BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Wolfram v.Kipars » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00




Quote:

> OK, everyone, how about something like this:

> The sponsor of a competition may award places for a subgroup of an event
based on
> propellant or diameter limitations, if there are more than 3 members of
the subgroup AND
> at least 3 competetors in the event do not qualify for the subgroup.
Points awarded for
> the subgroup will be xx% of those awarded overall.

> Too complicated; but as a draft might provide a basis for discussion.

> Maybe only one such limitation allowed in a contest.  Such a limitation
should be able to
> work the other way too:  'Only 10.5 mm A BP' or 'Only AP propellant' ...
that would help
> manufacturers!

Maybe these ideas could be made to work, but I doubt that they would make
competition more popular.  If "FREE PRIZES" doesn't always work, how can
anyone expect "ONLY ESTES MOTORS" to work?

Is there actually a problem?

I have still not read of any accounts (except at NARAMs) where 18 mm motor
fliers were shut out of competition by Apogee motor users.  Most beginner
fliers would be flying at section and open meets.  So far, most of this
talk has been of a perceptional nature, and I question whether it has any
basis in fact.

Has any competition flier actually witnessed novice fliers bumming out
because someone was flying Apogee 10.5 mm motors, and they weren't?
Apogee 10.5 mm motors haven't been around for too long.

Wolf

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by The Silent Observe » Fri, 06 Sep 1996 04:00:00


<snip>

Quote:

> Could a proposal be created which would keep all manufacturers happy, and still allow
> competition with only 'Wal-Mart available' motors (on occasion)?

<snip>

Quote:

> OK, everyone, how about something like this:

> The sponsor of a competition may award places for a subgroup of an event based on
> propellant or diameter limitations, if there are more than 3 members of the subgroup AND
> at least 3 competetors in the event do not qualify for the subgroup.  Points awarded for
> the subgroup will be xx% of those awarded overall.

> Too complicated; but as a draft might provide a basis for discussion.

> Maybe only one such limitation allowed in a contest.  Such a limitation should be able to
> work the other way too:  'Only 10.5 mm A BP' or 'Only AP propellant' ... that would help
> manufacturers!

Hmmm...now we're getting somewhere!

Let's see here...

"The Contest Director may specify a restriction on motor type for any
event, either in terms of a maximum, minimum, or specified motor
diameter, or by propellant type or formulation, or by maximum or minimum
ejection delay or any combination thereof, in order to accomplish one or
more of the following:  to attract and encourage new competition fliers,
to allow an event for which the contest field would otherwise be too
small for safe recovery of models, or to allow flying an event which
would otherwise have to be cancelled by weather (such as excessive wind
for the field size).

"Such restriction not due to weather conditions must be announced at
least 14 days prior to the start of the contest, with such announcement
published to all preregistered competitors and to all those registering
at the contest.  Further, such restrictions not due to weather are
limited to no more than one event per contest, and no such restriction
may change the basic task of the contest, i.e. C Duration may not be
restricted to 13mm or smaller motors unless motors of C impulse are
readily available and contest certified in 13mm diameter.

"Any such restricted event, unless restricted due to weather, will be
awarded one half of the normal National Championship point value, rounded
up."

Howzat??

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken  |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian.                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Wolfram v.Kipars » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

> Hmmm...now we're getting somewhere!

> Let's see here...

> "The Contest Director may specify a restriction on motor type for any
> event, either in terms of a maximum, minimum, or specified motor
> diameter, or by propellant type or formulation, or by maximum or minimum
> ejection delay or any combination thereof, in order to accomplish one or
> more of the following:
> to attract and encourage new competition fliers,

I am not convinced that any of this will attract or encourage new
competition fliers.  

Quote:
> to allow an event for which the contest field would otherwise be too
> small for safe recovery of models,

You don't need a rule for this.  This is part of the contest strategy!
One of the prime requirements for many events is that you must recover
your model.  In small fields, either the CD chooses suitable events, or
the fliers change their flying tactics.  They fly Estes-powered bricks if
they have to.  Consider that the above clause would probably not affect
novice fliers at all.

Quote:
> or to allow flying an event which
> would otherwise have to be cancelled by weather (such as excessive wind
> for the field size).

The safety code prohibits flying in >20 mph winds.  No events allowed.
The meet is postponed.  I postponed one meet this year because of wind.
If the wind is 19.9 mph, the modelers get their "bricks" out again.

Quote:
> "Such restriction not due to weather conditions must be announced at
> least 14 days prior to the start of the contest, with such announcement
> published to all preregistered competitors and to all those registering
> at the contest.  Further, such restrictions not due to weather are
> limited to no more than one event per contest, and no such restriction
> may change the basic task of the contest, i.e. C Duration may not be
> restricted to 13mm or smaller motors unless motors of C impulse are
> readily available and contest certified in 13mm diameter.

> "Any such restricted event, unless restricted due to weather, will be
> awarded one half of the normal National Championship point value, rounded
> up."

> Howzat??

Sigh...

Wolf

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Michael Pa » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


...

Quote:
>Is there actually a problem?
>I have still not read of any accounts (except at NARAMs) where 18 mm motor
>fliers were shut out of competition by Apogee motor users.  Most beginner
>fliers would be flying at section and open meets.  So far, most of this
>talk has been of a perceptional nature, and I question whether it has any
>basis in fact.

Exactly.  Silent, have you been to a Kent launch lately?  I haven't, but
according to the newsletter, they're holding informal contests with no
shortage of "competitors".  Last month was B streamer duration; nine juniors
and five seniors competed.  Now granted, the Kent folks are not a NAR
section, so perhaps the competition doesn't reach "cutthroat" levels.
It doesn't look like any Apogee motors were flown; heck, over half the
rockets were plain Estes kits, but people participated, prizes were awarded
and "everyone went away happy."  Why don't you give it a shot before you
try to fix something that doesn't really seem to be broken?  

(This month's event: spot landing.  I hope to attend and participate.)

--m

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Paul Robins » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 09:56:57 -0400, Rick Taylor

Quote:





>> >> Maybe there should be an option for meet planners to specify 18 mm black
>> >powder
>> >> motors only (or 13 or 24) for some events to 'level the field' a little.

>> >This suggestion has been made repeatedly for decades to the deaf ears of
>> >the NAR contest board. As has "coincident meets".  These excellent ideas
>> >which would improve attendance incentive will be passed over Mark
>> >Bundick's dead body.

>>    The NAR *Contest* Board would have no trouble with this.  The problem
>> is, NAR S&T supercedes the authority of the CB, so anything that they (S&T)
>> certify as a contest-certified motor, we have to accept at a meet, no
>> exceptions.  So we (CB) *cannot* restrict motors in any way.  :(

>There is SOME process which could change this.  I'm not familiar with our (NAR)
>bylaws, but I'd think action by the board or a membership vote could change
>this.  Would a majority of members be in favor of this?  If so, I'm sure
>the board would support the change.

        As a point of information to all those folks following this
thread I will epand on how the FAI has "worked" the rules to
accommodate the smaller diameter motors and the corresponding
increased performances.
        At World Championships, like NAR competition, events are
divided up by total impulse.  There are 2.5N/sec events, 5 N/sec
events, etc.  However, there is no diameter restriction on the motor.
The motors are tested for each respective country and the total
impulse is measured and that motor is "certified" for that impulse.
        What happened in altitude competition was typical-the world's
best modelers figured out that a 9mm "B" motor rocket would go higher
than a, say 13mm one.  Because of the altitudes attained, the physical
tracking and the number of tracked and closed flights became an
administrative, and beleive it or not, a political nightmare.
        To cope with this problem, the solution was to set a minimum
MODEL DIAMETER for the event.  The world's best motor manufacturers
were still producing 10mm motors, but now they had to be flown in 18mm
airframes.  This leveled the playing field to the best MODEL, not the
best MOTOR.
        Currently, there is a 30mm rule in effect.  If contest
directors would simply decide to hold the FAI rules, there would not
be this bickering of people opposed to people using smaller diameter
motors.  Just the bickering of people opposed to people outbuilding
them would remain.  The *competition* is the best model, as it should
be, not the best motor.

                                        Ken Mizoi
                                        Member of many U.S. Teams

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by msjoh.. » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>Looks like the NAR Board has the power to make such a change, and I'm sure
>any board member would be happy to accept suggestions for changes and put
>them on an agenda. Obviously the idea would then have to fly on it's own
>merit.

Certainly, we have the power to make (or block) such a change. However, the
current Board is decidedly NOT interested in micromanaging the Contest and
Records Committee. We're ONLY going to intercede if a situation arises (like
the aforementioned legal/liability issue) where C&R and the competition
population have proposed a change that could cause more global problems. For
myself, I like the new system where a formalized process exists that allows
the competitors to pretty much make their own rules. In a way, it lets us try
ideas for a year or two and see if they work. If a change is troublesome,
either the Contest Board can reverse it on an emergency basis, or *anyone*
from the community can propose a refinement or outright repeal.

Quote:
>The sponsor of a competition may award places for a subgroup of an event based on
>propellant or diameter limitations, if there are more than 3 members of the subgroup AND
>at least 3 competetors in the event do not qualify for the subgroup.  Points awarded for
>the subgroup will be xx% of those awarded overall.
>Too complicated; but as a draft might provide a basis for discussion.
>Maybe only one such limitation allowed in a contest.  Such a limitation should be able to
>work the other way too:  'Only 10.5 mm A BP' or 'Only AP propellant' ... that would help
>manufacturers!

[Well, not if you're Estes or Quest :-)]

Hmm...something to think about.

mj (still speaking for himself only)

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by msjoh.. » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>One idea I've had but haven't had the time to write it up is to add a Specified Kit
>event.  The Contest Director would choose a widely available kit and an engine class
>and possibly type ie Big Bertha B Duration or Altitude or B 18mm Black Powder.  The
>event would be judged on fit & finish plus duration or altitude.

[other interesting rules snipped]

Way back in about 1971 this was done at an East Coast meet with Scale models.
The chosen model was the CMR 23mm (RB-90) D-Region Tomahawk. As I recall the
experiment was regarded as a reasonable success. Certainly judging would be
simplified.

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by The Silent Observe » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:




<snip>

Quote:

> > to attract and encourage new competition fliers,

> I am not convinced that any of this will attract or encourage new
> competition fliers.

> > to allow an event for which the contest field would otherwise be too
> > small for safe recovery of models,

> You don't need a rule for this.  This is part of the contest strategy!
> One of the prime requirements for many events is that you must recover
> your model.  In small fields, either the CD chooses suitable events, or
> the fliers change their flying tactics.  They fly Estes-powered bricks if
> they have to.  Consider that the above clause would probably not affect
> novice fliers at all.

> > or to allow flying an event which
> > would otherwise have to be cancelled by weather (such as excessive wind
> > for the field size).

> The safety code prohibits flying in >20 mph winds.  No events allowed.
> The meet is postponed.  I postponed one meet this year because of wind.
> If the wind is 19.9 mph, the modelers get their "bricks" out again.

<snip>

Quote:

> Sigh...

> Wolf

Okay, Wolf, you're not convinced that massaging the event rules will
attract new fliers, and maybe you're right -- yet its obvious that
Quote:
>something< needs to be done; only a couple hundred people regularly compete nationwide; that's not enough to maintain competition over a

long term.  By comparison, the AMA Nats (annual national contest for
model airplanes of all sorts) has more participants than that in free
flight ***, in Hand-Launch Glider, and in R/C Sailplane competitions
(combining all age groups) -- not even counting >popular< events like R/C
Pattern and R/C Sport Scale.

What is it about rocket competition that attracts so few fliers?  Or are
there just that few ***s flying model rockets at all, having mostly
moved up to High Power?  What can be done to make modroc competition more
attractive?

(Note that I approach this from the POV of one who has never flown modroc
competition, though I've entered local R/C fun-fly contests and
semi-official indoor and outdoor *** power contests on a number of
occasions in the past.)

I know one factor for me is the travel -- the nearest NAR section from
Seattle flies at a field more than three hours' drive away.  That's a
long way for me to drive, given that I'd have to get up two to three
hours earlier than normal (I work a swing shift, and normally arise
around 10 am), drive for those 3 hours, fly all day, and then drive home
without falling asleep at the wheel -- and there's one chance in four
that a randomly chosen weekend contest will fall on the one weekend per
month that I have to work on Saturday.  NARAM is right out -- I'd have to
plan for NARAM farther in advance that it's typically known where the
next one will be, much less the exact dates, in part because of
restrictive vacation policies at my work, and in part because of my very
limited budget.

All this to most likely come in fourth of four in most events I enter for
the first half dozen contests?  Not likely...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

| TableTop Publications http://www.FoundCollection.com/|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken  |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian.                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by The Silent Observe » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


> ...
> >Is there actually a problem?

> >I have still not read of any accounts (except at NARAMs) where 18 mm motor
> >fliers were shut out of competition by Apogee motor users.  Most beginner
> >fliers would be flying at section and open meets.  So far, most of this
> >talk has been of a perceptional nature, and I question whether it has any
> >basis in fact.

> Exactly.  Silent, have you been to a Kent launch lately?  I haven't, but
> according to the newsletter, they're holding informal contests with no
> shortage of "competitors".  Last month was B streamer duration; nine juniors
> and five seniors competed.  Now granted, the Kent folks are not a NAR
> section, so perhaps the competition doesn't reach "cutthroat" levels.
> It doesn't look like any Apogee motors were flown; heck, over half the
> rockets were plain Estes kits, but people participated, prizes were awarded
> and "everyone went away happy."  Why don't you give it a shot before you
> try to fix something that doesn't really seem to be broken?

> (This month's event: spot landing.  I hope to attend and participate.)

> --m

Unfortunately, I can only make about one Kent launch per year -- it's
invariably held on the one weekend each month when I have to be at work
at 3 pm on Saturday -- which is cutting things a bit fine, given that I'd
have to get up two hours earlier than normal to get there on time, then
go directly from the rocket field to work, and stay awake until midnight
before going home.

Yes, I know, I need a new job...  B(

I'd love to fly in B SD or spot landing -- my Mongoose gets well over 200
feet on A/A staging (with adapters to use mini-motors), and I could
pretty readily design an 18mm bird to better that and still have room for
a decent streamer.  I don't suppose there's any real possibility of
getting the launches changed to a different weekend, is there??

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken  |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian.                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Wolfram v.Kipars » Sat, 07 Sep 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

> What is it about rocket competition that attracts so few fliers?  Or are
> there just that few ***s flying model rockets at all, having mostly
> moved up to High Power?  What can be done to make modroc competition more
> attractive?

Last contest year, less than 1% of the NAR membership participated in at
least 6 contest factors (out of 12) worth of competition.  :-(

I dunno?  Build it, and they will come???  
There are many NAR members who probably have no idea what competition is
all about.  It's my perception that there is a perception (huh?) that
competition is all about getting wiped out and sent home by expert
rocketeers bent on world conquest (forgive the exaggeration).  I believe
that this is just not true.  It would be suicidal for any section to adopt
such an attitude - they'd loose members and would cease to be.  To
popularize contest rocketry, I think one has to start out at ground zero,
and nurture any new *** that you happen to attract to your meet.  Send
'em plans of your best stuff.  Call 'em up.  Talk shop.  Answer
questions.  Hold building session/pizza parties.  When they show up at a
meet - help them out a lot.  Deliberately hold easy-to-fly events if you
are expecting novice fliers.  Try to have prizes ready for the kids - even
a snazzy ribbon would do if you are "financially challenged."

I am rambling to the point of BSing right now.  Not enough time has
elapsed that I can demonstrate if any of these solutions have worked.

Some of the largest and oldest NAR sections in the USA (NOVAAR, NARHAMS)
are competition-oriented.  What are they doing right?  How do they do it?

Quote:

> (Note that I approach this from the POV of one who has never flown modroc
> competition, though I've entered local R/C fun-fly contests and
> semi-official indoor and outdoor *** power contests on a number of
> occasions in the past.)

> I know one factor for me is the travel -- the nearest NAR section from
> Seattle flies at a field more than three hours' drive away.  

Duane Wilkey also said the same thing, and this is a tough problem to
overcome.  Travel is expensive.  I am very lucky in that I emerged from
"the long night of rocketlessness" to find an active, local,
competiton-oriented section.  

For those not so fortunate, one solution is to start out small, at a
grassroots level.  Several NAR sections are already doing this, including
Duane's section.  (Sorry, Duane, for not being able to make it out last
season).

 Get a few NAR members together - you don't even need to be a section.  An
individual can sanction a Local or Open meet.  You can all make friendly
"Gentlemen and Ladies Agreements" to fly events within certain
restrictions, and go at it.  First place with an Estes Alpha at such a
meet gets you the same amount of points as first place at a very
competitive meet.

<snip more traveling woes>

Quote:
> month that I have to work on Saturday.  NARAM is right out -- I'd have to
> plan for NARAM farther in advance that it's typically known where the
> next one will be, much less the exact dates, in part because of
> restrictive vacation policies at my work, and in part because of my very
> limited budget.

> All this to most likely come in fourth of four in most events I enter for
> the first half dozen contests?  Not likely...

I hear you there.  NARAMS are WAY out of my budget.  :-(

Peace,

Wolf

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Jeff Vince » Sun, 08 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>I think they just don't think it's very much fun.  You guys that fly
>seriously just don't realize how intense you really are.  Competition
>flying is really much more work than fun the way we do it.  Too many
>events per day, two hours of range duty, and the same old boring flights
>meet after meet.

   Well, the CB has reduced the number of maximum WF per meet (fewer
events).  I don't think the events are that boring.  It's ironic that
people who have never flown this before (not you Rob, but the ones
we're trying to encourage) call it boring. ;)  We flew B R/G MR recently
and had swing wings, slide wings, and slide pods (that's from four
flyers!) -- that ain't boring!

Quote:
>For some reason competing with baseballs and bats also
>has its own special enjoyment to it.  You'll see people join a pick-up
>softball game just for the fun, even though score is being kept, etc.  
>The activity ITSELF is leisurely and relaxing, or exciting and
>challenging, but offers its own rewards.  The way we fly NAR competition
>now, there seems to be no joy in the execution, only in the victory
>itself.

   I don't know about that.  I used to compete more for points, but
I'm more interested in good flights now.  If I score a lot of points,
but fly badly, I'm embarrassed (ask John DeMar about To B ;).  If I
fly well, even if I get beat, I get satisfaction from it.  The
satisfaction comes with the flight (& particularly a successful
recovery), not when the points are tallied later.  Weird, huh?  :)


Pick one or more: Model Rockets (competition-NERCB) / PCs (even Atari!) /
Papyrus ICR-ICR2-NCR / Who needs a life when you have multiple non-lives?

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Jeff Vince » Sun, 08 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>Somebody at NARAM said that you don't have to be a section to host
>a meet--maybe I can hold a rogue meet with all scale events some
>day...including Space Systems.  I'll have to check the Pink Book)

   Definitely true.  Schedule away!  (Of course, who do you think
will get stuck doing the judging? ;)


Pick one or more: Model Rockets (competition-NERCB) / PCs (even Atari!) /
Papyrus ICR-ICR2-NCR / Who needs a life when you have multiple non-lives?

 
 
 

BAR sees NAR competition doldrums?

Post by Willia » Mon, 09 Sep 1996 04:00:00


    Exactly.  Silent, have you been to a Kent launch lately?  I haven't, but
    according to the newsletter, they're holding informal contests with no
    shortage of "competitors".  Last month was B streamer duration; nine
    juniors and five seniors competed.

One problem is that clubs tend to have a CONTEST day.  With several events.
By the time you compete in the first event, and then wait for launches of
several other events (including a duration event with the need to find
timers, and an altitude event with a need to find and train trackers plus
data reduction time), it makes for a really long day by the time they
finally announce winners and hand out prizes.

I like the idea of having one event per launch every launch a lot better.

BillW