EVENT NARAM-63

rocket sok
Advertise with us
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
 
Last edited:
Not that I'm volunteering, but seeing a HPR version of contest rocketry could generate some interesting results. In a way, some of these contests already exist (fastest speed, closest to 5k without going over), but other contest could occur... "Fly a dozen eggs, break none.. While pulling 30 G's"...

But the general feel for NAR has been "We don't want to push the envelope" whereas Tripoli is more... "Hold my beer and watch this, from a safe distance!"





And yes, the other field has 12k waiver, but is currently restricted as it has been covered in biosolids for agricultural purposes so they can't do anything for a while.
 
GuyNoir said:
Nonsense. The "hard-core competition types" I hang out with are perfectly happy to have and enjoy a sport range at NARAM.
Click to expand...
The "hard-core competition types" I hang out and fly with agree there should be a Sport Range at NARAMs.
They're as confused as the rest of us.

If it is true that the majority of NAR members, whether sport fliers or competitors, think NARAMs should include a Sport Range then why has there been such an effort to change this and why has it not been made public to the NAR membership? It is puzzling and disquieting. What I want to know is why is this sudden need to change NARAMs? NARAMs have incorporated some sort of sport range going back to NARAM-33.

Mark, when you became NAR President you focused on the wants and needs of the membership as did Trip and Ted. This resulted in growth of the organization and the victory of the NAR (And TRA) over the BATFE regarding APCP motors. Has the current NAR BoT and officers lost that 'member focused' thinking?
 
James Duffy said:
It would be impossible to conceive of a more efficient way to destroy the NAR.
Click to expand...

Initiator001 said:
I agree 100%.
Click to expand...
There are a few members in our club that organize a Fall and Spring NAR Competition meet at the local Club launch site on a different scheduled date from the sport launch. There is no club requirement that things have to be done this way. It has been found that this works out well. If a competitor wants to test a model on a sports launch date, they can. There are plenty of LPR and MPR launch pads at the sport launch and they can set up their own tower if they want.
 
This is the link to the NAR Board of Trustees Conference Call Minutes ( Note : The February 2022 link is wrong and supplies the April 2022 minutes ).

https://www.nar.org/board-of-trustee-meeting-minutes

After searching through this, I am unable to locate any previous discussion of eliminating the Sport Range from NARAM. Perhaps, I missed it . . . If so, please feel to locate the link to the minutes. Since the February, 2022 minutes are not currently available ( bad URL), those were not reviewed.

QUOTE:

The Board of Trustees also meets monthly via conference call. Minutes from these meetings are posted to this page within two weeks of the meeting. Any motions that are moved and seconded during conference calls will be included in the minutes and tabled until the next meeting so that all NAR members have an opportunity to provide comments before the final vote. Please send your comments to [email protected].

END QUOTE :

Dave F.
 
Last edited:
"Has the current NAR BoT and officers lost that 'member focused' thinking?"

The NAR is currently larger than it has ever been.

98% of our members do not compete.

98% of our members do not go to NARAM.

"Member Focused" thinking would suggest adding another NSL because that is what our members want, and reducing the resources devoted to what only 2% of the membership utilizes.

We are not prohibiting the hosts of NARAM from also running a sport range if they want to but the manpower requirements of running both for a week are way beyond what clubs are currently willing to commit to. So hosting a sport range is no longer a requirement of holding a NARAM.

I would appreciate it if each of you here would forward me the names of any clubs willing to host NARAM, with or without a sport range, since we are currently having great difficulty finding ANY section willing to do so.

And if you, personally, would volunteer to CD NARAM, that would be great as well.

One other comment. The FAI flyoffs will have more Juniors this year (27) than ever before. And many of those Juniors will stay to compete in NARAM, the largest Junior contingent at NARAM in years. Only 2 of the Juniors have done any NAR competition and all are new to trying out for the U.S. Team. A number of them had never flown a rocket before. Your U.S. Senior team, all NAR members, has made a huge commitment to recruiting Juniors by on- on-one mentoring, answering tons of questions, creating kits for airframes, streamers, holding Zoom get-togethers, Facetime lessons, and getting out and flying with these kids. We've actually figured out what works. And it had nothing to do with any of the solutions suggested in this thread.

Any of you intersted in starting up a similar effort for NAR competition, please let me know.

Thanks,

Steve Kristal
NAR Trustee
 
Last edited:
Gus said:
I would appreciate it if each of you here would forward me the names of any clubs willing to host NARAM, with or without a sport range, since we are currently having great difficulty finding ANY section willing to do so.

Steve Kristal
NAR Trustee
Click to expand...
Steve,

Consider this possibility . . .

Rather than have any particular section host NARAM, the NAR BoT could locate, pre-select, and arrange NARAM flying sites, in advance, without requiring any Section to "step up and volunteer". All "logistics" would be handled by the BoT, or a committe appointed by them. At NARAM, the meet would be "staffed" by all of the participants, just as it has been.

Using this approach, no Section would ever have to "volunteer".

Dave F.
 
Last edited:
Gus said:
"Has the current NAR BoT and officers lost that 'member focused' thinking?"

The NAR is currently larger than it has ever been.

98% of our members do not compete.

98% of our members do not go to NARAM.

"Member Focused" thinking would suggest adding another NSL because that is what our members want, and reducing the resources devoted to what only 2% of the membership utilizes.

We are not prohibiting the hosts of NARAM from also running a sport range if they want to but the manpower requirements of running both for a week are way beyond what clubs are currently willing to commit to. So hosting a sport range is no longer a requirement of holding a NARAM.

I would appreciate it if each of you here would forward me the names of any clubs willing to host NARAM, with or without a sport range, since we are currently having great difficulty finding ANY section willing to do so.

And if you, personally, would volunteer to CD NARAM, that would be great as well.

One other comment. The FAI flyoffs will have more Juniors this year (27) than ever before. And many of those Juniors will stay to compete in NARAM, the largest Junior contingent at NARAM in years. Only 2 of the Juniors have done any NAR competition and all are new to trying out for the U.S. Team. A number of them had never flown a rocket before. Your U.S. Senior team, all NAR members, has made a huge commitment to recruiting Juniors by on- on-one mentoring, answering tons of questions, creating kits for airframes, streamers, holding Zoom get-togethers, Facetime lessons, and getting out and flying with these kids. We've actually figured out what works. And it had nothing to do with any of the solutions suggested in this thread.

Any of you intersted in starting up a similar effort for NAR competition, please let me know.

Thanks,

Steve Kristal
NAR Trustee
Click to expand...
Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to post in this thread.

Since I joined the NAR in 1985 it has almost always been a challenge to find a NAR Section willing to host a NARAM. This is nothing new.

In 1992 my NAR Section at the time (777) hosted NARAM-34 outside of Las Vegas, Nevada.
I was the contest director and have the patch and wounds to prove it. ;)

My 'issue' with all of this as someone who tries to attend NARAMs for many different reasons was why there was no public announcement/discussion that the Sport Range at future NARAMs would be 'optional' for the host section? There is more to a NARAM besides just all the flying. What happens to the Manufacturers' Forum, Canon Auction, NAR Town Hall, etc. Will these be moved to the NSL as there will be more members able to attend these events?

Also, how do the hobby rocketry manufacturers feel about a no Sport Range NARAM? We need their support ($$$) to finance the NARAM. We may loose some support when the event does not allow the use of a manufacturer's products (Not just HPR but E/F/G powered models).

Again, some transparency would go a long way.

Thanks again for your time.
 
Perhaps my NARAM experience is narrow, but I’ve not encountered any competition types, hard core, Big Time, or otherwise, that have ever expressed a concern about Sport Flying at NARAM. Any of the competition types I’ve bumped into have seemed more absorbed with getting models prep’d for events, thermal detection strategies, or some such. Typically, the Sport and Competition ranges are well separated at NARAM, so generally the two species tend to keep to themselves, usually confronting each other mainly at evening events. But I have witnessed some competition types that have taken advantage of the Sport Range at NARAM to just fly some sport or HPR stuff; I’ve done it myself.

While notionally one could draw the view that NRC encourages smaller NARAM fields, I’m not there in that thinking. NARAM usually includes events beyond the core NRC events, and certainly one of them, Scale (which for the last number of years has been either Sport Scale, Precision Scale or Giant Scale, with an occasional E-Scale Altitude thrown in), generally requires an impulse class well beyond the core NRC impulse levels for a competitive flight. Small fields would discourage/limit this event.

As for “mandating” sections to hold regionals or otherwise face “actionable” consequences (of which I can only imagine would be something like losing one’s section standing), that thought vector seems at odds in a thread that, at the same time, seems to be decrying what is perceived to be an autocratic approach to decision-making. The same thread that also raises the anecdotal concern that competition is somehow in decline. What better way to kill it than to kill sections, the point I believe James was/is making.

I’m of the view that a little more information/clarification would be helpful. Maybe NARAM 64 is constrained because it’s in the same year and will likely be held around the same time as the WSMC in Austin, TX. And apart from Ed’s general remark that divorcing NARAM from a major sport launch makes finding flying fields easier, it’s not apparent in the minutes that this has been established as a go-forward policy, at least not yet. I’m hopeful we’ll learn more at the Town Hall meeting during NARAM.
 
I was about to ping Steve Krystal as one of the two board members I know personally a little bit...but he beat me to it. He also said something that is a bit different than what we've been discussing when he said
Gus said:
We are not prohibiting the hosts of NARAM from also running a sport range if they want to
Click to expand...
That makes me feel a little better about this.

Initiator001 said:
My 'issue' with all of this as someone who tries to attend NARAMs for many different reasons was why there was no public announcement/discussion that the Sport Range at future NARAMs would be 'optional' for the host section? There is more to a NARAM besides just all the flying. What happens to the Manufacturers' Forum, Canon Auction, NAR Town Hall, etc. Will these be moved to the NSL as there will be more members able to attend these events?
Click to expand...
Indeed!!

And I will think some about Steve's "let me know if...." statements. I know my own club can't do it - no suitable site, and essentially no club. But I can think of at least one candidate that might be able to, with some help from others in the area....
 
Bob,

One more note before I finish packing for NARAM.

In the old days, NAR BOT met 2 or 3 times a year, at national events.

Your current board meets monthly via Zoom and the meetings are open to anyone who wants to sit in.

The meeting minutes are put together by Mark Wise (thanks, Mark) and posted online shortly thereafter.

As far as I can tell, this is far, far more transparent than the NAR ever was in the past.

The issue in this thread is a prime example of that. The issue was just discussed/decided at our most recent meeting and will be rolled out to members at the NARAM Town Hall next Monday. The fact that someone actually read the BOT minutes and reported it here was a real surprise, but absolutely not a problem. Really glad to know the membership is paying attention.

Lynne, Ed and I will be at the Town Hall to answer questions.

As for national events being dependent on vendor sponsorship, vendors are a very much appreciated contributor but count for only a relatively small portion of national event expenses.

What everyone needs to understand is that we would LOVE to hold NARAM on a Black Rock sized field in the middle of the country with hundreds of volunteers. We would love to pick and choose between the dozens of clubs vying to host national events but none of that is happening. We are working really hard to do everything we can to meet the needs of the greatest number of members with the resources we have available. This Board of Trustees is working really hard to make this hobby as good as possible for all of us.

Thanks,

Steve
 
GuyNoir said:
Nonsense. The "hard-core competition types" I hang out with are perfectly happy to have and enjoy a sport range at NARAM.
Click to expand...
Correct. I guess I might be called a “hard-core competitive type” and I have flown the Sport range at each of the three NARAMs I have attended. I hope this decision is not permanent for all NARAMs going forward. I enjoy flying all kinds of rockets and I know many rocketeers that feel the same. A blanket statement like that is just wrong.
 
CTimm said:
Rather than completely abolishing a NARAM sport range, why not simply limit the sport range to non-HPR G motors or lower based on field size/waiver?

NSL handles the big stuff, NARAM accommodates the smaller stuff.
Click to expand...
You can fly up to mid-range ‘H’ motors (about 240 N-sec/125 grams propellant) and 3.3 lb (1,500 gram) rockets without a waiver, if that’s a major issue.
 
NARAM, as it was originally created, was "Competition-only" . . . "Sport Ranges" were added later . . . Later still, once the NAR embraced "high-power", the Sport Ranges incorporated HPR. People who have never been to NARAM, before HPR flying was incorporated, never experienced a "Competition-only" NARAM.

Dave F.
 
Last edited:
John Brohm said:
As for “mandating” sections to hold regionals or otherwise face “actionable” consequences (of which I can only imagine would be something like losing one’s section standing), that thought vector seems at odds in a thread that, at the same time, seems to be decrying what is perceived to be an autocratic approach to decision-making.
Click to expand...
Some, possible, "actionable" consequences . . . ( escalating ).

(1) The Section is ineligible to receive Grant Money, until they comply.
(2) Responsible Section Members are ineligible to fly at NARAM or NSL, until compliant.
(3) Suspend responsible Section Member's HPR certifications, for non-compliance.
(4) Place Section on "probation", with a time-limit to comply.
(5) Cancel Section charter, unless they comply. ( inform landowner of loss of insurance )

Who would want to "fight" hosting NAR Competition, to risk all of that

Frankly, a "Competition Requirement" should have been in place, in Section charters, right from the initial formation of the NAR.

Dave F.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the resolution of the 'NARAM' issue is a matter of semantics.

If the national NAR event is 'competition only' then maybe a name change would apply.

Instead of NARAM-64 call it the National Association of Rocketry Annual Competition Launch (NARACL) or NARCOMP as in NARCOMP-2023.
This calls out specifically what the event entitles and spells out that this is a 'competition only' event.

The term/phrase "NARAM" belongs to ALL NAR members. It should only be used for a national event when ALL members, regardless of what type of rockets they fly, are welcome.
 
CTimm said:
Rather than completely abolishing a NARAM sport range, why not simply limit the sport range to non-HPR G motors or lower based on field size/waiver?

NSL handles the big stuff, NARAM accommodates the smaller stuff.
Click to expand...
This is voice of reason. Let the sport range support what the location will. Abolishing the Sport Range is scorched Earth thinking (or lack there of.... thinking that is)
 
The other voice of reason are the comments made by the NAR trustee in posts #99 and #104. Nothing's been abolished (yet).
 
Ez2cDave said:
Some, possible, "actionable" consequences . . . ( escalating ).

(1) The Section is ineligible to receive Grant Money, until they comply.
(2) Responsible Section Members are ineligible to fly at NARAM or NSL, until compliant.
(3) Suspend responsible Section Member's HPR certifications, for non-compliance.
(4) Place Section on "probation", with a time-limit to comply.
(5) Cancel Section charter, unless they comply. ( inform landowner of loss of insurance )

Who would want to "fight" hosting NAR Competition, to risk all of that

Frankly, a "Competition Requirement" should have been in place, in Section charters, right from the initial formation of the NAR.

Dave F.
Click to expand...
Interesting. A bold manifesto to make NAR great again or a blueprint for organizational suicide? I vote the latter.
 
I can remember a time when NARAM didn’t have a sport range. Competition flying was the main concentration even at the Section level. And yes, I’m really old. Guess NARAM WON’t be the annual rocketry festival, eh.
 
Interestingly, the "Electronic Rocketeer", July 2022 / Volume 156, made absolutely no mention about changes regarding the Sport Range at NARAM's.

1657895876772.png

8,850 Members in total . . . 3,797 HPR Certified . . . 4,647 LPR / MPR Members . . . Fewer than 100 Members compete at NARAM.

So, with more LPR / MPR Members than HPR Members, why is the priority on HPR in the NAR ?

Dave F.
 
Last edited:
Ez2cDave said:
Simple solution . . . Fly larger diameter rockets with "Baby M" motors.

Depending on the motor used, keeping things under 8,000' AGL should be easy !

Dave F.
Click to expand...
The FAI solution was the fatroc: min length 50 cm, min diamter 40 mm over 50% of length, and that is for small motors. If you scale that up for M motors how big will be and will anyone wnat to fly them?
 
Initiator001 said:
Perhaps the resolution of the 'NARAM' issue is a matter of semantics.

If the national NAR event is 'competition only' then maybe a name change would apply.

Instead of NARAM-64 call it the National Association of Rocketry Annual Competition Launch (NARACL) or NARCOMP as in NARCOMP-2023.
This calls out specifically what the event entitles and spells out that this is a 'competition only' event.

The term/phrase "NARAM" belongs to ALL NAR members. It should only be used for a national event when ALL members, regardless of what type of rockets they fly, are welcome.
Click to expand...
I thought the whole thing was "Festival", and that little contest was just one small part of it. Maybe the new branding just did not stick as much as the historical name "NARAM". Presumably now that BoD meetings, elections, NRC, etc., are "mostly virtual" the physical event, by any name just no longer matters.
 
Alan15578 said:
The FAI solution was the fatroc: min length 50 cm, min diamter 40 mm over 50% of length, and that is for small motors. If you scale that up for M motors how big will be and will anyone wnat to fly them?
Click to expand...
A "BDR" ( Big Dumb Rocket ), 10 feet to 12 feet long and 7.5 inches in diameter will remain sub-sonic and stay in the 8000' AGL +/- range on a "Baby M".

Alternatively, you can alway use a "Drag Plate" to reduce altitude.

Dave F.
 
Initiator001 said:
Perhaps the resolution of the 'NARAM' issue is a matter of semantics.

If the national NAR event is 'competition only' then maybe a name change would apply.

Instead of NARAM-64 call it the National Association of Rocketry Annual Competition Launch (NARACL) or NARCOMP as in NARCOMP-2023.
This calls out specifically what the event entitles and spells out that this is a 'competition only' event.

The term/phrase "NARAM" belongs to ALL NAR members. It should only be used for a national event when ALL members, regardless of what type of rockets they fly, are welcome.
Click to expand...
Until the advent of HPR, NARAM was always "competition only" ( LPR / MPR Sport Range was added later. HPR was added to NARAM ( can't remember the first year for HPR Sport Range ) after that.

"NARAM" stands for "National Association of Rocketry Annual Meet" . . . Note the use of the word "meet" ( as in "Track Meet" ), a competition, not a "fun fly" !

Dave F.
 

Similar threads

roy_lappalainen
Anybody in Florida flying NRC events?
Replies
2
Views
409
kjohnson
kjohnson
C
EVENT NARAM-63 Info and Updates
Replies
13
Views
2K
gdjsky01
gdjsky01
H
AARM 50+2 contest near Edmonton - July 16, 17 2022
Replies
0
Views
593
hutch
H
H
AARM 50+2
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ez2cDave
Ez2cDave
F
New NRC Contest Year Kick Off Launch 2021
Replies
1
Views
2K
fulldec
F

Latest posts

Back
Top