Gravity Vehicle C

[bearasauras]

That's what I get for not reading the embedded quotes - I didn't catch the context of the section 7 comment.

As for your first comment, do you really mean to say that you see no categorical difference between the old Mission and the new? In the old Mission, competitors made whatever devices they wished. In the new, they chose from a list. Both were fine events, but IMO we are seeing fewer and fewer open-ended events like the old Mission and Scrambler, and more and more in the mold of Bridge and Helicopter. There is nothing wrong with those events, but there is nothing wrong with the "build whatever you want to accomplish the task" events, either. Variety is a good thing, IMO, and I am saddened to see it reduced. I am not sure how this demonstrates a narrowness of perspective on my part.

By old Mission, do you mean back when the forms of energy were separated into 5 categories (mechanical, EM, electrical, etc) and you get 10 points each time you use a different type of energy (up to like 3 of times)? If so, the problem with that is people would find the most reliable form of each of the different types of energy and put them into a module then replicate that module. This was a really effective way to do build their Mission because they have a total of 5 different energy transfer (plus the starting and ending tasks) in their entire Mission. They then have a number of these identical modules as spares that they can just interchange if they wanted to. While it may seem open ended in reality, people were just using the same thing over and over.

[chalker7]

By old Mission, do you mean back when the forms of energy were separated into 5 categories (mechanical, EM, electrical, etc) and you get 10 points each time you use a different type of energy (up to like 3 of times)? If so, the problem with that is people would find the most reliable form of each of the different types of energy and put them into a module then replicate that module. This was a really effective way to do build their Mission because they have a total of 5 different energy transfer (plus the starting and ending tasks) in their entire Mission. They then have a number of these identical modules as spares that they can just interchange if they wanted to. While it may seem open ended in reality, people were just using the same thing over and over.

Also, these tremendously open-ended events led to a huge number of clarifications, arbitrations and safety issues (in addition to scaring off new teams who have no idea where to start). While I enjoyed the old mission rules, I kind of shudder to think about some of the things we were doing to both build and run those devices.

Finally, I simply fail to see how requiring a ramp is qualitatively any different from requiring a gravity powered launcher, self-contained gravity powered launcher, non-metallic elastic, electric motor or mousetrap propulsion. While it is conceptually more simple, restrictions on energy have always been a part of the vehicle events, it's just a different variable you have to optimize every year.

[Flavorflav]

I'm sure it is true that most teams only invented five devices and then built each three times, but that is still five more devices than they invented under the most recent rules. To reiterate, I do not think that any of these were bad events - the last incarnation of Mission and this Gravity Vehicle are both worthy engineering events. I'm just hoping that somewhere down the line there will be room in Olympiad for invention again.

[chalker]

There is nothing wrong with those events, but there is nothing wrong with the "build whatever you want to accomplish the task" events, either. Variety is a good thing, IMO, and I am saddened to see it reduced. .

You're absolutely right. We decided the task we wanted teams to accomplish is to utilize a ramp to launch a vehicle as quickly and accurately as possible. We look forward to there being a wide variety of designs that accomplish this.

Note I think we approached this event differently from what you think we did. When we first started discussing it, we started talking about energy sources for the vehicle and what we could do that was different from the past. Energy gained from rolling down a ramp was what we decided upon. It appears you are thinking the fundamental task is just a vehicle that moves a certain distance as quickly and accurately as possible, but that is not what we intended.

[Flavorflav]

Pretty much - I don't know if it was just the name or if it was something either you or your brother said, but I had formed the belief that this event would be Scrambler without the egg, which I was very happy about. I seem to have ruffled some feathers, which was not my intent. My personal disappointment is probably not of general interest to the thread, though, so perhaps we should move on?

[Danny Smith]

For sombody who was lucky enough to have already recieved their rules manual, what are the maximum demensions on the ramp? Also, are there any restrictions on length/size of the vehicle?

[Flavorflav]

100 cm height x 75 cm x 75 cm. Vehicle track max 35 cm, mass max 2.5 kg.

[starpug]

Pretty much - I don't know if it was just the name or if it was something either you or your brother said, but I had formed the belief that this event would be Scrambler without the egg, which I was very happy about. I seem to have ruffled some feathers, which was not my intent. My personal disappointment is probably not of general interest to the thread, though, so perhaps we should move on?

There was quite a bit of speculation when official lists came out, I'm pretty sure the rumor about it being scrambler without the egg was started there. It's probably located somewhere in that 2011-2012 Thread.

[illusionist]

Meter tall ramps?!

Hmm, that would be perfect for a brachistochrone curve....

[chia]

Why did I always used to think Mousetrap/Wheeled/Whatever Vehicle wouldn't be interesting? This sounds like fun!
...Darn it. Now I'm interested in too many events instead of not enough.