Boomilever for 2013

[JimY]

Since Boomilever has been a C division event twice now for 5 seasons total (2001-3 and 2007-8), I'm just wondering what new wrinkles are being kicked around for this iteration of the event. I for one would like to see something new. I can imagine that variable distal length is on the table, sort of like the variable tower height from the past season. If this is the case, since the forces on the main tension and compression members increase with increasing distal length (assuming constant max height) and quite rapidly, the scoring formula should reflect this. The compressive forces on the tower main beams did not increase with increasing height, so it was quite different.

Also, since this has not been a full season event before for B division, they may struggle a bit with it in comparison with C, unless there are B and C teams that work together.

Hints and opinions welcome.

[fishman100]

I was also thinking about the variable distal end as a challenge for a boom season, but given that this will be the first year in its rotation w/ Bridges and Towers (especially for Div B students, who havent had this before), the rules will be straightforward and fairly simple, IMO. To me, it seems like in a rotated event, the greater challenges/expectations are usually added in the 2nd year, not its 1st year. Battery Buggy, for example, only had to follow a straight line in 2010, but in 2011 all buggies had to curve around an obstacle (does this kind of make sense?)

Therefore I am expecting similar specs from the 2008 season to carry over to div C, since it's been an event before and more “lenient” specs for the Div B students. Perhaps this year they'll make boom more accessible to teams by increasing the max height to ～25 cm (as opposed to the 15 cm limit in 2008) and make the distance to the distal end less (30 cm, maybe?)

I'm looking forward to boom this year! Anyone else have some thoughts?

[nejanimb]

My guess also is simple rules - 2008 is long enough ago that no one that has ever done the event before (coaches excluded, obviously) is still around. Also seems no reason not to. They can add variable length as a factor for the second year to make it interesting.

Booms, I think, is the least accessible event of any of the balsa events that have been around since I've seen. My standard for that is how easy it is to make a passable device. I'd say regular bridges is the easiest, then towers, then elevated bridges, then booms. It's really difficult to make even a decent one, and very common to make one that falls into the "cannot be tested" tier. Not necessarily a problem, but it's interesting.

One thing that would be interesting is if there was some sort of bonus for booms that held the load at the top of the height area (think like the chinook bonus for helicopters). Or, it could be some sliding scale - the max height is fixed, but there was some continuum of bonuses you can get as you support the loading block closer to equally as high as the wall attachment point. I suggest this just because I gather just about all of the best booms were ones that held the load as close to the bottom as possible and had compression sections that went just about horizontal to the wall, but one certainly can make ones that support the load at the level of the attachment point and this would introduce some more design variation.

[thsom]

I think if height was a component to scoring, the interval would be inversed. Instead of higher height receiving a greater bonus, a lower height would receive a greater bonus. Unlike in towers, a greater height actually makes construction stronger. However, there is a problem with this, since a lower height equates to a lower mass, there has to be some equation to give a bonus to those with a lower height but there still has to be a set back of something (like in towers, bonus of height, set back of mass due to height)...

[twototwenty]

To any of the event supervisors or such knowledable people (Chalkers, Mr. Anderson?), do any of you know what is being discussed for this event as far as changes from previous versions of it?

[Faustina]

While we're waiting for the inside scoop on the rules, could someone with boomilever experience answer a quick question for me?

What is the function of the vertical braces (that is, the braces in the vertical plane) in this type of boomilever?
http://gallery.scioly.org/details.php?image_id=928
Do these pieces hold weight, or do they have some other function? Thanks.

[ptkid]

While we're waiting for the inside scoop on the rules, could someone with boomilever experience answer a quick question for me?

What is the function of the vertical braces (that is, the braces in the vertical plane) in this type of boomilever?
http://gallery.scioly.org/details.php?image_id=928
Do these pieces hold weight, or do they have some other function? Thanks.

I think it may be so that the boomilever doesn't break outwardly but many designs I've seen complete omit them so they might just be useless.

[nejanimb]

I think if height was a component to scoring, the interval would be inversed. Instead of higher height receiving a greater bonus, a lower height would receive a greater bonus. Unlike in towers, a greater height actually makes construction stronger. However, there is a problem with this, since a lower height equates to a lower mass, there has to be some equation to give a bonus to those with a lower height but there still has to be a set back of something (like in towers, bonus of height, set back of mass due to height)...

Right, I know this. I didn't mean that *height* would be a component of scoring (height being defined as the distance from the attachment point to the lowest point at which the boom touches the wall), but that "load location" would be a scoring component, as in where the loading block is relative to the wall.

Re: Faustina, those pieces aren't directly load bearing, but they help brace the compression section against bending in the vertical plane.

[thsom]

I see, my mistake. I think that this option if quite plausible and would add a VERY challenging component to this event. Unlike in towers, it does affect the strength of the boomilever. I'm trying to understand how one would compensate for the extra distance in an efficient way... All I can think of is a box base...

[jander14indoor]

Yes I have access, no I won't tell you, because they aren't final till you see them in the book and sometimes change significantly after the summer clinic due to testing. I already see too many students come to contests with rules stamped draft all over them and get DQ'ed. Not going to add to that.

That said, don't sweat it. As I've said on other construction strings. Don't worry over the exact rules. We can only throw in so many variations and still be boomilever. Use any prior year set of rules to practice building over the summer and learn how to do well and WHY you did. Then whatever variation we throw at you in the fall you are miles ahead of everyone who did nothing over the summer.

In all the construction events, if you can do well and know why on one set of rules you will do well on the variations.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI