RCP 2021-015

Chandler STEVENS said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

I agree with the general premise that competitors should generally all have access to the same products, though disagree with the way this RCP enforces it. I would recommend this burden fall on the NAR competition board to hold off approving any hot new products until they've become reasonably commercially available. This is similar to how we handle new motors, immediately approved for sport flying, slight delay before allowed for competition.

DANIEL WOLF said : Report 7 months ago

 

I understand Bruce's frustration, but I think this proposal will be difficult to manage. It would also penalize those who already purchase the altimeter and were planning to use it.

There were 3 new altimeters that were contest approved in July and barely met the requirement that they be approved for 30 days so they could be used at NARAM.  Somewhat bad timing, but that's how it played out.  For the record, two of those, the Flight Sketch "Comp" and "Mini" were Contest Approved on June 23rd, making them available for contest use on July 23rd, a few days before NARAM.  The "Comp" continued to be available until September 26th, when that batch of altimeters was sold out.  So no issue with it.  It was actually available for 60+ days after contest approval, and was not sold out until September 26th.  The Mini also sold out, but since other altimeters like the Altus Metrum MicroPeak and the Perfectflite Firefly are similar and were available, they could be used instead.

The 3rd altimeter that was approved in July, on July 14th, was the NCR DeployMax.  This altimeter is unique in that it can fire an ejection charge.  It was useful for NARAM-62 for those wanting to use the AeroTech D2.3 motor in D SuperRoc since the motor has no ejection charge.  That altimeter DID sell out prior to NARAM, but I don't know if it was within 30 days of July 14th or after. I only know it was sold out as of July 24th.

The problem with this proposal is that it would have penalized those who DID purchase the DeployMax and were planning to use it at NARAM.  The 30 day period of availability was less than 2 weeks prior to NARAM starting.  Should we have penalized all of those who HAD purchased them?

As CD of NARAM, I certainly would have loaned my MaxDeploy to anyone who wanted to use it at NARAM and I'm sure others would have too. I know of one competitor who loaned his MaxDeploy to another competitor at NARAM.  Unfortunately, I  was not made aware of the issue until this RCP was submitted, and not at NARAM.   We could consider expanding the group of altimeters available for rental at NARAM (currently it only includes the Firefly) rather than take this approach.

 

Wolfram von Kiparski said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

And who is going to track the opening and closing and reopening of the window of availability?

-Wolf

 

EDWARD LACROIX said : Report 7 months ago

Though I understand Bruce's irritation, William Cook makes a very valid observation- the Sporting Code should be free of language that might penalize any manufacturer from putting skin in the game, and releasing a product that might be so wildly popular as to rapidly go out of stock regardless the timing of that product release. In particular, where electronics are involved, the innovation is coming from the true Mom and Pop operations- not from AeroTech/Apogee/Estes, who honestly have no reason to invest in developing such niche products. 

I cannot support this RCP.

CHAD RING said : editor Report 7 months ago

 

Agree with previous comment that this is an unnecessary RCP addressing a current world problem.  It also just adds more unnecessary words to an already 26,000 word rule book.  As long as the CB keeps an eye on legitimate problems (as in a manufacturer doesn't even bother to produce more units even with components being available) for like a year or something crazy, then those issues could be addressed outside a RCP.

 

WILLIAM COOKE said : subscriber Report 8 months ago

It is pretty well known that the pandemic has significantly disrupted the supply chain of small electronic parts; as a consequence, all manufacturers of rocket electronics are having difficulties obtaining components. It would seem to me that this RCP submission is trying to fix a problem that will go away with the restoration of the electronics supply chain, which will hopefully occur soon.

Also, I do not think that a manufacturer should be penalized for the popularity of their products - the altimeter mentioned in the RCP submission was quite popular due to its ease of use; the supply would have been exhausted very quickly even in non-pandemic conditions. Should NAR get into the practice of dictating how many units a manufacturer should produce? That is effectively what this RCP states - you have to have enough supply to service rocketeers - no matter how many units they buy (I bought 3 upon the initial release) - for the entire contest year. At a minimum, this discourages innovation by folks with small businesses seeking to advance our hobby and favors existing "large" manufacturers who have little to no reason to improve their product.

Finally, there was/is at least one altimeter on the market comparable to the one mentioned in the RCP, though it is much less user-friendly. So there was no loss in competitive edge - only a loss in "user convenience", which does not impact rocket performance.

The only role of NAR in the manufacturing on altimeters should be the contest certification process.