RCP 2021-017
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
- 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!
One additional note, this not a sour grapes proposal. To my knowledge, I have never exceeded a record by less than or by more than the required 1%. As noted above, I have witnessed it on more than one occasion. Â
Agreed. Been there done that. At least once if not twice. Let the actual performance decide..
I agree with this. If your value exceeds the current value, then it should be a new record.
I support this proposal though I don’t envy the work NAR records keeper O. Lee James will have to undertake to allow the Performance Records website to keep up with this latest change should it pass.Â
I agree with this proposal. While there is imprecision in altitude assessment, roughly the same opportunity for imprecision existed with the standing as with the new flight breaking the record. Â We shouldn’t demand though that our records be “statistically significant”! — Patrick Peterson
Happened to me at NARAM this summer. Â Won B-Payload with a flight of 315 m but old record was 314 m, so it didn’t reset. Â The old record holder (me, LOL) thinks it’s kind of silly to not have the record reflect the “real” number. Â
But, as a flier who has set a number of altitude records, I kind of like the 1% rule because it’s a nice small arbitrary buffer to ensure the previous record really got beat.  With the issue of where and when temperatures are taken and recorded at contests, a degree or two of temperature alone can affect an altimeter altitude by more than 1%.  Also, as accurate as barometric altimeters are, if you’ve ever flown more than one in an altimeter compartment at the same time  you know that they usually show different numbers.  Occasionally way more than 1%.
So, it’s not perfect, and at times seems kind of silly, but I think I’d stick with the 1% rule.
I checked the FAI rulebook for aeromodels (which included references to spacemodels) and there is no requirement there for a percentage increase in the record for it to be recognized.
I agree with this. If your value exceeds the current value, then it should be a new record.
This sounds like a good idea. There’s some inconsistency with altimeters, but there was inconsistency with optical tracking, too.
This is a bad idea. This proposal wants a new record to exceed the previous value, but does not state by how much.
US model rocketry competition is not the Olympics or Formula 1 racing. Our tools, accuracies, and procedures do not support the same degree of precision.
USMRSC 20.2 says altimeters must have an “… accuracy of 1 percent of recorded altitude or 2 meters, whichever is greater.” Our procedures require that we adjust the recorded altitude based on the ambient temperature at the launch site. This will be different from the temperature at apogee. Further, depending on the altitude of the launch site, the result could be very different.
Our timing procedures are based on the mark 1 human eyeball and human reflexes. Then we average the times and round to the nearest whole second.Â
In short, our tools and procedures have many built in points of error. We have agreed that these are acceptable in competition. Record setting deserves more if we are to maintain a meaningful process.
If we want to refine the record setting process, we must first refine the tools and procedures on which the record setting process is based.
Of the 1268 records currently in the database, 426 could be exceeded by 1 meter or one second. A simple rounding error could lead to a false record. We need a buffer such as the 1% to maintain the validity of new records.