Quantcast
Craftsmanship Event Rules question


Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249

    Craftsmanship Event Rules question

    I was looking at the RCP forum and found this one to be a bit confusing...

    Summary: Remove the incentive to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events by making damage cumulative. Crashing the model and flying a model that has been patched together and looks terrible will no longer be rewarded. The exception is models that undergo a catastrophic failure, damage will not include damage done by the catastrophic failure.

    Logic: It has become an accepted strategy in many craftsmanship events to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events. As damage is not cumulative, any damage from a first flight crash is not counted against the modeler on a subsequent reflight, allowing badly damaged models to place using this strategy. This is harmful as it goes against the spirit of the rules to produce nicely crafted flyable models; it encourages unsafe rockets to be flown and encourages disposable models that can not be entered competitively again.

    Effect: Craftsmanship events strategy will have to change, models will not be able to be flown, "re-kitted", put back together and reflown without penalty. Test flying will be encouraged and unsafe models will not fly as frequently.

    No records are kept in craftsmanship events, so no effect on NAR records.
    Wording: Add the following rule as number 50.15, 51.6, 52.8, 53.15, 54.8, 55.8, 56.8, P57.9:

    5X.X Damage
    Damage shall be judged cumulatively with each flight, assessed from the judged condition of the model to the condition presented to the judge post-flight. The only exception to this is damage caused in the course of a catastrophic failure under rule 11.5, in which case such damage shall not be counted against the flight points.


    My question begins with the first line; what incentive can there be to fly untested/unsafe rockets that crash?

    Rule 3.7 states that models my fly in a stable manner.
    Rule 3.5 states that models must have a suitable recovery system.

    Rule 9.3 states that models my fly in a stable manner or be disqualified.

    Rule 11.4 states that the CD can disqualify and contestant from an event
    or meet if he/she fails to practice or observe reasonable safety measures...

    Rule 11.5 states that if a rocket crashes because it was not stable, the flight is not official.

    Rules 50.1, 53.11, 54.5, 55.4, and 56.6 all state that failure of a rocket to fly in a safe and stable manner means disqualification from the event.


    It seems to me that if a rocket is "Unsafe" and crashes, it should be removed from competition. AND if it has flown once and CRASHED, then the RSO should boot the model from any other events - or at least impound it [Rule 9.10]

    So, I'm asking the contest-types with far more experience than I - "What the futz, Gus?" What is going on int the craftsmanship events?

    -John
    Last edited by Ironnerd88; 15th March 2012 at 04:50 PM.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  2. #2
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Elizabethtown,PA
    Posts
    776
    I've never liked the rule but currently if you crash a rocket, or otherwise suffer damage points you can patch it together and assuming the RSO lets it fly, if the second flight is not DQ'd the higher point flight is the one that counts
    "I dream of a better world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned."

    VISIT SPAAR


    2012 Bears
    2010 Calder Cup
    2009 Calder Cup
    2009 Calder Cup

    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    What? That's Nukkin' Futz!
    I mean sure, you have an odd landing and crack a fin or bounce off a fence or something - I can totally see that. BUT an unsafe rocket (which seems to be the spirit of the RCP) should just be disqualified - end of story (at least that's how I see it).

    Thanks for the info Bazookadale, I do appreciate it (I'm more of an altitude/duration guy - scale is not my thing).
    Where is this Craftsmanship Event re-fly rule anyway, I've been reading the 2011 USMRSC, for a couple of days trying to find it.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  4. #4
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Elizabethtown,PA
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    What? That's Nukkin' Futz!
    I mean sure, you have an odd landing and crack a fin or bounce off a fence or something - I can totally see that. BUT an unsafe rocket (which seems to be the spirit of the RCP) should just be disqualified - end of story (at least that's how I see it).
    Well why was it unsafe? if it was flat out unstable the RSO should not let it fly again. If the situation is correctable then it is the RSO's call. I saw a model crash because the flyer forgot to install the ejection charge on the rms. It flew a second time covered with duct tape, good flight and there was no deduction for damage since none had occurred on the 2nd flight, this just rubs me wrong

    Thanks for the info Bazookadale, I do appreciate it (I'm more of an altitude/duration guy - scale is not my thing).
    Where is this Craftsmanship Event re-fly rule anyway, I've been reading the 2011 USMRSC, for a couple of days trying to find it.
    Read on - you won't find it I guess it's more tradition than anything else.
    BTW I'm not a scale guy either
    Last edited by Bazookadale; 15th March 2012 at 07:12 PM. Reason: sp
    "I dream of a better world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned."

    VISIT SPAAR


    2012 Bears
    2010 Calder Cup
    2009 Calder Cup
    2009 Calder Cup

    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Bazookadale View Post
    Well why was it unsafe? if it was flat out unstable the RSO should not let it fly again. If the situation is correctable then it is the RSO's call. I saw a model crash because the flyer forgot to install the ejection charge on the rms. It flew a second time covered with duct tape, good flight and there was no deduction for damage since none had occurred on the 2nd flight, this just rubs me wrong

    I am also incorrectly rubbed by this.

