Scrambler B

gh
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 323
Joined: October 22nd, 2003, 5:47 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby gh » May 31st, 2009, 5:07 pm

fullofit wrote:I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line ... the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions.
You really enjoy milking this pretend "independent outsider's neutrality" schtick, don't you?
“Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.” —Sophocles

If you are looking to give help or get help:
Wiki > Forum post > AJAX IRC Chat or Java IRC Chat > PM > Email
Don't forget the Image Gallery, the OBB Archive, and the list of Exalted User medals.

User avatar
sachleen
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 215
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:31 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby sachleen » June 5th, 2009, 7:14 pm

fullofit wrote:I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line, then one of it's rear wheels got caught in a groove that shifted the rear of the vehicle off course. That vehicle ended up only a few cm off course but the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions.

In EV, where the winner is typically decided by a few 1/10s of a point (a few mm of aiming error) how can we say that a track that introduces errors of CMs is a reasonable venue?


Dude, sh*t happens. Deal with it. Seriously, everyone else faces the same challenge as you do, it could have been anybody's vehicle, or nobody's, it just happened to be yours. My understanding of the level floor rule was not that the floor has to be perfectly level and smooth, but that, in general, it shouldn't have any weird bumps or anything. You could have made the tires on your car wider, that would have helped in this situation.

rjm
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: March 31st, 2002, 4:07 pm
State: -
Location: Grand Haven, MI
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby rjm » June 6th, 2009, 4:43 pm

These are engineering events, not scientific experiments. It should not be surprising that there are elements of the competition beyond the control of the ES, the tournament directors, or the competitors. As with most engineering solutions, the device should be sufficiently robust, and the imagination of the designers sufficiently broad, to anticipate reasonable variations in the venue. When rules are written, conditions of testing cannot be completely nailed down and will always vary from place to place, and so we put conditions in general terms, like "smooth, level, hard surface". We don't bother to call out a surface finish or a tolerance on the level grade of the floor. Builders of devices know we don't function in a perfect world, and things they will design and develop in their adult careers also will be expected to work well even if conditions aren't perfect.

If an event is so imprecise and subject to random variance that the "noise" in the measurements overwhelms any valid results, then the event does need to change. There are some events that I don't like either. EV and Scrambler are not that way; in my opinion none of the technology events are that weak. The key is that events should test the device, not the venue, and everyone should compete under the same conditions.

I was in EDS all day during competition at Nats, I was on stage with the EB event. The floor where EV was run was an ordinary gym floor. It was not illegal, and it was not an unexpected surface. The room was plenty hot and humid, but I don't think that had much affect on the vehicles. I can't speak for Scrambler, I didn't make it to see any of that competition. I am certain the floor there was fine also.

Quit whining.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby fmtiger124 » June 7th, 2009, 10:54 am

rjm wrote:These are engineering events, not scientific experiments. It should not be surprising that there are elements of the competition beyond the control of the ES, the tournament directors, or the competitors. As with most engineering solutions, the device should be sufficiently robust, and the imagination of the designers sufficiently broad, to anticipate reasonable variations in the venue. When rules are written, conditions of testing cannot be completely nailed down and will always vary from place to place, and so we put conditions in general terms, like "smooth, level, hard surface". We don't bother to call out a surface finish or a tolerance on the level grade of the floor. Builders of devices know we don't function in a perfect world, and things they will design and develop in their adult careers also will be expected to work well even if conditions aren't perfect.

If an event is so imprecise and subject to random variance that the "noise" in the measurements overwhelms any valid results, then the event does need to change. There are some events that I don't like either. EV and Scrambler are not that way; in my opinion none of the technology events are that weak. The key is that events should test the device, not the venue, and everyone should compete under the same conditions.

I was in EDS all day during competition at Nats, I was on stage with the EB event. The floor where EV was run was an ordinary gym floor. It was not illegal, and it was not an unexpected surface. The room was plenty hot and humid, but I don't think that had much affect on the vehicles. I can't speak for Scrambler, I didn't make it to see any of that competition. I am certain the floor there was fine also.

Quit whining.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

I AGREE!!!!
Image

penclspinner
Member
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: June 1st, 2006, 10:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby penclspinner » June 21st, 2009, 7:35 am

fullofit wrote:The rule that I was referring to is the one that says that the floor should be smooth and level, not specifically about which direction the illegal grooves were running. I was only suggesting that if they simply couldn't find a better location for the EV event, then at least they could have run across the grooves so that they wouldn't have as much effect ont he EVs direction. As to the idea that grooves running parrallel to the direction the vehilce was travelling in would help the vehicle go straight, think about it some more. If the grooves were spaced exactly the same at your wheels when they were on the centerline of the track, then it might cause the vehicle to stay on the centerline, but a random groove that catches only one wheel (or one end of the vehicle) is going to pull the vehicle off the centerline. I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line, then one of it's rear wheels got caught in a groove that shifted the rear of the vehicle off course. That vehicle ended up only a few cm off course but the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions. I don't know how many of you were actually at the national competition but the floor had large spaces between the gym floor boards at irregular intervals, as opposed to most gym floors which are coated with a thick layer of urethane that fills in all the grooves. It was probably the worst gym floor I have ever seen, hardly what anyone would refer to as "smooth and level". If I remember correctly the gym floor where trajectory was done was much smoother (like a normal gym floor), so they could have simply moved trajectory to the EV gym and EV and Scrambler to the Trajectory gym.

I know there are differing feeling here about the appropriate part that random chance should play in the outcome of events. We all know that Egg-O Naut (and bottle rocket) are hugely effected by weather that is simply out of the control of the competitors. Trajectory and Storm the Castle are also effected by winds when they are run out doors (or indoors with the A/C running, as in Augusta). Balloon race was so dramatically effected by the slightest winds that at most competitions it was virtually entirely random chance who won (at some National competitions they built an enclosure that helped a lot to keep drafts out). My personal oppinion is that random chance should play virtually no part in a science experiment (or science competition). If the event cannot practially be run so that the random errors in environmental factors, scoring, etc. aren't large enough to effect the outcome, then the event needs to be changed or dropped. If we know that the falling time of an Egg-O Naut capsule can be effected by more than the difference between first and second place then the event is not actually working. You can't design an Egg-O Naut that isn't effected by up or down drafts, it's simply physically impossible, so how can we say that the guy who launched when there was a large updraft is the winner, when the next best device, luanched in zero wind conditions (or with a down draft) only scored a second or two less?

In EV, where the winner is typically decided by a few 1/10s of a point (a few mm of aiming error) how can we say that a track that introduces errors of CMs is a reasonable venue?



Wait, so what event are we talking about here? Is this a complaint for EV or Scrambler?
Because from the pictures it looks like Scrambler was run on a tile floor, not a gym floor.
Don't know about EV.

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby fmtiger124 » June 22nd, 2009, 5:52 am

penclspinner wrote:
fullofit wrote:The rule that I was referring to is the one that says that the floor should be smooth and level, not specifically about which direction the illegal grooves were running. I was only suggesting that if they simply couldn't find a better location for the EV event, then at least they could have run across the grooves so that they wouldn't have as much effect ont he EVs direction. As to the idea that grooves running parrallel to the direction the vehilce was travelling in would help the vehicle go straight, think about it some more. If the grooves were spaced exactly the same at your wheels when they were on the centerline of the track, then it might cause the vehicle to stay on the centerline, but a random groove that catches only one wheel (or one end of the vehicle) is going to pull the vehicle off the centerline. I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line, then one of it's rear wheels got caught in a groove that shifted the rear of the vehicle off course. That vehicle ended up only a few cm off course but the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions. I don't know how many of you were actually at the national competition but the floor had large spaces between the gym floor boards at irregular intervals, as opposed to most gym floors which are coated with a thick layer of urethane that fills in all the grooves. It was probably the worst gym floor I have ever seen, hardly what anyone would refer to as "smooth and level". If I remember correctly the gym floor where trajectory was done was much smoother (like a normal gym floor), so they could have simply moved trajectory to the EV gym and EV and Scrambler to the Trajectory gym.

I know there are differing feeling here about the appropriate part that random chance should play in the outcome of events. We all know that Egg-O Naut (and bottle rocket) are hugely effected by weather that is simply out of the control of the competitors. Trajectory and Storm the Castle are also effected by winds when they are run out doors (or indoors with the A/C running, as in Augusta). Balloon race was so dramatically effected by the slightest winds that at most competitions it was virtually entirely random chance who won (at some National competitions they built an enclosure that helped a lot to keep drafts out). My personal oppinion is that random chance should play virtually no part in a science experiment (or science competition). If the event cannot practially be run so that the random errors in environmental factors, scoring, etc. aren't large enough to effect the outcome, then the event needs to be changed or dropped. If we know that the falling time of an Egg-O Naut capsule can be effected by more than the difference between first and second place then the event is not actually working. You can't design an Egg-O Naut that isn't effected by up or down drafts, it's simply physically impossible, so how can we say that the guy who launched when there was a large updraft is the winner, when the next best device, luanched in zero wind conditions (or with a down draft) only scored a second or two less?

In EV, where the winner is typically decided by a few 1/10s of a point (a few mm of aiming error) how can we say that a track that introduces errors of CMs is a reasonable venue?



Wait, so what event are we talking about here? Is this a complaint for EV or Scrambler?
Because from the pictures it looks like Scrambler was run on a tile floor, not a gym floor.
Don't know about EV.

don't you think that because we are in the scrambler thread would make this a Scrambler complaint?????
Image

penclspinner
Member
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: June 1st, 2006, 10:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby penclspinner » June 22nd, 2009, 8:08 am

fmtiger124 wrote:
penclspinner wrote:
fullofit wrote:The rule that I was referring to is the one that says that the floor should be smooth and level, not specifically about which direction the illegal grooves were running. I was only suggesting that if they simply couldn't find a better location for the EV event, then at least they could have run across the grooves so that they wouldn't have as much effect ont he EVs direction. As to the idea that grooves running parrallel to the direction the vehilce was travelling in would help the vehicle go straight, think about it some more. If the grooves were spaced exactly the same at your wheels when they were on the centerline of the track, then it might cause the vehicle to stay on the centerline, but a random groove that catches only one wheel (or one end of the vehicle) is going to pull the vehicle off the centerline. I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line, then one of it's rear wheels got caught in a groove that shifted the rear of the vehicle off course. That vehicle ended up only a few cm off course but the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions. I don't know how many of you were actually at the national competition but the floor had large spaces between the gym floor boards at irregular intervals, as opposed to most gym floors which are coated with a thick layer of urethane that fills in all the grooves. It was probably the worst gym floor I have ever seen, hardly what anyone would refer to as "smooth and level". If I remember correctly the gym floor where trajectory was done was much smoother (like a normal gym floor), so they could have simply moved trajectory to the EV gym and EV and Scrambler to the Trajectory gym.

I know there are differing feeling here about the appropriate part that random chance should play in the outcome of events. We all know that Egg-O Naut (and bottle rocket) are hugely effected by weather that is simply out of the control of the competitors. Trajectory and Storm the Castle are also effected by winds when they are run out doors (or indoors with the A/C running, as in Augusta). Balloon race was so dramatically effected by the slightest winds that at most competitions it was virtually entirely random chance who won (at some National competitions they built an enclosure that helped a lot to keep drafts out). My personal oppinion is that random chance should play virtually no part in a science experiment (or science competition). If the event cannot practially be run so that the random errors in environmental factors, scoring, etc. aren't large enough to effect the outcome, then the event needs to be changed or dropped. If we know that the falling time of an Egg-O Naut capsule can be effected by more than the difference between first and second place then the event is not actually working. You can't design an Egg-O Naut that isn't effected by up or down drafts, it's simply physically impossible, so how can we say that the guy who launched when there was a large updraft is the winner, when the next best device, luanched in zero wind conditions (or with a down draft) only scored a second or two less?

In EV, where the winner is typically decided by a few 1/10s of a point (a few mm of aiming error) how can we say that a track that introduces errors of CMs is a reasonable venue?



Wait, so what event are we talking about here? Is this a complaint for EV or Scrambler?
Because from the pictures it looks like Scrambler was run on a tile floor, not a gym floor.
Don't know about EV.

don't you think that because we are in the scrambler thread would make this a Scrambler complaint?????


True, but when someone repeatedly mentions "EV" 5 times and only mentions "Scrambler" once I get confused.

User avatar
beaverkid
Member
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: February 18th, 2008, 9:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby beaverkid » June 22nd, 2009, 10:11 am

fmtiger124 wrote:
penclspinner wrote:
fullofit wrote:The rule that I was referring to is the one that says that the floor should be smooth and level, not specifically about which direction the illegal grooves were running. I was only suggesting that if they simply couldn't find a better location for the EV event, then at least they could have run across the grooves so that they wouldn't have as much effect ont he EVs direction. As to the idea that grooves running parrallel to the direction the vehilce was travelling in would help the vehicle go straight, think about it some more. If the grooves were spaced exactly the same at your wheels when they were on the centerline of the track, then it might cause the vehicle to stay on the centerline, but a random groove that catches only one wheel (or one end of the vehicle) is going to pull the vehicle off the centerline. I saw a vehicle that was going right down the line, then one of it's rear wheels got caught in a groove that shifted the rear of the vehicle off course. That vehicle ended up only a few cm off course but the team had gotten 199.5 and 200 at their regional and state competitions. I don't know how many of you were actually at the national competition but the floor had large spaces between the gym floor boards at irregular intervals, as opposed to most gym floors which are coated with a thick layer of urethane that fills in all the grooves. It was probably the worst gym floor I have ever seen, hardly what anyone would refer to as "smooth and level". If I remember correctly the gym floor where trajectory was done was much smoother (like a normal gym floor), so they could have simply moved trajectory to the EV gym and EV and Scrambler to the Trajectory gym.

I know there are differing feeling here about the appropriate part that random chance should play in the outcome of events. We all know that Egg-O Naut (and bottle rocket) are hugely effected by weather that is simply out of the control of the competitors. Trajectory and Storm the Castle are also effected by winds when they are run out doors (or indoors with the A/C running, as in Augusta). Balloon race was so dramatically effected by the slightest winds that at most competitions it was virtually entirely random chance who won (at some National competitions they built an enclosure that helped a lot to keep drafts out). My personal oppinion is that random chance should play virtually no part in a science experiment (or science competition). If the event cannot practially be run so that the random errors in environmental factors, scoring, etc. aren't large enough to effect the outcome, then the event needs to be changed or dropped. If we know that the falling time of an Egg-O Naut capsule can be effected by more than the difference between first and second place then the event is not actually working. You can't design an Egg-O Naut that isn't effected by up or down drafts, it's simply physically impossible, so how can we say that the guy who launched when there was a large updraft is the winner, when the next best device, luanched in zero wind conditions (or with a down draft) only scored a second or two less?

In EV, where the winner is typically decided by a few 1/10s of a point (a few mm of aiming error) how can we say that a track that introduces errors of CMs is a reasonable venue?



Wait, so what event are we talking about here? Is this a complaint for EV or Scrambler?
Because from the pictures it looks like Scrambler was run on a tile floor, not a gym floor.
Don't know about EV.

don't you think that because we are in the scrambler thread would make this a Scrambler complaint?????



People post in the wrong thread all the time....and from what I saw, I thought it was about EV the whole time too. If you read the message from fullofit, as you have quoted too, he/she is talking about the venue for EV......and the scoring of 199.5 and 200 points is also EV's scoring system....not Scrambler.....

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby fmtiger124 » June 22nd, 2009, 10:27 am

fullofit wrote:
bob3443 wrote:so after waiting for... 2 days with no one responding... i have the urge to ask this again. does anyone know ANYTHING about scrambler at nationals?


All I know is that both Scambler and EV were run on a very rough wood floor, with the track parallel to the boards (in violation of the rules). For those who built vehicles with wide wheels it was not much of an issue but for teams who used CDs or hard drive platters it was a disaster. The thin wheel would get caught in a groove and force the vehicle off course. Many people argue that since all the teams had the same issues to deal with it's all a wash but that is simply not true. A team has a right to believe that the event will be run according to the rules. If the rules stated that the scamblers and EVs could be run in the grass or on a paved road, or on a track with large gaps between the boards running parallel to the track, then teams would have built their vehicles to accomodate that, but when you are told in the rules that the track will be a smooth level surface, you build for that specification. We practiced on linoleum, wood gym floors (smooth urethane) and smooth tile, we didn't practice on a floor with grooves that would catch the wheels.

I am afraid that I do not know the scores, I spoke to one team (who just missed medalling) that had a run time of about 3 seconds and a distance/aim error of about 5 cm. That would make it necessary to have done better than 11 to medal, but that is just a rough estimate.

read this---quote you have sprang out of that--he's sort of talking about both but he was complaining about grooves in the floor messing up thin wheeled scramblers
Image

User avatar
beaverkid
Member
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: February 18th, 2008, 9:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby beaverkid » June 22nd, 2009, 11:06 am

fmtiger124 wrote:
fullofit wrote:
bob3443 wrote:so after waiting for... 2 days with no one responding... i have the urge to ask this again. does anyone know ANYTHING about scrambler at nationals?


All I know is that both Scambler and EV were run on a very rough wood floor, with the track parallel to the boards (in violation of the rules). *snip*

read this---quote you have sprang out of that--he's sort of talking about both but he was complaining about grooves in the floor messing up thin wheeled scramblers


Fullofit started talking about how both events took place on a very rough wood floor on May 27th. DarkSabre posted a picture of Scrambler the same day showing that Scrambler took place on tiled floor and not wood floor. Fullofit posted again a few days after that on May 31st and it seems like he was only talking about EV that point. He/she might have realized that Scrambler is okay from DarkSabre's picture.

kp9ssa
Member
Member
Posts: 201
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 7:51 am
Division: B
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby kp9ssa » June 23rd, 2009, 6:54 am

could u use parts of a scrambler to make a wheeled vehicle
States

1st- Anatomy
4th- Dynamic Planet
2nd- Water Quality
2nd- Write it Do it

Team Overall: 1st

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby fmtiger124 » June 23rd, 2009, 6:59 am

kp9ssa wrote:could u use parts of a scrambler to make a wheeled vehicle

yes but it would probobly be easier to do it the other way around
Image

User avatar
49ers
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 7:22 am
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Myrin' Cryin'
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby 49ers » July 10th, 2009, 6:03 pm

I do have to agree with fmtiger124 in this case it is easier the other way around
so when Scrambler does come back, do just that, use the EV to make a Scrambler
East Stroudsburg South and J.T.L Cavs Alumnus
49ersfan
Metsfan
If you need a person to create study materials, I am available. Literally any event.
You are now free to lose the game.
Ursinus Bearcox 2020
Need a rugger? Look no further.
Bio-medical Engineering

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby fmtiger124 » July 17th, 2009, 9:48 am

The EV would already have the brake installed and it would be a car--all you have to do would be take off the electric stuff and devise a way to launch it within the scrambler rules.
Image

User avatar
49ers
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 371
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 7:22 am
Division: Grad
State: PA
Location: Myrin' Cryin'
Contact:

Re: Scrambler B

Postby 49ers » July 20th, 2009, 11:53 am

yes you would have to change some parts of it but it would save a lot of time
East Stroudsburg South and J.T.L Cavs Alumnus
49ersfan
Metsfan
If you need a person to create study materials, I am available. Literally any event.
You are now free to lose the game.
Ursinus Bearcox 2020
Need a rugger? Look no further.
Bio-medical Engineering


Return to “2009 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests