RCP Cycle 2015-2016
April 15 – Comments period is closed
May 1 – Ballots published
June 1 – Deadline to submit your ballot
June 15 – Voting results published
July 1 – RCPs that pass go into effect for the new contest year and
have no effect on NARAM from the previous contest year
RCP# 2015-01 Revise R&D Scoring
RCP# 2015-02 Combine A & B Division
RCP# 2015-03 Reduce R&D Weight Factor
RCP# 2015-04 Standardized Events
RCP# 2015-05 Reload Motor Impound
RCP# 2015-07 CB-170 for teams
RCP# 2015-08 Reduce Weighting Factors
RCP# 2015-10 Altimeter Download Requirement
RCP# 2015-11 Altimeter Temperature Correction
RCP# 2015-12 FAI Boost Glider/Rocket Glider Rule Alignment
RCP# 2015-14 Alter points scoring for ties
RCP# 2015-16 Eliminate F&G Duration Events
REVISION TO PINK BOOK ON ALTIMETERS IN COMPETITION by Trip Barber, NAR 4322 L3
With concurrence of the National Contest Board
Justification for changes:
Pressure sensor. The state of the art in sensors to measure pressure is an “integrated pressure sensor (IPS)” chip such as the Bosch BMP 280, which can deliver up to 20 bits of resolution; the previous generation was 18 bits, and many of these are still in use in current modern altimeters. (Perfectflite uses a Measurement Specialties MS 5611 IPS chip with 24-bit analog-to-digital conversion). Early-generation altimeters did not use IPS and had significant manual manufacturer calibration requirements. This led to designs on the market whose absolute accuracy was questionable, as observed in Chris Kidwell’s flight-test R&D reports from NARAMs 46 & 47. IPS today are built with an internal calibration correction look-up table and chip-temperature compensation so that the digital readout reflects computed altitude to the specified level of accuracy (1 meter or better). 16 bits of resolution will sustain 1 meter of accuracy across an operating range of 4000 meters; the most modern chips use more bits than this and operate with this level of accuracy or better across an even wider temperature/pressure/altitude range than the minimum required by this rule.
On-Pad Sampling. Over the course of a day, local barometric pressure can very as a result of weather by as much as an inch of mercury, which corresponds to 1000 feet of pressure altitude. If an altimeter does not regularly sample air pressure at the pad after power-up and use it to redefine “zero altitude” a massive error in reported altitude could result from weather changes. Most (perhaps all) altimeters do this today, but you either have to read the fine print in the instructions to discover this, or it is not in the instructions or specifications at all and you have to ask the manufacturer. For example, it is mentioned on page 9 of the Perfectflite Pnut user’s manual, but not at all in the Firefly user’s manual.
Operating Range. The operating range across which an IPS meets stated accuracy requirements is specified by the manufacturer. Most well exceed the altitude range listed here in the Pink Book change (generally they are linear and calibrated to at least 11,000 meters) and the minimum of 16 bits of conversion specified will be sufficient to ensure 1-meter resolution across at least this great a range. The temperature range listed here matches the specifications of most IPS for “full accuracy”. This operating range is stated by the manufacturer, but is traceable back to the specifications for the IPS being used.
Smoothing Function. Every manufacturer has some form of “smoothing function” (generally a Kalman filter algorithm of some kind) to damp out or reject the pressure/altitude spikes often caused by an ejection event or wind gust, and some sort of “launch detect” altitude threshold (which may or may not be user-selectable) to reject pressure drops from wind gusts that might otherwise be interpreted as launch detection. The techniques and thresholds vary and are a great source of technical debate, but altimeters used in rocket competition must have these in some form to be usable. This is something that will simply have to be stated by the manufacturer; it is very difficult to build a testing device to replicate such dynamic flight events. Because of the administrative complexity for contest directors of having available the digital download software for all of the various types of altimeters that might be used in an NAR competition, the issue of whether the accuracy of flight apogees as indicated by direct visual/audible readout from the altimeter should be confirmed by examination of the full altitude-versus-time trace (except for record-setting flights) will be left to an RCP vote. I submitted an RCP for this cycle to add this requirement.
Sunlight. Apparently the sensor element on some IPS chips is very sensitive to exposure to direct sunlight. It causes them to read large and erroneous pressures once the IPS goes into its data-collection mode. Chan Stevens’ (Thunderbirds Team) R&D report from NARAM-57 highlighted this issue for the Micro-Peak but noted that Perfectflite altimeters did not appear to have this problem. That is because Perfectflite puts a tiny foam shield over the sensor element to prevent direct sunlight exposure; Micro-Peak does not. This susceptibility is testable but the degree of susceptibility is hard to define or measure, so discussion of this issue has been dropped.
Vent Holes. There is no data substantiating that the extensive verbiage currently in the Pink Book concerning vent hole placement is necessary to ensure accuracy of apogee measurement. Chris Kidwell’s R&D report from NARAM 54 and Robert Alway’s report from NARAM 55 both demonstrated this point with flight testing; vent holes at various positions aft of the nose- body joint all led to the same measured altitude. Mike Rangitsch’s theoretical CFD-based evaluation from NARAM 54 showed that at high flight velocities use of vent holes forward of the nose-body joint could lead to altitude-measurement errors, so it is appropriate to prohibit their placement there. Airspeed is generally near zero at apogee and any flow-induced noise from surface protrusions is gone, so requirements of this type are unnecessary. The current Pink Book verbiage is simply lifted from manufacturers’ manuals, where it provides guidance on ensuring minimum turbulence noise during the high-speed portions of flight, which might degrade the accuracy of the altitudes or velocities measured at those points but will not lead to errors influencing apogee measurement. This is not relevant to the purpose of altimeters in NAR competition, which is simply detecting and measuring apogee.
Ambient Temperature. The IPS uses a standard international formula for converting the pressure differences that it measures during flight into altitude. This formula is based on the assumption that the temperature at the starting point (launch pad) is 15o Celsius (59o Fahrenheit) and that it decreases at a linear “lapse rate” of 6.5oC per 1000 meters above that point. If the launch site ambient temperature is different from this, the pressure-vs-altitude relationship will be linearly offset in proportion to the temperature difference relative to absolute zero. Altimeters will read a calculated altitude higher than the true geometric flight altitude if the temperature is below 15oC, and a calculated altitude lower than true geometric at hotter temperatures. This need for this correction to get improved absolute accuracy has been recognized in multiple R&D reports over the years, starting with Tom Lyon’s work at NARAM 47, then Larry Curcio’s work at NARAM 50, then Dan & Mary Wolf’s at NARAM 54. This correction will be required in the new FAI code for use of altimeters in FAI competition. At a minimum this correction is required for NAR record-setting. Because of the administrative complexity for contest directors of keeping track of temperature vs time of day and the times of each altimeter flight during the day, the issue of whether it should be required in all competition flights involving altimeters will be left to an RCP vote. I submitted an RCP for this cycle to add this requirement.
Removed Test Old Text New Text
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 for altitude determination. All entries in a given event, other than non-competition records record attempts, are to be tracked using the same method. The sanction request form submitted by the contest director shall, for each altitude event, designate under “Special Provisions” the tracking method to be used for that event as either whether “Theodolites (14.1)” or “Altimeters (14.10)”. will be used for altitude tracking.
In the case of record trials, the contest director may designate either or both types of tracking. The contest director shall ensure that all official announcements and publications for the sanctioned meet inform prospective entrants of the tracking method for each altitude event.
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 use of power sources which are outside the voltage range published by the altimeter manufacturer. Appendix G lists currently approved altimeters.
An altimeter must meet the following requirements to be approved by the Contest Board:
- Uses barometric measurement techniques to record
relativeflight apogee altitude above launch pad altitude based on the formula for conversion of pressure to altitude in the International Civil Aviation Organization or US Standard Atmospheres. - Uses a digital integrated pressure sensor with at least 16 bits ofresolution in its digital conversion of pressure measurement.
- Recalculates launch pad pressure altitude by sampling local pressure at least once per minute after activation and before launch.
Resolution of 2 metersHas resolution of 1 meter or better in readout.Accuracy 2Has accuracy of 1 percent of recorded altitude or 2 meters, whicheveris greater, across an operating range of no less than 4000 meters in flight altitude above sea level, 0 to 50 degrees Celsius in launch site temperature, and 750 to 1050 millibars in launch site ambient pressure.SamplingHas a sampling rate of 10 per second or greater.- Employs processing functions to reject false short-duration launch orapogee altitude transients that may be created by wind gusts or the pressure transients of ejection events.
AudioProvides audio or visual readout of apogee from the most recent flight directly from the altimeter.CapableIs capable of beingautomatically or manuallyplaced in a preflight state of readiness to record new flight data and report this new data post-flight. This state must be audibly or visibly verifiable.
The altimeter must be fully enclosed within the rocket body through apogee. The part of the rocket containing the altimeter must be vented to the outside air by at least 3 multiple small vent holes evenly spaced around the circumference of the body. There must not be any protrusions or depressions on that are placed at locations behind the body within1 body diameter curved forward surface of the holes rocket’s nose. Any attempt to deliberately produce excessively high altitude readings, by use of devices such as venturis are specifically is prohibited. The ports must be on a section of the model that is an unobstructed cylinder or cone for 1 caliber either side of the ports, and the cone must be no steeper than 1 in 4 taper (.25′′ change in diameter per inch of length). In this case, a fin counts as an obstruction, as does a launch lug and would not be allowed within 1 caliber of the ports.
NAR Contest Board approved altimeters are listed in Appendix G.
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 has been properly powered. 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 readiness to record new flight data 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. If the instructions in the owner’s manual recommend installing the altimeter before readiness is indicated Alternately, the altimeter may be installed immediately after power-on and readiness verified after installation, provided the safety check official is satisfied the altimeter can be heard or seen for readiness verification per Appendix G. The entry is now ready for pad assignmentInstallation of the altimeter in the rocket must be observed by the safety check official.
14.10.2 Returns Procedure
The model and altimeter must be returned as recovered, unopened. If necessary (as in the case of visual readout), the contestant shall open the altimeter compartment in the
presence of the returns official to read the altimeter. 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 the model 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 the flight 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.
14.10.3 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 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 peak altitude prior to 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.
The altitude must also be corrected for the effect of ambient air temperature at the time of launch on the altimeter’s Standard Atmosphere-based altitude computation by multiplying the uncorrected altimeter reading by a factor of (273.15° + Tambient)/288.15° where Tambient is the air temperature at time of launch in degrees Celsius.
Editorial Note: The last paragraph was part of the original urgent RCP, but later moved to a separate RCP 2015-11. That RCP went through the normal voting process, but was not approved.)
RCP# 2015-01 Revise R&D Scoring
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Revise R&D Scoring
State logic and intent of change:
This revision is designed to better define how R&D is judged, using criteria and a scoring system similar to how most science fairs are currently judged. The current rules are vague, and have not been updated in a long time. This approach also demonstrates the relative importance of the oral presentation in the final score.
Effect: This change eliminates the random nature of previous R&D results, and replaces it with a proven structure that should determine the best projects, regardless of who is judging. With the change, objective criteria are provided to the contestants, helping to improve future projects and reduce misunderstandings.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
63.13 Judging Criteria
Research and Development competition shall be judged and points assigned as follows:
Objectives & Hypothesis or Problem Statement: 0-20 points
Design & Procedures or Engineering process: 0-20 points
Data & Results or Problem Solution: 0-20 points
Analysis & Conclusions or Project Evaluation: 0-20 points
Oral Presentation: 0-10 points
Report Presentation: 0-10 points
The entry with the highest number of points is the winner. Judges shall use the latest revision of the “R&D Judging Rubric” sheet to score the entries. The judges shall supply a copy of their final judging sheet to the competitor after judging is complete and places are announced.
RCP# 2015-02 Combine A & B Division
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Combine A&B Divisions
State logic and intent of change:
Go to an age structure similar to FAI flying due to the low number of B Division flyers. Two years ago, only 23 B Division competed prior to NARAM, and only one had flown a full 12 weighing factors. Experience with NAR and FAI competition suggests that A Divisioners can compete on an even basis with B Divisioners.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Rule change would be delayed 2 years to “grandfather” most current B Division flyers. Records would be combined between A&B with the higher score remaining the record and the other officially retired.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Effective July 1, 2018
8.2 Age Division
The Competition Divisions are as given in the following schedule:
| Junior Division | 7 – 18 years old |
| Senior Division | 19 years old and older |
| T Division | Registered NAR Teams |
RCP# 2015-03 Reduce R&D Weight Factor
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Reduce R&D WF
State logic and intent of change:
The R&D weighing factor (36) is too high in comparison to Scale (32). More skill and hours can be put into a nice scale model than into most R&D projects, and the Weighing Factor for the event should reflect that.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Wording: 63.12
| Weighting Factor | 34 |
RCP# 2015-04 Standardized Events
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Standardized Events
State logic and intent of change:
Limit the number of events by flying only a mix of certain standard events combined with some “wild card” events. This follows the logic that other countries have used to increase participation.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Eliminates the need for so many models to compete in a contest year.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
6.6.1 Standard Events:
No less than 50% of the meet weighing factor shall consist of any combination of the following events:
- 1/2A Parachute Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Parachute Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- 1/2A Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- B Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Boost Glide Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Rocket Glide Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Helicopter Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- B Eggloft Duration
- C Eggloft Duration
- C Eggloft Altitude
- Predicted Duration
- Predicted Altitude
- Sport Scale
- Scale
- Concept Scale
- Classic Model
- Spot Landing
- Fragile Precision Payload
- Dual Fragile Precision Payload
RCP# 2015-05 Reload Motor Impound
Submitted by: Chan Stevens, NAR# 80019
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Remove the impound requirement for reloadable motors
State Logic and Intent of Change:
4.2 governs the use of reloadable motors and is an unnecessary nuisance for both contestants and contest administrators. It poses an undue financial cost on the flyer, as it requires an unopened package, which often come in quantities greater than the intended number of flights. The primary intent of this rule was to prevent a contestant from exceeding the impulse limit for an event by “sneaking in” a higher impulse grain, but that practice would be obvious to any experienced RSO or other observer. Allow the contestant to check in an unassembled reload from any opened or sealed pack he or she chooses.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
4.2 Reloadable Motors
Contest approved reloadable motors may be checked in by presenting the unassembled components in entirety, along with the manufacturer’s instructions that accompanied them to the check-in official. Components may be from a new or previously opened package. Check in official will inspect or initial a sample propellant grain in same manner as a black powder casing and return components to contestant for assembly.
Submitted by: Chan Stevens, NAR# 80019
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Reduces paperwork nuisance for team CB-170 entry form
State Logic and Intent of Change:
Under current rules, filling out a CB-170 entry form for a team requires complete name, address, NAR number, etc. for every member of the team and is rarely enforced. This can be a nuisance, especially if not all of the team members are present at the contest. A simpler approach would be to provide contact information for a single/primary member (present at the contest), and the names of any additional members attending the contest. To comply with 9.6, the CB-170 would include only the birth date of the oldest member participating in the contest.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
8.5 Teams
Replace “Entry blanks shall carry the number of the team, with all individual team members’ names and license numbers listed.” with “Entry blanks shall carry the number of the team, the names and NAR numbers of all members participating in the contest, contact information for a designated primary member and for compliance with 9.6 the date of birth of the oldest team member participating in the contest.”
RCP# 2015-08 Reduce Weighting Factors
Submitted by: Glenn Feveryear, NAR# 24931
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Reduce the Total Weighting Factors for Section thru Regional Meet classifications.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
For all kinds of reasons our building/preparation time, the amount of time we can afford to allocate to travel or simply being able to spend a whole day or two at a meet is becoming increasingly limited. Likewise, the time available to A & B Divisioners, that we hope to attract and retain in competition, is being fought for by other social and recreational activities. This proposal is an effort to reduce the number of events at meets, simplify the flying day, help accommodate the time pressures we are all facing and especially those with families, and make it easier for sections to host section & local meets with only one or two events that offer the maximum in available points. This proposal reduces Regional and Open meet Total Weighting Factors by 25% (about 1-2 events) and Section and Local meet Total Weighting Factors by 20% (about 2 events).
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
The relative weight of NARAM would go up as a result of the change, since the maximum pre-NARAM points would now be 7200 instead of 9600 for 4 regionals. Rule 13.5 is also affected, now that it includes a table of the maximum points.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
Section 6.6 Weighting Factor
Event Type Total Weighting Factors
Section Meet 32
Local Meet 32
Open Meet 45
Regional Meet 60
RCP# 2015-10 Altimeter Download Requirement
Submitted By: Trip Barber, NAR# 4322
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Add a sentence to the end of rule 14.10 on electronic altimeters to require confirmation of apogee altitude by post-flight data download.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
Even the best altimeters on the market occasionally provide post-flight readouts of apogee altitudes that clearly do not match the flight of the rocket that they were in. Sometimes these anomalous results are produced from a pressure transient due to pre-flight events such as handling or a wind gust that were not detected before launch. In other cases they are produced by a sharp pressure transient from ejection that was not recognized and filtered out by the altimeter’s software. This rule change would provide a means for recognizing and rejecting results from such events, which could either benefit or disadvantage a flier depending on the nature of the anomalous output. It would, however, increase the complexity of managing a contest by requiring the use of computers on the flying field with the connection ports and software to download data from any altimeter type in use. And it would disqualify from use any altimeter types that do not provide for a capability to do post-flight data downloads.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
14.10, new last sentence: “The apogee altitude read by the altimeter must be confirmed by a post-flight examination of a digital display of the flight’s altitude versus time history to confirm that the reported apogee was not the result of an anomalous pressure spike from an event such as pre-flight handling or from an ejection transient.”
14.10.2 to read: If the altimeter fails to report an altitude, or reports an anomalous altitude, and the flight 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
RCP# 2015-11 Altimeter Temperature Correction
Submitted By: Trip Barber, NAR# 4322
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Add a sentence to the end of rule 14.10 on electronic altimeters to require correction of output for ambient temperature.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
Barometric altimeters measure the pressure change between launch pad and flight altitude and convert this pressure change to an altitude using a mathematical relationship defined by the “international standard atmosphere”. This relationship incorporates the standard normal “lapse rate” (decline) of air temperature with altitude, and the effect of that on air density and pressure, among other factors. Their algorithm assumes that the air temperature at the launch point is 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees F). They accommodate the effect of launches from altitudes other than sea level because they measure and convert pressure differences to altitude, but they do not measure ambient air temperature. For each 5 degrees F that the ambient air temperature at the launch pad is different from 59 F, the calculated flight altitude is in error by about one percent, with lower-temperature conditions leading to calculated altitudes that exceed actual. If all flights at a contest are flown at the same air temperature, this affects only the accuracy of any records set, not comparative altitude results between flights. If flights are flown across a day with substantial temperature changes, absence of this correction could affect competition results. The math for making this adjustment is simple arithmetic, but making it would require recording actual air temperature at the time of flight for each flight in a contest. Both the recording and the calculation are new administrative tasks for a contest organizer, no worse than the workload of optical tracking but more than what is currently being done for altimeter-based tracking.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
14.10 new sentence at the end: “The recorded altitude must be corrected for the effect of ambient air temperature at the time of launch on the altimeter’s altitude computation by multiplying the uncorrected altimeter reading by a factor of (273.15 + T)/288.15 where T is the ambient temperature at the time of the rocket’s launch in degrees Celsius.”
RCP# 2015-12 FAI Boost Glider/Rocket Glider Rule Alignment
Submitted by: Trip Barber, NAR# 4322
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Revise the FAI-style glider event to be FAI A Rocket-Glider rather than Boost-Glider to match a recent revision in FAI rules and keep the US glider event aligned with the FAI event.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
When the FAI A Boost-Glider event was originally added to the Pink Book, the FAI (international)-rules glider event, called S4A, had rules that made it equivalent to US Boost-Glide, i.e. the gilder was permitted to drop a pod off after boost. Subsequently the FAI rules have been changed to require all parts that boost to come back together in glide, which is US Rocket Glider. This change simply deletes the NAR event FAI A Boost Glider and adds the event FAI A Rocket Glider, so that our rules continue to match FAI and we can practice this World Championships and World Cup event in US competition.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
Delete FAI A Boost Glider Duration from rule 36.3. Add FAI A Rocket Glider Duration to rule 37.3, with weighing factor 20 and multi-round maximum duration of 180 seconds. Change rule 9.13 to refer to FAI Rocket Glider rather than FAI Boost Glider.
RCP# 2015-14 Alter points scoring for ties
Submitted By: Jeff Vincent, NAR# 27910
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Change the handling of ties so duplicate places and points are no longer awarded. Instead, an equal share of the total points for the places occupied would be awarded to each contestant.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
A side effect of duplicate places and points is the encouragement of ties to maximize points (and possibly management of results and a reduction of the level of competition.) Under the current system, if you are already involved in a tie for first place (and all parties to the tie are earning first place points and all others are gaining at least one position due to the duplicate places), what is the incentive to make any more flights to decide the winner? Ties are quite common in some events (in short flight duration events or events with a maximum [multi-round duration] or minimum goal [Precision Duration or Altitude.]) In events where the results are of a more arbitrary nature, not based on flight performance (judged events or Mentorship, for instance), there is the opportunity to artificially create ties. This can particularly impact section point totals at isolated meets where the host section has no outside competition. A tie essentially results in a bonus place and points for the section. Assuming a section can fill five places and credit all points to the section, a first place tie in an event can result in a 39% points increase (32/23) for the section for that one event by creating a tie or allowing it to stand. Here is how the points would currently be awarded for this scenario:
1st 10 x WF x CF (tied for first, duplicate points)
1st 10 x WF x CF (tied for first, duplicate points)
2nd 6 x WF x CF (third best score gets second place)
3rd 4 x WF x CF
4th 2 x WF x CF
The NAR point system has historically always awarded duplicate places and points for ties. This simplified scoring when it was done by hand. Today, with the widespread use of Contest Manager, there is no reason to avoid a slightly more complex scoring system. This proposal would handle ties by awarding an equal share of the total points for the places occupied to each tied contestant. Successive contestants would receive the next available place. This is consistent with other sports, such as golf, which evenly divide prize money among tied players. (NAR points, like prize money, are a finite resource — we are limited in the total contest factor [CF] of the meets we can fly, the total weighting factor [WF] of these meets, and the possible points that can be scored during the flying season. The current handling of ties provides a means to circumvent those limits.) Places below the tie would receive a place matching their performance ranking (e.g.: the third best score would get third place); they wouldn’t gain one or more places due to the tie. This change would result in no points increase in the section example cited above. Here is how the points would be awarded under this proposal for that scenario:
1st (10+6)/2 x WF x CF (average of first and second place points)
1st (10+6)/2 x WF x CF (average of first and second place points)
3rd 4 x WF x CF (third best score gets third place)
4th 2 x WF x CF
5th 1 x WF x CF
The handling of ties for the Research and Development event would be the same as all other events.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Contestants would attempt to resolve ties, when possible. There would be fewer opportunities for manipulation of the point system, leading to a fairer and higher level of competition. Minor modifications to Contest Manager would automatically calculate the points for tied entries. No change to records.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
Rule 13.2 Ties
Replace the current text with:
In case of a tie in any of the four places, the tied contestants shall be awarded the average of the points for the places occupied. Successive contestants shall be awarded the next unoccupied place. For example, each contestant in a two-way tie for second place would receive the average of second and third place points; the next contestant would receive fourth place.
Rule 63.12 Research and Development Scoring
Replace: In the event of a tie, both entries will be awarded their place as if the other did not exist, i.e., 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd awarded for the top four places in case of a tie for second… with: Ties in places are permitted per Rule 13.2.
RCP# 2015-16 Eliminate F&G Duration Events
Submitted by: Stephen Lubliner, NAR# 22152
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
Eliminate “F” and “G” impulse classes from duration performance events where they are specified. Replace “F” and “G” impulse classes with a new impulse class identified as “E+” having an impulse range of 40.01 N-s to 160.00 N-s.
State Logic and Intent of Change:
“F” and “G” duration events are rarely flown and, when flown challenge the capabilities of many flying fields (not to mention the physical abilities of many flyers for tracking and recovery). The “E+” impulse class offers new design space with flyers seeking higher recovery device/system performance versus additional boost altitude.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Retire existing “F” and “G” NAR records.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear:
Section 4.6: Add “E+” classification with total impulse of 40.01 to 160.00 N-sec with a note below the table stating the “E+” is a competition classification and not a Standards and Testing motor classification. Section 31.4: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 14 and 300 sec. multi-round duration. Section 32.4: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 27 and 300 sec. multi-round duration. Section 33.5: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 20; add minimum length of 175 cm and maximum length of 450 cm. Section 34.4: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 29. Section 35.4: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 29. Section 36.3: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 26 and 300 sec. multi-round duration. Section 37.3: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 28 and 300 sec. multi-round duration. Section 38.3: Eliminate “F” and “G” motor classes in table. Add E+ motor class with weighing factor of 26 and 300 sec. multi-round duration.