Revised version )
Submitted by: Tom Lyon, NAR-16558
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Allow the use of "NAR contest approved" electronic altimeters for altitude events to those contest directors/sections that do not have or can't use theodolites needed for optical tracking. Theodolites will still remain the preferred method under Rule 14.1, but altimeters can be used as an alternative method for reporting altitude. Both methods can NOT be used at the same time. Specific check-in & return procedures described herein will aid in creating a level field and to prevent abuse of event rules and intentions.
LOGIC:
Altitude events in NAR contests have dwindled due to the lack of the availability of theodolites or personnel that can use them. This will provide the alternative needed to increase interest in flying altitude contest events. Tracking scopes will still be the main and preferred method for altitude reduction; the use of electronic altimeters can provide a back-up choice. The two cannot be used at the same time at a contest; it’s one or the other. All tracking at a meet will be done the same way. Also past R&D has shown the inaccuracies due to weather and regional meteorology as well as electronic capabilities. I had tried to have this proposal go thru twice before; this time will remove the chances of applying for a performance record due to lack of accuracy. Without the performance records being used then there’s no reason to limit the use of altimeters in only certain events that way keep them open for all altitude events that are physically capable of flying an NAR Contest Approved altimeter. Another problem experienced is people not fully reading the proposal, just going on the hear-say from others and joining the band wagon. So a lot of the complaints and assumptions about lack of info already have the answers included here, just read them.
EFFECTS:
Events flown under Rule 14.1 - none
Events under proposed Rule 14.10 - Depending on event, either new models will have to be designed and constructed, or existing designs modified. Range processing time should remain the same, time and effort also should remain the same. This should encourage competition and skill. Because of inaccuracies of climate changes and commercial model rocket altimeter manufacturing, no performance records will be kept by entries that use electronic altimeters.
EXACT WORDING: add the end of Rule 14.6 Error Check
Any altimeter reading reported by an entry that was optically tracked using theodolites will NOT be officially considered and Rule 14.9 will NOT apply.
EXACT WORDING: add the following to Section 14
14.10 Electronic Altimeters
The use of theodolites will remain the preferred method for altitude tracking, (as described in Rule 14.1) . Approved electronic altimeters may also be used. All entries at a sanctioned meet are to be tracked using the same method. The sanction request form submitted by the contest director must state under "Special Provisions" whether all contestants will fly using "Theodolites (14.1)" or "Altimeters (14.10)". The contest director will also assure that all announcements and publications for the sanctioned meet will tell all prospective entrants the same.
Only commercially-available altimeters approved by the NAR Contest Board and publicly announced as approved at least 60 days before any contest where they are used may be used in competition. These altimeters may not be altered or modified in any manner, including power source changes. An altimeter must meet the following requirements to be approved by the Contest Board:
Uses barometric measurement techniques to record relative flight apogee altitude above launch pad altitude
Resolution of 2 meters or better in readout
Accuracy 2 percent of recorded altitude or 2 meters, whichever is greater
Sampling rate of 10 per second or greater
Audio or visual readout directly from the altimeter
Capable of being zeroed of previous flight data before flight
14.10.1 Check-In Procedure
The flight ready entry with the altimeter removed must be presented to the safety check official for inspection to verify the altimeter is unaltered and has been zeroed. The safety check officer may request the "owner’s manual" for the altimeter if any questions arise concerning its operation or post-flight readout. The make and model of the altimeter will be noted on the contestant's flight card under the "remarks" section. The altimeter's power source will be turned on in the presence of the safety check official, and zeroing will be verified after boot-up.
The altimeter will now be placed in the model and secured in the presence of the safety check official. The entry is now ready for pad assignment.
14.10.2 Launch
The RSO or contestant will verify immediately prior to countdown the altimeter is "standby" mode.
14.10.3 Returns Procedure
The model and altimeter must be returned as recovered, unopened. The returns official and contestant both will concur on the reported altitude. Any other specific event rules may also apply.
If the altimeter can NOT be returned, and is not DQ'd for any other safety or event rule violations, then that flight can be considered “Track Lost” and Rule 14.9 can be applied. If the altimeter fails to report an altitude, and has not been DQ'd for any safety or event rule reason, then that flight can be considered "Track Lost" and Rule 14.9 can be applied.
14.10.4 Performance Records with Altimeters
NAR performance records for entrants using electronic altimeters will NOT be kept in any event classes and age divisions per Section 17.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2007-704 Change Contest Point System
Submitted by: Tom Lyon NAR-16558
RCP Type: Regular
BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGE
Remove the meet classifications for Regional, Open, and Section/Local Meets and just have one that will be called "Meets". Retain the classification for "National" and "Record Trial" meets.
The newly classified "Meets" will have a contest factor (CF) of two, and the events weighting factor (WF) will be capped at 60. For NAR Sections (Clubs), the total number of competitors will decide on what percentage a club can claim for that meet's section points from their club members. Provide individual competitors/teams the chance to gain bonus points for traveling to a meet. Provide NAR Sections (Clubs) the chance to gain bonus points as well when competing with other NAR Sections at a Meet.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE
There has been increasing complaints about some clubs holding scripted but legitimate regionals with a small group but no real competition involved thusly accumulate large point totals for both the competitor and the section. The multiplier for a regional meet thus awards extra points despite that lack of real competition.
Changing the Section/Local, Open and Regional meets to just plain "Meets" will level the flying field to everyone flying NAR competition anywhere during a Contest Year Keeping the maximum available to fly at 12 CF means that in order for anyone to fly a complete season will have to enter in 6 meets. Maybe a burden to some, but also should encourage the "big time competitor" to plan to travel if necessary. Limiting a host club to 4 meets also should encourage better planning for travel. This doesn't mean a section will travel, just that an individual can host a meet in place of a section.
The awarding of bonus points for travel is an attempt to promote activity in the contest arena so people will travel to a meet that may be outside their area. This also rewards those people that already make plans to travel on a regular basis. The awarding of bonus points for sections competing with other sections would encourage inter-section activity and competition for club points.
Granted this is not totally perfect for everyone, but it does place everyone on a level plane. It also goes back to the way the early rules of NAR competition
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
This will change current strategy for obtaining contest flight points.
No effect on the design, construction, or flying models.
No effect on Records
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR: SEC# 6
6.3 Sanctions
Competition sanctioned by the NAR shall be classified as follows:
6.3.1 Meets
This is a competition among members of the NAR as well as Sections of the NAR. A Meet may be sponsored by an individual member of the NAR, or a chartered section of the NAR. Meets will have a maximum events weighting factor of 60. Meets have a contest factor of two (2). For
flight points being accredited to a chartered NAR section, the following schedule applies:
A minimum of two contestants at a meet but no more than six total contestants, all of those contestants may enter as members of the same chartered section of the NAR. If there are seven total contestants but no more than twelve total contestants, no more than 3/4 of the contestants may enter as members of the same chartered section of the NAR If there are thirteen or more total contestants, no more than 2/3 of the contestants may enter as members of the same chartered section of the NAR. The total number of contestants includes proxy-flown contestants
(Rule 8.4)
Bonus Points
a) Travel Bonus Points will be awarded to those individuals who need to travel extraordinary mileage to be physically present and competing at a meet. Proxy flown contestants are not eligible for Travel
Bonus Points
The one-way mileage distance to be measured to get to the meet will be from the contestant's home street address to the street address for the meet site. For teams, this mileage to be used will be from the team member's home street address that lives closest to the site of the Meet. The contestant must provide documented proof of mileage using: a computerized mapping/direction finder or a detailed road atlas/map using the "shortest distance" option. The documentation for travel mileage will be turned in to the Regional Contest Board to be verified. Falsification, any abuse or padding the travel mileage in order to get Travel Bonus Points will result in automatic denial of that competitor's entire meet flight points and will be listed with a meet score of zero.
The Travel Bonus Points are for one way to a meet and not for side trips, return trips or getting lost:
0 to 74.9 miles = 0 (zero) bonus points
75.0 to 124.9 miles = 10 (ten) bonus points
125.0 and over = 25 bonus points
A NAR Section will receive 10 Bonus Points for every other NAR section represented at the same meet they are at. Applicants shall not be denied the right to compete on any other basis, with the exception of previous misconduct as specified in Rule 11.4. Meets have a Contest Factor of 2.
6.3.2 National Meet (NARAM)
One National Meet (NARAM) shall be held each year. The National Meet will be held at
such time and place and with such entry requirements as shall be determined by the NAR Contest Board. The National Meet shall have a contest factor of 8.
6.3.3 Record Trials
This type of meet is conducted for the purpose of providing an opportunity and facilities for attempts to establish or surpass official United States and FAI model rocket performance records. No NAR contest points shall be awarded. Events to be flown must be indicated on the application for sanction. Any number or combination of events may be flown. In a Record trial, any NAR member duly entered in the meet may have as many opportunities as time and weather permit to make a record flight. Record Trials have no contest factor.
6.6 (the wording stays the same but the schedule will change)
EVENT TYPE TOTAL WEIGHTING FACTORS
Meet 60
National Meet Set by the NAR Contest Board
Record Trials No Limit
6.7 (the second to the last sentence changes to:) In addition, a chartered NAR section may not sponsor more than 4 meets during a Contest Year.
13.4 Contest Factor
Each competition classification as listed in Rule 6.3 has a Contest factor as reiterated below:
Event Type Contest Factor
Meet 2
National Meet 8
Record Trial None
13.5 (references to "Open Meet" will need to be changed to "Meet")
Comments Received:
Jack Sprague-I understand the logic Tom puts forward in support of this but I think it is too big a change to be an appropriate fix. Instead I would rather see limits like he proposes on percentage of section contestants applied at the existing meet formats. Some small changes at that level can inhibit the abusive scheduling. I would not want to implement a "return to the past" in the meet definitions.
Andrew Grippo-I agree with this one as well, I know it's hard to believe someone running a NAR contest would cheat just to give themselves, their kid or their friends a leg up but I wonder sometimes about the launches I see listed as regional competitions
Andy Eng-I would like to express my appreciation to those responsible for the altimeter rules proposal before us. Our club has not flown altitude events in nearly ten years and without this fix, will unlikely fly altitude events again at our sanctioned events. This fully responsive proposal addresses participant comments, protects the integrity of the sport, and will increase interest in flying altitude events. Please support the use of altimeters in model rocket contest flying by voting YES.
Dave Fitch-This issue has been a problem for many years and I am glad to see it being addressed as an RCP. Any "legitimate" competitor should not have a problem in voting for this one . . . Those who oppose it are, apparently, happy with the "Status Quo" and probably benefiting from it, in one way or another.
Stephen Maire-I am not sure that this is getting to the point that wants to be got at. While some consolidation is probably a good idea, this may not be the right approach.
O. Lee James-RCP #2007-704 is silly in the extreme. It seeks to correct a problem that exists only in the minds of a paranoid few. It is so complex as to be unworkable, would only lead to more confusion and arguing, is not needed and accomplishing nothing positive.
Joseph Peck- I agree that some sections seem to have more optimal conditions for maximizing points accumulations than others. This proposal seems to help, but I have three comments: 1) Does it really help much to limit a club to hosting 4 meets if an individual can then hold the remaining two? I guess I am not seeing the strong advantage over just letting the club host 6 if it wants to, but there's probably a detail that I am missing. 2) Do the Travel Bonus Points apply to NARAM as well? If it does that would tend to penalize members of the club hosting NARAM, as they probably live near their field while the others do not. 3) Does verifying the Travel Bonus add too much work for the Regional Contest Board?