NAR to outlaw launch rods???

[Tom Flint]

I heard a rumor today that the NAR was going to change their rules to outlaw launch rods for rockets above E power. Has anyone else heard about such a rules change? As someone who has been launching F powered rockets from a launch rod since the days of the FSI F100 and have never had a ground support equipment related failure of such a flight, I certainly hope it's not true no matter how much cooler rails seem to be these days.

 

[rharshberger]

I heard a rumor today that the NAR was going to change their rules to outlaw launch rods for rockets above E power. Has anyone else heard about such a rules change? As someone who has been launching F powered rockets from a launch rod since the days of the FSI F100 and have never had a ground support equipment related failure of such a flight, I certainly hope it's not true no matter how much cooler rails seem to be these days.

I have not heard a rumor to that effect, but I wouldn't mind if they did.

 

[BEC]

Source?

The American Rocketry Challenge has removed rods as an option for at least three years now. These models are usually F powered (sometimes Es). But that's a far cry from somehow changing the NAR Safety Code to require rails for E and above.

So again, what is the source of this "information"?

 

[Tom Flint]

Source?

The American Rocketry Challenge has removed rods as an option for at least three years now. These models are usually F powered (sometimes Es). But that's a far cry from somehow changing the NAR Safety Code to require rails for E and above.

So again, what is the source of this "information"?

Indeed, I am trying to find an actual source, if one does exist, for this information. The first I heard of it was when I was looking to attend next month's BARC club launch in New Jersey and I came across a page on their website called "1/4 inch launch rod policy" which stated that Canada had outlawed launch rods for rockets above E power and so therefore they were also implementing the rule at their launch as well. However I searched the Canadian Association of Rocketry's website and safety code and found no such rule. Then a day or two later I read on the Estes Model Rocketry forum on Facebook that in an upcoming NAR rules change, NAR also planned on implementing said rule. I asked the poster for clarification but did not receive any so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone in the know had heard if such a rule change was being considered .

 

[BEC]

Well....we should be getting the June Electronic Rocketeer shortly. That would be where I'd first expect such an announcement. Or....ping Steve Lubliner (board member and safety chairman) and ask him directly.

Added: I just looked at the minutes of the last several NAR board meetings (which are on the members area of nar.org). There was no mention of anything like this. It sounds to me like someone is taking that TARC has ruled out the use of rods for some time and erroneously generalizing. In TARC's case, it's old news.

None of this prohibits a NAR section (or Tripoli club) from imposing a rails-only-for-E-and-above rule for their range and launches. As railbuttons.com notes, "rod whip sucks".

 

[terryg]

Our local section (SARA) implimented this change a couple years ago. For what its worth our NAR representative is Steve Lubliner. I do not know if it planned to be rolled out nationally.

 

[Hobie1dog]

As railbuttons.com notes, "rod whip sucks".

+1

 

[lakeroadster]

Outlawing launch rods based on motor size is nonsensical. Rod whip is a function of rocket design vs rod size, not motor size. And increasing the diameter / size / type of the launch rod helps minimize rod whip.

I use a 5/16" launch rod and have launched with F42 and F52 motors... rod whip isn't an issue with the oddrocs I've designed. Keeping the launch lug close to the rocket centerline, and using silicone on the launch rod for lubricity are key factors in the success of using launch rods.

@Daddyisabar has posted about 1/2" launch rods.... depending on the design of the rocket, why not?

Lets hope the governing bodies use logic and proportion when and if such decisions are made.

 

[tsmith1315]

@Daddyisabar has posted about 1/2" launch rods.... depending on the design of the rocket, why not?

Typical old-school HPR!

 

[lakeroadster]

FWIW.... I sent an email asking Steve Lubliner if this is even a topic of discussion at the NAR, and linked to this thread.

 

[rharshberger]

Outlawing launch rods based on motor size is nonsensical. Rod whip is a function of rocket design vs rod size, not motor size. And increasing the diameter / size / type of the launch rod helps minimize rod whip.

I use a 5/16" launch rod and have launched with F42 and F52 motors... rod whip isn't an issue with the oddrocs I've designed. Keeping the launch lug close to the rocket centerline, and using silicone on the launch rod for lubricity are key factors in the success of using launch rods.

@Daddyisabar has posted about 1/2" launch rods.... depending on the design of the rocket, why not?

Lets hope the governing bodies use logic and proportion when and if such decisions are made.

Why not, is that clubs running launches with lots of flights would need either additional GSE (pads to support large rods, we have a 3/8 and a 1/2 that have to be switch for a rail) or be switching rails for rods everytime someone wants to use a pad which wastes time for other fliers. For the most part our club has ONE flier who uses our two large rods, and as soon as that individual dies or is unable to do rocketry I am running over the two large rods repeatedly with my truck (we love the guy but rails are so much better). I have even been building most of my low power stuff for Mini and Micro buttons, and get much straighter boosts off those rails than I did with rods. Rods are cheap and easy to obtain and in LPR they work fairly well, but once you get outside of B or C motor capable rockets the weights start to get enough to flex rods enough that rod whip is an issue.

 

[lakeroadster]

Why not, is that clubs running launches with lots of flights would need either additional GSE (pads to support large rods, we have a 3/8 and a 1/2 that have to be switch for a rail) or be switching rails for rods everytime someone wants to use a pad which wastes time for other fliers. For the most part our club has ONE flier who uses our two large rods, and as soon as that individual dies or is unable to do rocketry I am running over the two large rods repeatedly with my truck (we love the guy but rails are so much better). I have even been building most of my low power stuff for Mini and Micro buttons, and get much straighter boosts off those rails than I did with rods. Rods are cheap and easy to obtain and in LPR they work fairly well, but once you get outside of B or C motor capable rockets the weights start to get enough to flex rods enough that rod whip is an issue.

If you want to do this at a club launch... do it. It's your club. Mandate it for your club launch.

But there's no need for a NAR rules change, across the board. It's just heavy handed and snobbish. "I like rails... so you have to use them to"

 

[prfesser]

Outlawing launch rods based on motor size is nonsensical. Rod whip is a function of rocket design vs rod size, not motor size. And increasing the diameter / size / type of the launch rod helps minimize rod whip.

I use a 5/16" launch rod and have launched with F42 and F52 motors... rod whip isn't an issue with the oddrocs I've designed. Keeping the launch lug close to the rocket centerline, and using silicone on the launch rod for lubricity are key factors in the success of using launch rods.

@Daddyisabar has posted about 1/2" launch rods.... depending on the design of the rocket, why not?

My personal view is that *no* rod whip, with a rail, is better than *some* rod whip, even if it's minor. Also, railbuttons are TTW mounted or even screwed into a centering ring, while launch lugs are surface mounted. If rails are available, why would one want to use a rod? There are rocketeers who mount both buttons and lugs to cover the possibility of one or the other being unavailable.

Most clubs can get by with just two sizes of rails, 1010 and 1515. Maybe just the 1010, depending on the impulse limit. Throw in a mini rail to include most low- and mid-power flights. Before rails the club usually had to have 1/8, 3/16, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, and possibly something larger for big 'uns.

 

[Alan15578]

As railbuttons.com notes, "rod whip sucks".

Ptht. I though maybe someone just put an eye out.

 

[Rob Campbell]

Outlaw launch rods and only outlaws will have them.

 

[Rocketjunkie]

My personal view is that *no* rod whip, with a rail, is better than *some* rod whip, even if it's minor. Also, railbuttons are TTW mounted or even screwed into a centering ring, while launch lugs are surface mounted. If rails are available, why would one want to use a rod? There are rocketeers who mount both buttons and lugs to cover the possibility of one or the other being unavailable.

Most clubs can get by with just two sizes of rails, 1010 and 1515. Maybe just the 1010, depending on the impulse limit. Throw in a mini rail to include most low- and mid-power flights. Before rails the club usually had to have 1/8, 3/16, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, and possibly something larger for big 'uns.

There is NO reason to outlaw rods. They work as well as rails as long as they're big enough. Make the lugs big enough for a loose fit (9/16" for a 1/2" rod).
My 54 mm upscale Deuce flies much better off a (3/4") rod than buttons. I used Unistrut buttons on the 98 mm Deuce and I had to replace the buttons every flight. It also always tipped off toward the side the buttons were on every flight.
I also have several rockets that I've been flying since before rails became common. Most have 1/2" rod lugs.
The 'rod whip' problem is just as bad with rails if the mount is not rigid enough. I've seen many pads with rails mounted to a short section of rod that then is clamped in the pad. Don't forget, the effective length is from the top button the the end of the rail. Buttons do have lower drag than a big enough lug

 

[BEC]

FWIW.... I sent an email asking Steve Lubliner if this is even a topic of discussion at the NAR, and linked to this thread.

That's the thing. We'll see Steve says. I'm sure he will share his thoughts. All the rest of this is just speculation....

On rod whip: I wish the micro rail worked better for me. I have rod whip issues almost every time I fly a C18 or D20 Q-Jet (1/8 rod) but the micro rail/buttons for me get draggy (on the rail) with the slightest bit of off-axis load.

When I build something that calls for a 1/4 inch lug (Estes PSII kits and such) I generally also add rail buttons. Often there are more rails than 1/4 inch rods on the range where I fly such things.

 

[cerving]

The use of rods/rails is more a matter of weight than of motor power. My personal limits are: 1/8" rod: 8 oz; 3/16" rod: 12 oz; 1/4" rod: 16 oz; 1010 rail: 10#. Any rocket over 10# gets 1515 buttons. Rods have poor stiffness... have you every seen somebody bend the rod trying to load their rocket? I sure have... and I've seen them get permanently "set" as a result.

 

[terryg]

....

 

[terryg]

I agree, micro railbuttons bind up too easily. The mini rail buttons are marvelous however and go well with smaller rockets. However i generally have to take my own rail since the 1010 rails are the most common standard. Rods are the only choice for many odd rocs.

 

[lakeroadster]

Reply from Steve Lubliner...

John,

1) It is a fact that the Southern Arizona Rocketry Association (SARA, Section 545) requires launch rails for any rockets higher than 80 N-sec total impulse.

2) I presented a similar proposal to the NAR Board about 2+ years ago. This proposal was discussed in the L3CC and High Power committees and the consensus was that a NAR-wide requirement was not needed. There are no current NAR-wide requirements or plans to require rail use at any impulse level.

3) The Safety Committee recommends the use of rails for larger rockets. Rails are generally longer and stiffer than launch rods. This permits higher velocities as the rocket leaves the launch pad for improved stability and reduces rod "whip". Both effects allow more predictable rocket trajectories.

4) Sections, some range locations, and certain contests, e.g. TARC (Yes, I know the T is gone), may always impose launch pad and rocket requirements that are more restrictive than the NFPA and NAR safety codes.

Feel free to copy my comments to the TRF. Individuals with additional questions are welcome to contact me via [email protected] or the NAR Safety Committee address.

Thanks,

Steve Lubliner
NAR Safety Committee Chairman

 

[Back_at_it]

I'm hoping this is just a rumor. I have a number of rockets that fly on F motors that use 1/4" rod and I've never had an issue with any of them. I will not retrofit rail buttons to my completed rockets and the idea of dragging a rail pad around to my club launches seems a bit silly. If this becomes the rule and our club adopts them then I won't be flying a large number of my rockets at club events.

 

[DigBaddy]

Reply from Steve Lubliner...

John,

1) It is a fact that the Southern Arizona Rocketry Association (SARA, Section 545) requires launch rails for any rockets higher than 80 N-sec total impulse.

2) I presented a similar proposal to the NAR Board about 2+ years ago. This proposal was discussed in the L3CC and High Power committees and the consensus was that a NAR-wide requirement was not needed. There are no current NAR-wide requirements or plans to require rail use at any impulse level.

3) The Safety Committee recommends the use of rails for larger rockets. Rails are generally longer and stiffer than launch rods. This permits higher velocities as the rocket leaves the launch pad for improved stability and reduces rod "whip". Both effects allow more predictable rocket trajectories.

4) Sections, some range locations, and certain contests, e.g. TARC (Yes, I know the T is gone), may always impose launch pad and rocket requirements that are more restrictive than the NFPA and NAR safety codes.

Feel free to copy my comments to the TRF. Individuals with additional questions are welcome to contact me via [email protected] or the NAR Safety Committee address.

Thanks,

Steve Lubliner
NAR Safety Committee Chairman

So, the official word is to stay off Facebook?

 

[lakeroadster]

I'm hoping this is just a rumor. I have a number of rockets that fly on F motors that use 1/4" rod and I've never had an issue with any of them. I will not retrofit rail buttons to my completed rockets and the idea of dragging a rail pad around to my club launches seems a bit silly. If this becomes the rule and our club adopts them then I won't be flying a large number of my rockets at club events.

No need to "hope"... Steve was very clear. You're good to go unless the club creates tighter spec's.

This proposal was discussed in the L3CC and High Power committees and the consensus was that a NAR-wide requirement was not needed. There are no current NAR-wide requirements or plans to require rail use at any impulse level.

Steve Lubliner
NAR Safety Committee Chairman

 

[Back_at_it]

No need to "hope"... Steve was very clear. You're good to go unless the club creates tighter spec's.

I saw that. He posted as I was typing my response. Good to know we don't need to switch over to rails.

 

[lakeroadster]

If rails are available, why would one want to use a rod?

You have to keep in mind that not everybody launches at club events, so these folks flying solo are buying / supplying their own launch equipment. But if the NAR was to make this a rule, us folks flying solo would, in good faith, have to buy a rail to be in compliance with NAR.

And the silly thing about that is rod whip is a function of the geometry. There is nothing magical about a "rail". Rod or Rail, they can both be engineered to be identical in regard to flexing under load.

The only reason I'm a NAR member is for the insurance coverage... period. So I have to follow their spec's.

 

[BEC]

I need to order one of those mini rails and give it a try.

You have to keep in mind that not everybody launches at club events, so these folks flying solo are buying / supplying their own launch equipment. But if the NAR was to make this a rule, us folks flying solo would, in good faith, have to buy a rail to be in compliance with NAR.

And the silly thing about that is rod whip is a function of the geometry. There is nothing magical about a "rail". Rod or Rail, they can both be engineered to be identical in regard to flexing under load.

The only reason I'm a NAR member is for the insurance coverage... period. So I have to follow their spec's.

Thanks for asking Steve directly.

His answer should put this whole hand-wringing discussion to rest (well, unless Tripoli has a different idea... ).

 

[smstachwick]

I don’t think a decision to mandate specific launch equipment would be taken without also consulting the hobby’s dominant supplier, Estes. Their starter sets and standalone GSE would be out the window.

 

[Hobie1dog]

time to
"LOCK" this thread

 

[gldknght]

Outlawing launch rods based on motor size is nonsensical. Rod whip is a function of rocket design vs rod size, not motor size. And increasing the diameter / size / type of the launch rod helps minimize rod whip.

I use a 5/16" launch rod and have launched with F42 and F52 motors... rod whip isn't an issue with the oddrocs I've designed. Keeping the launch lug close to the rocket centerline, and using silicone on the launch rod for lubricity are key factors in the success of using launch rods.

@Daddyisabar has posted about 1/2" launch rods.... depending on the design of the rocket, why not?

Lets hope the governing bodies use logic and proportion when and if such decisions are made.

Well said. I normally put rail buttons on any rocket that has enough space between the fins for the rail. But I also fly a few Estes type rockets that love 24mm F motors, most notably my Super Neon XL. This is a tube fin rocket. No way it can be flown off a rail. The D and E motors just don't have enough "get" for this one.