So, looking at the "numbers" . . . 83 Members out of 9000 actually make the rules.

Perhaps, that, in itself, is a deterrent to new interest in NAR Competition ?

Dave F.

Having her win would be like giving the medal to a Marathoner who finished last but ran the first 100 yards in 9 seconds. All the strategy is removed.

Isn't that problem the reason behind why de-thermalizers are often used on NAR Competition models ?

Dave F.

Steve,

I knew there was something nibbling around at the back of my mind about this. I was one of the tiny minority of NAR members who voted on the proposals, including this one. I should have remembered more clearly.


I see it as a symptom, not a deterrent. All NAR members are eligible to vote on these RCPs every cycle. Ever since I’ve been aware of the rules change process, I’ve always been disappointed and somewhat mystified by how few members actually vote.


Well, I always build competition models in twos (at least) so that I’ll have one to fly on the second flight. In light of what Steve just reminded me of, I might build three of each for PD and SD and maybe boost glider for NARAM this year instead of two. Maybe.

__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE

Or it is an indication of lack of interest in NAR competition.

How do those numbers compare to trustee elections?


Bill

__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...

I'd say that it's also an indication that someone is spinning statistics to mean something that it doesn't. The ignore button on this forum works very well.

I voted "no" on the RCP to do away with NARAM returns. Wish we still had it in the general rules. The returns rule added the need to add strategy to one's flying, and was rooted in basic tenet that our model rockets are meant to be recovered and reused.

It used to be that rules were voted on as needed, but now we create new ones yearly. We would come out with a revised rule book every few years. Now we come out with a new rule book yearly, and sometimes emergency rulings are created because waiting a year seems to be too long. How is any of this "an emergency?" It seems like some of the few people left who enjoy flying contest rocketry are chasing their tails looking for that secret sauce by milling the rules into something so perfect, so unoffensive, so amenable to every situation that we will never, ever, ever again risk causing disappointment to anyone.

I wonder. Does this process attract, or repel?

__________________
-Wolfram v. Kiparski
NAR 28643 - TRA 15520
MTMA Section #606 President

It also helps to "reign in the BTC's", somewhat.

Another issue to address regards the use of RC against free-flight models in glider events.

Just as Flexwings were moved to a separate event, the same should be done with RC ( i.e. - RCBG and RCRG events should be created ).

Dave F.

Or 83 members out of 9000 actually care enough about competition to vote on the rules, but that doesn't support a narrative of some sort of elite cabal running things. Every NAR member is entitled to one vote, whether they compete or not.

Kevin

Unless they compete or have a good working knowledge of an event, they would have no idea of what an RCP was about, or be able to make an informed decision about it . . .

Dave F.

Hmm . . . 83 members . . . Just about the same number that attend NARAM.

Dave F.