What competition events interest you?

[PunkRocketScience]

Being the newly elected vice-president of DART, I'd like to see if there is interest in competition flying. Here is San Diego, the last competitive flying that was done was at the NSL when we had it a couple of years ago.

What events are you (the whole rocketry community, not just San Diego) interested in? Not just what you have flown, but what you would participate in if there was an event?

You can choose more than one even in this poll. If I haven't listed your favorite, let me know what it is!

 

[runandgun13]

I live in CT but I would love to fly in an altitude competition. You know, tell evryone what motor to use and then see who can get the highest with hat motor. It would require a logging altimeter but would be a fun and challenging competition.

 

[Rocketmaniac]

How about closest to a mile? (yes I'm a HPR nut, but you should be able to reach a mile with MPR also)

 

[Bazookadale]

Originally posted by runandgun13
I live in CT but I would love to fly in an altitude competition. You know, tell evryone what motor to use and then see who can get the highest with hat motor. It would require a logging altimeter but would be a fun and challenging competition.

There are 3 NAR sections in CT ( www.nar.org )you might be able to find an altitude contest in your area . NAR contests are different than TARC , altitude is measured with optical tracking
https://www.nar.org/pinkbook/index.html

 

[jflis]

Helicopter is an interest of mine that isn't listed.

 

[Rick Lindsey]

Unfortunately the constest that would interest me most is one that would never make it to Prime Time -- slowest liftoff, or perhaps a maximum flight duration to specified altitude - timed on the way up, not the way down .

-Rick

 

[PunkRocketScience]

Originally posted by Rick Lindsey
Unfortunately the constest that would interest me most is one that would never make it to Prime Time -- slowest liftoff, or perhaps a maximum flight duration to specified altitude - timed on the way up, not the way down .

-Rick

Wow! That would be an interesting contest... But it would be insanely difficult to judge without some kind of electronics. How fast can you hit the button on the stop watch from when the rocket starts to move and when it clears the end of the launch rod! You'd almost have to have two sets of electric eyes. One just over the tip of the nose and one at the end of the rod and a timer to see the difference between the breaking of the beams....

 

[wwattles]

I like the spot landing events.

The reason is that they have the most crowd support. People (usually) can see the rocket clearly throughout the duration of the flight, and you can get very precise measurements of just how far from the target spot each entry lands. With altitude flights, there's always a bit of a fudge/guess on what apogee was, unless there's a GPS on board. Even theodolite tracking/scoring does have a +/- factor involved.

Also, altitude flights may just disappear and never be recovered, if the winds aloft aren't in your favor.

But most significantly for me, spot landing rockets usually aren't built as single-purpose, single-flight models like a lot of the duration/altitude rockets are. I can go out to a launch and discover that they are having a spot-landing competition, and enter one of my run-of-the-mill Estes models, and by careful motor and launch angle selection, be a winner. That's darn near impossible to do with most other competitions.

That's my 2 cents worth, and yes, I DO live in the San Diego area!

WW

 

[agrippo]

I like to enter the mile high competitions. The flyer with the altitude closest to one mile, two miles or three miles is the winner. No special built rockets for this one, just picking the right motor for the conditions and going for it.

Andrew

 

[rokitflite]

Other... I like RC glider events because of the interaction with the model.

 

[jflis]

I'm actually quite surprized at how even the polling is at this point...

Things that make you go "hmmmm"

 

[Chicagonative17]

HOW IN THE WOOORRRRLLLLLDDD COULD YOU FORGET ALTITUDE! That is the best even because you either go high and fast or your rocket isn't stable and every 20 minutes somebodies rocket is doing loop-d-loops. I place 4th at NARAM 48 in F altitude at just under a mile. The picture of my rocket is the one in Sport Rocketry magazing covering NARAM 48, its the red one.

Around here, we call super-roc, stupid-roc yet we all love it because so many of the rockets SUCK performance wise or somebody finds a loop hole in the rules (almost every time). For A stupid-roc some would come with 22ft. balsa wood towers shaped like radio antenna towers. It would only go tens of ft. high but would win because of how tall it was. It was no longer altitude.

Those are my favorite events because they are the most unpredictable. But because of how unpredictable they are, you almost know when its going to fail.

 

[powderburner]

I haven't met a contest that I didn't like.

Favorites: duration, BG, RG, super-roc, scale.

For getting started, it is sometimes good to offer a 'restricted' competition class where all part must be 'stock' (from some kit or manufacturer) and no launch aids are permitted. That way, you encourage kids to try it out, and you make them all 'competitive' by letting them use kits and components that are readily available.

Nothing kills a kid's interest quite as much as getting smoked by someone else flying a fiberglass tube, G10 fins, and custom everything, off of a piston launcher. Let the show-offs have a different class.

 

[PunkRocketScience]

Originally posted by chicagonative17
HOW IN THE WOOORRRRLLLLLDDD COULD YOU FORGET ALTITUDE!

Altitude is harder to judge.... It either requires electronics or trackers.... More of a logistics problem.

 

[Rick Lindsey]

I rather like the way TARC works ... precision altitude (But not a mile!), precision duration (with a reasonably achieved target)... and an egg-loft to boot! Now if you just threw in a spot landing you'd have the ultimate contest .

I too like the idea of a constest where the fancy materials don't "make or break" your entry -- though the requirement of a $100 altimeter kind of puts the kabotch as an individual effort contest. I suppose you could do 3-station tracking rather than altimeter, though, particularly since you could set up the stations at close to 45 degree angles to minimize errors. I also like the combination of more than one goal.

-Rick

 

[Gus]

Having just competed in a regional NAR competion this last weekend, some observations.

There were virtually no new competitors since last year. There seem to be a (very small) number of folks who like to compete, mostly adult males over the age of 35.

There were no kids who wanted to compete who brought their parents, but there were a number of competitors who brought their kids (who competed). In other words the only kids competing were there because their folks compete.

The barrier for entry, to have any chance to win, is very high. The truly competitive show up with tower launchers and pistons. I've been trying, without success, to buy a tower launcher for over a year. The number of folks who are going to be interested in building competitive models as well as all their launch equipment, is very small. Hence folks may show up once, but unless they are really really into it, will quickly realize they have little reason to enter since they have almost no chance of being competitive.

The altitude events require a lot of equipment and time from volunteers to track flights. Even using Contest Manager, reduction of data takes quite a bit of effort. The duration events are orders of magnitude easier to judge.

The judging of scale events is incredibly subjective and depend as much upon who is doing the judging and their interpretation of the rules as it does upon the models involved. "Mission Points" add another whole level of subjectivity way confusing to anyone new. You can read the NAR Pink Book all you want and it will give little real guidance as to what it takes to be competitive in Scale events.

So if I was interested in starting up some rocketry competitions with the idea of attracting folks this is what I would do.

Focus the initial competions on kids, not hypercompetitive adults. Unfortunately the NAR today is way competition focused and even though they have kid divisions pretty much the only kids who compete are kids of adult competitors.

Do spot landing and duration events (egglofters, helicopters, gliders, streamers, and parachutes). They are easy to judge and the criteria are objective.

Make every launch use the club's equipment so that everybody competes based on the quality of the models they build, not the quality of their launch equipment. if you want to add that stuff later, go for it.

Just some random thoughts after this last weekend's competition.

 

[jflis]

Gus,

I couldn't agree with you more.

The only thing I would add is that the NAR's attraction to competition is not new. Rather it is one of their primary focuses and they state that rather openly. Right, wrong or indifferent, it is the NAR's position that healthy (read: strong) competition promotes healthy rocketry.

I would love to see a series of contests promoted by clubs and supported by the NAR that *did* focus ONLY on the quality of the build/design and required everyone to use the same ground support equipment. I would even go a step further (if it could be done) that such contests would be restricted to stock kit materials to avoid the use of exotic materials that would not be available to everyone (or not in their price range).

Frankly, this is exactly what the NAR *does* do with regard to their "contest certification" program with motors.

good stuff
jim

 

[Gus]

Jim,

Thanks for your nice comments. Coming from you, they mean a lot.

I appologise if I gave the impression that I thought there was anything wrong with the NAR being competition focused. I'm really grateful to the members who organize events, and I showed my gratitude by co-directing this last weekend's contest (only the second I've entered).

My criticism is that the current competitions are not very attractive to kids or many adults.

To my mind rocketry competitions should be a primary way to promote the hobby but the current competitions are unlikely to do that. TARC is a much better example of how to promote rocketry through competition. And your idea of using standard materials is a great one as well.

A contest to see who could keep their Whatchamacallit, Thingamajig, Triskelion, or Rhino in the air the longest would be lots of fun.

 

[Rick Lindsey]

I really like the ideas being presented by both Jim and Gus. I wouldn't bother entering a "competitive" NAR type event where I'm having to roll my own body tube, etc, but my kids and I would get a kick out of a Baby Bertha parachute duration event. You could also do fun stuff like specify certain parameters that are generally not condusive to "competitive models"... Estes BT60 tubing or larger with 3/32" balsa fins and a 13mm motor mount for an A parachute duration bird . People with superior craftmanship skills would still have an advantage, but the playing field would be considerably more level since everyone starts with the same basic materials.

-Rick

 

[Eagle3]

Honestly, I'm not interested in any competitive events anymore. I had a very successful 10 year run in NAR comp, but got burned out and frankly, disenchanted. When I did compete my favorite events were Scale and any Glider event (except flexi).

 

[powderburner]

Originally posted by Gus
The judging of scale events is incredibly subjective and depend as much upon who is doing the judging and their interpretation of the rules as it does upon the models involved. "Mission Points" add another whole level of subjectivity way confusing to anyone new. You can read the NAR Pink Book all you want and it will give little real guidance as to what it takes to be competitive in Scale events.

The NAR needs to issue a supplement to the pink book that spells out a specific procedure (or at least, a lot more detailed than the current pink book) for judging scale.

This will help everyone. This will help competitors understand what to build, what surface detail to add, and what documentation to include. This will help judges know exactly what is expected of them, and what they **cannot** hold against the entries they don't happen to like. This will help the NAR itself be more consistent when winners of distant sectional competitions come together at a national event (where it often becomes obvious that the rules are not being consistently applied).

A few of the 'expert' judges need to scratch out a draft of how they judge. It could be posted on a NAR website/sidepage, and everyone could email their comments. A wizened, all-knowing authority (NARprez?) could summarize and issue the first edition.

As it stands now, the scale events can be maddeningly frustrating when they are badly staffed (IMHO).

 

[Peartree]

Frankly, not many. I am still fairly new to model rocketry at less than a year. I have some building and modelling skills, but from everything I've read there is a significant leap to the level of competitition from where I am. I'm wondering, in the interests of making it easier to get in (for kids or for adults) why doesn't the NAR open more than one class of competition? For example, not every racing team can put together a million dollar open wheel car or an F1 but sprint cars and stock cars (at least, once upon a time) were intended to allow talented teams without a lot of money to get in. Why not offer a "stock" competition where everybody builds from the same kit (with some allowable mods such as shock cord changes, etc) but the bulk of the competition isn't based on how many toys or accessories you own or in how much money you spend but has an emphasis on how well you build and not much else?

Alternately, why not have an entry level class and a "pro" class where the entry level classes MUST use club lauch equipment, etc? That way the existing competition isn't diluted but the barriers to new entrants is lowered at the same time.

Just thinking out loud. I may eventually try competition events at some point, but I don't know if I have enough room (for rockets) to compete in a multitude of catagories.

 

[Bazookadale]

Alternately, why not have an entry level class and a "pro" class where the entry level classes MUST use club lauch equipment, etc? That way the existing competition isn't diluted but the barriers to new entrants is lowered at the same time.

Just thinking out loud. I may eventually try competition events at some point, but I don't know if I have enough room (for rockets) to compete in a multitude of catagories.

A professional division was proposed in the early '70s and the idea beaten to death. Many regionals don't have enough participation to fill 4 divisions now. Besides I have seen some newbees do very well against established competitors, I have been flying for 40 years and I am VERY easy to beat!:cry:

 

[roy_lappalainen]

All of them...

 

[10fttall]

I agree that changes need to be made if competition is going to be attracting new participants. The launch equipment issue needs to be done away with, as in, it's a competition - your rocket competes with other rockets. Hurdlers don't get to place little trampolines along their lane when they compete. The Uber Contestants need to launch their rockets like the other 99% of regular people do, at least for NAR. When they are competing for a spot in an international competition, sure take the lugs off and shoot em out of a cannon if you want to.

I wish there was a good way to adress the building materials issue, but there's not. If rockets were limited to commercially available model rocket parts, then you'd knock out some poor kid carving his own nose cone or fashioning an egg compartment from an Easter egg. Ideally, the rules would restrict people from using pricy stuff like polysomethingorother that is fabricated from moonrocks and needs a machine shop to work with. For one thing, the NAR isn't the kind of organization that would take apart and poke everybody's rocket to enforce it anyway. So the only route would be to have a stock contest with a certain kit, but that wouldn't be fun beyond one or two events. And you'd also have to figure out how stock is stock? Same outer dimensions, all kit external parts, all kit except recovery system?

 

[Pat Butler]

I got started in competition rocketry last year and built my first tower launcher from spare parts and a piece of plumbing pipe for the outside ring. It can be done inexpensively or it can be done by spending a lot of money. A piston assembly can be built from a few bucks worth of body tubes and couplers.

I think there's room for both ways but the problem is that there doesn't appear to be enough competitors in order to further divide competitions up into other divisions.

A club I used to belong to would have all sorts of fun competitions so that everyone could get involved. Part of the problem with standardizing everything is that it leaves little room for innovation. So if you require that everyone build the same rocket and not use any fancy launch equipment then it really turns more into luck.

I've always wondered why more people don't get involved in competitions but unfortunately I've also seen the bad side of some people involved in this sport, and that can be a real turnoff too.

The only way I can see the number of competitors increasing is if NAR made it a priority- I think it takes some planning at the top level.

 

[10fttall]

If you want to add a contest for duration or altitude from a non-standard launch mechanism, fine, make the event about the launch method. The other events should be about the rockets not the launcher. That's my point, It doesn't matter how cheap it can be done or how long you would have to study designs gather parts; the bottom line is it requires more time. I think most people are like me and have very little free time. I have no desire to build a non-standard launcher. My rockets work just fine with lugs, thank you very much. And if the goal is to make contests more attractive, we should aim to have a contest where someone can just use their skills to build and finish the best rocket they are able, and compete with it, not worry about unnecessary stuff.

I'm sure a bunch of people will jump in and want to tell me how easy it is to build X or Y device. But the way I look at it, older men with fancy launchers is the competition status quo. And people aren't exactly mobbing the sign up tables...so draw your own conclusions.

I also don't think any division should be added. If anything, drop it to 2 divisions, adults and children under 13. If limits were placed on exotic extras, like launchers and fancy materials, there's no reason teens couldn't build against adults. Then the kids would just compete against the kids.

 

[Pat Butler]

That's what exists right now. There's no need for any sort of fancy launch system for many of the events and I don't see people rushing to enter those events either. I don't think it's the need for anything fancy to be in competition- rocketry as a whole just isn't as popular and that's why so few people out of the entire rocketry population compete. So my conclusion is that it isn't the so-called fancy launch systems keeping people from competing. Rocketry is just a niche hobby.

You mention that it should be about the rockets. Well, many competitors learned that the launch lugs on their rockets were too draggy so they compensated by building tower launchers ($5 worth of electric conduit and some wood will do just fine). Rocketry has always consisted of the rocket and the launch system. That's just part of the equation that some folks have decided to concentrate on.

I'd hate to see competition dumbed down to a level to accomodate people who can't spend a half an hour to put together a few body tubes and couplers in order to make piston launcher. I can fully understand people not wanting to spend lots of money, but that doesn't have to be the situation. But if you also don't have any time to spend on it then you are really limiting yourself, and would be limiting people with more interest from being innovative.

You want to limit the launch system as well as the materials used in the rocket as well as not wanting to spend any time doing it. Jeesh- what's left?? You'd have a bunch of boring contests that mostly relied upon luck because everyone would have the exact same rocket and the results would pretty much depend on the environmental variables or an occasional hot engine.

Interestingly enough, many contests are won by folks not using anything fancy. So to each their own, you can get good results in many different ways.

 

[Kaycee]

I chose Spot Landing because it's a fun event, especially for kids that, even though they have far better eyesite than those of age, seem to lose track of their rocket as soon as it leaves the pad. :surprised: Whether a a 1/4A or larger, this contest doesn't limit what rocket you choose to fly. And with enough participation you might have several events--A, B, C, D, etc...and even include Mid & High Power.

 

[10fttall]

Well, many competitors learned that the launch lugs on their rockets were too draggy so they compensated by building tower launchers

Yeah, so if, say a runner, was bothered by his two feet not being fast enough, perhaps he should compensate and ride a bicycle in the race.

You want to limit the launch system as well as the materials used in the rocket as well as not wanting to spend any time doing it. Jeesh- what's left?? You'd have a bunch of boring contests that mostly relied upon luck because everyone would have the exact same rocket and the results would pretty much depend on the environmental variables or an occasional hot engine.

So it would be a pity for people to rely on their rocket building skills? Yeah, we wouldn't want that. You're right, we should keep everything just the way it is. Make it any more friendly and accessible, and we might run out of fingers to count the leading competitors on.