RCP 2023-2024-106
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
- 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!
Commenting test.
As well intended as this proposal may be, it’s not something I can or will support.
When this idea was experimented with last time, it produced no significantly different results in terms of number of entries or quality of entries as compared to any typical NARAM; in fact, it had the adverse effect. More than one competitor mentioned the pressure of having to produce now two craftsmanship models – one for NRC and one for NARAM. One could always enter the same model in each event, taking the risk that the NRC model, having flown, would still be in good enough condition to be competitive at NARAM. But for many, it meant two models – typically something off the shelf or quick to throw together for NRC (to qualify), and then a second and hopefully better model for NARAM, time permitting. Not a situation that encourages the development and/or improvement of modeling skills.
So, again, as well intended as this might be, it’s not a practical proposal for the serious competitor in my view.
As one of the five people who crafted and implemented the most recent changes to the MRSC which includes the NRC, I am opposed to this RCP proposal. I am opposed because the NRC has been gradually added to over the past RCP cycles and if allowed to continue will soon be meaningless in its original intent. That intent being the building and flying of models fundamental to competition and to limit the scope of those models for the sake of material and motor costs as those are important factors where youth participation is involved. As long as the NAR community knows what the NRC and NARAM events will be with sufficient notice, there is nothing in the NRC format that prevents a modeler from building, testing, and perfecting a Craftsmanship model prior to any given NARAM and over the course of time in general.
In response to the comments as of this date. Given that the NRC events are flown at NARAM, the NRC designated craftsmanship event would be a NARAM event Adding a second craftsmanship would be at the discretion of the NARAM committee which presumably would be guided by the very considerations that John notes: Will the additional event enhance the event or detract from it? While the event is written with a broad description, I am actually hoping that the selected NRC events would be Sport Scale Altitude or Sport Scale that would encourage younger modelers to try the event using existing kits and smaller engines. I think that we can see that Scale is fundamental to competition as it is to the very history of the sport. I believe that we should encourage skills development in this area with consistent competition.
I am not in favor of this change. This was tried no too long ago and resulted in difficulties. Uniform and timely judging is hard to do with the limited number of competitors.
Judging was somewhat of a chore when we tried that format. For example, I wanted to have a collection of models to compare in assigning points, but entries trickled in only from time to time and people often wanted to know their score right away.
In theory a scale builder like me would be happy if NRC was nothing but scale events to enter, since I use competition to get me motivated and building, vs motivated and procrastinating. But a floating-time format doesn’t quite seem to work (vs the specific deadline for Virtual NARAM 2020 scale entries, which worked reasonably well).
As long as we continue to have craftsmanship events at NARAM each year, I don’t see the need to include it in the NRC events conducted though the year.
i am also not in favor of this proposal – as Ed LaCroix pointed out, it adds another event to the NRC.
When I was Contest Board chair, this was implemented as an emergency RCP one year. The urgency for having it as an emergency RCP was concern over scale modelers feeling disenfranchised and who felt the craftsmanship had become devalued as an NAR contest event.
So we added it for one year while simultaneously putting it up to vote to the membership as a standard RCP. Logistically this required some effort and structure to pull off. Thanks to the Contest Board, volunteers who judged, and time and effort to pull this off, we made it work. I did not enjoy it, I don’t think the judges enjoyed it, and I suspect the competitors didn’t enjoy it as the standard RCP following the trial year failed by a large margin.
Instead of adding craftsmanship to NRC, I would encourage those who want to see more craftmanship competition and want opportunities to do the same, they perhaps consider a separate NAR wide scale competition for those who can’t attend NARAM, and opening it up to high power as well. I just don’t think it fits the NRC construct that well based on the recent history above.
I agree with Dan, when this was tried during the 21-22 season, it did not bring in anyone who was not already competing, and just made it more difficult for jrs to qualify for the national championship. In addition, at naram, the same people who competed the previous year when there was not an NRC craftsmanship event competed and won at NARAM 63. The sporting code does not prevent anyone from holding a local, regional, or virtual competition for craftsmanship events, but no one is holding one. Don Carson and Chris Flanigan held a virtual craftsmanship event in 2020 as part of their month and a half long “virtual naram” in 2020 and the usual suspects competed in it. No one else has tried since. Craftsmanship events exist on the national level at NARAM every year. As far as an ESA for a craftsmanship event, NO ONE qualified in the NRC for ESA in 21-22 that either was not already competing in the previous NARAM in craftsmanship, or was doing it in order to qualify for national champion. Further to show that this would make things harder for the kids to compete for a national championship, there were less A and B divisioners qualified for the national championship in the the one year a craftsmanship event was required in NRC, than in the years before and after. I will not support this RCP.
Nope. This was already voted down for reasons that were discussed ad nauseam.
In addition to all the comments above, at the beginning of NRC James Duffy and I were tasked with trying to figure out a way to include craftsmanship in NRC. We talked to a lot of people and considered a number of ideas but were unable to come up with anything that was reasonable to implement. The subsequent emergency RCP and then failed RCP are indicative of what we found.