Tower Failure Rule Clarification :)

[chalker]

Let me ask.. Under this years rules, if the chain should touch the inside of the chimney, not the test base, as loading is occuring (it was not touching when it started), would it be fair to say this is not a failure because the tower is still holding the load?

Failure is explicitly defined in rule 5.j. I don't see anything in there about the chain touching the tower.....

[just4qs]

--jander14indoor and Balsa Man, you both have extremely valid points in that SO is a separate "world," and that "real world" applications do not apply here. Sometimes they are good to use as examples (like in Towers, we built our first-ever tower like an oil derrick {extremely heavy, but it held} because oil derricks are very strong), but examples should not be used to interpret the rules. It sounds to me like I have had VERY bad experiences with judging...because I haven't even told you some of the other really bad situations I've come up against, in both Jr & Sr. But, it is a learning experience. I'll definitely keep in mind that SO is in essence, another world, and like in virtual worlds, other cultures, etc, the rules of those worlds/cultures apply, and rules of other cultures/worlds don't work in those enviroments, because they weren't "made to fit." This competition is based on "letter of the law" NOT "spirit of the law." The rules are the rules...no exceptions.

It really is unfortunate that there is so much "interpretation" in this competition...but I guess it's all part of "free speech" and "freedom of thought" that we are privileged with here in America. It's not bad in itself, it just needs to be balanced.

Back to the tower...unfortunately...my tower was an epic fail. It was heavy (in comparison to the other competitors) and only held 13.53Kg before snapping (tear). I have absolutely no idea why it broke...so while I pray for an opportunity to go to state and try again (doubtful), I will be talking with a few city engineers about designs and have them watch the video of my tower. (I always video...if you are able to video, I would suggest it...you can learn a lot by watching where your tower broke.) Usually, I have an educated guess on why it broke...no clue this time. We had a different judge, who did a very good job, and knew his rule book. No issues what-so-ever. Many thanks goes out to him!

Thank you all for your opinions. Next time I will try and avoid asking for clarifications here...sounds like I stepped (or typed) on a few toes. That was never my intention. I was upset at the time about the unfairness of the situation, and came here for help. I now know who to talk to and what to do if another situation like this comes up. Unfortunately, often it's the courage to oppose the event supervisor (judge) that I lack. As my mom said, "You probably only jumped in so quick at the Jr. Competition because it was your sister, and your instinct is to defend her. When it's just you...well, it's just different." Anyone else have that problem?
Good luck to everyone! -just4qs

[Balsa Man]

--jander14indoor and Balsa Man, you both have extremely valid points in that SO is a separate "world," and that "real world" applications do not apply here. Sometimes they are good to use as examples (like in Towers, we built our first-ever tower like an oil derrick {extremely heavy, but it held} because oil derricks are very strong), but examples should not be used to interpret the rules. It sounds to me like I have had VERY bad experiences with judging...because I haven't even told you some of the other really bad situations I've come up against, in both Jr & Sr. But, it is a learning experience. I'll definitely keep in mind that SO is in essence, another world, and like in virtual worlds, other cultures, etc, the rules of those worlds/cultures apply, and rules of other cultures/worlds don't work in those enviroments, because they weren't "made to fit." This competition is based on "letter of the law" NOT "spirit of the law." The rules are the rules...no exceptions.

It really is unfortunate that there is so much "interpretation" in this competition...but I guess it's all part of "free speech" and "freedom of thought" that we are privileged with here in America. It's not bad in itself, it just needs to be balanced.

Back to the tower...unfortunately...my tower was an epic fail. It was heavy (in comparison to the other competitors) and only held 13.53Kg before snapping (tear). I have absolutely no idea why it broke...so while I pray for an opportunity to go to state and try again (doubtful), I will be talking with a few city engineers about designs and have them watch the video of my tower. (I always video...if you are able to video, I would suggest it...you can learn a lot by watching where your tower broke.) Usually, I have an educated guess on why it broke...no clue this time. We had a different judge, who did a very good job, and knew his rule book. No issues what-so-ever. Many thanks goes out to him!

Thank you all for your opinions. Next time I will try and avoid asking for clarifications here...sounds like I stepped (or typed) on a few toes. That was never my intention. I was upset at the time about the unfairness of the situation, and came here for help. I now know who to talk to and what to do if another situation like this comes up. Unfortunately, often it's the courage to oppose the event supervisor (judge) that I lack. As my mom said, "You probably only jumped in so quick at the Jr. Competition because it was your sister, and your instinct is to defend her. When it's just you...well, it's just different." Anyone else have that problem?
Good luck to everyone! -just4qs

Just a couple quick things back:

"Interpretation" has nothing to do with free speech; it is simply an inherent part of a rules-based.....activity; there are the makers of the rules; rules hardly ever come out perfect- covering all conceivable situations, clever ways to push to the edge/limits in the rules, all words and intentions perfectly clear. That's why there is the rules clarification process. What you ran into is not a matter of interpretation, it is/was a matter of someone going off and free-lancing, and making up their own rules; they weren't "interpreting" anything; they were ignoring the rules of "our world", and imposing their perception of the rules of their world.

I haven't seen anything in the posts on this that suggests you stepped on any toes- taking the position that what happened to your sis was correct and appropriate. Trying to right that wrong was appropriate- a) because it was a wrong, b) because you knew, from knowing the rules, it was, c) because you were there in a coaching/helping role, d) because she was your sis. The only thing you didn't have right was remembering the rule on tower has to stay there if/during protest.

Diagnosing failure modes in structures. I've used video over the years, and found it only occasionally useful (as in really telling you what happened). Failure can happen so quickly, and each frame (separate image) in a video is (depending on light level) is ....on the order of a 30th to a 100th of a second, it is rare, in my experience to get a single, non-blurred frame showing initial failure. Once that initial failure happens, collateral damage- other things breaking- happens very quickly. If you use "search"- I can't remember if it was last year or the year before, (and have discussed a little this year) you will find explanations of the best tool I know for understanding failure in a testing situation- a safety tower. There is a picture in the Gallery- from 2009, I sent in. With a safety tower limiting the amount the load block can fall to like an eighth of an inch, or even less, you can isolate the initial failure; the only thing that breaks is what first breaks; nothing else gets damaged. That way, not only do you know where it first failed, you know how it failed there; tension break (pulling a piece apart), glue failure (a joint coming apart), column failure (buckling). A very important trick/tool for understanding, and refining a design....

[Balsa Man]

On Safety Tower- just saw LKN has a good picture of a great looking safety tower rig recently posted in the Gallery. Take a look!

[dholdgreve]

I'm afraid I have to disagree here... as I feel this is a violation of rule 3.g : The tower must be a single structure with no separate or removable pieces... If a piece flies off, it is no longer one piece... Splitting hairs? Absolutely, but this how I'd interpret it if I were running it.

Although im sitting here without rules i believe that that is under the 'construction' section of the rules, yes?
I would interp that as it needs to be CONSTRUCTED to not have removable or separable pieces. If it happens to have something fly off unintentionally then its all good as long is it doesnt do one of the 3 stopping things (no longer hold, using side of testing for help etc)

and even then, they're not 'removable' pieces. If you have a chair and you sit on it and it breaks, therefore the leg of it pops off. Does this mean that the chair leg is removable? I think not, its meant to be solid but became removable.

Just one valid point of view i would use if the supervisor decided to attempt splitting hairs. If they still were firm with the decision, I would look for an appeal

^ I'm overly persistent ^.^

I believe the rule book actually says "... removable or separate pieces," not separable pieces. Another fine distinction, with sepearable inferring that pieces could be interntionally removed, while separate could indicate multiple pieces from the onset...

In any case, we are probably debating a moot point... For a tower to be competitive (at least here in Ohio), every piece must be engineered to 100% of load... If any one piece were to break or pop off, the entire tower collapse will follow in very short order, if it is acompetitive tower to begine with.

Ironic though... in essense what I've heard is that it is ok for a piece to break off the tower, but if the tower drifts to a point where the chain is touching the chmey it is a problem?

[chalker]

Ironic though... in essense what I've heard is that it is ok for a piece to break off the tower, but if the tower drifts to a point where the chain is touching the chmey it is a problem?

I think you've heard wrong. As I pointed out above, rule 5.j. explicitly defines failure. It doesn't mention pieces breaking off or the chain touching the tower.

[chalker7]

Thank you all for your opinions. Next time I will try and avoid asking for clarifications here...sounds like I stepped (or typed) on a few toes. That was never my intention.

I don't think you (or anyone else who is looking for clarifications here) have stepped on any toes. It is just that those of us in any sort of "official" position have been explicitly told to only respond to questions about the rules through the official channels. The only thing that is even approaching enforceable from a national perspective is what comes from the national office (and is posted on the national website in either the FAQs or Clarifications section.) So, you can ask all the questions you want and will probably be able to predict the official response from what everyone says here, but you'll never get anything official without going through the official site.

[jander14indoor]

just4qs, I agree with the others. No toes stepped on, we were happy to answer your questions. None of us see anything wrong with your behavior as reported (most of us thought well of it). Chalker7 explained why the words on clarifications.

Let me add one more bit of encouragement. The subject of incorrect event supervision is important to us because many of us are event supervisors. Several of us are national supervisors, and I'm also a state director. Good event supervision is IMPORTANT to us. We NEED to hear these stories so we can figure out things to reduce their occurrence and respect all YOUR hard work.

So, keep bringing the stories. We may not be able to help you (other than explanations and sympathy) in your specific instance (too late when we hear it), but hopefully we can help the next guy. Preferably by preventing the problem, but as a last resort by good arbitration decisions.

PS, sorry to hear the results on your tower were so-so, but glad to hear the supervision was better.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI