National Tower Scores?

[Random Human]

In C ours was around 2700, and Mentor(5th) said theirs was around 2800. Could anyone elaborate on what an "elevated" tower might look like for next year? And I wasn't in towers when they had the two-part tower rules, could someone explain how that would be scored?

A two-tiered tower woudl most likely involve a rule stating that all parts of the tower above a certain height (this height was different between B and C in 2012 if I remember correctly) must fit within a tube of a certain diameter (it'll probably be some readily-available size) - example image

I have no idea what you mean by an elevated tower.

I think that if they keep the same 1 part rule. This event would be pretty boring. All they could do besides this is change height and bonus. Adjusting the height wouldn't be much of a challenge. Bonus should open up a new window for people to explore in. But overall keeping this 1 part configuration rule will make the event to simple and boring for people who did the event this year.

[dholdgreve]

In C ours was around 2700, and Mentor(5th) said theirs was around 2800. Could anyone elaborate on what an "elevated" tower might look like for next year? And I wasn't in towers when they had the two-part tower rules, could someone explain how that would be scored?

A two-tiered tower woudl most likely involve a rule stating that all parts of the tower above a certain height (this height was different between B and C in 2012 if I remember correctly) must fit within a tube of a certain diameter (it'll probably be some readily-available size) - example image

I have no idea what you mean by an elevated tower.

I think that if they keep the same 1 part rule. This event would be pretty boring. All they could do besides this is change height and bonus. Adjusting the height wouldn't be much of a challenge. Bonus should open up a new window for people to explore in. But overall keeping this 1 part configuration rule will make the event to simple and boring for people who did the event this year.

There are many, many, testing tables that are now constructed with a 20 cm x 20 cm opening in the middle. I highly doubt they will change the rules in a way that will required all of these to be rebuild. Instead, I think it will likely be a two part tower with mid height cross-section limits, or possibly jack one side up like they did in bridges. I certainly hope they don't do that. In bridges, any "variation" in the block height was minimized as the bridge was generally less in height than in length. Variations in block height were not as critical. In towers, variations in block height would be significantly magnified as the height is much greater than the span.

Just a thought.

[Dohnnovan]

When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

[retired1]

My guess is that they add 5 cm to the height and increase the bonus circle to 20 or more and increase the amount of the bonus to keep some teams from just adding on 5 cm to this years tower if it had survived.
I certainly hope that they do not go to an elevated side like they did with the bridge a couple of years ago.

[Random Human]

When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

I don't think anyone knows it...
at this point it would be best to ask Chalker, or some administrator in the tournament.
I'm guessing their tower hit about 3800 ish...

[Crtomir]

When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

I don't think anyone knows it...
at this point it would be best to ask Chalker, or some administrator in the tournament.
I'm guessing their tower hit about 3800 ish...

Nah. From what I've heard, everyone scored below what they had been getting in the season. These are the Division B scores as we know them:

1st ???? Beckendorf
2nd 3428 Gelinas
3rd 3340 Marie Murphy
4th ???? Daniel Wright
5th 2980 Tower Heights
6th ???? Winston Churchill

Does anyone else know the scores for 1st, 4th, and 6th?

[Random Human]

When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

I don't think anyone knows it...
at this point it would be best to ask Chalker, or some administrator in the tournament.
I'm guessing their tower hit about 3800 ish...

Nah. From what I've heard, everyone scored below what they had been getting in the season. These are the Division B scores as we know them:

1st ???? Beckendorf
2nd 3428 Gelinas
3rd 3340 Marie Murphy
4th ???? Daniel Wright
5th 2980 Tower Heights
6th ???? Winston Churchill

Does anyone else know the scores for 1st, 4th, and 6th?

Tower Heights had previously hit 3400, Gelinas with 3900. I've heard DW with around 31,32 00 ish?
They hit 3k at an invitational in mid March, should've had improved scores by nats.
If you are really determined to find these scores, ask chalker

[SOPomo]

The issue relates to the rule “constructed of wood and bonded by adhesive. No other materials are allowed.” The B division team I’ve worked with this year were advised during check-in that the markings on their tower (done with felt-tip markers/highlighters) were….a problem; that they could be DQ’d- that by the rules, there could/should be no marks on the tower. The decision was made, very appropriately IMHO, not to DQ them, with a….warning not to do it next year… But a couple hours later, the C team I’ve been working with checked in with similar markings, and not a word was said about them….
(snip)
What I hope can be done is getting language in the rules for next year (and subsequent years) that clearly allows for marking done in a way that ….gains no advantage in terms of structure performance. Just a simple statement that marks to guide/facilitate construction are not considered “materials”; just like the statement that bamboo is not considered wood.

I can bring it up at SOSI next month.

[Balsa Man]

Thanks. SOPomo.
I would certainly appreciate that, and do think it needs to be clear for next season. As noted, I believe strongly that marking for assembly guidance should be allowed, and not interpreted as constituting 'materials of/for construction.'

Thanks again.

[chalker]

The issue relates to the rule “constructed of wood and bonded by adhesive. No other materials are allowed.” The B division team I’ve worked with this year were advised during check-in that the markings on their tower (done with felt-tip markers/highlighters) were….a problem; that they could be DQ’d- that by the rules, there could/should be no marks on the tower. The decision was made, very appropriately IMHO, not to DQ them, with a….warning not to do it next year… But a couple hours later, the C team I’ve been working with checked in with similar markings, and not a word was said about them….
(snip)
What I hope can be done is getting language in the rules for next year (and subsequent years) that clearly allows for marking done in a way that ….gains no advantage in terms of structure performance. Just a simple statement that marks to guide/facilitate construction are not considered “materials”; just like the statement that bamboo is not considered wood.

I can bring it up at SOSI next month.

We've addressed this in the draft rules we'll be sharing at SOSI.