from the "Model Rocketeer", April 2004 RCP Process for 2003-2004 The current RCP process for the 2003-2004 season is now at an end. As a current NAR member you may exercise your privilege to vote on the current batch of proposals that were printed in the previous edition of the MR. Since the publication of the current proposals, the RCP Chairman has been accepting official member comments, which are published here for your review. Please read each proposal and comment carefully before making your selection to vote for or against each proposal. If you have questions contact me at zog139@yahoo.com. A sixty-six percent vote for a proposal shall deem the proposal as passed. Proposals that do pass will become effective on July 1, 2004 with the start of the new contest year and have no effect on NARAM-46 in August. You have until May 15, 2004 to have your ballot postmarked. Results will be published in the next edition of the MR. Jim Filler NAR #27862 RCP Chair NAR Contest Board RCP # 2003-101 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Adjust the weighting factors for all NAR contest events so that each value is a multiple of 4. The WF changes seem too "strange" to me. I'd like to see more people get into rocket competition, but with the WF changes proposed I don't think it will make any difference. If anything, it will make things more difficult for the first year put in place due to confusion. Art Upton, NAR #26255 This RCP will adjust weighing factors for all events to be a multiple of 4. This is a good and necessary RCP. When deciding which events will be used in a contest, the organizers struggle to use all of the available weighing factors. The most important effect of the current weighing factor scheme is most contests are composed of a limited set of events found in the Pink Book. Accepting this RCP will allow a greater range of events to be considered for events. Richard A. Hyman, NAR #10841 Going to a rounded WF system would result in similar events having grossly different WFs. Compare: A Altitude - 8 WF to B Altitude - 12 WF, or B Streamer - 8 WF to C Streamer - 12 WF. Jeff Vincent, NAR #27910 Make all weighing factors a multiple of 4. This is a ***VERY BAD*** way to fix a very minor problem. The discontinuities that result from this change are far worse than the problem trying to be solved, which really has no effect on competition. In fact I'd rate this proposal one of the worst ideas that has ever been proposed. The reason for the current granularity is that there are GRADUAL increases in difficulty as you change from say A SD to B SD to C SD. And there tend to be low-end tail effects for very small power classes, such as dropping from C EL to B EL. This change wipes out the minor changes that belong there, and replaces them with major discontinuities that do not exist in reality. Is B altitude 50% harder than A altitude? Of course not. Is C PD 50% harder than B PD. Well, recovering either is difficult, but it's not THAT different. Ditto B vs C streamer. In fact if we get Apogee mini B motors back, one could argue that B SD is harder to fly & recover than C SD! Is 1/4A BG no harder than 1/2A BG. Is B EL as easy as C EL? I think not. Is C DEL as easy as D DEL? NFW! If we want to wipe this out, we might as well go back to the 70s, when ALL EL events had the same weighing factor, be it B or G, all SD events were the same, etc. Or take the results and divide everything by 4. When the Pink Book was rewritten in 1988, the events were scored by difficulty, and the motor classes were similarly ranked. Tail effects were considered for those events where appropriate. The resulting two rankings created a matrix of WFs. Since then various individual event WFs were screwed with making them out of step with others. There was also a carefully calculated relationship between meet contest factors, participation numbers, and WF limits for those meets to make them all equivalent in the section championship results. Plus the original numbers were based on duration events being best single returned flight, with no flyaways or 2 flights required. Over the past 15 years, all this has been messed with, with no consideration for the underlying interconnections. Changing the return rule resulted in mandatory second flights in most events, which is how we got to having too many events in meets, which required tampering with more numbers. If you want to change anything regarding WFs, CFs, etc., my recommendation would be to roll them all back to the 1988 versions. All of the changes since then have created problems, not fixed them. Bob Kaplow, NAR #18L The weight factor and points charts are products of over 4 decades of modification based mostly on degree of difficulty. Values increase as Newton-Seconds increase. The event determination with the existing weight factors is actually FUN to compute, and allows for MORE flexibility. The utilization of Dr. Kidwell's "Contest Manager" makes the calculations a mere formality. An analysis of the proposed charts reveals a predominance of increased point values. The smaller chart with weight factors for fourteen events has fixed point values. Four of these have been increased by 2 points, the rest remain the same. There are three values: 2, 10 and 26 that are lost. This can be interpreted as less "flexibility'. The larger charts for the remaining sixteen events indicate that 72.5% of the point values are changed. Of a total of 120 values, 48 are increased and 39 are decreased with 33 remaining the same. Highlights in value changes are: WF in C 8 are increased, the remaining 8 stay the same. WF in G 8 are increased, 5 stay the same, 1 decreases. WF in F 8 are increased, 1 stays the same, 5 decrease, WF in 1/4A 1 is increased, 4 stay the same, 6 decrease. WF in A 1 is increased, 6 stay the same, 5 decrease. The trend indicates that the values have been increased even more then, those in the present charts of Appendix B. Ultimately, this could lead to fewer events at a NAR sanctioned meet, and more so if multi-round events are used. Keeping our present chart seems to be in the best interest for NAR event determination. Paul Miller, NAR #51615 RCP # 2003-202 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: As part of the Research and Development Competition event, add, as a required element of the report. The time spent on various aspects of the project. RCP #2003-202 This RCP will cause the time spent on an R&D project to be considered along with cost. I will go so far to say that cost should not be considered in judging R&D entries. As long as cost is a criteria, time should also be a criteria. Richard A. Hyman, NAR #10841 RCP # 2003-303 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Limit the number of competition points that can be amassed during the contest year before the National Championship contest. RCP #2003-303 This RCP will limit the number of contest points that can be accumulated prior to the national championships. This seems to be the most debated RCP. A few people believe there should be no limits, while others believe that championship points should not be a factor in determining national champions. I am one of those who believe the national champions should be given the title purely based on their performance at the national championships, and that a different set of trophies could be awarded to people based on contest points without the need to attend the national championships. Since this separation will not happen, based on past opposition, I fully support this RCP. It is a reasonable compromise that strengthens the need to do well in the national championships, while recognizing in some parts of the country, local and regional contests can be difficult to attend. There are no ulterior motives in submitting this RCP, since the person who authored this RCP typically goes to NARAM with points well in excess of the proposed limit. Richard A. Hyman, NAR #10841 Instead of representing a Rules Change that would benefit NAR Competi- tion as a whole, Mr. Markielewski's proposal would primarily serve to enhance his own accumulation of Competition Points ... He specifi- cally mentions Weather and "Level of Competition", among other relatively inconsequential excuses, as justification for his Rule Change Proposal. The actual effect of his proposal would be to "lower" & "fix" Pre-NARAM Points, make the Number of CF's flown "Unlimited", and greatly facilitate a Competitor's ability to "Max" his points before NARAM. On the surface, his "Utopia" sounds plausible, until one reads his comments about the "Removal of Pre-NARAM Points", where he states, "I believe this would be detrimental to competition, as it would result in a significant drop in the holding and participation in Pre-NARAM events" ... HOWEVER, how would that be any different from establishing a "EASY MAX"??? Whether the are NO "Pre-NARAM Points" or everyone is "MAXED" (Tied in Points) the effect is the SAME! In a nutshell, RCP #2003-303 is a "Trojan Horse" ... a deception, veiled to present a "Sunny Face" while serving private motivations, not in the best interest of NAR Competition! Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, I rise in opposition to RCP #2003-303 and encourage others to do so after thoroughly reading the Proposal! David Fitch, NAR #26128 Limit Pre-Naram points? Time for a reality check. Usually around 300 individuals including teams earn points during a contest year. Over the past decade, NARAM competitors range between 50 and 110. A higher attendance usually occurs when NARAM is held in eastern states. I think distance of travel is the greatest limiting factor for perspective attendees. The number of pre-NARAM points has never been a deciding factor with regard to my attendance. I plan to go my 8th NARAM this summer. I have exceeded 4800 pre-NARAM points one time. Certainly it is a challenge to try to succeed against the very best competitors. When you go to NARAM, you will see lots of familiar faces-a core of fanatical rocketeers, not point counters. I strongly doubt that limiting pre-NARAM points would appreciably increase NARAM attendees. NARAM is an opportunity to cheer and recognize hard working, devoted competitors who have crafted and flown rockets ALL YEAR. Paul Miller, NAR #51615 I disagree with this RCP. It would be simpler and easier to just have a Regular Season NAR Champion and then zero every bodies point totals for NARAM and then have a National Champion based upon NARAM performance only. Terry Dean, NAR #16158 SR The 4800 point limit of this proposal would tend to limit the rewards for excellence, giving equal points to a superb flyer flying just a few meets versus what a mediocre flyer would accomplish in a full season. We should equally limit the "opportunity" to earn points, not limit the results achieved from unequal opportunities. Further, the removal of the 12 CF annual meet limit may lead to unintended abuses, such as flyers reaching the 4800 point limit by flying an "excessive" number of meets or section members flying multiple team entries throughout the season to stockpile pre-NARAM section points. If a better balance between pre-NARAM and NARAM points is desired, I would suggest studying recent NARAM results and creating a different NARAM CF formula for Rule 6.3.5 for "each" division (since the problem is most notable in C division). Jeff Vincent, NAR #27910 Limit pre-NARAM points For individual competitors, this looks good. But there are some serious problems. The biggest one is what it does to the SECTION points. It grossly swings the pendulum in favor of sections with large numbers of participants, rather than a few good competi- tors. Section points can also be skewed by having members fly as different teams over the year once they reach their 4800 point limit, farther padding section points. This rule either needs reevaluation for its impact on section championships, or it needs to be turned down in its present form. Bob Kaplow, NAR #18L RCP # 2003-404 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: To fix bugs in the staging rule and definitions. One which has been interpreted to disallow awstarting in single staged events. Another being lack of a requirement for stages to actually separate. There should be a requirement for airstarts to be considered one stage that all of the motor burn times overlap. Any motor that air starts after the initial motor(s) have burned out IS a new stage. Bob Kaplow, NAR #18L RCP # 2003-505 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Add the following definition in the Glossary Section: Measurements: unless otherwise specified, measurements required for judging shall be taken with the most accurate device available and rounded off to the nearest millimeter. Measurement of scale models. Limiting measurement to mm makes it unfair / impossible to accurately judge models with small dimensions. The difference between 1.49 and 1.51mm as measured by a caliper for fin thickness can be a 33% error. Further, while many of us DO work in metric, there are still modelers that work in inches, and use inch- measuring tools. To force rounding to mm is just absurd in these cases. Measurements of scale models need to be as accurate as the model itself. Measuring the length of a 5' scale model to the nearest mm is overkill. Measuring fin thickness or screw head diameters or other small details to the nearest mm is insufficient. Bob Kaplow, NAR #18L Please read the Sporting Code on page 2 of the "Pink Book". The interpretations of the rules by the Contest Director and Contest Jury are the focus of fair play for all competitors at a sanctioned event. Judging craftsmanship events demands careful consideration and observation of an entrant's model. It requires a time-consuming, intense scrutiny of the modeler's craft. The impartial judge applies the same schedule of criteria and degree of critical thought to each model. Section 50.12.2 Accuracy of Major Dimensions presents the criteria for measuring the scale model. Please read that judges should attempt to measure the main model dimensions to at least 0.5 mm. The addition of "Measurements" to the glossary is redundant and rounding off to the nearest mm can be interpreted as less accurate. The use of calipers in concert with the metric scale is a time-tested measure of accuracy in the scientific community-macroscopic to microscopic. Paul Miller, NAR #51615 RCP # 2003-606 TYPE: [x] Regular [ ] Interpretation [ ] Urgent [ ] Emergency [ ] Safety BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Create a 1/8A motor class and 1/8A class events. After talking with Bill Stine this weekend, I hope Micro Maxx has a long enough future for this to be practical. Bob Kaplow, NAR #18L According to Bill Stine, owner of Quest that he has "millions" of MMX motors and igniters. Even tho the current MMX line is dead, he plans on re-introducing a future line for the warehoused MMX motors. Hopefully this will not affect voting on the RCP adding 1/8A events to the Pink Book. Tom Lyon