I was just looking for a new project, in the usual place... Ninfinger's site, of course... and noticed that the rockets in the old catalogs didn't have skill levels.

A little informal research shows that Estes listed a "degree of challenge" from 1 to 5 in their 1971 catalog. In the 1973 catalog, it's called "skill level" for the first time. Centuri didn't use skill levels until the 1975 catalog.

Who came up with this (obviously useful) idea? I had assumed, incorrectly it seems, that skill levels were as old as the hobby itself. I see that I am wrong.

I got into rocketry in 1976, and I just assumed that the things in the Centuri catalog (which I read and re-read until it fell apart) had been graven in stone for years. All the information in the catalog was presented as such incontrovertible facts that it seemed obvious that they had been known forever.

Evidently not. But the very first catalog in which they appeared gave no explanation, no "look at our new cool system!" such as I would expect nowadays.

I guess I'm rambling. It just struck me funny...

__________________
NAR # 115523
Once upon a better day... SAM #0076
My site: http://rocketry.gonnerman.org

A very interesting subject to me Solo. I don't know much about the history of skill levels as I missed the first 40 years of the sport. The Apogee Newsletter #31 is an interesting read on this subject so here is the link:

http://www.apogeerockets.com/educat...ewsletter31.pdf

I use this information to try and figure out what certain skills I have missed of skipped over in my few years in the sport. Clusters I thinlk I have finally figured out but stageing motors I just ahve a hard time visualizing the connections .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Many years ago, I spoke with Dane Boles who was with Estes for nearly 20 years.

He told me the Skill Level program was nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to increase sales.

The hobby shops loved it as it gave customers 'goals' to reach (Skill Level 1 through 5). The Skill Level plan also worked for the more expensive kits (The highest skill level kits were usually the most expensive).

Estes was pretty good, at first, in assigning skill levels that did match the difficulty of building/flying a specific rocket but, now, it seems the assigning of skill levels to Estes kits is a bit haphazard.

However, 'Skill Levels' for hobby rocket kits is a 'given', now. The hobby industry views skill levels as an important piece of marking for model rocket kits (And plastic models, etc.). When I was at AeroTech, we presented our rocket kits to the hobby industry and we were told that the kits HAD to have skill level ratings on the packaging or distributors would not stock the product. We put skill levels on the packaging for the kits even though it was pretty pointless as AeroTech kits are, maybe, skil level three at the most difficult.

Today, Skill Levels are all about marketing and sales. Nothing else.

Bob

I would rate Aerotech kits as a high 2 or low 3 for skill level if using the old rating method used by Estes in the Mid 70's through the late 80's.
Probably closer to a 2 considering most parts snap fit into each other and it takes little to no model building experience to achive a well completed model.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

Funny, I was just thinking of this very subject the other day! I remember(one of the few remaining memories of those by-gone days) going to the hobby store and looking at these cool kits that were rated as skill level 5(mainly the Saturn V)..I was under the impression at the time that I HAD to work my way up to that skill level. That I HAD to build so many skill level 1's and then 2's, etc I always wanted to get the Sat V but kept holding off cause 'I haven't even done a skill level 3 kit yet, I can't do a skill level 5 kit!', plus the price- dad kept telling me 'that's a pretty expensive kit son'...lol..

__________________
Jon
SAM #0396
BAR 02/07
NAR 86940
KF4GUL
Aim high, fly straight!

I would say that Bob Cannon, the former Estes educational director might have had a hand in the skill levels.

Bob was a great guy and worked very hard at what he did at Estes, his passing left a huge void there.

I will try to find out more next week if anyone really knows or not.

I think the Skill level system is the WORST thing that ever happened to Model Rocketry.

I can't tell you how many kids have told me over the years that "I can't build *that* rocket. It's a skill level 3!"

It's a bunch of horsepucky, I tell yas!

__________________
Roy
nar12605

Well, I'm prone to disagree with that. I believe that reasonably applied skill levels are a big help when choosing a kit. Kits like the Outlander are much more difficult than a Baby Bertha, for instance, and choosing an Outlander would be a big mistake for a beginner.

__________________
NAR # 115523
Once upon a better day... SAM #0076
My site: http://rocketry.gonnerman.org

I remember getting my Estes Little Joe II in 1969, opening it up, looking at the parts and the instructions, and thinking, "Gee, this is going to be tricky." It was just the 5th kit that I had ever bought and built. (It was also the last rocket that I built for the next 34 years, but the difficulty level had nothing to do with that.)

The early catalogs do look like they attempted to provide some clues about the difficulty of the kits within the text description, but I think that the illustrations actually said more. The pictures usually told you as much as you would need to know. Besides me, does anyone else think that the kit pictures in the Estes and Centuri catalogs from the mid 60's through most of the 70's were noticeably more vivid and detailed than those of later years? Although it was a gradual change, doesn't it seem like the simplification of the catalog illustrations coincide with the addition of skill levels in the text (text is cheaper to print than pictures)? Then again, maybe this is just a spurious coincidence?

When I came back to the hobby and saw Skill Levels on kits, I didn't know what they meant. While I do think that Royalt makes a good and valid point, I suspect that the considerations that Solo mention were what drove this change in the end. In a way, you could see it as an effort to be truthful in the packaging, providing a small clue about how involved the project was going to be. If adding three little words to the outside of the packaging would prevent customers (and their parents or teachers) from flooding Customer Assistance with calls complaining about being deceived about how involved the model's construction was going to be, then it must have looked like it would be a very cost-effective change. And I would guess that product package and label design is indeed a marketing issue.

Mark

__________________
SAM # 0011

Roy,

The skill levels spurred my daughter to want to work her way up the skill levels. So while they may be an impediment to some kids, they can be an inspiration to others.

I think Flis and Semroc and Starlight do a good job of trying to let consumers know how relatively difficult a kit is to build.

Estes' skill levels, on the other hand, are all over the map. Some are meant to describe how difficult the kit is to build while others designate how much experience the user should have to launch the rocket. An Estes Eliminator is listed at the same level as the 1350 Interceptor. A Wizard and a Rubicon are the same level.

I really wish Estes would do a better job of assigning skill levels.