RCP 2021-001
Enter NAR login credentials for access.
Please enter your username or email address. This should be the same login you use for your NAR membership
10 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Home
- Join NAR
- Site Map
- Contact Us
- My Membership
- About NAR
- American Rocketry Challenge
- Model Rocket Info
- High Power Rocketry
- Educational Resources
- Find a Launch
- Local Clubs
- Insurance Questions/Claims
- Safety
- Rocket Motor Information
- Contest Flying – NAR Competition
- National Scoreboard
- US Team Selection Scoreboard
- Register an NAR Launch
- Competition Results Entry
- Team Registration
- Teams List
- Contest Events
- Competition Meets
- International Competition
- Competition Guide
- U.S. Model Rocket Sporting Code
- Rules Revision Process
- US National Model Rocket Performance Records
- Sport Rocketry Magazine
- Member Resources
- NAR Products
- Website Fixes
- Donate
- What’s My NAR Number?
- Log out
High Power Rocket Certification
Design and Fly High Power Rocket Vehicles Learn MoreLocal Rocketry Clubs
Connect with Proven Rocketry Experts Find A Club TodayMembers-Only Forum
Engage in meaningful conversations about rocketry topics that matter. Get Connected!Sport Rocketry Magazine
Six 48 Page Issues a year with NAR Membership!
I agree with this change
This is a good suggestion. Policing the current specs for streamer design is virtually impossible as the differences are nearly impossible to notice from a distance and the deployed streamer is never inspected up close. I see no need, in the spirit of the event, to prohibit a stiffener or yoke attachment and some people use them anyway (some being aware of the prohibition, some not).
Consistency in requirements across similar events is a good thing. This proposal is a good idea.
Agreed, this one is long overdue. Apparently there are different styles of yokes already being used in NARcomp, so to just allow it puts everyone on equal and ‘fair’ playing field. Plus, why have to different attachment requirements in the same rulebook?
Placing design restrictions on performance events seems out of place, if the goal is to further refine and advance the effectiveness of the recovery system.
I’m curious as to why we had this rule in the first place.  I agree that this rule is long overdue.
At the risk of opening this can of worms again. This does not address the “may not be cut, slit, punched, and or perforated” part of the requirement. This has been interpreted to mean that you cannot punch or perforate the streamer by the contest board at different times in the past. I was told that the current contest board interpretation is that punching a hole for the cord is acceptable. If the intent of this streamer RCP is to “allow any kind of streamer attachment,” while this is being voted on, the wording should be changed to “it may not be cut, slit, punched, and or perforated except to provide an attachment point to the streamer.” That would clarify this confusing definition that even the contest board has not been consistent on over the years.
And for those who do not believe it; yes, you can attach a streamer without punching a hole in the streamer material or adding a stiffener, which is the way I was taught to make a streamer for competition and do.Â
I am ok with this change, as personally I don’t care how the streamer is defined to be attached, just enforce the rules put in place.Â
And just to clarify, it looks to me like this would still make a yoke on the rocket side against the rules. Â
Oh, please, yes!
Agreed – and long over-due. Thanks for putting together Steve. Â
It would encourage new attachment technology innovation, and penalize no-one. This is a great recommendation.