    If the rocket is just unstable, then it should be disqualified.

    If the rocket is the victim of bone-headedness, well... it is to be judged "in flight condition" [2011 USMRSC Rule 16.5]. If it gets pranged due to "pilot error" then the competitor should loose his/her flight points, or allow the rocket to be re-judged and re-flown (time permitting).

    If the rocket hits an object on the way down from an otherwise good flight (i.e. lands in a pond, trampled by goats, etc...), it keeps its points.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  6. #6
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Posts
    966
    Usually, the way the rule has been applied is that you have to make a good flight to qualify, but you can make more than one flight attempt to get that good flight. The judges leave it up to the competitor to make that 2nd attempt.

    Normally it works out this way- say you build a model of a two stage prototype in Sport Scale. You build the model so that it can fly in both single and two stage configurations. You might just fly the model as a single stage to get a qualified flight. Then as other contestants fly,the points situation changes, and you might want to fly again with the riskier 2 stage option to garner a little extra mission points.

    The current convention is that any damage you have on the first flight (say a fin cracked, or the model landed on gravel parking lot and got a ding in the balsa nose cone) that was deducted from the first flight score is not carried over to the 2nd flight. Only new damage that occurs on the 2nd flight would be counted on that flight.

    It's more of a problem in events like PMC, where many times models that have been put back together after a hard landing with duct tape and gobs of CA are back at level damage for the 2nd flight.

    I'm for the change- I think it's a good idea.

    kj

  7. #7
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    I could "maybe" see that. But the author attempts to sell the PRC on the grounds of safety, and your example is not a safety item.

    With what the information that has trickled to me thus far, I would say that the rocket should be judged "in flight condition", meaning that it should be checked prior to the second launch and score deductions should be made according to damage.

    If someone builds a model capable of scoring mission points, it seems like the right thing to do is fly it in "mission" configuration. The example you gave seems kinda "panty-waist" IMHO. I would go for the whole smash in this instance. Launch it two-stage and go for the mission points.

    Seems to me that if people stopped competing like this, we might get more than 3% NAR member participation in competition.

    Fly the rocket, or stay on the couch.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  8. #8
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    With what the information that has trickled to me thus far, I would say that the rocket should be judged "in flight condition", meaning that it should be checked prior to the second launch and score deductions should be made according to damage.
    My advice is to submit an RCP. I know I would vote "no" on a rule change that requires field-rejudging a crashed/repaired model. What's the point? Everyone already knows a crashed/repaired entry is going to score very, very low. But who knows? It might pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    If someone builds a model capable of scoring mission points, it seems like the right thing to do is fly it in "mission" configuration. The example you gave seems kinda "panty-waist" IMHO. I would go for the whole smash in this instance. Launch it two-stage and go for the mission points.
    Well...that's your strategy - go for broke at every opportunity. Others have a different strategy. It's what makes the game interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    Seems to me that if people stopped competing like this, we might get more than 3% NAR member participation in competition.

    Fly the rocket, or stay on the couch.
    LOL. OK, hot shot... Man, I wish you didn't live several states away. I'd love to invite you to fly at our regional meets. I admire your enthusiasm.

    -Wolf

  9. #9
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by astronwolf View Post
    My advice is to submit an RCP. I know I would vote "no" on a rule change that requires field-rejudging a crashed/repaired model. What's the point? Everyone already knows a crashed/repaired entry is going to score very, very low. But who knows? It might pass.
    Maybe that's my issue. The RCP does not seem to do much, and adds complication to the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by astronwolf View Post
    Well...that's your strategy - go for broke at every opportunity. Others have a different strategy. It's what makes the game interesting.
    Yeah, I know. Still doesn't seem "right" - knowaddamean?

    Let's look at it this way... In drag race, a rocket can receive one point for each of the following: First motion, Lowest Alt, Last to land. I could just enter a 13mm Streamer duration model on a piston launcher. I'll never get the point for being the lowest flight, but I will the other two. While this tactic would be to the letter of the rule, it would not be to the spirit of the rule (if this tactic actually worked, I would drop out of the event before winning - it's just not my style).

    I do, however think that the RCP raises a point worthy of debate. If you disagree with me, that's COOL! Disagreement is a good thing, and through debate and argument we learn cool new stuff. I have actually learned a bit from this thread.

    If this really is a problem, I think our NAR leaders need to look into it, and make some suggestions. I believe last year there was an RCP that tried to move scale judging to post-flight. Maybe we need a provisional event "Post Flight Scale". Run it along side normal scale for a year and see what happens (I'm not putting in an event like that, but it would be worth a few moments of thought).

    It does, however, look like the rules have the "unsafe rocket" thing pretty much wrapped up - and that is the author's justification for the RCP.

    Quote Originally Posted by astronwolf View Post
    LOL. OK, hot shot... Man, I wish you didn't live several states away. I'd love to invite you to fly at our regional meets. I admire your enthusiasm.

    -Wolf
    LOL. I would LOVE it! You would bury me, but I would still have a great time - and learn some stuff. After all, a bad day flying rockets is still a darn good day.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  10. #10
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    Let's look at it this way... In drag race, a rocket can receive one point for each of the following: First motion, Lowest Alt, Last to land. I could just enter a 13mm Streamer duration model on a piston launcher. I'll never get the point for being the lowest flight, but I will the other two. While this tactic would be to the letter of the rule, it would not be to the spirit of the rule ...
    I think you are missing the point of the event. The "spirit" of the event is to find a way to deal with three apparently conflicting design parameters. Sacrificing one to favor two of them is a perfectly reasonable approach. The event is a take on "you can have it faster, cheaper, or better - pick two."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    If this really is a problem, I think our NAR leaders need to look into it, and make some suggestions.
    Well...that's not quite how it works, and I mean about waiting for our fearless leaders to step in and save the day. The NAR is very much a member-driven organization. My recommendation for when "this" or anything else starts to be a problem is to build rockets and fly rockets more, and hyperanalyze the Pink Book less. Don't get into a tailspin over mere verbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    LOL. I would LOVE it! You would bury me, but I would still have a great time - and learn some stuff.
    You might end up surprising yourself. Many a rocketeer who has done a little homework, built simple, workable contest models, and showed up to a meet had an epiphany. Like, "hey...I can do this...I can even do well...and it's fun!"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    Go HERE to see this same topic on YORF.

    It is difficult to come up with analogies to other events, since most are so clearly defined. The example I received on YORF is (1) pretty close to what the Author is talking about in the first place, and (2) an indication of how the current rules are being interpreted. You don't have to go read the whole thing - it's wordy, I'll break it down here.

    1. PMC model is judged for static points with bombs, missiles, and gear.
    2. Model is flown with incorrect ejection delay resulting in a crash. All the bombs, missiles, etc break off. The flight, however, was stable.
    3. Model is patched up and re-flown without bombs, missiles, gear (reducing weight and drag) and gets a good flight.
    4. Model gets top prize.

    Here is my issue with this. The model was judged for static points with all the heavy/draggy items attached (configuration A). It was then flown for flight points without the bombs, missiles, and gear (configuration B).


    As I read the rules, the second flight should not have been awarded points because it runs counter to rule 16.5 STATIC JUDGING which states in part "...Nothing may be added to the model, or taken off the exterior of the model, between judging and flight, except the motor(s) and recovery system(s)...".

    Between the time this model was judged for static points and it's points-earning flight, the bombs, missiles, and gear were removed - a violation of rule 16.5. The model should have been (1) completely re-judged for static points in the "as repaired" condition, then allowed the reflight, or (2) the model should have received zero points for the re-flight since it did not fly in the "as judged" condition.


    I am however expecting someone to tell me I am dead wrong, and that the model should have received Mission points for dropping its ordinance.


    If you have a username and password, visit the PRC forum and read the PRC's and comments before voting on them: http://www.nar.org/phpBB3/index.php
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  12. #12
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    111
    Typically, the entry has already been judged for static points before it makes a flight. There is no call in the rules, as they are written now, for a second round of static judging. So what you are saying is wrong.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    Ah-hah! Thanks Astronwolf! I needed a boot to the head. So the rules, as written, do not judge the rocket post flight, but the RCP would add that requirement. I like that idea. My original confusion was caused by the authorís statement that this would somehow remove the incentive to fly an unsafe/unstable model when this is clearly not permitted under the USMRSC. Other confusion has many sources Ė like itís totally obvious (to me) that in a craftsmanship event, a model that crashes should receive some sort of re-judging before the second flight. Since the PRC would add post-flight re-judging, it takes care of that as well as the configuration changes that occur when several parts get knocked off during a bad landing Ė and donít get put back on for the second flight. Thanks for helping me figure this out guys.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

  14. #14
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironnerd88 View Post
    ... like itís totally obvious (to me) that in a craftsmanship event, a model that crashes should receive some sort of re-judging before the second flight.
    One solution that some sections employ is fly first, judge second. This has the advantage of weeding out the entries that are going to self-destruct, and reduces the work load of the judges. The crashed entries get static scores of nearly zero. But this technique is not very popular except maybe among some groups that have a lot of experience with the event. I suspect that having some requirement to judge entries twice would be even less popular.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro-zone
    Posts
    249
    I think that was a PRC last year. I like it, but if your rocket lands in a tree (or other hazard) on the first flight, you end up with nothing. At least with judge-first you have access to the most points.
    John P. Adams
    NAR: 89814
    SoAR: 300

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •