RCP 2022-03

Enter NAR login credentials for access.

Forgot your password? Need help?

8 Comments

  1. Robert Zurek says:
    24March23 at 8:16 pm

    Interesting idea Bob.
    The issue I see with it is that if someone flies a good qualified first flight and they destroys their rocket on a second attempt to improve their score with more missions points for example, there would be nothing left to judge even though they had a qualified flight.
    The other not so catastrophic case would be since damage points are cumulative, how would the model be judged for the first flight, if the second caused cosmetic damage.

  2. DOUG HILLSON says:
    25March23 at 1:30 am

    An unlisted effect on competition in this RCP, is that contestants wouldn’t be given feedback from the judges on their entries if they had a DQ. This could negatively impact craftsmanship events by not facilitating advancing the level of competition as a whole.

  3. Donald Carson says:
    28March23 at 1:42 pm

    I don’t understand the rationale for this proposed change. Do we have Judges complaining about the crush of Craftsmanship entries they have to judge?

    Has anyone tried this approach? Were the contestants happy to not get feedback on their model because they DQ’ed?

    If the Craftsmanship rules are silent on this issue, then the organizers are currently free to structure their contest either way. In fact, except for possibly NARAM, contest organizers can modify non-NRC event rules any way they want. Since Craftsmanship events are not a part of the NRC, this flexibility is already baked in to the current competition system.

    If a modeler goes to all the work to make and enter a Craftsmanship event, the least we can do is judge it for them.

  4. Joseph Heckenbach says:
    30March23 at 8:22 pm

    I think the entry should be judged before flight in pristine undamaged condition as the modeler intended it to be judged. Putting so much emphasis on judging after flight turns a craftsmanship event into a durability contest.

    I personally don’t build or compete in scale of any kind, but I can appreciate the care and love that is put into these types of models. A modeler building an entry and competing at this level of craftsmanship deserves to have some kind of score to see how they stack up against their competitors.

  5. DANIEL WOLF says:
    31March23 at 1:52 pm

    I fail to see the benefit of this change and it makes craftsmanship a logistical nightmare. The elephant in the room is what to do for craftsmanship judging (static points) for an entry that is lost, partially lost, or badly damaged. It will make “Scale” day at NARAM less interesting because contestants will be more conservative in their flights. Also, it would require the craftmanship event to be flown the 1st day of NARAM which makes for a more difficult week for the Contest Director, the Contest Board, and the Scale Judges. Now the craftsmanship event is flown on an abbreviated schedule so that there are a number of hours after the event for the points to be processed and sorted out and reviewed. Plus, ideally the CD puts a side deck together for the awards banquet. an abbreviated schedule on the last day is very helpful in getting all of that done. With craftsmanship as the only event the last day it works well. Having 2 performance events the last day means the range would need to be open longer. Limiting the last day to 1 event, means more events on other days. Would we need to fly another event on the 1st day of NARAM when craftsmanship would be flown?

    Finally, in a full 5 day NARAM, craftsmanship entries are turned in on Sunday night. That gives the judges from Sunday night through the day on Thursday to judge. Practically 4 days. If craftmanship in flown on Monday and scale turn-in is Monday night. The judges have just 3 days if we want to have viewing on Thursday night. In a shortened NARAM like this year, it would make it worse.

    Instead of this proposal, I would prefer an RCP that requires models to be judged before they are flown.

  6. BRIAN GUZEK says:
    31March23 at 10:49 pm

    From both a logistics standpoint and a craft standpoint, I disagree, Bob, for the points mentioned above by others. I understand the thought, as a model rocket should, first and foremost, be designed to fly well. However, the rules already allow for the deduction of points due to damage. If you feel that these are under-represented, perhaps revise how they are doled out?

  7. CHAD RING says:
    05April23 at 11:05 pm

    I am with Dan and Brian, why is this an issue? The only time craftsmanship is judged under a sanctioned event is NARAM. If we’re too lazy to judge everyone that takes the time and effort to enter a model, I propose we drop craftsmanship all together. And there is no way for a competitor to determine risk/reward on mission based on this. That’s the fun on the flight day (and entertainment). Judge ALL models, let people enjoy the viewing time (it’s fun and it also encourages those that have avoided craftsmanship before). For a local event, craftsmanship is not sanctioned, so you can do as you please, but again, at a national event, we should have the decency to judge every model that someone put effort in and entered. It’s not that many and since I’ve been friends with most of the judges for years, I’ve never heard much of a gripe of ‘too many models’. Tell me what other hobby would even consider this?? Too many problems from this approach, and negative on the craftsmanship part of our hobby.

  8. MARC MCREYNOLDS says:
    21April23 at 10:27 pm

    There might be a problem with this RCP relative to Rule 11.8 Correctable Conditions. Under the current way of doing things (which, as Bob points out, is not a Pink Book requirement), model turn-in for static judging is near the start of NARAM. At that time we judges catch however many correctable conditions we can (e.g. missing NAR number), but there will often be 5-10 entries having omissions which aren’t found until later, after their data packets have been studied in detail.

    11.8 states “If the contest officials do not discover a [correctable] condition until during or after the flight is made … the flight will not be considered official.” So there would likely be some models reflown at the end of the week anyway, because “Disqualifications for static conditions of an entry are not permitted.” Even some entries which were flight-DQ’d from the event on Monday might get another chance, so long as the contestant can point to a deficiency in their data packet. Rule 11.8 is clear: Correctable Condition = flight doesn’t [didn’t] count. In either case, those reflown models would need some static points re-judging to account for any damage (it’s a different points schedule between static Craftsmanship points and Damage deductions applied after a flight)… but now it’s only hours until the awards banquet.

    Competitors could also take “unfair advantage” of this rule change, leaving out a required element from a data packet if the flying weather on Monday is horrible but the Friday forecast looks better. Because of Rule 11.8, they would be able to do that. So put in a simple/relatively safe single-stage low-powered flight on Monday which hopefully avoids damage, and save the go-for-broke reflight with staging etc for when better weather is expected.

    Historical aside as to why 11.8 exists, and why we probably don’t want to mess with it too much: At NARAM-13 most notably, a Vostok with all the associated trusswork towers which encircle the vehicle was entered in Super Scale. An incredible entry, but minus a parachute back when the rules said recovery systems had to be included. It was disqualified from the event under those rules. From instances such as that, it was decided over time that “static” omissions should simply be corrected by the entrant once they are identified, rather than result in disqualification. Hence Rule 11.8.

Leave a Reply