Rules Revision Process 2009-2010 - With Comments

Rules Revision Process 2009-2010 (With 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. Nine proposals were received prior to the deadline of June 30, 2009.

Take the time to read the proposals carefully. I also recommend that you discuss the proposals 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 received by June 15th, 2010. Send your ballot to:

Jim Filler
NAR Rules Revision Chair
6715 B Overton Circle # 13
Frederick, Md. 21703

A 66% majority vote is required in order for a proposal to be passed and become a part of the Pink Book effective for the new contest year that begins on July 1, 2010. These proposals even if passed will have no bearing on NARAM-52. 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

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-901

Submitted By: Ryan G. Coleman NAR: 59361 e-mail: ryan.g.coleman@gmal.com

Type: Regular

Summary: Remove Super Scale.

Logic: Super Scale is hardly ever flown. Model rocketry is about flying models, not launchers. Even the most die-hard scale enthusiasts express little interest in entering the event.

Effect: Event is almost never held, so no real effect on competition. No records are kept for craftsmanship events so no effect there either.

Wording: Remove the entirety of section 52 from the Pink Book, and all references to the Super Scale event in the glossary/appendices/tables.

Comments:

There is no reason to remove Super Scale as an event, even if it is not flown often.  Having a unique event can lead to something new at a contest (or NARAM) that might pique interest of a new set of competitors. Michael Rangitsch   NAR 76090

I disagree. It does no harm except consume a few bytes of data and a few micro grams of paper to leave it in place. The harm of removing it surpasses the harm of leaving it in place .It’s a solution to a non existent problem. -Chris Taylor 73586

Sections should determine what is and isn't a flyable event; therefore the event should be allowed to stay in the Pink Book Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

It would be very unfortunate for Super Scale to be removed from the Pink Book. Super Scale has had a wonderful past history in the NAR dating back to the beginning years of our organization (well over 40 years) ranks up there as a premier “crowd pleaser” event. Its removal would eliminate this great heritage of our hobby, and opportunities for modelers of today and the future to demonstrate their skills in precision modeling. Super Scale has been limited not by popularity, but by a) the availability of basic launcher data to the common modeler b) and the “how to build” information to go along with that (both being addressed by the author of this comment).  Super Scale is the one area where NAR Scale competition rules exceed FAI Scale model rocket events. In today’s world with the pink book being “virtual” (online), inclusion of Super Scale does not incur any added printing costs or other significant expenses to the NAR. If the logic of this proposal is accepted, (“…hardly ever flown…”), then many other events in the current Pink Book should be candidates for removal (Flex wing, Plastic Modeling, R&D, etc). Al Pizzo NAR 22433

This proposal is long overdue.  Last time the event was held at NARAM (NARAM-34), there were only four or five total entries in C AND Team divisions; proof of the lack of interest in this event.  And it hasn't been held more than once since then, if at all, IIRC. Chad Ring 50652

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-902

Submitted By: Ryan G. Coleman NAR: 59361 e-mail: ryan.g.coleman@gmal.com

Type: Regular

Summary: Remove Space Systems.

Logic: Space Systems is hardly ever flown, it is similar to Sport Scale but with required guidelines for Mission Points. Simplify the available events by removing this and leaving the popular Sport Scale event.

Effect: Event is almost never held, so no real effect on competition. No records are kept for craftsmanship events so no effect there either.

Wording: Remove the entirety of section 54 from the Pink Book, and all references to the Space Systems event in the glossary/appendices/tables.

Comments:

There is no reason to remove Space Systems as an event, even if it is not flown often.  Having a unique event can lead to something new at a contest (or NARAM) that might pique interest of a new set of competitors. Michael Rangitsch   NAR 76090

I disagree same as previous. While the effect of removing it might be minimal the effect of removing it is greater than the effect of leaving it in place. -Chris Taylor 73586

Sections should determine what is and isn't a flyable event; therefore the event should be allowed to stay in the Pink Book Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

Another good proposal for another rarely held event.  Chad Ring 50652

I am apposed to eliminating Space Systems from the Pink Book.  The event allows a modeler to exploit the mission abilities in a rocket flight.  I would like to keep this event.  SMASH has been flying this event each fall in 2008, 2009 and will again fly it in 2010.  In the fall 2009 regional 15 flyers out of 24 flew this event. Randy Boadway

__________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-903

Submitted By: Josh Tschirhart NAR: 48098 e-mail: drumn4j@yahoo.com

Type: Regular

Summary: The proposed change is intended to clarify that entries eligible for Concept Sport Scale may include models of vehicles that have been seriously proposed but are still unflown (rather than unbuilt) by changing one word in the event rules.

Logic: There have been questions within the competition community regarding the eligibility of various built but yet unflown rocket vehicles for entry in Concept Sport Scale. This is primarily due to rules defining Concept Sport Scale subjects as “unbuilt”, potentially excluding vehicles that have been completed (in regard to construction) but have not yet flown under rocket power. One of the main appeals of the relatively new Concept Sport Scale event is the opportunity to exhibit models of vehicles that are not eligible for traditional Scale or Sport Scale competition in which only flown vehicle configurations are allowed (according to traditional interpretation). Therefore, makes sense to allow models of unflown vehicles in the Concept Sport Scale event and eliminate wording that is contrary to the spirit of the event.

Clarification is simple and requires only the substitution of a single word in the Concept Sport Scale rules (“unflown” replaces “unbuilt”).

Effect: None.

Wording: Section 56.1 wording should be changed to:
56.1 Concept Sport Scale Competition is a variation of Sport Scale. The purpose of this competition is to product a flying replica of either a fictional or a seriously proposed, but unflown rocket vehicle that differs from Sport Scale Competition (Rule 53) only in the nature of the prototype and substantiation data.

Comments:

I agree with this proposal. The effect is not none the effect is quite great it adds a lot of vehicles to what can be built for competition which expands the event and the scope of what can be flown which is almost always a good thing. It makes the event more interesting and more varied.- Chris Taylor 73586

Agreed, removing ambiguity on this matter would remove confusion.  I should also add that the rules might even go as far as to say, 'un-flown configuration'.  E.g., if I fly a Pershing 3 (made up for this example), The Pershing 3 was a concept where the use of existing Pershing 2 missiles had a third stage added for even longer range.  The Pershing 3 has no real variation in shape, size, and dimensions, just uses some internal difference that allows a 3rd stage motor.  The Pershing 3 should qualify as long as I fly it as a 3 stage rocket.  2 stages Pershing 2 would be scale and therefore disqualify it from concept scale. Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-904

Submitted By: Josh Tschirhart NAR: 48098 e-mail: drumn4j@yahoo.com

Type: Regular

Summary: The proposed change is intended to clarify that the standard Scale or Sport Scale-related events (Sections 50-54) include only models of vehicles that have flown historically under rocket power (or inert examples of such vehicles).

Logic: Longstanding judging practice in the standard Scale and Sport Scale events has been to exclude scale models of vehicles that have not flown historically, interpreting the phrase “real rocket vehicle” as a vehicle that has flown under rocket power. To solidify that interpretation, I propose the addition of the phrase “that has flown under rocket power” in the relevant section of each event. Additionally, to eliminate potential confusion with other rules due to the new phraseology, I also propose inclusion of a phrase clarifying the eligibility of “non-flying or inert prototypes” as those that reasonably represent a historical vehicle configuration.

This RCP complements another RCP which clarifies inclusion of only \"unflown\" prototypes in the Concept Sport Scale event.

Effect: None.

Wording: Changes to Section 50 Scale Competition (Note: unchanged paragraphs are not shown)
50.1 Scope
Scale Competition comprises a single event open to any model rocket that is a true scale model of an existing or historical guided missile, rocket vehicle, or space vehicle, that has flown under rocket power. The purpose of this competition is to produce an accurate, flying replica of a real rocket vehicle that exhibits maximum craftsmanship in construction, finish, and flight performance. [ Added “,that has flown under rocket power”]

50.3 Non-Flying Prototypes
Entries in Scale Competition may model a non-flying or inert vehicle if its configuration is reasonably representative of a historical vehicle configuration.

Changes to Section 51 Scale Altitude Competition:

51.1 Scope
Scale Altitude Competition comprises nine events open to any model rocket that is a true scale model of an existing or historical guided missile, rocket vehicle, or space vehicle, that has flown under rocket power. The purpose of this competition is to produce an accurate, flying replica of a real rocket vehicle, that exhibits maximum craftsmanship in construction, finish, and flight performance; and to achieve the greatest possible altitude with the model. [added “,that has flown under rocket power”]

Changes to Section 52 Super Scale Competition:

52.2 Purpose
The purpose of this competition is to produce an accurate flying replica of a real rocket vehicle that has flown under rocket power, and an accurate working replica of its actual launching complex; both of which exhibit maximum craftsmanship in construction, finish, and performance. [added “that has flown under rocket power”]

Changes to Section 53 Sport Scale Competition:
53 SPORT SCALE COMPETITION
53.1 Scope
Sport Scale Competition comprises three events open to any model rocket that closely resembles an existing or historical guided missile, rocket vehicle, or space vehicle, that has flown under rocket power. The purpose of this competition is to produce a flying replica of a real rocket vehicle that exhibits maximum craftsmanship in construction, finish, and flight performance. Sport Scale Competition differs from Scale Competition (Rule 50) in that the dimensions of the model are not directly measured.
[added “,that has flown under rocket power”]

53.4 Non-Flying Prototypes
Entries in Sport Scale Competition may model a non-flying or inert vehicle if its configuration is reasonably representative of a historical vehicle configuration.

Changes to Section 54 Space Systems Competition:

54 SPACE SYSTEMS COMPETITION

54.1 Scope (1st paragraph)
Space Systems Competition comprises a single event open to any entry that closely resembles an existing or historical guided missile, rocket vehicle, or space vehicle, that has flown under rocket power, simulates in-flight performance of the prototype vehicle, and optionally includes a launcher. The purpose of this competition is to duplicate in miniature the full-scale operation of a real sounding rocket or space vehicle and its launch complex. [added “,that has flown under rocket power”]

Comments:

I am not entirely clear on what the intent of this rule is. What is it trying to change? -Chris Taylor 73586

Agreed Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-905

Submitted By: Chad Ring

Type: Regular

Summary: Adjust all contest event weighting factors so that no event is worth double or more than double any other event. Adjust weighting factor limit for all meet types to bring meet number and type of events at contests similar to what is currently flown.

Logic: Currently the event weighting factors span such a large range that one could win many events at a contest, and still not beat someone that only flew one event and placed first in that one event. While there are differences in the difficulty of events, I hardly believe any one event is 20 times more difficult that another. This RCP will bring the events closer in respect to each other, while still leaving ten different ‘weighting levels’ for different difficulties in different events.

Effect: None

Wording: Change WF chart in 6.6 to the following:

Event Type	Total Weighting Factors
Section Meet	35
Local Meet	35
Open Meet	50
Regional Meet	70
National Meet	Set by NAR Contest Board
Record Trial	No Limit

Change Appendix B: Weighting Factor Points and Charts to the following:

B Weighting Factor Points and Charts

Event	1/8A	1/4A	1/2A	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Altitude	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	12	12	12
Boost Glider Duration	13	13	13	13	13	13	14	14	14	14
Cluster Altitude	12	12	12	12	13	13	-	-	-	-
Dual Egg Lofting Altitude	-	-	-	-	-	15	15	15	16	16
Dual Egg Lofting Duration	-	-	-	-	-	15	15	15	16	16
Egg Lofting Altitude	-	-	-	-	13	13	13	14	14	14
Egg Lofting Duration	-	-	-	-	13	13	13	14	14	14
Flex-Wing Glider Duration	13	13	13	13	13	13	14	14	14	14
Helicopter Duration	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	15	15	15
Parachute Duration	11	11	11	11	11	11	-	-	-	-
Payload	-	-	-	12	12	12	12	13	13	13
Rocket Glider Duration	14	14	14	14	14	14	14	15	15	15
Scale Altitude	15	15	15	15	16	16	16	16	17	17
Streamer Duration	11	11	11	11	11	11	11	12	12	12
Super-Roc Altitude	12	12	12	12	12	12	13	13	13	13
Super-Roc Duration	12	12	12	12	12	12	13	13	13	13
NOTE: Add 1 to Duration Weighting Factors for Multi-Round events.

Event	WF
Drag Race	10
Plastic Model Conversion	16
Predicted Altitude	11
Predicted Duration	11
Radio Controlled Glider	16
Random Altitude	11
Random Duration	11
Research and Development	18
Scale	17
Science Fiction and Future Scale	15
Set Altitude	11
Set Duration	11
Space Systems	17
Sport Scale	15
Spot Landing	10
Super Scale	19

Also change all WF charts in each rules section to the above.

Comments:

I suspect this may be the most controversial of the new RCPs and certainly the one with the biggest impact on NAR competition if it passes.  On the whole I am supportive of the proposal. I am not sure if the 10-19 range is optimal.  I believe both that there should be differences in WFs between events and that the current range from 2 to 40 is too large.  The proposed 10-19 range may be collapsing the range too far, and certainly I suspect most competitors will not like the idea of making spot landing and drag race 10 WFs each.  But on the other hand, I find it ridiculous that dual egg duration (essentially a special version of parachute duration) is currently worth more than 3 times the WF of parachute duration. This is one example, but on the whole the proposal corrects many such unfair imbalances.  So while I suspect this new scheme will need to be tweaked further over time, I sense that this scoring method will be an improvement over the current scoring. - Patrick Peterson NAR # 30146

I am not opposed to some tweaking of the numbers.  Some people have said for a long time to just get rid of the WF's all together, making all events just the same.  I don't think the competition community is ready or would go for that.  This is the 'compromise' proposal.  The only thing I would ask is that all who read it consider it seriously, and not make a hasty conclusion without giving it its merit.  FYI, this is something I thought of a while ago, and was encouraged by other competitors to submit it now, as they thought it was time for a change.  Hence, I did. Chad Ring 50652

I ran all 4 of our 09-10 contests through this proposal and every one of them would have exceeded 70. Problem is, for say 6 events, 70 divided by 6 is 11 and 2/3.  If a person say wanted to fly BG and Sport Scale at a regional that leaves them with 42 wf.  They either have to do 3 14 WF events (that would work out to say HD, RG, and an egg lofting event) or they need to come up with two 10 WF events and two 11s.  That basically leaves them with PD (or altitude), SD, OSL and Drag Race.  I think for your system to work you should move Drag Race and OSL below 10.  Make them both say 8.  And perhaps make the low WF streamer/PD events at 10.  If you dropped OSL and drag race to 8, then a person could do OSL, PD, SD, BG, Sport Scale, and say super roc or cluster.  Another option would be to increase the WF for regionals to say 72.- Ryan Woebkenberg NAR 49363

Flattening out the weight factors implies that the events are all of equal difficulty, and that differing motor classes have no effect on the difficulty of the event.  A 1/8A parachute duration model is more difficult to fly than an A model.  This is true for all flying events.  With the proposed change, something like G boost glide will never be flown, since the points available are basically the same as 1/2A boost glide.   The result would be a drastic reduction in the number of different motor class events shown.  There would never be a reason to fly something besides an A motor event (sort of like the FAI competition). Michael Rangitsch   NAR 76090

Count me in on the with-you-in-spirit but in favor of minor tweaks. I think the current spread is too wide, but the proposed spread might be a bit narrow. I think glider events should be maybe one point tougher than currently reflected, craftsmanship maybe 1-2 higher as well. Maybe even drop the MR adder entirely? The one effect that does sort of smack one in the face is to dilute the impact of R & D at NARAM. I think that's good and bad. I hated to see certain individuals actually take home or nearly take home NARAM overall meet hardware for (not exaggerating) not even flying a rocket in the meet. On the other hand, as much of a PITA it is for me after only doing 3 or so, I'd hate to see participation die down due to diminished relative value, as without that stream of R & D we tend to be less innovative .I'd also be curious to do some what-ifs and check what impact this has on the relative weight of NARAM versus "regular season". Currently we've moved from 50/50 point balance to NARAM carrying a bit more weight than the 4 regionals. I tend to prefer it that way, especially since I tank regionals, but think we're getting into some "inflation" of WF's at NARAM and think a separate RCP needs to establish some bounds on events there as well.--Chan Stevens

I can not agree with this proposal until more data is present. Part of what weighting factors do to my minds eye is to encourage participation in more difficult events. If you "level" the point scales you eliminate some "desire" to participate in more difficult events now that those events will have little to no effect on the final outcome of a national championships event. Some competitors do not like this but I can see its validity. Who is going to do a true scale model and spend hundreds of hours on it when they can spend those same hours on 4 other events and still win? Will this proposal cause this? I am not sure. I think the solution is to form a committee to vet out these changes and figure out how best to do it. Massive weighting factors also can assist new flyers to scoring serious points. If a newbie flyer puts a vast amount of efforts into say an R&D report or a Scale rocket they have a shot at scoring some hardware. I think these needs to be looked at more closely before we rashly changes how things work. The people who created this system had good heads on their shoulders. The consequences of the changes need to be researched further before we go "screwing around" with this. -Chris Taylor 73586

Disagree.  Competition in Scale at a NARAM or FAI is 100s of times more costly in dollars, time, and abilities than Open Spot Landing, 1/2 A PD, or A SD.  To lower the bar to say that a museum quality Saturn 1 is just less than double the challenge of a 3 fin, balsa nose cone, 12 inch length of body tube streamer model is not realistic. I spent more than 80 hours putting together a Saturn 1b.  I spent 45 minutes fully assembling a B Streamer model including the streamer and paint. Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

I compiled a list of average WF for all of the events and compiled them below to give a distribution of difficulty, per the Pink Book.

"Easy" Events (WF<15, Average):
DR: . . . . . . . .  2.0
PSL, SSL, OSL:  . .  4.0
PD: . . . . . . . .  7.5
PRA, PRD, STA, STD:  8.0
RDA, RDD: . . . . . 10.0
SD: . . . . . . . . 10.4
Alt:  . . . . . . . 11.8

"Moderately Difficult" Events (15 SRA, CLA: . . . . . 15.3
SRA:  . . . . . . . 16.0
PAY:  . . . . . . . 17.7
ELD:  . . . . . . . 18.3
CS, SpSc: . . . . . 20.0
ELA:  . . . . . . . 20.3
BG, FW: . . . . . . 20.7
HD: . . . . . . . . 22.3
RG: . . . . . . . . 22.7

"Very Difficult" Events (WF>25, Average)
PMC:  . . . . . . . 26.0
DED:  . . . . . . . 27.8
SpSy: . . . . . . . 28.0
ScA:  . . . . . . . 29.5
DEL:  . . . . . . . 29.8
RCG, Scale: . . . . 32.0
R&D:  . . . . . . . 36.0
SuSc: . . . . . . . 40.0

Looking at it from this perspective, the difference in the events really isn't that great.  I'm fairly certain that the general consensus is that BG, RG, HD, ELD, and ELA are about twice as hard/time-consuming as PD, SD, and Alt.  I would also venture to guess that we'd agree that Scale is at least three times as difficult/time-consuming as PD, SD, and Alt. As to the disparity between impulse classes, maybe those need to be tightened a little bit, but the average values remain sound.  Also the current values allow some event shuffling so that a contest's WF can be met about 1000 different ways, which leads to more variety of contest events. Brian J. Guzek, NAR#86418

I can't be in favor of this RCP because there is not enough flexibility in the event WFs.  I ran 4 regionals my club is hosting in 09/10 contest year through this proposed system and all 4 exceeded 70 WF.  Other folks ran their current regionals through and they were way below 70 WF.  Ryan Woebkenberg NAR 49363

Author is open to some 'tweaking' of the numbers in the table if it helps to make meets more 'workable'.  Chad Ring 50652

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-906

Submitted By: Chris Flanigan NAR # 17540 e-mail: chris.flanigan@quartus.com

Type: Regular

Summary: The purpose of this rule change is to allow altimeters to be used to set altitude records. Provisions are included to review the altimeter data to check that it is reasonable. Altimeter based records will be kept in a separate class, similar to how Radio Control records are currently kept.

Logic: Altimeters are becoming increasing more accurate and affordable. Using recording altimeters will permit the altitude data to be checked for any anomalies. Allowing the use of altimeters to set altitude records may stimulate additional interest in altitude events. Keeping altimeter based records in a separate class will preserve theodolites based records.

Wording: Change rule 14.10.4 to allow the use of altimeters.
Insert rule 17.7 to define a special class for altimeter based altitude records.
Renumber current rule 17.7 to 17.8. No change to text.
Renumber current rule 17.8 to 17.9. No change to text.

14.10.4. Performance Records with Altimeters
The altitude reported for performance records with altimeters is subject to additional requirements and review. An altitude record may be set only using a recording altimeter. Altitude records may not be set using a reporting-only altimeter. After the flight, the altimeter data will be downloaded by the contestant and reviewed by a contest official (RSO, CD, or member of the contest jury). If it is shown that a sudden peak in altitude is attributable to the ejection event or a flight anomaly, that peak will be not be used to determine the recorded altitude. The maximum altitude excluding the anomalous peaks will be reported.
If the maximum altitude occurs more than five seconds after the ejection event (due to thermals or other anomaly), only the altitude at ejection (excluding sudden peaks as described above) will be reported.
If the altimeter data is, in the opinion of the contest official, significantly inconsistent with the observed flight, the altimeter data will be disallowed. The decision by the contest official on the interpretation of the altimeter data is final.

17.7. Altimeters
A separate class of records will be kept for altitude entries where the altitude was measured using an altimeter. The record will use the altitude as defined in Rule 14.10.4.

Comments:

agreed as long as they are a separate record. -Chris Taylor 73586

Disagree.  While I agree Altimeters are becoming more accurate and affordable, flying conditions and therefore the error/difference in recorded altitude varies with atmospheric pressures, temperatures, wind velocity, and other factors.  Theodolites offer the same error, 'human', to within a predictable amount.  Further more; a theodolite isn't affected by changes in geographic location (flying in San Diego at sea level offers different results, than at the NARAM 52 site that is 1 mile or more above sea level).  A theodolite at 1 mile has the same measurable and predictable errors than one at sea level, or if the flight is conducted at 9am with winds at 5 mph from the South, at 67 degrees F, and a flight a 3pm winds South West at 10 mph and temperature at 81 Degrees F.  The altimeter WILL report different altitudes due to the conditions.  A human operated Theodolite will not and should not. Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-907

Submitted By: Robert G Kaplow email: bobkaplow@yahoo.com

Type: Urgent

Summary: Clarify the procedure to measure superroc length by eliminating references to model parts, and defining the configuration to be measured.

Logic: The current procedure becomes ambiguous for a clustered model with more than one nose cone and/or nozzle. Ever since the event was created, swept fins were not considered to be part of the length, for no good reason. Yet for some reason, "body" was always interpreted to include the nose cone.

Effect: No effect on existing models or records. Certain models now prohibited would be allowed by this change.

Wording: SEC# 21.1 and 33.1 Scope: ... model rockets whose body length ... replace with ... model rockets whose OVERALL length ...SEC# 21.5 and 33.4 Scoring:... the length in centimeters of the model, as measured from the tip of the nose cone to the aft most end of the motor nozzle, up to the maximum length for that category, shall be awarded as static points. Replace with:... the length in centimeters of the model, as measured from the FARTHEST POINT FORWARD TO THE FARTHEST POINT AFT, IN THE CONFIGURATION THEY WILL BE IN AT FIRST MOTION, up to the maximum length for that category, shall be awarded as static points.

Comments:

Disagree the wording introduces dangerous loopholes. Modify the wording to stipulate that non rigid or non structural/flight surface components do not count for the measurement. This will help to eliminate people "dangling a string behind the rocket to be counted as part of its length. -Chris Taylor 73586

Agreed.  The entire model is under aerodynamic forces and therefore all of the model should be included in length.  Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

The current rule is simple, unambiguous, and easy to implement. Jim Kral 85566-2 life

This RCP probably opens the loopholes that now short rockets with really long fin(s) are allowed in Super Roc.  I'm not passing judgment on if that is good or bad.  I'm just pointing out to people that might not realize it that this fundamental change in the event could occur.  Ryan Woebkenberg NAR 49363

This is a major step backwards, to the days of long tubes/dowels trailing behind the fins... Chad Ring 50652

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-908

Submitted By: Robert Kaplow email: bobkaplow@yahoo.com

Type: Urgent

Summary: Add Random Altitude and Duration to the list of events that may not be proxy flown. Set limits on proxy flying of other precision event proxy flights.

Logic: For Random Altitude and Duration, the required performance is not known until moments before the event is flown. Just like Spot Landing, proxy flying these events would reflect the skill of the proxy flier and not the builder of the model. For either Predicted or Set Altitude and Duration, the rules should be clarified so that the actual builder of the model is both making the prediction, and defining the flight parameters (motor, liftoff weight, etc) so it is clearly the builders skill and not the fliers skill that is being measured. Otherwise ALL precision events need to be removed from the proxy list.

Effect: None. Records are not kept in these events.

Wording: 8.4 Proxy add the following events to the list of events that may not be proxy flown:
Random Altitude Random Duration. Add the following paragraph immediately after the list: For any other precision altitude or duration event, the proxy flier must furnish instructions from the entrant stating the prediction (for predicted altitude/duration), model, motor, liftoff mass, recovery device and size (for duration events), and any other critical parameters that would affect the performance of the model.

Comments:

I am not in favor of this proposal.  Proxy flying of Random Duration/Altitude is not any different than a contestant receiving advice from another flyer.  If novice flyers are allowed to receive engine, model type, liftoff mass, recovery device size, etc. advice from other contestants, something I think is good and should be encouraged, then that is not any different than allowing proxy flying of random duration/altitude models.- Ryan Woebkenberg NAR 49363

I am not sure of the need for this. If the modeler is providing the model then "pilot skill" becomes largely irrelevant since he is clueless as to the performance of the model. This should be looked at more carefully. What is the harm of allowing it? Besides "grabbing flight points" I really don't see any harm in permitting it.- Chris Taylor 73586

Agreed.  Random requires the flier on hand to determine engine type, launch angle, and recovery method.  These are things that require the flier to determine on the spot.  In the spirit of the event, these shouldn't be flown by proxy. Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

I think this is two separate proposals the first is no proxy flying random altitude or duration events. I agree with the reason stated. I do not agree with the second part, limits on other precession flights, adds burdensome data/record keeping/transmission by both the proxy flyer and model builder that model has not been "tampered" with. Jim Kral 85566-2 lifetime

___________________________________________________________________________________________

RCP# 2009-909

Submitted By: Robert G Kaplow email: bobkaplow@yahoo.com

Type: Interpretation

Summary: Explicitly prohibit "special rules" at all contests.

Logic: There used to be a provision in the Pink Book to allow special rules for NARAM but not at any other contests. After years of abuse and badly defined rules, this was eliminated. In spite of this, NARAM CDs, and occasionally other CDs regularly try to create new "special rules" for contests that don't exist in the pink book. Make it clear that these are not allowed at any level of competition, so that rules are constant all year.

Effect: None

Wording: Add the sentence: "No contest director or other meet official may add any additional contest rules that are not found in this sporting code."

Comments:

On its face I 100% agree but a provision should be allowed for "field conditions" such as what happens if the field owner says NO to ejecting foam plugs? Would that not be a special rule but also mandated by the field owner usage conditions? Add a provision for field owner requirements and I am ok with this. Special rules stink -Chris Taylor 73586

Obviously additional rules for safety should be allowed, field hazards or fire conditions etc. But with that said, variety is the spice of life.  Of course any rule or interpretation is subject to abuse, i.e. scale event but you can only enter Saturn Vs'.  Or some other rule(s) that would put other flyers at a disadvantage. On the other hand spot landing event requiring a B motor or helicopter recovery could spice up an otherwise pedestrian event that is most often used to max out meet weighting factors.  To say that events can only be flown as written makes the pink book sort of monolithic. I see little problem events with special rules with enough lead time to prepare and an approval of the regional contest chair. James Kral 85566-2 life member

Disagree.  Sections should and must maintain sovereignty and control over their contests.  As long as the special rules are published well in advance (TBD) and posted publicly, they should be able to define what best fits that club's situation.  It’s like the National Speed limit law: The National Maximum Speed Law in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph (90 km/h). This law was modified in 1987 to allow 65 mph (105 km/h) limits on certain roads. But in some states the State laws allow a speed limit of 75 (Nevada comes to mind) because of the open expansions and low density of auto traffic on roads, you adjust the laws to fit the situation.  Jonathan Dunbar NAR 34583

Return to the NAR home page  |  Join the NAR