Ez2cDave
Well-Known Member
Chris,"disenfranchised" is too gentle for what I am feeling right now.
I am in full agreement with you . . . 100%.
Dave F.
Chris,"disenfranchised" is too gentle for what I am feeling right now.
Ok solves one problem, smaller field requirements for competition. Doesn't address small number of competition flyers problem.
I belong to two NAR Sections in SoCal.Very true . . . Unless the number of NAR Competition flyers increases, "diminishing returns" will, eventually, be the death of NARAM.
What are some of the obstacles to NAR Competition ?
(1) Lack of active promotion by the NAR and NAR Sections.
(2) Many NAR Sections refuse to hold contests, in deference to HPR flying only.
(3) Lack of interest in "scratch-building" and "designing" skills.
(4) etc, etc, etc.
How do we overcome this and increase interest and participation in NAR Competition ?
Well, looking at #1 & #2 above, those two items are fairly easy to overcome, provided that the two parties involved cooperate, actively.
#1 - The NAR needs to enthusiastically, widely, promote and encourage Competition. Perhaps, Sections should be required to host organized NAR Competition, at least, 4 times per year, as part of their Section Charter. If all Sections participate, the opportunity for growth and expansion is greatly multiplied.
#2 - "NRC", effectively, reinforces problem #2, by giving Sections the ability to say, " Sure, you can fly Competition, on your own, while we fly HPR, provided that you don't get in our way or take away from our HPR flying time, while we wait on your duration models" ( several discussions, to this effect are on TRF ).
Now, perhaps the largest obstacle, #3 . . . A "compound problem".
Most Rocketeers, whether LPR, MPR, or HPR are "kit builders", nowadays.
Back in the day, when NAR Competition was flourishing, winning with a "kit" rarely happened. If you didn't scratch-build, using the best, lightest components, you had virtually no chance. The same is true, nowadays, particularly in the Glider events. Also, unless you use the "latest & greatest" piston launcher, you have zero chance in many other events, as well. All of this greatly discourages newcomers and less-experienced competitors.
In an effort to make things less "daunting" for new NAR Competitiors, I propose creating the following "levels" in each Age Division, A, B, C, & Team. It would look like "A1 / A2/ A3, B1 / B2 / B3, C1 / C2 / C3, and T1 / T2 / T3".
(1) Novice - Must fly "stock" kits, no piston launchers, free-flight only (DT's allowed, no RC).
(2) Intermediate - Scratch-built, "own designs" are allowed, no "exotic materials" are allowed ( e.g. - vacuum-bagged foam wings ), basic pistons are allowed ( no "FAI-style" pistons ), RC is allowed only in specific "RC" events, not competing against free-flight models.
(3) Master - "Anything goes", within the limits of the "rules".
The largest question is "How do we attract new NAR Competitors" ?
For that, we will need much open "input & discussion", not bickering and griping.
This is not about "personalities", but the future of NAR Competition and NARAM . . .
Please contribute constructive, meaningful suggestions, nothing negative !
Dave F.
I see plenty of scratch-built models at both Section launches. Often they are 'fun' models or folks testing boilerplate models of projects they plan to fly at NARAM (Scale models/egglofters). I scratch build models for fun.
The simplest reason for the decline of NAR Competition is that it's not interesting to the majority of the membership. The NRC program which was to 'save' and improve the number of competition fliers has backfired. The main point of changing the competition process was in order to get more youngsters involved. At the same time this 'dumbing-down' of competition has turned off adults who are tired of flying 1/2A Parachute Duration at every other NARAM and might like to try something more challenging like D R/G or F Dual Eggloft Altitude which are not part of the NRC but were before the change.
I say keep competition but it is no longer a major point for the NAR. Most folks just want to have fun flying the rockets they bought at Hobby Lobby, one of the few remaining hobby shops or online.
Well…..are you volunteering to provide a site and help run one (or more) of each, then?Why not... 20... sport launches.... and 10 national competitions!!?? lol
Actually I'm planning to do it anyway, with or without NAR/TRA approval/sanction (for lpr of course), and maybe beating the drum around here for the local school to start up a TARC team. Also working on my own fundraising plan to start a "little rocket factory" and buy a chunk of land specifically for hay-field and LPR/MPR events,,, if I can raise the capital.. Just started the process so it will be a while before I have it. RN Springfield is a 2hr drive and that's the closest place to launch HPR. St. Louis is about 4 hours drive, and KC/Argonia not too much further away than that. So I have options for my stuff, but really trying to get something rolling locally for the kids and maybe encourage other schools by developing a 2-3 day "rocket science" curriculum. It's a lofty goal and I dunno if it'll get off the ground, but I do have a couple of interested small investors already.Well…..are you volunteering to provide a site and help run one (or more) of each, then?
Actually, that sounds great. More power to you!Actually I'm planning to do it anyway, with or without NAR/TRA approval/sanction (for lpr of course), and maybe beating the drum around here for the local school to start up a TARC team. Also working on my own fundraising plan to start a "little rocket factory" and buy a chunk of land specifically for hay-field and LPR/MPR events,,, if I can raise the capital.. Just started the process so it will be a while before I have it. RN Springfield is a 2hr drive and that's the closest place to launch HPR. St. Louis is about 4 hours drive, and KC/Argonia not too much further away than that. So I have options for my stuff, but really trying to get something rolling locally for the kids and maybe encourage other schools by developing a 2-3 day "rocket science" curriculum. It's a lofty goal and I dunno if it'll get off the ground, but I do have a couple of interested small investors already.
Pretty sure that consistently declining NARAM attendance qualifies as "input from the NAR general membership."...without any input from the NAR general membership.
It's possible that "consistently declining NARAM attendance" might have been worsened by the implementation of NRC.Pretty sure that consistently declining NARAM attendance qualifies as "input from the NAR general membership."
Let's be frank, guys. The growth in membership over the past several years has been due to interest in sport flying, not competition. Shifting organizational resources and attention in the direction of things that the majority of members want to do - sport flying - is the wise thing to do.
As for those commenting that they were disenfranchised in this process, let's take a moment to note that the decision was made by a board of trustees elected by the membership.
NARAM competition attendance has been declining.Pretty sure that consistently declining NARAM attendance qualifies as "input from the NAR general membership."
Let's be frank, guys. The growth in membership over the past several years has been due to interest in sport flying, not competition. Shifting organizational resources and attention in the direction of things that the majority of members want to do - sport flying - is the wise thing to do.
As for those commenting that they were disenfranchised in this process, let's take a moment to note that the decision was made by a board of trustees elected by the membership.
From attendance data found at the NAR website:NARAM competition attendance has been declining.
NARAM Sport flying has been steady and what the majority of NAR members do at a NARAM.
The key to any revitalization isn't very complicated.Revitalizing NAR competition will take some serious thought and effort though - that’s going to be the sticky part
One, this change in what a NARAM encompasses was decided by a small, secret 'cabal' of NAR competition members without any input from the NAR general membership.
How many of the Sport Flyers, at those NARAM's, were also Competitors ?From attendance data found at the NAR website:
NSL 2019 149
NSL 2021 131
NSL 2022 69
NARAM 60 223
NARAM 61 174
NARAM 62 142
NARAM 63 170
Draw your own conclusions, but my take is that there's not a strong fixed relationship between attendance and activity (sport / competition). The site, the contest events, the distance people have to drive, etc. all figure into attendance at national events.
YMMV.
It also takes the cooperation of NAR Sections. Since most are unwilling to host Competition, the logical solution to require them to do so, as part of the Section Charter. Failure to comply would then be "actionable".The key to any revitalization isn't very complicated.
It takes people willing to mentor others in how to fly contest events. Such mentoring is clearly present in TARC and HPR, but aside from Dan Wolf and Robert Zurek, I don't see others doing it.
The "record" speaks for itself. "Ed said . . ."On what basis does this claim stand?
I didn't see ANYONE in the competition community consulted about NARAM changes in advance of the reference in the June meeting minutes posted at the NAR website.
Correct. The majority of competition members were not informed of this change.On what basis does this claim stand?
I didn't see ANYONE in the competition community consulted about NARAM changes in advance of the reference in the June meeting minutes posted at the NAR website.
The hard-core competition types do not want any Sport Range at NARAM.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.
Nonsense. The "hard-core competition types" I hang out with are perfectly happy to have and enjoy a sport range at NARAM.The hard-core competition types do not want any Sport Range at NARAM.
Their other field has a 10,000ft waiver. Think they are flying at this one because it's closer to the highway but I've been out of contact with them for some time. Yeah, I don't think an M is in the cards though, haha, unless you're launching something REALLY heavy. I'm going to try and get out there at least one day, maybe 2 or 3. It's not a terribly long drive for me. I have motors and matches coming in and would like to test DD on my small rocket before I attempt my L2 with dual deployment.Having read the last few messages, I realized that I didn't know that the meeting minutes were posted on the website. Sure enough, logged in and found the archive of meeting minutes. Some good reading. I will have to keep a closer eye on these meeting minutes.
Unfortunate to hear that the sport range will not be at NARAM 64. That being said, has it been decided that there will forever be no sport range? I haven't found that tidbit yet in the minutes.
Either way, wish I could be there this weekend but the field does not seem conducive from what I hear for an M motor flight.
Of course, "Sport Range" has different connotations, LPR/MPR vs. HPR.Nonsense. The "hard-core competition types" I hang out with are perfectly happy to have and enjoy a sport range at NARAM.
Simple solution . . . Fly larger diameter rockets with "Baby M" motors.Their other field has a 10,000ft waiver. Think they are flying at this one because it's closer to the highway but I've been out of contact with them for some time. Yeah, I don't think an M is in the cards though, haha, unless you're launching something REALLY heavy. I'm going to try and get out there at least one day, maybe 2 or 3. It's not a terribly long drive for me. I have motors and matches coming in and would like to test DD on my small rocket before I attempt my L2 with dual deployment.
It would be impossible to conceive of a more efficient way to destroy the NAR.The NAR needs to enthusiastically, widely, promote and encourage Competition. Perhaps, Sections should be required to host organized NAR Competition, at least, 4 times per year, as part of their Section Charter.
I can think of a couple. People just tossing ideas around. Agreeing or disagreeing seems fine but no reason that I see to default to "worst idea ever." That's just my opinion, though. Carry on.It would be impossible to conceive of a more efficient way to destroy the NAR.
Exactly.Nonsense. The "hard-core competition types" I hang out with are perfectly happy to have and enjoy a sport range at NARAM.
Enter your email address to join: