Paddle Wheel Task

[losjackal]

Keeping with that thought could a team increase the size of the arbor where the string is attached to the wheel. Say it was 1/4" through the wheel and increased to 1/2" where the string attaches to the wheel.

The rules pretty clearly state the string must wrap around the axle.. I'm not sure that would be within the spirit of it.

I don't believe the rules prevent the entire axle from being 1/2" itself...someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[chalker]

So fundamentally, the spirit of the problem wants the axle of the paddle wheel at least 10cm+ above the ground, so the winding string can lift the mass from directly below.

What do people think about the winding string moving horizontally, hoisting a flagpole? The string could attach to the top of the flagpole (not sure about the length of travel necessary yet), or via lever action it could hoist the flagpole near the bottom if it has enough force. Either way, I think it's now introducing a lever to hoist the 10cm - 30cm, is it not? I would think that would be frowned upon just like a pulley, if my interpretation of the spirit is correct.

My unofficial response is yes, that would be frowned upon. But as I always say, this is not the place for official clarifications....

[chalker]

I don't believe the rules prevent the entire axle from being 1/2" itself...someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Unofficially, I'd think this is permissible under general rule #2: http://soinc.org/ethics_rules

[mattravn]

What we do respond to though are more generic questions such as "can a pulley be used as part of the final task condition #3" (as I indicated we've already answered several questions like that with a NO).

So we had some long discussions at the recent invitational with coaches and judges regarding the idea of having the string attached to the axel going to a pulley to the mass and I think that we came to the consensus that there is nothing in the stated rules that prohibits this idea.

For our current set up, we have a wheel with cups attached to a 1 cm axle. The string is attached directly to the axle so that when it turns it wraps around the axle. The string goes to a pulley attached to a cross bar at the top of the box which then connects down to the weight.

The rules in 4m say

2 - The paddle whell must be directly attached to an axle (no gearing, pulleys, counterweights, etc.)

3 - The turning axle must wrap a string around itself lifting a mass displaying the team's name at least 10 cm.....

4 - Teams must mark a line on device......

So as listed, the judges and coaches thought that if pulley or gear system were used between the wheel and axle there would be issues, but there is nothing in statement 3 that says the string cannot travel to a pulley. As always though, keep in mind that this is just an opinion of a group and it cannot be guaranteed that all judges would see it the same.

Has there been an official clarification on the wording in task 4m or an official response that would disallow the above description? I cannot find it if there has been.

[chalker]

Has there been an official clarification on the wording in task 4m or an official response that would disallow the above description? I cannot find it if there has been.

While we haven't published an official response on the website, we have directly responded to several questions along these lines. Here's an example of one of those recent responses:

"A pulley must not lift the mass. No pulley system! That is part of the challenge."

[mattravn]

Has there been an official clarification on the wording in task 4m or an official response that would disallow the above description? I cannot find it if there has been.

While we haven't published an official response on the website, we have directly responded to several questions along these lines. Here's an example of one of those recent responses:

"A pulley must not lift the mass. No pulley system! That is part of the challenge."

Hey Chalker,

So I think if a pulley is not to be allowed in the final task 4m part 3 that an official rule clarification needs to be issued. Based on the current wording, I think the use a pulley in task 4m part 3 is not clear cut since it is specifically excluded in part 2 but not mentioned in part 3.

That being said, I am not sure it is appropriate to be making such a change when regionals are only a few weeks away especially when I am not sure if all parties involved in the competition would be following the forums and/or see the official clarification in time to modify their design.

Sorry, I am not trying to be argumentative, I can actually modify our device fairly easily in either direction. But I think to be fair, this needs to either be done as an official clarification to remove any question for judges and coaches or its use in part 3 should not be excluded.

[chalker]

So I think if a pulley is not to be allowed in the final task 4m part 3 that an official rule clarification needs to be issued.

Here's a little secret.. we tend to not issue public FAQs unless there have been lots of similar questions or we think it's a really important issue. There obviously haven't been enough questions about pulleys yet since we haven't issued a 'public' response... but that could change were more submitted at soinc.org.......

this needs to either be done as an official clarification to remove any question for judges and coaches or its use in part 3 should not be excluded.

You've partially answered your own question here.. if you think there might be some question in the judges mind about this issue, why risk having the task dq'd by including it? It's clear there are different opinions on this matter... my general advice in these types of situations is to play it safe and not risk it with the event supervisors viewing something the way you don't want them to.

[Flavorflav]

So I think if a pulley is not to be allowed in the final task 4m part 3 that an official rule clarification needs to be issued.

Here's a little secret.. we tend to not issue public FAQs unless there have been lots of similar questions or we think it's a really important issue. There obviously haven't been enough questions about pulleys yet since we haven't issued a 'public' response... but that could change were more submitted at soinc.org.......

this needs to either be done as an official clarification to remove any question for judges and coaches or its use in part 3 should not be excluded.

You've partially answered your own question here.. if you think there might be some question in the judges mind about this issue, why risk having the task dq'd by including it? It's clear there are different opinions on this matter... my general advice in these types of situations is to play it safe and not risk it with the event supervisors viewing something the way you don't want them to.

I'd like to weigh in on the side of matttravn here. In NY, we have the rule that clarifications and FAQs issued more than two weeks before a tournament are binding, while those issued later are not. I will be judging this event in about a month, so unless a FAQ is published on this issue in the next two weeks I will feel compelled to allow pulleys and gearing after the mass, since as mattravn notes there is nothing in 4.m.3 which prohibits them. This means that any team which has asked for and received a reply from SOINC will be at a competitive disadvantage if they abide by your answer to their question. It would be a shame for teams to suffer because they tried to follow the rules, IMO.

[mattravn]

So I did send in a request for an official clarification and not just a personal answer on the above pulley in 4m part 3 question. I will post any response I get.

Cheers all.

[chalker7]

I'd like to weigh in on the side of matttravn here. In NY, we have the rule that clarifications and FAQs issued more than two weeks before a tournament are binding, while those issued later are not. I will be judging this event in about a month, so unless a FAQ is published on this issue in the next two weeks I will feel compelled to allow pulleys and gearing after the mass, since as mattravn notes there is nothing in 4.m.3 which prohibits them. This means that any team which has asked for and received a reply from SOINC will be at a competitive disadvantage if they abide by your answer to their question. It would be a shame for teams to suffer because they tried to follow the rules, IMO.

I'm admittedly biased right now, but I really don't get the confusion about this rule. 4.m.3 clearly states how the device should operate and neither 4.m.3 nor 4.m.5 mention anything about pulleys being permissible, in fact 4.m.5 seems to indicate the exact opposite (of course, in my personal opinion). I also don't think it's a competitive disadvantage, as you can certainly lift a tremendous amount of weight without using a pulley (we theorized over the summer that 40kg might be possible, albeit highly unlikely) and in fact may be at a disadvantage because of the extra amount of time it will take to lift the mass and the increased difficulty of lifting it 10/20/30cm. However, I would suggest everyone who still has some level of confusion to submit official clarifications about it.