Elastic Launched Glider C

[erikb]

Suggestions for next year.

I don't see a way to make gliders more of a data gathering event like i do helicopters. There are too many factors to do things such as add a random weight. Doing so would require time consuming re-trimming for each competitor to be fair.

However, i have an idea that might work only at the national level and only and UCF.

Have them build on site. Add one student to the team to make it three. Run three two hour build/trim periods in the morning. Starting at the same time as disease detectives. There would be overlap but the next group will primarily be building while the group before is trimming.

Then in the afternoon score two teams at once.

Glider specs for nationals:
No formed pieces. sticks have to be square and not tapered. Sheets have to be square and uniform thickness.
Minimum weight 2.5 grams. That is not arbitrary, That is basically how light a 6# balsa glider can be made.
Wing Span greater than 40cm.
Any jig, sander or tool they need to make the glider.
They can build as many gliders as they want.

For a bonus they get a single flight to shoot for an exact time. Say 15 seconds. Scored something like this. 10-abs(bonus time-real time)

This way they have to work as a team. They have to have a knowledge of how gliders fly and how to trim them and it would not be a race to the lightest.

For state and regional. Same glider criteria and bonus. No mandatory building.

[Schrodingerscat]

However, i have an idea that might work only at the national level and only and UCF.

Have them build on site. Add one student to the team to make it three. Run three two hour build/trim periods in the morning. Starting at the same time as disease detectives. There would be overlap but the next group will primarily be building while the group before is trimming.

Then in the afternoon score two teams at once.

If I am following this correctly, you are suggesting to occupying three team members for three event blocks for one event? This sounds like it would create major problems for team organization to make one event occupy a teams during the competition day over four times more than most other events.

[chalker7]

That's interesting, but is effectively a completely different event than what teams would participate in at the regional and state level. It also only solves the problem encountered by the most elite teams in the nation. Less than 1% of the teams qualify for nationals. When writing the rules, we are obviously thinking about how to make it a challenge for these teams, but honestly spend more time and effort making sure the other 99% have a rigorous event that they are capable of participating in while learning something.
We are well aware of the flight log issues, unfortunately no one has come up with a reliable, robust and scaleable solution. In my opinion, the flight log is critical simply because it exists. Teams that really think about things are hopefully realizing that we're mandating the log because we want teams to actually record data in a scientific manner. By having it in the rules, we're saying it's important. I can tell which teams are going to do well and which are not during check-in based exclusively off of their logs. If you have the absolute minimum of data, you're probably going to struggle while if you hand me a full notebook or even a laptop full of info, I'm pretty confident you'll be doing well and have made progress throughout the year.
Is there a better way to get teams to realize practice is important and they can't show up to the competition with an untested device or procedure and hope to do well? Probably, but I haven't seen it (or thought it up yet.)

[plaid suit guy2]

@erickb
that would be an impossible feat, unless competition for the gliders started on Friday.

@chalker7
make flight scoring based upon things written in their log (predicted time exc.)
or make the log worth more than or equal to the flight.
the best way i've seen that was the maglev scoring for the vehicle score

[sr243]

@chalker7
make flight scoring based upon things written in their log (predicted time exc.)
or make the log worth more than or equal to the flight.
the best way i've seen that was the maglev scoring for the vehicle score

Hmm, Having done this event at states, regionals, and invitationals, I don't think predicted time is quite as good as mag-lev or gravity vehicle. There are so many factors affecting the flight time like humidity, air conditioning, ceiling height. Some of these are not able to be replicated at your own place. For example, I had a glider that could get 20 seconds in my school's gym. However, it got less than 15 at states because conditions were not ideal ( some current and other people testing theirs). In fact, I could not replicate a time more than 16 seconds at competition after another 10 minutes of testing even though I got over 20 two days ago (the ceiling wasn't the problem). In addition, I had some very low times (5 or less seconds) because of a bad launch. It would be a shame to lose because of a single bad launch (I knew that it could happen but I can also get good times with this glider). If the rules had that, I would not build a glider close to 2g as competition conditions can affect the glider too much. Honestly, if I had to predict the time for my glider, I would just do an extra trim flight and count it in my head. That would be as close as my predictions. I am just afraid that this scoring would damage a good glider that was affected by the competition location or it gets overlooked like that.

I like a target time like 5-10 seconds for regionals (or maybe 7-10), 10-15 seconds for states, and 15+ seconds for nationals. You would have to try to get close to that but make that part of the score not excessive. Scoring can be times of best 2 flights - absolute value of (difference between target time and actual). That way if a team got 20 seconds twice and the target was 15 and they got 17, it doesn't kill their scores but still can affect their placing. Actually it would be best if you get like 6 flights and take the top 2 and the time for the target would be one closest to it. You basically have the freedom to choose between getting a better time or getting closer to the target score but you lose a flight. This would still encourage having a good log but doesn't punish a team too harshly if they cannot get the time just right.

[plaid suit guy2]

i was referring to how in maglev, they took the score of your vehicle, divided it by the best score, multiplied that by fifty and out popped your vehicle score. this meant that the highest possible score was 50, then we had a 50 point test on top of that. making the two about equal

[erikb]

We are well aware of the flight log issues, unfortunately no one has come up with a reliable, robust and scaleable solution. In my opinion, the flight log is critical simply because it exists.

I never said you weren't

Now i may be taking what you said the wrong way but, multiple times i have had to defend myself against things i did not say.

It makes it very hard to have a conversation when every sentence is nit picked

[wlsguy]

.... Have them build on site....

We had a student who wanted to do just that (just to show off) but never had enough time during the day to do it.

Anyway, since the event is a data gathering exercise with the goal of making repeatable results, how about counting 3, 4 or even all 5 of the flights and adding the scores together?
This would reward those teams who have practiced and have a repeatable system.

[sr243]

i was referring to how in maglev, they took the score of your vehicle, divided it by the best score, multiplied that by fifty and out popped your vehicle score. this meant that the highest possible score was 50, then we had a 50 point test on top of that. making the two about equal

Okay, I get what you mean. However, I just don't think the prediction should be that big of the score. There are just too many factors that you can't factor into prediction like humidity or current. I definitely don't think the log should be worth more than the flight. The log is important but it is hard to get the same results in a completely different place where you never been to with unknown conditions. I think a target time (counting as real flights) would be the best solution to getting people to practice and record their data in a scientific way. It rewards people for being able to use their log and get close to a time. It also does not punish people too much if their flights are different from home and cannot get precisely the time. If prediction were 50% of the score, I think some people would compromise their times in exchange for safety of the prediction.

.... Have them build on site....

We had a student who wanted to do just that (just to show off) but never had enough time during the day to do it.

Anyway, since the event is a data gathering exercise with the goal of making repeatable results, how about counting 3, 4 or even all 5 of the flights and adding the scores together?
This would reward those teams who have practiced and have a repeatable system.

Defintely not all 5, if some unexpected break occurs or anything happens to one flight, the score is ruined and it is hard for any competitor to cope with that loss. Maybe 3 would be fine. I still think having 6 flights with the 2 best times - (absolute difference between target time and closest flight) would be the best to increase practice. If the team doesn't practice enough, they may have to give up a flight or two to retry getting the target time. However, it still gives leeway if they had a single bad flight for whatever reason.

[chalker7]

.... Have them build on site....

We had a student who wanted to do just that (just to show off) but never had enough time during the day to do it.

Anyway, since the event is a data gathering exercise with the goal of making repeatable results, how about counting 3, 4 or even all 5 of the flights and adding the scores together?
This would reward those teams who have practiced and have a repeatable system.

It also gives a much lower margin of error in case something goes wrong like a broken glider.

The difficulty of a target time is that we have vastly different ability levels and physical locations (specifically ceiling sites) across the country. Many teams might not be capable of reaching a 5 second flight time at regional tournaments. If we set one time (or low range of times) for every venue, many locations would not be able to take advantage of their full capabilities while others might not be able to run the event because they can't find a site big enough for the minimum.

Plaid Suit Guy, could you expand on "make flight scoring based upon things written in their log (predicted time exc.)
or make the log worth more than or equal to the flight"? I'm not sure if I follow, or I guess more specifically understand how that de-incentivizes teams from making up data.

And as to nit-picking...I wasn't trying to attack. It's just an issue that's been raised from multiple sources and over a series of years. I'm simply trying to explain where the rules come from. One of the classic complaints (and I'm not suggesting anyone here is guilty of this) is that the "national office" (or some other similar boogeyman) doesn't listen to people across the country and generates the rules in a vacuum. One of the reasons my brother, Jeff and a few other national supervisors participate in this forum is to increase transparency while being available for suggestions, advice and information in a public manner. Sorry if I sounded curt, but it's something that's been raised quite a few times with varying degrees of contention. The nice part about having a public forum like this is that anyone can contribute to the conversation. The tough part is that tone is impossible to read. Trust me when I say none of us are trying to be difficult or argumentative, just comprehensive participants in an active conversation.