Mad Anthony Regional (MAR)

May 15-16, 2010

Time 10am to 7pm

Location: Prarieville Farms/ Michigan Farmers Hall of Fame, Delton, MI NARAM 49
field

Contest Director: Randy Boadway

Events:

B Rocket Glide (21)

Sport Scale (20)

A Boost Glider (18)

B Streamer Duration (9)

B Parachute Duration (8)

Open Spot Landing (4)

Rain date May 22-23, 2010



Jeff Graham
jgraham1971@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Unfortunately GLRMR X will not be flown tomorrow due to the forecast high winds.
This is very disappointing. We are considering holding the meet at Harmon field
in Aurora Ohio, on either May 22 or June 26. We may fly the same events or
scaled down events
due to the smaller field size. Expect an announcement soon.

Anybody recommend a good (and preferably not too expensive) scale for measuring
wight (okay, technially mass) of rockets and parts?
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi All,

PSC will be hosting our Steel City Smoke Trail Regional Meet about one month
from now – I wanted to send out a reminder notice and also make note of a
couple of changes to event from the past couple years;

First we are moving our Friday evening event registration to a different
location; it will be at Michael Restaurant and Hotel, this is a roadside hotel
which is located on Rt 422 about 1 mile east of Prospect, PA.

Also, we will be holding a benefit auction at the conclusion of the flying on
Sunday; As most of you Rod Schafer has qualified to fly on the U.S. team at the
World Space Modeling Championships (WSMC) in Serbia this August.  Although Rod
has already been working hard to raise money for this trip through his work and
church, it’s still going to be an expensive endeavor.  He’s probably already
raised enough money to get to Serbia – but do we really want him to have to
swim back?   Not really, so PSC has decided to support Rod’s quest to bring
back the gold by holding an auction.  The auction will take place at 2:00 pm on
the 6th, just after the conclusion of the contest – awards presentation will
follow.  Donation items will be appreciated, but cash and checks may come in
handy as well.

Contest Events Are:
1/2A BG
1/2A PD (MR)
B SD (MR)
D HD
A Cluster Alt.

More detailed information is included in a couple of PDF documents for the
event; which can be found on our club website at www.psc473.org

Thanks,

Steve Foster, assistant to the CD

a cheap jewlers scale from ebay usally under $20

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Tom Markel
   To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:14 AM
   Subject: [contestRoc] Scales



   Anybody recommend a good (and preferably not too expensive) scale for
measuring wight (okay, technially mass) of rockets and parts?


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Tom,

I use this for all my low power competition measurings:

http://www.harborfreight.com/digital-pocket-scale-93543.html

Small, light weight (low mass ;}), fits in your back pocket and it is
inexpensive.  Harbor sometimes has a sale and I have seen them for as little as
$7.99.  Even at $12 they are not bad.  Let me check ebay...

... yep ebay has pocket scales for even less including the shipping.  Just get
anything with +- .1 gram resolution and that should be fine for all your NAR low
power needs.

I think I will get a couple new ebay specials because my cen-tech units are MIA
... bought 3 couple years back, now I can only fin one! LOL. Due to their size,
they get lost under books/mags, and other clutter.

Jonathan

--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Tom Markel <medflyy@...> wrote:
>
> Anybody recommend a good (and preferably not too expensive) scale for
measuring wight (okay, technially mass) of rockets and parts?
>  
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I got a cheap one a couple years ago from Harbor Freight. IIRC it was on sale
for about $12. It's a lot handier than my old Ohaus triple beam balance,
especially for weighing balsa sheets in a hobby store.

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Tom Markel <medflyy@...> wrote:

From: Tom Markel <medflyy@...>
Subject: [contestRoc] Scales
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 10:14 AM







 









       Anybody recommend a good (and preferably not too expensive) scale for
measuring wight (okay, technially mass) of rockets and parts?

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I use this for all my low power competition measurings:
>
> http://www.harborfr eight.com/ digital-pocket- scale-93543. html
>
> Small, light weight (low mass ;}), fits in your back pocket and it is
> inexpensive.  Harbor sometimes has a sale and I have seen them for as
> little as $7.99.  Even at $12 they are not bad.  Let me check ebay...

Here's the $7.99 (shipped) scale I like:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400094812907

Bought it from the same seller.

The contest events scheduled for GLRMR X have been rescheduled and moved
to the Harmon Flying Field in Aurora, Ohio.  The events have been reduced in
impulse to accomodate the smaller field.  They include:

Open spot landing
E SRA
D DELA
B HD
A SD

There will be no hpr events due to the field size.

The new date will be May 22, with a rainout date of June 26.

--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <MikeMNowak@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately GLRMR X will not be flown tomorrow due to the forecast high
winds.
> This is very disappointing. We are considering holding the meet at Harmon
field in Aurora Ohio, on either May 22 or June 26. We may fly the same events or
scaled down events
> due to the smaller field size. Expect an announcement soon.
>

Dear Spacemodelers,
The Great Lakes Cup - FAI World Cup and NAR Regional is still several weeks
away, but some items need attention today. Pat and Tony Reynolds (mostly Pat)
are working hard to make this a World Cup to remember. To do that properly we
need to have good idea of how many are attending, just in case we needed to
order something custom for participants. ...

Please register today to attend:

http://www.spacemodeling.org/greatlakescup/greatlakescup.asp

Thanks,

Tony Reynolds, Pat Butler

Information for anyone planning on attending the Great Lakes Cup in Oswego, ILL
in June. Local lodging is filling up quickly for the Great Lakes Cup. We've used
up our block of rooms at the AmericInn, however there are still some options. We
still have 6 rooms at the hotel that are reserved for any foreign competitors
who come over. Those rooms are being provided at no charge to us. Once we can
confirm exactly how many foreign competitors are coming over then we can release
any extra rooms for other competitors. It will still be a few weeks before we
can probably get all of the final confirmations from our overseas (and
over-the-north-border) guests.

There is a wedding party that has reserved a large block of rooms whose block
reservations expire on the 19th of this month. It is expected that will release
a number of available rooms for us. Your best bet is to call early on the 19th
(or maybe try the evening of the 18th) to secure an available room as soon as
any become available.

Finally, there are a few other nearby hotels that I'm getting some details on
that I will provide information on in the next few days. I had referred a few
people to the nearby Holiday Inn Express and am not sure if they were able to
secure reservations. I just called the hotel and they too are filled up. I'll
try to block out some more rooms at another hotel and get back to everyone with
respect to the details.

I finally got a website up that is directed towards a local audience of anyone
wishing to attend our event as spectators. It's at
http://www.isar-rocketry.com/GreatLakesCup.htm

If you need more information, or would like to register for teh contest then
please visit http://www.spacemodeling.org/GreatLakesCup/

Everything is coming together nicely and we are expecting a busy weekend.
Thanks.

Pat Butler
pat@...

The Great Lakes Cup sounds like fun. Wish I could attend.

Is there anyway that www.spacemodeling.org can update their main
page??  I don't think it has been touched since 2006. Nothing about
Baikonur or Barcelona.

Roy

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:38 PM, appraisalservices2000
<pat@...> wrote:
> Information for anyone planning on attending the Great Lakes Cup in Oswego,
ILL in June. Local lodging is filling up quickly for the Great Lakes Cup. We've
used up our block of rooms at the AmericInn, however there are still some
options. We still have 6 rooms at the hotel that are reserved for any foreign
competitors who come over. Those rooms are being provided at no charge to us.
Once we can confirm exactly how many foreign competitors are coming over then we
can release any extra rooms for other competitors. It will still be a few weeks
before we can probably get all of the final confirmations from our overseas (and
over-the-north-border) guests.
>
> There is a wedding party that has reserved a large block of rooms whose block
reservations expire on the 19th of this month. It is expected that will release
a number of available rooms for us. Your best bet is to call early on the 19th
(or maybe try the evening of the 18th) to secure an available room as soon as
any become available.
>
> Finally, there are a few other nearby hotels that I'm getting some details on
that I will provide information on in the next few days. I had referred a few
people to the nearby Holiday Inn Express and am not sure if they were able to
secure reservations. I just called the hotel and they too are filled up. I'll
try to block out some more rooms at another hotel and get back to everyone with
respect to the details.
>
> I finally got a website up that is directed towards a local audience of anyone
wishing to attend our event as spectators. It's at
http://www.isar-rocketry.com/GreatLakesCup.htm
>
> If you need more information, or would like to register for teh contest then
please visit http://www.spacemodeling.org/GreatLakesCup/
>
> Everything is coming together nicely and we are expecting a busy weekend.
Thanks.
>
> Pat Butler
> pat@...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Whitney,
I saw the posts over on NAR sections that got you ask about these items over
here; so I'll offer my basic opinions as a regular competitor for the past
dozen years.
 
#901 & #902 - are items to remove events that maybe only been put into a contest
a couple times in the last 20 years and didn't get but a couple entries.  My
opinion is that it's not hurting anything for them to remain as is just in case
someone does want to fly them (I won't be one of those guys though).
 
#903 & #904 - These go hand in hand and help clarify what many have interpreted
the current rules to mean.  So it just clears things up
 
#905 - Yes; this is the drastic change item in the list.  I have to start by
saying this change has pros and cons - and I support a change in this
direction, I'm still not sure though that this drastic of a change is what I
would like.  I do think that each of our various contest events take different
skills and therefore the WF of these events need to be scored more evenly; let's
say you enter a contest with 6 event and you dominate 4 of those 6 events
winning all of them, but the 2 events that you tank have such a high WF that you
end up losing the meet to someone that only did well in those 2 events - this
can and does happen a lot under our current point system.  The con is that some
events like Scale and R&D can take many, more hours to enter than events like
Parachute and Streamer duration that it dosn't seem fair to award them fairly
equally, and if this change is made - will it cause a lack of interest in these
events since you will no
  longer get rewarded many more points for your effort?
 
#906 - There is a lot of controvery over how accurate altimeters are, with all
the events flown under different weather/altitude/season across the country
there is no way to tell if any record would mean anything other than it was a
record on that day/hour/minute in that location.
 
#907 - I think these rule opens more loopholes than it would close, a rocket
dragging a piece of "stiff" string would be measured by the length of this
string.
  
#908 - This is something that probably should have been done a long time ago,
proxy flying models should only be done for events were the builder has done
most of the work towards the event.
 
#909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting code are the
rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us this.
 
Steve
 
 
 
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Whitney Richard <whitney@...> wrote:


From: Whitney Richard <whitney@...>
Subject: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 5:23 PM


 



Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I have had a chance to read
through the proposed changes again and you and I are in agreement on all of
these. I still don't know how to vote on the weighting changes. My gut feeling
is to vote "NO". I'm going to sit on it for a while. I  posted my question on a
all the forum sites. I'll see what other have to say before I decide. We have
till June 15th.

Hope to see you at a launch soon,
Whitney Richard

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Steve Foster
   To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:24 PM
   Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions



   Hi Whitney,
   I saw the posts over on NAR sections that got you ask about these items over
here; so I'll offer my basic opinions as a regular competitor for the past dozen
years.

   #901 & #902 - are items to remove events that maybe only been put into a
contest a couple times in the last 20 years and didn't get but a couple entries.
My opinion is that it's not hurting anything for them to remain as is just in
case someone does want to fly them (I won't be one of those guys though).

   #903 & #904 - These go hand in hand and help clarify what many have
interpreted the current rules to mean.  So it just clears things up

   #905 - Yes; this is the drastic change item in the list.  I have to start by
saying this change has pros and cons - and I support a change in this direction,
I'm still not sure though that this drastic of a change is what I would like.  I
do think that each of our various contest events take different skills and
therefore the WF of these events need to be scored more evenly; let's say you
enter a contest with 6 event and you dominate 4 of those 6 events winning all of
them, but the 2 events that you tank have such a high WF that you end up losing
the meet to someone that only did well in those 2 events - this can and does
happen a lot under our current point system.  The con is that some events like
Scale and R&D can take many, more hours to enter than events like Parachute and
Streamer duration that it dosn't seem fair to award them fairly equally, and if
this change is made - will it cause a lack of interest in these events since you
will no
   longer get rewarded many more points for your effort?

   #906 - There is a lot of controvery over how accurate altimeters are, with all
the events flown under different weather/altitude/season across the country
there is no way to tell if any record would mean anything other than it was a
record on that day/hour/minute in that location.

   #907 - I think these rule opens more loopholes than it would close, a rocket
dragging a piece of "stiff" string would be measured by the length of this
string.

   #908 - This is something that probably should have been done a long time ago,
proxy flying models should only be done for events were the builder has done
most of the work towards the event.

   #909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting code are the
rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us this.

   Steve



   --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Whitney Richard <whitney@...> wrote:

   From: Whitney Richard <whitney@...>
   Subject: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions
   To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
   Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 5:23 PM



   Hi everyone,

   I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved
with rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

   Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or
is this a bit excessive?

   Thank You For Listening,
   Whitney Richard
   Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
   Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
   TRA# 9557 L3
   NAR# 89377 L3
   SOLAR# 135

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steve Foster <steve72814@...> wrote:
|#909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting |code are the
rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us |this.

Steve I'd love to agree with you on this, if it weren't for the simple fact that
almost every year at NARAM some new "special rule" pops up at the last minute.

We had a Pink Book rule for most of the 80s that allowed NARAM CDs to create
"special rules" and it caused nothing but problems. This was purged from the
Pink Book in 1988, but the special rules continue.

Example, the NARAM-49 ruling that banned any tubes smaller than 13mm from being
used in SR, while at the same time allowed indestructible PML Quantum to be
used.

Ideally, the folks running the contest board should have the balls to put an end
to this practice. But their failure to act on obvious problems, such as this and
the hilarious loophole that Gassaway exploited last year for 1/8A HD are the
reason that I submitted this rule change.

In fact, along with the proposals seen here, I submitted 2 other proposals that
never saw the light of day on this ballot. One addressed the launcher problem,
and the other was a similar but different solution to clarifying the line
between concept scale and real scale.

Perhaps people should be asking the contest board why these two legitimate
proposals got buried and were not on the ballot.

I'll be asking the NAR board this question at NARAM.

Bob

Excuse me Mr. Kaplow please refer to this link

http://www.nar.org/pinkbook/

then check for

>>5.5 Launcher Height
No rocket may be launched with its aft most part more than 2 meter above the
ground. <<
 
In regards to your Concept Scale similiar but different proposal, I made a
decision that the other proposal that does appear on the ballot although not
identical, was the better choice. I also think having your proposal also would
do nothing but cause confusion if it was on the slate as well.
 
 
Jim Filler




________________________________
From: Bob Kaplow <bobkaplow@...>
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 9:10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions

 
--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steve Foster <steve72814@...> wrote:
|#909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting |code are the
rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us |this.

Steve I'd love to agree with you on this, if it weren't for the simple fact that
almost every year at NARAM some new "special rule" pops up at the last minute.

We had a Pink Book rule for most of the 80s that allowed NARAM CDs to create
"special rules" and it caused nothing but problems. This was purged from the
Pink Book in 1988, but the special rules continue.

Example, the NARAM-49 ruling that banned any tubes smaller than 13mm from being
used in SR, while at the same time allowed indestructible PML Quantum to be
used.

Ideally, the folks running the contest board should have the balls to put an end
to this practice. But their failure to act on obvious problems, such as this and
the hilarious loophole that Gassaway exploited last year for 1/8A HD are the
reason that I submitted this rule change.

In fact, along with the proposals seen here, I submitted 2 other proposals that
never saw the light of day on this ballot. One addressed the launcher problem,
and the other was a similar but different solution to clarifying the line
between concept scale and real scale.

Perhaps people should be asking the contest board why these two legitimate
proposals got buried and were not on the ballot.

I'll be asking the NAR board this question at NARAM.

Bob







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Whitney,

The altitude debate has seen long & spirited debate on ContestRoc, with strong
opinions on both sides. My suggestion is to simply formulate your own opinion on
this and vote accordingly !

The Weighting Factor RCP, as I see it,  is an attempt to reduce the emphasis
placed on more complex events, in an effort to encourage scheduling
&participation in less complex events.In my opinion, it is a double-edged sword
which should be swung carefully, due to the fact that it may adversely affect
competition under certain conditions.

The best advice I can give you is to vote your gut feelings !

Dave Fitch

NAR 26128, L2
TRA #517 L2 (former)




Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135










-----Original Message-----
From: Whitney Richard <whitney@...>
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 5:23 pm
Subject: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions





Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Whitney,

The altitude debate has seen long & spirited debate on ContestRoc, with strong
opinions on both sides. My suggestion is to simply formulate your own opinion on
this and vote accordingly !

The Weighting Factor RCP, as I see it,  is an attempt to reduce the emphasis
placed on more complex events, in an effort to encourage scheduling
&participation in less complex events.In my opinion, it is a double-edged sword
which should be swung carefully, due to the fact that it may adversely affect
competition under certain conditions.

The best advice I can give you is to vote your gut feelings !

Dave Fitch

NAR 26128, L2
TRA #517 L2 (former)




Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135










-----Original Message-----
From: Whitney Richard <whitney@...>
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 5:23 pm
Subject: [contestRoc] Competition Rules Revisions





Hi everyone,

I am new to this group and fairly new to NAR. However I have been involved with
rocketry in one way or another for over 30 years. I received my NAR Model
Rocketeer. I started reading the Competition Rules Revisions. Some of them seem
quit drastic. I was just wondering how you all feel before I vote. I am trying
to make an informed decision and feel that I only have one side of the story.
Please feel free to email me directly if you like. I feel strongly about letting
altimeter data be used for altitude records with out having some way to regulate
the altimeters themselves.

Why do they want to change the weighting factor? Are these changes normal or is
this a bit excessive?

Thank You For Listening,
Whitney Richard
Secretary Tripoli Louisiana
Secretary South Louisiana Rocketry
TRA# 9557 L3
NAR# 89377 L3
SOLAR# 135

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just a reminder to encourage you to sign up for NARAM-52 within the next two
weeks to avoid paying a $25 late fee.

go to: www.peakcity.org or www.naram.org to register. Payments may be mailed or
paypal'd to naram52 [at] peakcity [dot] org

We just spent Saturday staking out the range at the SCORE site in Pueblo to
establish the contest tents and tracker locations (600M baseline).

Gassaway had mentioned getting T-slot rails from Graingers for the FSR event. We
took his advice and did one better and built 10 launchers that you can use for
free. They are 8' but we also have 4' extensions, if you need them (so far we do
not seem to need anything longer than 8 ft after observing over 20 FSR flights
out here in Colorado). The entire stand and rail are available for purchase. 5
have been spoken for. Please send us $75 to reserve one for yourself after NARAM
is finished.

To prevent surprises on judging criteria, we posted the mission points in
advance, as established by a panel of judges. It looks like they have made a
very fair system that covers a wide variety of rocket designs. There may be
minor clarifications to what is posted if I receive an update.

There are 65 rooms reserved so far at the host hotel. There are still more
available, but don't wait. Reserve them NOW.

We've just received our medal protos. They look swell. (see picture in the
NARAM-52 folder in this group).

Please check out the tribute page for William S. Roe (NAR 13). We are hoping the
family can make it to the banquet, as it is widow's 90th b'day. Unfortunately,
John Roe (NAR 33) says his mom has taken ill, but we are hoping for a quick
recovery.

There are 17 HPR certification flights planned (these folks will all be given
medals at the banquet).

We have camping, the hotel allows dogs, rooms are cheap, we have FSR rails,
we're holding an HPR contest on the sport range (8000 ft waiver with a 12,000
foot possibility), there are no 'special rules', I've heard everybody, so there
should be nothing to keep you away from your meet. :o)

Thanks to everybody who have signed up so far.

Mike

Radical Rocketeers are holding 2 NAR meets during the weekend of June 12 and 13.

Mid Atlantic Open 2010, June 12, North Branch Park, Bridgewater, NJ

Mid Atlantic Open is a Sanctioned Open meet for NAR members.  It starts at 10 AM
on Saturday during the usual GSSS monthly launch and it may continue past the
end of the regular launch based on participation.  It is sponsored by the
Radical Rocketeers NAR section in cooperation with GSSS.  It is open to all NAR
members.  Non-NAR Radical Rocketeers are welcome to attend and practice for
Quasar-1 to be held on the next day.

Events:
1/2A Streamer Duration
1/2A Parachute Duration
B Streamer Duration
D Dual Eggloft Duration
Parachute Spot Landing

There will be a $2 entry fee for the NAR contest.

Quasar-1, June 13, Sandshore School, Budd Lake, NJ

Quasar-1 is a NAR Local Meet open to NAR members and also featuring a 4-H
contest similar to the GSSS Funtest.  It starts at 12:30 PM and runs until
either the last flight is done or around 5 PM.  Look for us behind the school.

Events:
1/2A Streamer Duration
1/2A Parachute Duration
Open Spot Landing
1/2A Cluster Altitude

There also will be a $2 entry fee for NAR competitors.

For more information please contact Stephen E. Flynn, Contest Director
stephen23648@...

I received my "Official Ballot for 2009-2010 RCP Proposals" in
the mail today, so it's time to make some decisions and vote.  After
consideration, here are my opinions on the various Rule Change
Proposals.  Just one person's opinions -– your views may vary.


RCP 2009-901 : Remove Super Scale

With all due respect to the RCP author, I'm voting "Against"
this proposal for three reasons. 1) It doesn't cost anything to keep
an event in the Pink Book, even if it's not flown very often. 2) In
real rocketry, every launch vehicle needs a launch system. While a
launch pad may not fly, it's an integral factor in the start of a
successful flight of a real rocket. So perhaps launchers need more
respect! 3) I've been impressed with how the increase in Scale
mission points has resulted in more interesting and challenging flights.
So I'm in favor of keeping an event that provides even more realism.

Perhaps the discussion of Super Scale generated by the submittal of this
proposal will encourage the event to be flown a bit more often.


RCP 2009-902 : Remove Space Systems

I'm a bit more ambivalent on this proposal.  Following the logic I
presented above, we should keep Space Systems since it doesn't cost
anything to keep an event in the Pink Book.  However, this event is
rarely flown.

I think I will vote "Against" this proposal, if just on the
basis of retaining a legacy event in the Pink Book.  As noted by Randy
Broadway in his published comments, some people do occasionally fly this
event.


RCP 2009-903 : Clarification of Concept Scale

Changes the wording from "unbuilt" to "unflown".  Seems
reasonable to me.  I'm voting "For" this RCP.


RCP 2009-904 : Clarification of Scale, et. al.

Adds the wording "that has flown under rocket power" to Scale,
Scale Altitude, Super Scale, Sport Scale, and Space Systems. The wording
is intended to be the logical complement of RCP 2009-903.
"Unflown" = Concept Scale, "Flown" = Scale, et. al.

Seems reasonable to me.  I'm voting "For" this RCP.


RCP 2009-905 : Major Revision of Event Weighting Factors

This proposal recommends major changes to the contest weighting factors.
It results in a "flatter" range between simple and complex
events.

I think that there could be some adjustments to the current values of
the event weight factors.  Using the NARAM-52 events as an example, I
think it's odd that E Dual Eggloft Altitude (WF = 27) and D
Helicopter Duration (WF = 23) have higher weighting factors than Sport
Scale (WF = 20).

However, IMO, the changes proposed by this RCP represent too much change
in a single dose.  I'm going to vote "Against" this
proposal.  But perhaps we need a blue ribbon bipartisan panel to discuss
this issue further.


RCP 2009-906 : Allow Use of Altimeters to Set Altitude Records in a
Separate Category

[Disclaimer: I wrote this proposal.]

This proposal allows the use of altimeters to set altitude records.
Altimeter-based records would be kept in a separate category from
traditional records set using optical tracking (similar to how Radio
Control records are kept separate from free flight records).

The intent of this proposal is to encourage and invigorate the flying of
altitude events.  Flying altitude events using optical tracking is
difficult and time consuming, especially for smaller clubs.  Using
altimeters allows greater participation in altitude events.

Some people think altimeters represent modern technology that is ready
for prime time.  Others think that altimeters are not (yet?)
sufficiently advanced to produce repeatable, reliable results across a
wide variety of flight conditions and rocket designs.  This proposal
tries to keep both camps happy by allowing altimeter-based records but
in a separate category.  Optical tracking and traditional records would
be retained.

I'm voting "For" this proposal.


RCP 2009-907 : Change Basis for Measuring Length for Super-Roc

This proposal changes the basis for measuring SR length from "tip of
nose cone to aft most end of motor nozzle" to "farthest point
forward to farthest point aft, in flight configuration."

As Chris Taylor and Chad Ring noted in their submitted responses, the
proposed change would potentially open the door for strange appendages
(rods, strings, etc.) mounted to the fins.  I see their concern.

While this proposal might potentially have merit, I'm going to vote
"Against" the change as currently worded.


RCP 2009-908 : Limits on Proxy Flown Events

Adds Random Altitude and Random Duration to list of events that may not
be flown by proxy.  For Predicted and Set Duration and Altitude,
requires documentation from the builder defining all important model
parameters (mass, motor, recovery device type and size, etc.).

After consideration, I disagree with this proposal.  I've flown both
Random Altitude and Random Duration events.  In both cases, I developed
a table of options.  For example, if the random duration turns out to be
XX seconds, then use a YY" diameter parachute.  If I had to fly
these events by proxy, I'd give this information and a range of
parachutes (or weights, or engines, etc.) to my proxy flyer.  So
"I" would still be the flyer of these events.

While I think I understand the concern identified by the author, I'm
voting "Against" this proposal.


RCP 2009-909 : Explicitly Prohibits "Special Rules" at All
Contests

As with the previous proposal, I think I understand the concern of the
author.  I think the intent is to prohibit ad-hoc, last minute rules
that have the potential to disrupt the "level playing field" of
a contest.  However, as the RCP is written, I think it prohibits ANY
changes whatsoever, including some "class" changes introduced to
encourage participation by contest beginners, to provide some variety
for traditional events, or to limit model performance to field
limitations.

I've used special rules for some local contest events.  These rules
set up design specifications to provide unique design requirements and
to limit the model performance to the size of our field.  These rules
were announced well in advance of the contest, and they worked very
well.

As with the prior proposal, I think I understand the author's
concern.  However,  I'm voting "Against" this proposal as
written.

-Chris Flanigan (NAR 17540)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "ChrisFlanigan" <chris.flanigan@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I've used special rules for some local contest events.  These rules
> set up design specifications to provide unique design requirements and
> to limit the model performance to the size of our field.  These rules
> were announced well in advance of the contest, and they worked very
> well.
>
>

Interesting. No where within the pink book is it defined that you are allowed to
do that.  Would you care to expound upon the things that you have done?  Did you
notifiy the contest board that you were doing this?

Ryan

Sanctioned NAR Record Trial:
Sponsored by O. Lee James III (NAR #15058 SR), the trial is open for any
DURATION event in the USMRSC (Pink Book), 2010 edition. Precision Duration and
Provisional Events are not sanctioned for this record trial. This is the third
record trial that The Competition Consortium (TCC) has hosted at a Southwest
region NSL. Just as in 2004 and 2006, the rocketeer seeking to set a record must
do most of the work. NSL officials have no connection with the operation of the
record trial.

TCC will supply the registration forms and flight cards. The rocketeer seeking
to set a record is responsible for obtaining and completing the required
paperwork, locating and presenting the rocket to record trial officials,
ensuring that record trial officials are present to witness the attempt,
ensuring that at least two timers are present for the flight and for returning
the model, as recovered, to record trial officials after the flight. Except for
these items, the rocketeer seeking to set a record will follow all NSL flight
rules and procedures just as any other NSL flier. If you need any special
equipment or considerations, it is your responsibility to coordinate with the
NSL officials. Do NOT expect special treatment. Your record attempt is just
another NSL flight.

For record attempt sequence and TCC contact information, go to TCC's home page
and click the pink Record Trial at NSL 2010 logo.
 
O. Lee James, III  NAR 15058 SR L0
SFC, US Army Field Artillery (cannons and Pershing missile)
TCC Custodian http://www.tccnar.org
contestRoc Co-Moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contestRoc/messages




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Chris,

Lets see how you score with my response to this same issue (posted Feb 8, 2010 -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contestRoc/message/27487:



OK so not to be `top heavy', let me place your responses side-by-side to mine
from my Feb 8 posting:

                    Chris 		           Jonathan
                    -------- 			   ----------

Remove Super Scale Disagree 			   Disagree
Remove Space Sys   Disagree 			   Disagree
Clarify Scifi ScaleAgree 			   Agree
Clarify Scale    Agree 		           Agree
Contest Points 	   Disagree 			   Disagree
Altimeter Usage    Agree 			   Disagree
Super Roc MeasuringAgree 			   Agree
Proxy Random eventsDisagree 			   Agree
Special Rules    Disagree 			   Disagree

Chris, you scored a 77.8% of the possible RIGHT answers!  :)

Before the flamers start on that last line, I KNOW Chris Flannigan.  I fly with
him … we have broken bread together on the range.  I can
joke openly with him.

Jonathan


Re: NAR Rules Revisions


Hello Jim.

Here are my responses down below:

RCP# 2009-901

Submitted By: Ryan G. Coleman NAR: 59361 e-mail: ryan.g.coleman@...

Type: Regular

Summary: Remove Super Scale.

RESPONCE: Sections should determine what is and isn't a flyable event;
therefore the event should be allowed to stay in the Pink Book

--------------------------------------------


RCP# 2009-902

Submitted By: Ryan G. Coleman NAR: 59361 e-mail: ryan.g.coleman@...

Type: Regular

Summary: Remove Space Systems.

RESPONCE: Sections should determine what is and isn't a flyable event;
therefore the event should be allowed to stay in the Pink Book

------------------------------------------------------------


RCP# 2009-903

Submitted By: Josh Tschirhart NAR: 48098 e-mail: drumn4j@...

Type: Regular

Summary: The proposed change is intended to clarify that entries eligible for
Concept Sport Scale may include models of vehicles that have been seriously
proposed but are still unflown (rather than unbuilt) by changing one word in the
event rules.

RESPONCE: Agreed, removing ambiguity on this matter would remove confusion. I
should also add that the rules might even go as far as to say, 'un-flown
configuration'. E.g., if I fly a Pershing 3 (made up for this example), The
Pershing 3 was a concept where the use of existing Pershing 2 missiles had a
third stage added for even longer range. The Pershing 3 has no real variation
in shape, size, and dimensions, just uses some internal difference that allows a
3rd stage motor. The Pershing 3 should qualify as long as I fly it as a 3 stage
rocket. 2 stages Pershing 2 would be scale and therefore disqualify it from
concept scale.

---------------------------------------------------------

RCP# 2009-904

Submitted By: Josh Tschirhart NAR: 48098 e-mail: drumn4j@...

RESPONCE: Agreed

------------------------------------------------------------

RCP# 2009-905

Submitted By: Chad Ring

RESPONCE: Disagree. Competition in Scale at a NARAM or FAI is 100s of times
more costly in dollars, time, and abilities than Open Spot Landing, 1/2 A PD, or
A SD. To lower the bar to say that a museum quality Saturn 1 is just less than
double the challenge of a 3 fin, balsa nose cone, 12 inch length of body tube
streamer model is not realistic.


I spent more than 80 hours putting together a Saturn 1b. I spent 45 minutes
fully assembling a B Streamer model including the streamer and paint.
------------------------------------------------------------


RCP# 2009-906

Submitted By: Chris Flanigan NAR # 17540 e-mail: chris.flanigan@...

RESPONCE: Disagree. While I agree Altimeters are becoming more accurate and
affordable, flying conditions and therefore the error/difference in recorded
altitude varies with atmospheric pressures, temperatures, wind velocity, and
other factors. Theodolites offer the same error, 'human', to within a
predictable amount. Further more; a theodolite isn't affected by changes in
geographic location (flying in San Diego at sea level offers different results,
than at the NARAM 52 site that is 1 mile or more above sea level). A theodolite
at 1 mile has the same measurable and predictable errors than one at sea level,
or if the flight is conducted at 9am with winds at 5 mph from the South, at 67
degrees F, and a flight a 3pm winds South West at 10 mph and temperature at 81
Degrees F. The altimeter WILL report different altitudes due to the conditions.
A human operated Theodolite will not and should not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RCP# 2009-907

Submitted By: Robert G Kaplow email: bobkaplow@...


RESPONCE: Agreed. The entire model is under aerodynamic forces and therefore
all of the model should be included in length.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


RCP# 2009-908

Submitted By: Robert Kaplow email: bobkaplow@...

Type: Urgent


RESPONCE: Agreed. Random requires the flier on hand to determine engine type,
launch angle, and recovery method. These are things that require the flier to
determine on the spot. In the spirit of the event, these shouldn't be flown by
proxy.

---------------------------------------------------------

RCP# 2009-909

Submitted By: Robert G Kaplow email: bobkaplow@...

Type: Interpretation

Summary: Explicitly prohibit "special rules" at all contests.


RESPONCE: Disagree. Sections should and must maintain sovereignty and control
over their contests. As long as the special rules are published well in advance
(TBD) and posted publicly, they should be able to define what best fits that
club's situation.

It's like the National Speed limit law:

The National Maximum Speed Law in the United States was a provision of the 1974
Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher
than 55 mph (90 km/h). This law was modified in 1987 to allow 65 mph (105 km/h)
limits on certain roads.

But in some states the State laws allow a speed limit of 75 (Nevada comes to
mind) because of the open expansions and low density of auto traffic on roads,
you adjust the laws to fit the situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------


Jonathan Dunbar
NAR 34583


--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "ChrisFlanigan" <chris.flanigan@...> wrote:
>
> I received my "Official Ballot for 2009-2010 RCP Proposals" in
> the mail today, so it's time to make some decisions and vote.  After
> consideration, here are my opinions on the various Rule Change
> Proposals.  Just one person's opinions -– your views may vary.
>
>
> RCP 2009-901 : Remove Super Scale
>
> With all due respect to the RCP author, I'm voting "Against"
> this proposal for three reasons. 1) It doesn't cost anything to keep
> an event in the Pink Book, even if it's not flown very often. 2) In
> real rocketry, every launch vehicle needs a launch system. While a
> launch pad may not fly, it's an integral factor in the start of a
> successful flight of a real rocket. So perhaps launchers need more
> respect! 3) I've been impressed with how the increase in Scale
> mission points has resulted in more interesting and challenging flights.
> So I'm in favor of keeping an event that provides even more realism.
>
> Perhaps the discussion of Super Scale generated by the submittal of this
> proposal will encourage the event to be flown a bit more often.
>
>
> RCP 2009-902 : Remove Space Systems
>
> I'm a bit more ambivalent on this proposal.  Following the logic I
> presented above, we should keep Space Systems since it doesn't cost
> anything to keep an event in the Pink Book.  However, this event is
> rarely flown.
>
> I think I will vote "Against" this proposal, if just on the
> basis of retaining a legacy event in the Pink Book.  As noted by Randy
> Broadway in his published comments, some people do occasionally fly this
> event.
>
>
> RCP 2009-903 : Clarification of Concept Scale
>
> Changes the wording from "unbuilt" to "unflown".  Seems
> reasonable to me.  I'm voting "For" this RCP.
>
>
> RCP 2009-904 : Clarification of Scale, et. al.
>
> Adds the wording "that has flown under rocket power" to Scale,
> Scale Altitude, Super Scale, Sport Scale, and Space Systems. The wording
> is intended to be the logical complement of RCP 2009-903.
> "Unflown" = Concept Scale, "Flown" = Scale, et. al.
>
> Seems reasonable to me.  I'm voting "For" this RCP.
>
>
> RCP 2009-905 : Major Revision of Event Weighting Factors
>
> This proposal recommends major changes to the contest weighting factors.
> It results in a "flatter" range between simple and complex
> events.
>
> I think that there could be some adjustments to the current values of
> the event weight factors.  Using the NARAM-52 events as an example, I
> think it's odd that E Dual Eggloft Altitude (WF = 27) and D
> Helicopter Duration (WF = 23) have higher weighting factors than Sport
> Scale (WF = 20).
>
> However, IMO, the changes proposed by this RCP represent too much change
> in a single dose.  I'm going to vote "Against" this
> proposal.  But perhaps we need a blue ribbon bipartisan panel to discuss
> this issue further.
>
>
> RCP 2009-906 : Allow Use of Altimeters to Set Altitude Records in a
> Separate Category
>
> [Disclaimer: I wrote this proposal.]
>
> This proposal allows the use of altimeters to set altitude records.
> Altimeter-based records would be kept in a separate category from
> traditional records set using optical tracking (similar to how Radio
> Control records are kept separate from free flight records).
>
> The intent of this proposal is to encourage and invigorate the flying of
> altitude events.  Flying altitude events using optical tracking is
> difficult and time consuming, especially for smaller clubs.  Using
> altimeters allows greater participation in altitude events.
>
> Some people think altimeters represent modern technology that is ready
> for prime time.  Others think that altimeters are not (yet?)
> sufficiently advanced to produce repeatable, reliable results across a
> wide variety of flight conditions and rocket designs.  This proposal
> tries to keep both camps happy by allowing altimeter-based records but
> in a separate category.  Optical tracking and traditional records would
> be retained.
>
> I'm voting "For" this proposal.
>
>
> RCP 2009-907 : Change Basis for Measuring Length for Super-Roc
>
> This proposal changes the basis for measuring SR length from "tip of
> nose cone to aft most end of motor nozzle" to "farthest point
> forward to farthest point aft, in flight configuration."
>
> As Chris Taylor and Chad Ring noted in their submitted responses, the
> proposed change would potentially open the door for strange appendages
> (rods, strings, etc.) mounted to the fins.  I see their concern.
>
> While this proposal might potentially have merit, I'm going to vote
> "Against" the change as currently worded.
>
>
> RCP 2009-908 : Limits on Proxy Flown Events
>
> Adds Random Altitude and Random Duration to list of events that may not
> be flown by proxy.  For Predicted and Set Duration and Altitude,
> requires documentation from the builder defining all important model
> parameters (mass, motor, recovery device type and size, etc.).
>
> After consideration, I disagree with this proposal.  I've flown both
> Random Altitude and Random Duration events.  In both cases, I developed
> a table of options.  For example, if the random duration turns out to be
> XX seconds, then use a YY" diameter parachute.  If I had to fly
> these events by proxy, I'd give this information and a range of
> parachutes (or weights, or engines, etc.) to my proxy flyer.  So
> "I" would still be the flyer of these events.
>
> While I think I understand the concern identified by the author, I'm
> voting "Against" this proposal.
>
>
> RCP 2009-909 : Explicitly Prohibits "Special Rules" at All
> Contests
>
> As with the previous proposal, I think I understand the concern of the
> author.  I think the intent is to prohibit ad-hoc, last minute rules
> that have the potential to disrupt the "level playing field" of
> a contest.  However, as the RCP is written, I think it prohibits ANY
> changes whatsoever, including some "class" changes introduced to
> encourage participation by contest beginners, to provide some variety
> for traditional events, or to limit model performance to field
> limitations.
>
> I've used special rules for some local contest events.  These rules
> set up design specifications to provide unique design requirements and
> to limit the model performance to the size of our field.  These rules
> were announced well in advance of the contest, and they worked very
> well.
>
> As with the prior proposal, I think I understand the author's
> concern.  However,  I'm voting "Against" this proposal as
> written.
>
> -Chris Flanigan (NAR 17540)
>
>
>

I've seen contest run with a "Gentelman's aggrement"; for example; flying an
event in the multi-round class, yet the aggrement may be that everyone only
makes 2 flights.
 
I think this is fine, as long as the CD is fully aware that if someone attends
the meet and decides to go ahead and ignore the aggrement, the CD shouldn't try
to do anything to stop it.  Most likely that person isn't going to make many
friends at the meet, but if it's someone trying to win an event or gain in the
points standings, I wouldn't fault them for doing so.
 
Steve

--- On Tue, 5/18/10, rdwoebke <rdwoebke@...> wrote:


From: rdwoebke <rdwoebke@...>
Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Opinions on RCP
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 2:47 PM


 





--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "ChrisFlanigan" <chris.flanigan@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I've used special rules for some local contest events. These rules
> set up design specifications to provide unique design requirements and
> to limit the model performance to the size of our field. These rules
> were announced well in advance of the contest, and they worked very
> well.
>
>

Interesting. No where within the pink book is it defined that you are allowed to
do that. Would you care to expound upon the things that you have done? Did you
notifiy the contest board that you were doing this?

Ryan











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Bob Kaplow <bobkaplow@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steve Foster <steve72814@...> wrote:
> |#909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting |code are
the rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us |this.
>
> Steve I'd love to agree with you on this, if it weren't for the simple fact
that almost every year at NARAM some new "special rule" pops up at the last
minute.
>
> We had a Pink Book rule for most of the 80s that allowed NARAM CDs to create
"special rules" and it caused nothing but problems. This was purged from the
Pink Book in 1988, but the special rules continue.
>
> Example, the NARAM-49 ruling that banned any tubes smaller than 13mm from
being used in SR, while at the same time allowed indestructible PML Quantum to
be used.
>
> Ideally, the folks running the contest board should have the balls to put an
end to this practice. But their failure to act on obvious problems, such as this
and the hilarious loophole that Gassaway exploited last year for 1/8A HD are the
reason that I submitted this rule change.
>
> In fact, along with the proposals seen here, I submitted 2 other proposals
that never saw the light of day on this ballot. One addressed the launcher
problem, and the other was a similar but different solution to clarifying the
line between concept scale and real scale.
>
> Perhaps people should be asking the contest board why these two legitimate
proposals got buried and were not on the ballot.
>
> I'll be asking the NAR board this question at NARAM.
>
> Bob
>

concerning your so-called "never saw the light of day proposals", Jim Filler has
not only replied to you, but also did so several months ago in private
email(s)... I was cc'd on them.

As far as my lack of balls acting on some of posted calls and loopholes... I did
act. I've probably done more action than you have, not only some of the time
finding wording in the Pink Book that closed the so called loophole, or finding
that there is no wording that stops a loophole. That doesn't mean I'm going to
put a stop to anything. Launching an 1/8A HD model from a 20 foot pole is no
different that having someone climb a utility pole to place a launcher on it.
Some see that as innovative, some say it's a unsafe thing, and the rest see it
as unsportsmanlike. Doesn't matter to you, because no matter what I do, YOU will
say I'm wrong. You'll always use it for some future blasting or flaming. My
action was not to do anything because technically there was no wording that
strictly forbid that practice (other than unsportsmanlike intent with getting a
head start in altitude).

I will never get into the word twisting discussion about the N49 SR tubing
thing. I made a call citing safety, based on conducted frangibility testing. You
only see it as a ban on being able to utilize imaginitive design ability.

I still have that "Impeach Tom" button you gave me when I took over back in
1995. You did promise me then you'd do your best to uphold that mentality...
thats one thing I'll never forget. I've lost count how many times I've had to
get up and walk laps around the house to cool down after reading some of your
posts.

Speaking personally... meaning as me and not the CB
The ban special rules RCP is one I can support but don't like the way it's
worded. The way it's worded can forbid just about any NAR contest from being
held. Talk about loopholes, this one is designed to create tons of them. If this
was accepted, any contestant wouldn't have to listen to anything a CD says, or
even a land owner. A contestant can skirt around federal, state, local,
municipal, military, statutes, ordinances, laws claiming it's not in the Pink
Book (but I know the police will always prevail).

The allowing records with altimeters is one I know I disagree with. When doing
the original studies, I didn't want it then before I wrote the first altimeter
RCP. Only included it the first time because some people mentioned it should be
in there. Well, I was right originally, people didn't want it. I even proved it
in flight testing that one can get different results in different areas and
regions across the continent.

The weighting factor RCP needs tweaking, good idea, just needs some stretching
which the author is willing to do.

The Super Scale and Space System event removal is something I have mixed
feelings. I really do believe in removing under utilized events, but being an
old fart and have fond memories of Super Scale being flown regularly 35-45 years
ago, I do have sentimental values in keeping Super Scale. If I could remove any
event... I'd love to scrap Super Roc events only because I think thats the
biggest waste of body tubes.

Okay, dinner's getting cold...
so... if you're worried about the condition about the size of my balls... don't
worry, I have a bucket full. I also have enough hair on my ass to knit you a
sweater.

Tom Lyon

Thanks Tom

I did notice that even after the last response pointing out the changes in the
actual pink book on line still brought no response, not a Hi ! , Bye ! or even
kiss my  !


Jim


PS : I do not want to see the sweater




________________________________
From: TomL <narcbchair@...>
To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 6:30:34 PM
Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Competition Rules Revisions

 


--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Bob Kaplow <bobkaplow@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Steve Foster <steve72814@...> wrote:
> |#909 - I see no need for a "No Special Rules" rule; the sporting |code are
the rules and should not need an extra rule to tell us |this.
>
> Steve I'd love to agree with you on this, if it weren't for the simple fact
that almost every year at NARAM some new "special rule" pops up at the last
minute.
>
> We had a Pink Book rule for most of the 80s that allowed NARAM CDs to create
"special rules" and it caused nothing but problems. This was purged from the
Pink Book in 1988, but the special rules continue.
>
> Example, the NARAM-49 ruling that banned any tubes smaller than 13mm from
being used in SR, while at the same time allowed indestructible PML Quantum to
be used.
>
> Ideally, the folks running the contest board should have the balls to put an
end to this practice. But their failure to act on obvious problems, such as this
and the hilarious loophole that Gassaway exploited last year for 1/8A HD are the
reason that I submitted this rule change.
>
> In fact, along with the proposals seen here, I submitted 2 other proposals
that never saw the light of day on this ballot. One addressed the launcher
problem, and the other was a similar but different solution to clarifying the
line between concept scale and real scale.
>
> Perhaps people should be asking the contest board why these two legitimate
proposals got buried and were not on the ballot.
>
> I'll be asking the NAR board this question at NARAM.
>
> Bob
>

concerning your so-called "never saw the light of day proposals", Jim Filler has
not only replied to you, but also did so several months ago in private
email(s)... I was cc'd on them.

As far as my lack of balls acting on some of posted calls and loopholes... I did
act. I've probably done more action than you have, not only some of the time
finding wording in the Pink Book that closed the so called loophole, or finding
that there is no wording that stops a loophole. That doesn't mean I'm going to
put a stop to anything. Launching an 1/8A HD model from a 20 foot pole is no
different that having someone climb a utility pole to place a launcher on it.
Some see that as innovative, some say it's a unsafe thing, and the rest see it
as unsportsmanlike. Doesn't matter to you, because no matter what I do, YOU will
say I'm wrong. You'll always use it for some future blasting or flaming. My
action was not to do anything because technically there was no wording that
strictly forbid that practice (other than unsportsmanlike intent with getting a
head start in altitude).

I will never get into the word twisting discussion about the N49 SR tubing
thing. I made a call citing safety, based on conducted frangibility testing. You
only see it as a ban on being able to utilize imaginitive design ability.

I still have that "Impeach Tom" button you gave me when I took over back in
1995. You did promise me then you'd do your best to uphold that mentality...
thats one thing I'll never forget. I've lost count how many times I've had to
get up and walk laps around the house to cool down after reading some of your
posts.

Speaking personally... meaning as me and not the CB
The ban special rules RCP is one I can support but don't like the way it's
worded. The way it's worded can forbid just about any NAR contest from being
held. Talk about loopholes, this one is designed to create tons of them. If this
was accepted, any contestant wouldn't have to listen to anything a CD says, or
even a land owner. A contestant can skirt around federal, state, local,
municipal, military, statutes, ordinances, laws claiming it's not in the Pink
Book (but I know the police will always prevail).

The allowing records with altimeters is one I know I disagree with. When doing
the original studies, I didn't want it then before I wrote the first altimeter
RCP. Only included it the first time because some people mentioned it should be
in there. Well, I was right originally, people didn't want it. I even proved it
in flight testing that one can get different results in different areas and
regions across the continent.

The weighting factor RCP needs tweaking, good idea, just needs some stretching
which the author is willing to do.

The Super Scale and Space System event removal is something I have mixed
feelings. I really do believe in removing under utilized events, but being an
old fart and have fond memories of Super Scale being flown regularly 35-45 years
ago, I do have sentimental values in keeping Super Scale. If I could remove any
event... I'd love to scrap Super Roc events only because I think thats the
biggest waste of body tubes.

Okay, dinner's getting cold...
so... if you're worried about the condition about the size of my balls... don't
worry, I have a bucket full. I also have enough hair on my ass to knit you a
sweater.

Tom Lyon



Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (8)
Recent Activity:  * New Members 2  * New Photos 1
Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the
Yahoo! Toolbar now.

________________________________

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

________________________________

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new
interests.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just wondering?  If no, then could I use a balloon to launch?

Just wondering...

Jonathan

La = launcher

--- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "dunbar.jonathan" <dunbar.jonathan@...>
wrote:
>
> Just wondering?  If no, then could I use a balloon to launch?
>
> Just wondering...
>
> Jonathan
>