No motor was decided upon leaving me to feel that the AT J350 would continue as the motor. Personallly I was thinking that it should be the K185... it's still an L2 motor after all.

The kitty has been rolled forward and amounts to $300 including this years 5 entrants. New rockets are required for the new year.

If you did not fly last year, you must pay again for this year.

No close date. Participants can register as many times as they wish until the end of the year at the last official launch of the NCR launch calender. A new rocket is required for each entry.

W

What ever happened to the idea of not just using one manufacture and narrowing it down to a range of total impulse from a given motor class.

That way people could design around different motors but still get or try to get the same results some how..

OK, I wasn't at the meeting (being geographically challenged) and hopefully this sort of debate occured at the meeting... but for my part, I'm not too keen on the "multiple rockets" thing. If I change a noseccone, is that a "new rocket"? if I trim a bit of the airframe back, is that, then, a "new rocket"? If someone flies a rocket in February, is anyone going to remember if they use the same or a different rocket in September? This rule seems utterly unenforceable to me. That is what brought on the whole "one-swing-at-the-plate" idealogy.

Allowing someone to slip in at the 11th hour after they see who has or hasn't flown, is or isn't in, etc. also seems very contrary to the spirit of the original contest.

Finally, as Doug will attest - when it is no longer a "single" shot event, then anyone traveling any distance is placed at a huge disadvantage. Were it a single flight, some of us would show up and go for it.

What happened to the original idea of rolling over the pot and allowing tracking?

If all these items were discussed, then I have no quarrel and lets go for it. That said, this contest bears little semblance to what ten fliers ponied up for last year, and now their funds are being used to finance something totally different.

I still wish some kid would have gone out with a Vulcanite and won last December with an 800' flight 😀

Sorry to ramble -

The rule for 2007, decided on with you, was multiple entries were allowed but a completely different rocket was required for each entry and a new entry fee for each. We haven't had to deal with that as hardly anyone flew a single entry, much less multiple entries.

Tracking is allowed this year. SSS motor is Roadrunner G80 as before.

Many things were discussed, but very few decided on at the annual meeting.

Warren

My brains must have been somewhere else or I must have misunderstood this when we discussed it -- I'm personally not in the "multiple rockets" corner. As noted, it raises lots of enforceability issues on what constitutes a "different" rocket. It also means there is really very little pressure on the flight. If it CATOs, you can do it again. If it is lost, you can do it again. If you get beaten, you can... do it again.

If this is what the club wants (and if this is what was agreed on at the meeting) then I'm way fine with it.

Finally, as Doug will attest - when it is no longer a "single" shot event, then anyone traveling any distance is placed at a huge disadvantage. Were it a single flight, some of us would show up and go for it.

John, I am even more to the right, or left, or what ever. I love the idea of truly a single attempt where everyone flies on the same weekend and only hold it for MHM or OF. Don't stretch it out of the entire year. It sounds like this contest is going more the way of just an altitude contest that you have to use a specific motor?

Doug

I'm open to whatever the consensus is.

No consensus was reached on the issue of impulse range vs. specific motor. No one has ever entered more than once. LOTS of people didn't fly because of the rule against tracking devices and I received many complaints from participants on that rule. I want the rules to be responsive to the membership participating so long as they don't weaken the difficulty in a significant way.

On one hand, I actually prefer Doug's idea - everybody flies on the same day. On the other, I like keeping flight date open to whatever as it allows the strategy John originally decided on when he created the contest a few years back. I personally would be happy either way.

It IS an altitude contest - without question. The rest of the rules just make things harder and more constrained.

Warren

It IS an altitude contest - without question. The rest of the rules just make things harder and more constrained.

Yes, but Warren it sounds like from the first post that these constraints are becoming less and less? Like John, I was "geographically challenged" so we were not there to listen in on the discussion.

Doug

If we were going to allow any G motor for the SSS, then someone could get on the club record board, win a Parrot altimeter, and win the SSS with one mostly-subsonic, long-burning shot.

Using the Roadrunner G80 keeps it as a distinct event from the record attempts, and avoids having the contestants find Ellis Mountain G-37 motors in order to be competitive.

I kind of like the idea of one entry per contestant per year, to keep it fair for the geographically challenged.

Again, I want to be responsive to the consensus of the membership.

I don't like the idea of impulse range instead of a specific motor. The use of a specific motor places everyone on the same level and is, I think, a fairer contest. No one can tweek a design to a completely different flight profile, everyone has to deal with the exact same motor and design for the best flight from it.

I'd be willing to entertain the idea of flying all the SSS shots on the same day. This year will be difficult for me personally though and probably John Wilke as well. MHM is too soon as we've only had 5 entrants so far. A much lower number than in previous years. (I'd like to see the pot top $400 if possible). Both myself and John Wilke will be missing Oktoberfest - John in Australia and myself on a river somewhere in Canyonlands.

Again, keep talking about this - I'm most definitely open to any changes in the rules that A) encourage more participation, B) Keep everyone competing on the same fair basis in terms of motor and overall rules and C) Maximize the prize pot.

Warren

If we want to maximize the prize pot, then $20 per entry, unlimited entries (including the same rocket), would enable a leapfrogging duel. But it might reduce the number of people would would be motivated to do it. It would also be not as much in keeping with the original contest that people paid in last year. I prefer the idea of it being truly a single shot; once it leaves the pad you're done.

I'm not sure that MHM is too soon. I would guess that part of the lack of entrants so far is that people could be waiting for sept-oct to see if they want to enter. That's what I'm doing, anyway. I could get a bird ready for MHM if I knew that was the day.

I guess I must have been asleep during that part of the meeting or at another meeting........ But I dont recall hearing multiple shots with different rockets and different fees. I agree completely with JW on that not being a fair deal not only to those that are geographically challenged but seems to me for some then its who has the most $$$ to invest vs someone that can only invest in 1 rocket be it time or money. I do think having it go for 1 year is just fine. To much going on especially on a MHM weekend or OF weekend to have ALL competitors do it on one day. Lots of what ifs. What if the launch gets washed out, or what if only half the people that were going to fly because the wind comes up in the afternoon or to many what ifs.

On the motor category, I still recall hearing the discussion of allowing more then just 1 manufacture. I had heard it would be discussed further.

Just picking 1 manufacture year after year isnt what I call fair either to flyers, Vendors or manufactures.. That may seem a little to the point and yes as I am trying to gear up to vend but I dont want that to sound wrong or be taken in the wrong context. It would be like saying only Missile Works altimeters can be used even though there are several TRA certified Altimeters.. Not everyone flys Missile works.. Nor does everyone fly Aerotech. It might create more participation. When this was brought up at the meeting I thought it sounded like the majority in the room was quite in favor of this idea. But thats just my feelings..

What ever is and has been decided on is fine.

For the SSS, the Roadrunner G80 is a good contest motor. It supports an alternative manufacturer and a local vendor, and it has pretty different characteristics from a typical altitude motor.

For the SSSS, maybe we could do something to support Conway's venture.

I agree about having more than 1 day for flying, for the reasons Conway gave. But next December seems really far off to me. Should we cut off this contest earlier?

Guys, I'm good with whatever y'all decide. I'll be there at MHM and would love to give my 20$ to someone 🙂 This will be nearly impossible to sort in this forum, though.

If there is one thing I want to get off my chest, it is that I feel like the first "S" in SSS should mean something... SINGLE. No Mulligans, no re-runs, no do-overs, just step up to the plate and swing the bat. That, to me, is part of the allure and challenge.

BTW, the reason we disallowed trackers a few years ago was because some in the club thought it gave an unfair advantage to those of us who used tracking. Hmmmmmmnnnnn....

It is a good contest, I'm game for whatever is decided. The key is that we must decide on the finer points, not have this evolve. If I'm going to fly at MHM, I need to think about designs, etc....