Scrambler C

A Person
Member
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: July 18th, 2010, 12:34 pm
Division: Grad
State: KY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by A Person » May 25th, 2014, 6:55 pm

blakinator8 wrote:One other change that I could see would be similar to what happened with Maglev- Having the vehicle always go the same distance, and instead of being as fast as possible, have a 'target time'. For example, the distance might always be 10 meters, but there's a time window of 5-15 seconds that you have to be able to achieve.
I may not just be thinking hard enough in the 30 seconds I took, but how would you adjust speed reliably other than adjusting launch velocity, which would be pretty hard to get accurate, or adding breaks to slow down the vehicle? Time, while adding an extra variable, doesn't seem like something that allows builders to use several options. Then again, that may be the point.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

User avatar
Bazinga+
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 383
Joined: March 8th, 2014, 7:10 am
Division: C
State: NY
Location: Ward Melville HD
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by Bazinga+ » May 25th, 2014, 6:58 pm

I thought about the changes theyh could make to the rules and i realized that when they changed the rules for mousetrap vehicle B them made it so you have to stop at a greater variety of distances. So maybe next year they will make it 10 cm intervals at nats and 50 cm intervals at states. Shouldn't be too much of a challenge.
Innovation =/= success

iwonder
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1112
Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by iwonder » May 25th, 2014, 7:14 pm

You could simply adjust the height of the falling mass, or add friction to the vehicle, or a few other things to adjust the time. It's not too hard, but it's definitely an extra challenge.
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown

User avatar
blakinator8
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: November 11th, 2012, 8:39 am
Division: Grad
State: TX
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by blakinator8 » May 25th, 2014, 7:15 pm

A Person wrote:
blakinator8 wrote:One other change that I could see would be similar to what happened with Maglev- Having the vehicle always go the same distance, and instead of being as fast as possible, have a 'target time'. For example, the distance might always be 10 meters, but there's a time window of 5-15 seconds that you have to be able to achieve.
I may not just be thinking hard enough in the 30 seconds I took, but how would you adjust speed reliably other than adjusting launch velocity, which would be pretty hard to get accurate, or adding breaks to slow down the vehicle? Time, while adding an extra variable, doesn't seem like something that allows builders to use several options. Then again, that may be the point.
Given a similar amount of time to think about it, what I imagined was a system where you stored the mechanical energy in the vehicle (either using elastics or potential gravity) and then created a mechanism that slowly metered out this energy in variable amounts. I agree that it would be very challenging if the only energy you had to work with was from the speed of the vehicle.
Proud member of the Liberal Arts and Science Academy team, 2012-2015

nxtscholar
Member
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: NJ
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by nxtscholar » May 25th, 2014, 7:24 pm

While we're at it, another thing you could do is adjust the circumference (or size) of the wheel you used.

Personally, for me, the way to go about this is really just testing and seeing what dimensions work rather than developing an entirely different design. But hey, we'll see if this actually does become a rule in effect. :P

patil215
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: May 18th, 2013, 9:10 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by patil215 » May 26th, 2014, 10:52 am

Another factor that could be considered to possibly change is the allowance or requirement of the scrambler taking the weight with it; that is, basically having your scrambler car being a "tower" and having the weight fall as it moves. This could also potentially allow for the "get to the line, drop the egg, and go back" challenge mentioned previously.

However, I think this is too drastic a change for one year - it would make Scrambler a completely different event.

In addition, perhaps another tradeoff could be introduced similar to what we saw in Gravity Vehicle the 2012 - 2013 year, with the introduction of the ramp height bonus (the shorter the ramp, the more points you get). It may be possible that a bonus could be introduced, such as the distance the falling mass drops or the weight of the falling mass, making the event considerably more complex. I think this is far more likely.

User avatar
fishman100
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 478
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 1:26 pm
Division: Grad
State: VA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by fishman100 » May 26th, 2014, 11:03 am

I like scrambler how it is :(

Anyways, I for one was not fond of the dowel rule. None of the tournaments our team attended had anything close to a photogate, and I'm sure there were only a few photogates used around the country. As a result, many (as in, all but 1 team at a certain VA regional) teams were tiered down for not following specs that weren't even part of the competition, which I don't think is fair. Of course, I understand the importance of this rule if a photogate were to be used.

Also, timing scramblers/distances was really awkward and somewhat difficult since timing starts at the 0.2m line, not when the vehicle exits the launcher. For someone who's been doing vehicle events since middle school, it felt odd having to calibrate distances at 10.2/10.7/11.2, etc., not 10.5/11.0/11.5. I guess that's simply an annoyance but it seems like it caused some confusion over what the target distance is.

Is it just VA or did a lot of teams not know about the "mass can't touch the ground" clarification? At States, there were a significant number of teams who were also tiered b/c the mass touched the ground during the launch. Perhaps this is just a VA-exclusive communication issue...
Langley HS Science Olympiad '15

User avatar
chinesesushi
Member
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: September 17th, 2013, 4:57 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by chinesesushi » May 26th, 2014, 11:21 am

Sounds like people in your state just didn't read the rules LOL.
Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way you'll be a mile away and he'll be shoeless.
You should only create problems, that only you know solutions to.

A Person
Member
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: July 18th, 2010, 12:34 pm
Division: Grad
State: KY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by A Person » May 26th, 2014, 11:52 am

fishman100 wrote:I like scrambler how it is :(

Anyways, I for one was not fond of the dowel rule. None of the tournaments our team attended had anything close to a photogate, and I'm sure there were only a few photogates used around the country. As a result, many (as in, all but 1 team at a certain VA regional) teams were tiered down for not following specs that weren't even part of the competition, which I don't think is fair. Of course, I understand the importance of this rule if a photogate were to be used.

Also, timing scramblers/distances was really awkward and somewhat difficult since timing starts at the 0.2m line, not when the vehicle exits the launcher. For someone who's been doing vehicle events since middle school, it felt odd having to calibrate distances at 10.2/10.7/11.2, etc., not 10.5/11.0/11.5. I guess that's simply an annoyance but it seems like it caused some confusion over what the target distance is.

Is it just VA or did a lot of teams not know about the "mass can't touch the ground" clarification? At States, there were a significant number of teams who were also tiered b/c the mass touched the ground during the launch. Perhaps this is just a VA-exclusive communication issue...
I like scrambler as it is too. In regard to rule violations, Kentucky had its fair share. I think I even saw a few ramps. The thing about the weight was that it really was only truly addressed in an online clarification, which I'm guessing only like 10% of the state builders know exists.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

nxtscholar
Member
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: NJ
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Scrambler C

Post by nxtscholar » May 26th, 2014, 12:47 pm

well, as I said before, I think only 7 teams in the entire state of New Jersey were not tiered (out of 26 teams competing at states). Although, none of them were tiered from the rule with regards to the weight touching the floor. Our e/c directly told every competitor who would have otherwise violated this rule to simply put a sheet of paper on the floor beneath the weight, so that when the weight fell, it hit the paper, not the floor.

Yeah, it's really one of two cases:

One, as chinesesushi pointed out, where people just don't read the rules, and two, where people know the rules, but simply don't care to follow them. I saw plenty of people just "bs" their scramblers for the sake of having one.

Locked

Return to “2014 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest