Well, I would prefer to have tracking allowed. My dad and I searched for my rocket for more than 6 hours total, and honestly, having a tracker would eliminate much of the luck, making it much more of a contest of skill.

Other than that though, I think the same contest would be fine.

The reason we disallowed tracking for this particular contest was that several folks indicated that they felt those of us who used tracking had an unfair advantage. (Disclaimer - Many of you know that I use tracking on 90%+ of my flights). I would have used tracking on this flight had it been allowed.

Having tracking would have changed the contest in a huge number of ways this year; For example, carbon tubing would be tough to use because it is not radio transparent -- so if you used carbon, you'd have to go with heavier materials for at least part of the rocket. Additionally, the tracker would likely not survive a streamer descent, which several folks employed. Finally, the tracker has a long antenna, meaning a longer airframe is probably needed. Roll all that together, and you get a rocket that is heavier, longer, etc. and it wouldn't have gone near as high. Possibly not high enough... to need a tracker?

This is an interesting game of chess.

JW

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have used tracking in a heartbeat. Looking at some data, I could have probably fit a tracker into my airframe relatively easily (perhaps a slight extension would be needed, but nothing significant), and run the antenna into the plastic NC. As for damage, I could have easily fit a parachute had I not been as concerned about losing it. It is an interesting balancing act though...

You know, the old expression... "Put up or shut up?" Well, since I smashed my rocket into a wall carrying it up stairs the night before the launch, big mouth here, could not put it up. 🙁 I could have epoxied the fin back on, but that would have been unsafe. And from that point, it's my call whether the rocket is safe to fly. And, it wasn't. But I really like this contest and may actually get a rocket to a tower without destroying it next year. 🙂 I'll just watch out for walls, and use CF. I have a great CF tube that I'd like to use, just a little over minimum diameter. I don't care if anyone uses a transimitter or sonic device. I hate to see a MAWD bite the dust or get lost. Just my opinion... I'll shut up now. 😉

Much as I'm bummed that my rocket is sitting unrecovered on the prairie, I have to agree with John (who core sampled his SSS bird). The lack of tracking is an issue that lends spice to the contest. However, I will disagree with him that the tracker transmitter won't survive a streamer landing. In fact, I believe that the transmitter would have survived the recovery you had if you'd had it properly packaged in the bird.

Personally, I'd like to see the G80 Single Shot Sweepstakes repeated in '07 with no change in rules. I'd also like to see the Super Single Shot Sweepstakes repeated. I have a bird for it, but it isn't ready for this year. Congrats to Ed Dawson who so far has the only qualifying flight.

Warren

I would love to see the SSSS again as well, although perhaps spice it up next year and make the J570 the motor of choice?

If the SSS is repeated without tracking, I may just enter the SSSS instead. I don't want to lose another altimeter 🙄

Also, I need a good excuse to make some 38mm CF tubing and a full on, performance 38mm bird 😉 8)

You KNOW our birds are all going to turn up... and I can tell you that I had two RRC2X's that laid in the sun for 16 months and they both work fine.

Warren

Okay, while I promised to shut up... 🙂 c'mon, guys... in time all rockets and altimeters will be found. The contest is great. Warren, keep 'em as they are.

I really liked having the two versions of the SSC.

This way we can cater to both those that want to keep the costs down as well as have a higher performance challenge. Something to stimulate the creativity and force us to push a little harder. Altitude junkies can always enter both.

In terms of creativity, what about a contest that is the most altitude for a given amount of Newton-seconds. For example, how many feet can you get for 3000Ns - any number of rockets, any number of motors - as long as it does not exceed the given limit. You would have to declare all your planned shots in advance and any misses or catos cannot be repeated.

I would have to think this through a little further, but perhaps there is a contest here. Another idea could be that you could only use one of each letter class (so you don't fly 50 G motors - but maybey that's good).

Thoughts???

That could end up interesting as well, although that would probably give an advantage to the multi-staged stuff which involves MUCH more complexity and effort...

I think that next year, the contest of choice for me will be the SSSS. More power, tracking, and the added challenge of keeping it together at speeds approaching mach 2...

I really hope you're right about them turning up - mine was pretty small, and there might not be another launch up north until mayhem...

We'll have to see I guess - if I get it back, I would LOVE to see the data.

John and I had a little one on one contest last year with J570's and I'm here to tell you that you're talking 15K to 17K with almost any serious attempt at a minimum diameter bird for that motor. You're also talking near Mach 2 if not exceeding it... serious stuff. I'm inclined to think that the J350 version of the contest will be tough enough for a year or two to come.

Warren

That was kind of the idea behind suggesting it actually - make it a bit more extreme, and also perhaps spur someone into making a new J altitude record 🙂

The J350 is definitely already difficult, though, no question...

Much will be determined by the BATFE and their actions over the coming months. If things don't settle out soon, we may all be flying G80s and hybrids. J350s and J570s may be a distant memory.

Ed, I'm sorry your bird didn't turn up yesterday, you had a great design that obviously did well.

I like these contests because they force us all to step up and exert ourselves. As an example, the first year we did the Icarus contest, we set the target altitude at 10K. The "I" record at the time was ~6,400'! At the end of the season, two of us broke 10K -- DQing ourselves in the process. I believe 4 or 5 of us broke 9K. We were pretty smart when we aimed for 10K. It made us *all* better flyers.

If we do decide to do a contest, I'd like to pick a motor that we can buy from Tim Thomas so we can support those who support us.

JW

Well said, JW. But who among us knows, when all the BATFE stuff settles down, where we'll be? TRA & NAR didn't sound as optimistic as they usually sound. The last post mentioned that we should be prepared for the worst, that all in this safe hobby may have to have LEUP's in order to fly. Unless, I was misreading that. That being said, I go with what Tim Thomas can do and what JamesR says can be one. I trust them both. Period.

That could end up interesting as well, although that would probably give an advantage to the multi-staged stuff which involves MUCH more complexity and effort...

And, aren't complexity and effort what make a contest? Even if you can't make it out to the pad with everything attached? 😳 Warren, these two contests are great, SSS & SSSS, as is. Everyone knew going in that they had the chance of losing their MAWD's in the short term. We all mentioned it online. Not an issue. There was nothing unclear in your rules. At least, as JW pointed out, we should be able to fly G80's. 🙂 Don't change a good thing.