Originally posted by GL-P
Anyone like the idea of a contest for highest efficiency???
It could go like this: Altitude/motor ns=efficiency rating
This could generate an increase in high performance techniques
Any ideas that I could add??
I am SO into this.Originally posted by jetra2
I like that idea. Run as a long term contest - people could learn more about where their mistakes and shortfalls are in building and finishing, and constantly up their efficiency rating. Would definately be a good project!
Jason
I agree.Originally posted by GL-P
I'm liking this a lot. Even this late at night I never expected this kind of reaction... This can allow even kids to get involved because any motor can be used.... I like that improved effiency idea as a dynamic... make take some getting used to and some good planning but it helps grow rocket performance in the hobby. It gives incentive to constantly improve design. Would this improvement be over multiple rocket designs or fine tuning on one rocket???
If there is enough support, how about a group writing to TRA?? I think the contest should be run all year long to give enough time for design. Then there could maybe a running best record on the side as well.
This is shaping up nicely....
It's a good thought, but this is what measuring for improved efficiency rather than raw efficiency is for. If someone starts with a design they can't handle, they need to start over. We can make recommendations about this so they don't start off on the wrong foot. But every design deserves the chance to be improved on. By not starting from raw efficiency, the absolute altitude and power don't matter.Originally posted by jflis
SOunds interesting.
I would however suggest that this be restricted to single stage, single motor, or at the very least single stage.
highly efficient multistage rockets are VERY hard to track and even if tracked, very hard to recover in many areas and, all things considered, a multi staged rockets (with the rules as presented) will be the vehicle of choice in the BP mod roc arena.
Heck, if I am in an area (which I am for the most part) where an A motor in a *very* efficient model is just about the limit of what I can launch and recover, I am prohibited from entering a multi-stage model because I can only get 18mm B boosters and above...
just a thought...
I meant TRA but it would be a good idea to start it small and maybe a subforum for ideas. Thanks, I'll need someone with lots of contacts to get this to work. I also tested a 1/4A which should win every time. I think there should maybe a payload required to be flown. Any ideas to prevent 1/4As from winning everytime?For doing it on TRF, since we can't very well meet, make the first month for submitting a design, 10 for improving, the last month for doing the final flight and submitting.
How about a boosted dart??? I heard you can get a 20% increase over a conventional optimised model. You'd be getting pretty efficient without adding ns.highly efficient multistage rockets are VERY hard to track and even if tracked, very hard to recover in many areas and, all things considered, a multi staged rockets (with the rules as presented) will be the vehicle of choice in the BP mod roc arena.
I know you said TRA. I didn't mistake that or ignore it. I think it might be wise to keep it not private exactly, but not involve any larger organization as a whole until the idea is tested. I think they'd say the same. Getting individuals from those groups to help out, certainly. The heads of the contest committees from the big groups might be willing to look the idea over and critique it.Originally posted by GL-P
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For doing it on TRF, since we can't very well meet, make the first month for submitting a design, 10 for improving, the last month for doing the final flight and submitting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant TRA but it would be a good idea to start it small and maybe a subforum for ideas. Thanks, I'll need someone with lots of contacts to get this to work. I also tested a 1/4A which should win every time. I think there should maybe a payload required to be flown. Any ideas to prevent 1/4As from winning everytime?
Classes based on motor diameter. This could allow HPR.Originally posted by GL-P
The thing it's hard to get the optimal mass on real small stuff like a 1/4A so it might not be so bad. Oh I just realized it was the average of ranking. Yeah, that should help.
Yeah, keep it below hpr. No bigger than a G.
So where are we at now?:
-Efficiency= Alt in m/total motor ns
-The goal is to have as high as an improvement as possible
-Final placement depends on both original design efficiency and % improvement. The average of starting place (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.) and ending place.
-the model has to be recovered
-only certified motors are allowed
-altimeters and a theodolite tracking acceptable
-recorded altitude has to be seen and approved by a signing RSO
-year long contest for improvement time
Anything else?
If HPR folks want to do the same, no problem. I just wouldn't want people to be scared away knowing they're competing with "high power" anything. The numbers may even things out in the scoring, but not in the words and thinking of people who don't know HPR. They should be allowed to compete completely without needing any certification of any kind as long as they're either old enough or have an adult supervising.Originally posted by Rocketjunkie
Classes based on motor diameter. This could allow HPR.
Consider change to efficiency=alt/sqrt(N-s) to reduce the advantage of tiny motors. Otherwise the smallest motor of a diameter would win. Sqrt might need to be another fractional exponent to balance impulse levels.
This used to be an official event for NAR contests. It was called "Design Efficency".Originally posted by GL-P
Anyone like the idea of a contest for highest efficiency???
It could go like this: Altitude/motor ns=efficiency rating
This could generate an increase in high performance techniques
Any ideas that I could add??
Let's not let this idea die, folks!Originally posted by narprez
This used to be an official event for NAR contests. It was called "Design Efficency".
Competitors quickly determined that the best strategy was to fly 1/2A models. Scores were in the 120 and higher range. The event was dropped because it had turned into a version of 1/2A altitude.
B div 1/4A Altitude 80m
A div 1/4A Altitude 148m
T div 1/4A Altitude 167m
C div 1/4A Altitude 178m
B div 1/2A Altitude 149m
A div 1/2A Altitude 165m
T div 1/2A Altitude 295m
C div 1/2A Altitude 305m
A div A Altitude 313m
B div A Altitude 338m
T div A Altitude 442m
C div A Altitude 449m
B div B Altitude 351m
A div B Altitude 510m
C div B Altitude 535m
T div B Altitude 731m
B div C Altitude 340m
T div C Altitude 444m
A div C Altitude 498m
C div C Altitude 756m
B div D Altitude 323m
A div D Altitude 740m
T div D Altitude 880m
C div D Altitude 1214m
B div E Altitude 122m
A div E Altitude 330m
C div E Altitude 1128m
T div E Altitude 1387m
B div F Altitude 1430m
C div F Altitude 1741m
A div F Altitude 1820m
A div G Altitude 640m
C div G Altitude 1140m
Originally posted by GL-P
How does this relate back to efficiency? Sorry but I'm not quite following you Bill. Can you provide a couple samples of efficiency rating with the sqrt?
The sqrt works especially well because the power doubles with the classification. (10 D 20 E 40 etc.). It prevents the problem Bunny noted.Originally posted by GL-P
Okay, I just needed the calc. simplified a little. A little time on wRASP showed that the competition would be a lot closer with sqrt. I calc that a minimum D would have a little advantage but the comp is closer now. Besides, high speed drag would take over on a D rocket. Now is testing on a small scale over a month time period to see if there is some other problems. Do we want to have this start as a TRA comp with a thread for recording scores? The only problem I can see is that smaller clubs at small launches might have trouble getting theodolite tracking setup.
Cool, that's another idea. You said though that it doesn't work well for smaller motors, right? Something to think about.I came up with this a year or so ago.
Okay, I just wanted to see another idea. There is Estes ones too. I agree with that. I wanted to have it so kids could do this too. That's half the fun in some of the best contests. The kids get us to relax and remind us that it's not rocket science.Altimeters should be allowed, theodolites would be the minimum necessary. There are cheap designs available. The specific method and item used should be available for testing/validation for the final scoring. Thus, even a very young person could compete, even if they used a protractor with a weight hung from it. Any altitude scoring will come with variance and that's calculated from the device's design.