Gravity Vehicle C

bearasauras
Member
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: March 4th, 2003, 8:33 pm
State: CA
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby bearasauras » September 3rd, 2011, 10:31 am

lol bear, "nerdatlife" :lol:

Anyways, yeah chalker(i think it was 7) is right. Besides winner, why would you assume that breaks are not allowed...?
Oh no illusionist, trust me, breaks are allowed. Rarely do I do this, but I'll quote the rules here: "7d. Event Supervisors are allowed to break any competitors' devices"

User avatar
illusionist
Member
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
Division: C
State: MI

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby illusionist » September 3rd, 2011, 10:40 am

I feel like an idiot, I went and looked at last year's mousetrap rules =P
2012-2013 Building Event Captain
Rule 7d. "Event Supervisors are allowed to break any competitors' devices" -bearasauras

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2091
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby chalker » September 3rd, 2011, 8:40 pm


Sooooo... braking mechanism please? :roll:
I agree with Chalker7; just wait until you see the rules. You can complain after that.

I'd like to offer a counter proposal. Get all your complaining in now. Once you see the printed rules no more complaining is allowed;)

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2091
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby chalker » September 3rd, 2011, 8:48 pm

lol bear, "nerdatlife" :lol:

Anyways, yeah chalker(i think it was 7) is right. Besides winner, why would you assume that breaks are not allowed...?
Oh no illusionist, trust me, breaks are allowed. Rarely do I do this, but I'll quote the rules here: "7d. Event Supervisors are allowed to break any competitors' devices"

Shoot.. it looks like we have discovered our first misprint.. I just checked and all of section 7 was accidentally omitted from the rules. Looks like we'll have to have an official clarification be posted ;)

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

User avatar
illusionist
Member
Member
Posts: 942
Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
Division: C
State: MI

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby illusionist » September 4th, 2011, 6:58 am


Sooooo... braking mechanism please? :roll:
I agree with Chalker7; just wait until you see the rules. You can complain after that.

I'd like to offer a counter proposal. Get all your complaining in now. Once you see the printed rules no more complaining is allowed;)
Will the rules be that disappointing? :?
2012-2013 Building Event Captain
Rule 7d. "Event Supervisors are allowed to break any competitors' devices" -bearasauras

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby Flavorflav » September 7th, 2011, 6:29 am

I always like it better when the rules establish parameters but leave the actual designing up to the students.
There's nothing in the rules that specify the design of the ramp, just the 'parameters' that a ramp must be used and fit within certain dimensions. We decided that the fundamental aspect of this event is to utilize a ramp to launch a vehicle. It's no different than in the past where we established 'parameters' such as using a mousetrap or electric motor to launch vehicles.

Taking your argument to the extreme, I guess you don't like any of the tower building or the flying events like helicopters and wright stuff because they specify specific 'design' criteria that must be met, such as certain weights, dimensions, materials, etc etc.
There is place for events in which competitors are required to build a specific device. It is my contention that there is also a place for events in which a goal is established, but the specific device to be constructed is left up to students. Whatever the variety of ramps that is produced, it would be difficult to argue that it would as great as the variety of ramps, hammers, pulleys, spring launchers, crossbows and what have you. Scrambler was my favorite event of all time, marred only by the element of luck introduced by the egg, and I was very much hoping that this event would be Scrambler without the egg - thus my disappointment. I am not at all saying that this is a bad event - just not the one I was hoping for.

I am curious about section 7, though - traditionally, scoring has been the last section of the rules, and scoring is section 6. What was supposed to be in section 7?

Also, I assume the the "inside edge" of the tape referred to in 4.b refers to the edge of the tape closest to the Target Point. Does the Launch Area referred to in 4.c begin at the inside edge of the tape, or the outside edge?

chalker7
Member
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: September 27th, 2010, 5:31 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby chalker7 » September 7th, 2011, 6:51 am

I always like it better when the rules establish parameters but leave the actual designing up to the students.
There's nothing in the rules that specify the design of the ramp, just the 'parameters' that a ramp must be used and fit within certain dimensions. We decided that the fundamental aspect of this event is to utilize a ramp to launch a vehicle. It's no different than in the past where we established 'parameters' such as using a mousetrap or electric motor to launch vehicles.

Taking your argument to the extreme, I guess you don't like any of the tower building or the flying events like helicopters and wright stuff because they specify specific 'design' criteria that must be met, such as certain weights, dimensions, materials, etc etc.
There is place for events in which competitors are required to build a specific device. It is my contention that there is also a place for events in which a goal is established, but the specific device to be constructed is left up to students. Whatever the variety of ramps that is produced, it would be difficult to argue that it would as great as the variety of ramps, hammers, pulleys, spring launchers, crossbows and what have you. Scrambler was my favorite event of all time, marred only by the element of luck introduced by the egg, and I was very much hoping that this event would be Scrambler without the egg - thus my disappointment. I am not at all saying that this is a bad event - just not the one I was hoping for.

I am curious about section 7, though - traditionally, scoring has been the last section of the rules, and scoring is section 6. What was supposed to be in section 7?

Also, I assume the the "inside edge" of the tape referred to in 4.b refers to the edge of the tape closest to the Target Point. Does the Launch Area referred to in 4.c begin at the inside edge of the tape, or the outside edge?

I think you are looking at SO events very differently than the majority of participants and supervisors, with a much narrower view. In my mind, ALL of the building events set up a goal and impose a set of design restrictions. Just because the event didn't fit your expectations doesn't mean it won't produce a wide variety of results and be interesting.

There is no section 7....it was a joke.

As for the tape thing, I think the printed rules make that answer clear (having just looked at them), but if you are still confused you should submit an official clarification once that page goes live for the year.
National event supervisor - Wright Stuff, Helicopters
Hawaii State Director

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby Flavorflav » September 7th, 2011, 8:15 am

:oops: 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.

twototwenty
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 292
Joined: March 24th, 2011, 10:28 am
Division: Grad
State: NY

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby twototwenty » September 7th, 2011, 8:55 am

I'm sorry if this has already been answered, but what is the overall purpose of the vehicle?

bearasauras
Member
Member
Posts: 381
Joined: March 4th, 2003, 8:33 pm
State: CA
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Postby bearasauras » September 7th, 2011, 9:18 am

Teams design, build and test one vehicle and ramp that uses gravitational potential energy as the vehicle's sole means of propulsion to reach a Target Point as quickly, as accurately and as close to their predicted time as possible.


Return to “2012 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests