FREDERICK, Maryland USA — Every year, the National Association of Rocketry accepts proposals for changes to the United States Model Rocket Sporting Code, more commonly known as the Pink Book, through the Rules Revision Process, where contest rules revisions are considered and voted upon.

The Rules Revision Process is the method by which changes are made to the Pink Book, and this process for a regular rules revision is detailed in Appendix F.  In summary, the process involves:

1. NAR member submits a Rule Change Proposal (RCP) form to the Rules Revision Chairman (RRC).
2. The RRC reviews the RCP to ensure it does not violate the NAR Safety Code.
3. The RRC will send the author an acknowledgment of receipt in a timely manner.
4. RCPs are published for member review.
5. Members submit comments to the RRC.
6. RCPs and comments are published online with a voting ballot.
7. NAR members vote on RCPs by submitting ballots to the RRC.
8. RCPs which receive a 2/3 majority are approved and are included in an upcoming Pink Book revision.

This year's RCP proposals consists of four submissions. The first proposal, RCP #2007-701, was originally submitted by Bob Kaplow as a safety proposal prior to NARAM-49 where it failed to pass, therefore it is now being included with the proposals within the normal RCP cycle.

The proposal called for the deletion of the D through G category of Super-Roc Altitude and Duration.  Kaplow's reasoning was that with current composite motors, the event is a delicate balancing act between having a model that will work, requiring unsafe and prohibited materials, and having a model that meets the contest events requirements but will fail in flight.  The argument was made that if you built by the rules, you wouldn't be competitive.  To be competitive, you would have to bend or even break the rules, resulting in models that would fail or models that were unsafe.

RCP #2007-702 called for a change promoting FAI-styled contest events in the U.S. Submitted by Trip Barber, this proposal suggested adding the appropriate rules and event classes to permit those events which are currently being flown at the World Spacemodeling Championships (WSMC) under international (FAI) rules to be flown as contest events in the U.S.

According to Barber, fliers in the United States do not regularly compete under the FAI rules, so U.S.-based teams find themselves disadvantaged when they go abroad to compete in the WSMC every two years. Barber proposes adding to the Pink Book the most popular of those 8 FAI events that are officially designated as the events that must be flown at the WSMC events. "This will give US modelers wishing to develop the skills to compete internationally the ability to practice these events in NAR contests," read Barber's submission.

Tom Lyon submitted two proposals, RCP #2007-703 aimed at allowing the use of electronic altimeters in altitude events and RCP #2007-704, a change in the contest point system.

The first proposal called for allowing the use of "NAR contest approved" electronic altimeters for altitude events to those contest directors/sections that do not have or can't use theodolites needed for optical tracking.  Under his proposal, theodolites would remain as the preferred method, but called for altimeters to be used as an alternative method for reporting altitude, although Lyon recommended that both methods not be used at the same time.

The second proposal called for removing the meet classifications for Regional, Open, and Section/Local Meets and just having one classification called "Meets". Rationale was that there have been increasing complaints about some clubs "holding scripted but legitimate regionals" with a small group but no real competition involved, claiming it was used to accumulate large point totals for both the competitor and the section. Lyon's reasoning was to level the playing field for all competitors.

Jim Filler, the NAR Rules Revision Chair, has announced the comment period for this year's proposed changes, which officially ends on February 15th, 2008.  Every NAR member has the right to make an official comment on the proposals, and your comments should be sent to Filler via email at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it , or via USPS regular mail to:

Jim Filler
NAR Rules Revision Chair
6715 B Overton Circle #13
Frederick, MD 21703

You must include your name and NAR member number with your comments, and the comments must be received by the deadline.  Once all of the comments are collected, they will be published online at the NAR web site for members to vote, which requires a 2/3 (66%)  affirmative vote for approval, to officially become a part of the Pink Book effective for the new contest year beginning July 1, 2008.  Any new changes will have no bearing on the NARAM-50 event. Anyone wishing to submit an RCP can do so by completing the form at: http://www.nar.org/competition/pinkbookrcpform.html

Document: Rules Revision Process 2007-2008 (33Kb Adboe PDF)

01-09-2008 06:52 AM  #1
agrippo Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 71	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Re: The first proposal, RCP #2007-701 Is Kaplow on the mark with this? Seems to me it's a "What If" change and if so then it's not needed. The whole point of the competition is to be the person that overcomes the design challenges and come out on top. Re: RCP #2007-702 I couldn't agree more with Barber. The US has been at a disadvantage for years due in large part to the lack of experience. The only disagreement I have with the proposal is that instead of having only certain events I would have them all. Re: RCP #2007-703 I fully believe altimeters should be allowed at events but not until there is a system in place for calibration and verification of results of each one. There are too many folks out there that can and will cheat to come out ahead. I wonder what is the reasoning behind not allowing both methods at the same time. Dare I say that it might be so one method can't be used to keep an eye on the other... Re: RCP #2007-704 I agree with this one as well, I know it's hard to believe someone running a NAR contest would cheat just to give themselves, their kid or their friends a leg up but I wonder sometimes about the launches I see listed as regional competitions. Obviously Tom Lyon is on to something here and maybe Darrell could get him to do an investigative report and then these scams could be exposed. Discussion and comments please. Andrew Grippo

01-09-2008 08:32 AM  #2
H_rocket Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 258	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Re: The first proposal, RCP #2007-701 I could not disagree more with this proposal and have formally submitted my comments. We need to do everything possible to foster any bridges between LPR fliers and HPR fliers. This already failed once on the grounds of being a safety hazard and this attempt looks like an end run. As Agrippo said above this is a "What If" scenario. There is no documentation attached to demonstrate any hazard, and if you want to see a completely safe example of a G SuperRoc done by an 8 year old girl, check this out http://www.catorockets.org...a%20S%20G%20Superroc.mpg If there is a safety problem, make a change in the rules requiring increased safe distance.

01-09-2008 08:37 AM  #3
tbrogan Certified Level Two   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 85	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments I have not flown in a NAR contest yet, but have been in attendence at several. The SuperRoc G was probably the coolest of all of them and should not be eliminated! One, the cool factor is way up there for kids and adults alike, excellent way of bringing in new people. Two, the size of them, to me lends to a safe self destructing flight if that occurs. It's not like some little plastic brick that is going to zip off and have everyone diving for cover. They just seem to fold up and gracefully fall down. When they work, they are really something to see! I would also agree with Agrippo on the design end of it, build something different that functions correctly and survives. Someone can come out of the box with a new design and win big points. I think we (THE NAR) should be pushing design innovation instead of squashing it under the guise of a "possible" safety issue. Has anyone been hurt by one of these models yet? Stop allowing the plastic pre-fab darts to be flown and get back to safe cardboard and balsa models. As far as the use of of altimiters, 'bout time! Why not pick one or two vendors like TARC, meet with them regarding calibration proceedures and testing. I would think the smaller and lighter the better, no need for pyros and smaller batteries instead the larger ones. My guess on using the two devices at the same time would be, which one is correct (primary) and what if there is a huge difference between the two? As far as the WSMC, I have no real intrest in it, except that we should be on an equal playing field. Didn't the last one take place like in the middle of the Gulag or some godforsaken place like that? If you have to cheat to win a model rocketry event, well I think that just speaks for itself!! Just publish all the names with photos in the next issue of the Model Rocketeer, oh wait they did away with that. Just publish them on the website, nope don't update that either.....uhmm Sport Rocketry? I got it, put them on TRF, except they would probably pull the post! Anyhow, leave the SuperRocs alone & add the altimeters - the other two, eh.

01-09-2008 09:24 AM  #4
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 1732	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments I don't agree with first proposal either. Obviously the concern here is the use of composite materials to produce very stiff, lightweight parts that could result in injury. The event remains among the most coolest and most challenging of all, but could use some reworking, not elimination. Re Proposal 3 re the use of altimeters--hear, hear! Its high time for the NAR to come out of the stone ages re their use in general competition. One of the big obstacles to running altitude events is the need for theos, personnel, and communications to make it all work. I understand that the cost is prohibitive to some, and suggest that maybe clubs could make them rentable--in fact maybe everyone should draw from the same pool which would allay fears re cheating. The costs of theos, radios, etc is not inconsiderable, and for most clubs buying 4 or 5 low cost loggers could be defrayed over time by adding a 2 buck rental cost. This would function as insurance so that some 13 year old doesn't have to worry about a 60 dollar bill if s/he drops or loses one. And yes to four--as Jerry and I have commented on the other NAR thread, there is just too much of an advantage to those in dense areas or rigging having too many "regionals"--ie Rainbow Valley 2 years ago.

01-09-2008 12:39 PM  #5
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 2135	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: I wonder what is the reasoning behind not allowing both methods at the same time. Dare I say that it might be so one method can't be used to keep an eye on the other... How do you calibrate a theodolite reading? I mean, how accurate is the measurement taken? There is no doubt that the math behind triangulated measurements is accurate, given accurate input, but does human error exist in altitudes tracked by theodolite? I can imagine that the difference in human reading vs. altimeter reading could open up a very heated disagreement in the numbers. The thought of a club, making a bulk purchase from a certified altimeter manufacturer, of enough altimeters for their normal contest fliers, then doling them out by random pick after a small non-refundable deposit seems like a workable arrangement. But is the purpose of the competition (and the use of theodolites) to teach math to the competitors, or is it to teach competition, or both? Which is more important? Accuracy, and fairness in the competition is important, but so are the skills necessary to compete. I like the math aspect, but I guess I could go either way on this one.

01-09-2008 07:58 PM  #6
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 555	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments As a former Pink Book lawyer, I do not follow the current rule changes as I used to. But I do know this. Trip Barber has yet to make a proposal I disagree with. Further the USA being xenophobes tends to not care about the rest of the world, especially not the obscure world of FAI rocketry contests. As such, and since our technology rocks, we should at least have the very best internats materials and motors theoretically possible. I have been rebuffed on that before, but perhaps a wish list and a person to contact to approve scheduled commercial deliveries would solve that problem forever. Just Jerry

01-09-2008 08:46 PM  #7
tedcochran55409 NAR Trustee   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 46	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: Re: The first proposal, RCP #2007-701 This already failed once on the grounds of being a safety hazard ... If there is a safety problem, make a change in the rules requiring increased safe distance. Just to be clear (and I know H_rocket knows the score; it was just worded a little confusingly): The submitter followed existing procedure and submitted it as an emergency RCP on safety grounds. The safety committee declined to endorse it on those grounds, reasoning that the event has been flown safely in the past; that RSOs exist to rule on the safety of individual designs, and that the whole idea of Superroc is to reward successful solutions to challenging problems. So it already failed once on the grounds of NOT being a safety hazard. --tc Chair, NAR Safety Committee

01-09-2008 09:03 PM  #8
H_rocket Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 258	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments It's official, my brain now hurts...

01-09-2008 09:22 PM  #9
tbrogan Certified Level Two   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 85	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: Just to be clear (and I know H_rocket knows the score; it was just worded a little confusingly): The submitter followed existing procedure and submitted it as an emergency RCP on safety grounds. The safety committee declined to endorse it on those grounds, reasoning that the event has been flown safely in the past; that RSOs exist to rule on the safety of individual designs, and that the whole idea of Superroc is to reward successful solutions to challenging problems. So it already failed once on the grounds of NOT being a safety hazard. --tc Chair, NAR Safety Committee so if it failed at not being a safety hazard, then it seems........... Quote: The argument was made that if you built by the rules, you wouldn't be competitive. To be competitive, you would have to bend or even break the rules, resulting in models that would fail or models that were unsafe. .............that the point is that they cannot be built to be competitive, they cannot be built without cheating, and once again....they cannot be built safely! So I guess all these years they have been built by losers, who cheat, and don't give a hoot about safety? Oh Lucy, you got lotsa 'splaining to do!! T

01-09-2008 09:40 PM  #10
tedcochran55409 NAR Trustee   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 46	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments I appear to have been unsuccessful at not making myself unclear . People can build and fly G superroc safely. Therefore I don't see the RCP as addressing a safety problem.

01-10-2008 12:14 AM  #11
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 1732	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: How do you calibrate a theodolite reading? I mean, how accurate is the measurement taken? There is no doubt that the math behind triangulated measurements is accurate, given accurate input, but does human error exist in altitudes tracked by theodolite? I can imagine that the difference in human reading vs. altimeter reading could open up a very heated disagreement in the numbers. The thought of a club, making a bulk purchase from a certified altimeter manufacturer, of enough altimeters for their normal contest fliers, then doling them out by random pick after a small non-refundable deposit seems like a workable arrangement. But is the purpose of the competition (and the use of theodolites) to teach math to the competitors, or is it to teach competition, or both? Which is more important? Accuracy, and fairness in the competition is important, but so are the skills necessary to compete. I like the math aspect, but I guess I could go either way on this one. Not sure about the math aspect here, Darrell. It would be great if everyone competing sat down and went thru the derivations, but its all pretty much cookbook at this point. Last time I was in a club that had such an event, number readings just went into a handheld calculator I programmed, and out spat the answer. With experienced trackers and good equipment, the accuracy of theos is superior to altimeters--usu good to within a couple of percent. There are definitely educational aspects to altimeter use as well obviously. But the big effect I see is an increase in altitude events which is very good for promoting rocket science aspects. Check the contest schedule and you'll see at present that they are relatively rare.

01-10-2008 06:32 AM  #12
tbrogan Certified Level Two   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 85	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: I appear to have been unsuccessful at not making myself unclear . People can build and fly G superroc safely. Therefore I don't see the RCP as addressing a safety problem. Clear as mud brother!! If it is not a safety issue, then it seems to fall back on his statement that they cannot be built competitively without cheating. The RCP is calling for the elimination for D through G superroc catagories, so only up to a C motor? Quiet please......is that an axe I hear ginding in the background?? This one is definitely getting a resounding NO vote. It is not only unnecessary, but I believe it was purposely written to be confusing and not clearly state his reasons.

01-14-2008 12:11 AM  #13
Adrian A Featherweight Altimeters   Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 86	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments As an altimeter manufacturer, I'm happy to see altimeters allowed for contests. Did I read correctly that they still wouldn't be allowed for record attempts? I think all of NAR's records above C are really low due to the optical requirements. Does anyone know what they had in mind in listing size as an issue in altimeter approval? Too big? Too small? And why should size be a factor in the approval process? To their list of altimeter requirements, I would suggest adding a requirement that the manufacturer provide at least the following data before approval: Altitude readings from 10 or more altimeters subjected to identical test conditions, demonstrating 0.5% or better standard deviation in scale factor A verification of 2% or better accuracy against an independent standard. Test data demonstrating that altimeter temperatures between 40 F and 100 F result in pressure scale factor variations of less than 2% (1%?) A description of how spurious data (from ejections or post-ejection tumbling) is prevented from affecting the maximum altitude reading. Here I would prefer to see that the altimeters are required to download the whole flight trajectory for review, but I can understand that reviewing that data might take too much time at a competition.

01-14-2008 09:03 AM  #14
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 1732	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Adrian, Not sure. IIRC two years ago at Narcon an R&D or independent study looked at a number of then comercially available altimeters and these were the most accurate/precise. May be wrong bout this as it's been a while.

01-14-2008 09:27 AM  #15
Adrian A Featherweight Altimeters   Joined: Nov 2007 Posts: 86	Re: NAR Pink Book changes available for member comments Quote: an R&D or independent study looked at a number of then comercially available altimeters and these were the most accurate/precise. If so, then they should pass with flying colors. I know that the requirements I proposed, above, are pretty easily achievable. But my main point is that any approval process for altimeters should have objective, verifiable requirements for accuracy. And the altimeters should be designed to report accurately in the typical operating conditions found in rocketry, including a reasonable range of temperatures, and the presence of transients caused by deployments.