Page 1 of 75

Towers B/C

Posted: June 16th, 2016, 10:00 pm
by bernard

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 5:21 am
by dholdgreve
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 8:34 am
by HandsFreeCookieDunk
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?
From what I've heard, they removed the restriction that limited the width of the tower above a certain height, so most designs no longer need to be built in two pieces. I also heard about a 2kg bonus for a tower that spans a 29cm diameter circle.

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 6:07 pm
by JZhang1
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?
you have to estimate your load score for tie-breaking

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 6:10 pm
by Unome
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?
you have to estimate your load score for tie-breaking
...I'm not entirely sure whether to take this seriously. My first thought was "lol that woudl be hilarious" but now I'm not so sure.

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 6:16 pm
by bernard
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?
you have to estimate your load score for tie-breaking
...I'm not entirely sure whether to take this seriously. My first thought was "lol that woudl be hilarious" but now I'm not so sure.
Yes, this is correct, outlined in rule 5.a.iii. The Load Scored estimate is used as a tiebreaker, see 6.e.

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 6th, 2016, 6:18 pm
by Unome
you have to estimate your load score for tie-breaking
...I'm not entirely sure whether to take this seriously. My first thought was "lol that woudl be hilarious" but now I'm not so sure.
Yes, this is correct, outlined in rule 5.a.iii. The Load Scored estimate is used as a tiebreaker, see 6.e.
An interesting way to add an extra tiebreaker just in case (though I figure ties aren't that common in these events).

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 7th, 2016, 5:07 am
by chalker
...I'm not entirely sure whether to take this seriously. My first thought was "lol that woudl be hilarious" but now I'm not so sure.
Yes, this is correct, outlined in rule 5.a.iii. The Load Scored estimate is used as a tiebreaker, see 6.e.
An interesting way to add an extra tiebreaker just in case (though I figure ties aren't that common in these events).
Actually they do happen. One of the very rare times we had a tie at Nationals for a medal we couldn't break was with Towers many years back.

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 7th, 2016, 5:26 am
by Unome
Yes, this is correct, outlined in rule 5.a.iii. The Load Scored estimate is used as a tiebreaker, see 6.e.
An interesting way to add an extra tiebreaker just in case (though I figure ties aren't that common in these events).
Actually they do happen. One of the very rare times we had a tie at Nationals for a medal we couldn't break was with Towers many years back.
Oh yeah, now I remember; 6th? place Towers, 2012. Someone mentioned it in conjunction with it being your first time running scoring at Nationals.

Is that what inspired the change?

Re: Towers B/C

Posted: September 7th, 2016, 3:20 pm
by embokim
So has anyone seen this years rules yet? Any twists?
From what I've heard, they removed the restriction that limited the width of the tower above a certain height, so most designs no longer need to be built in two pieces. I also heard about a 2kg bonus for a tower that spans a 29cm diameter circle.
So are we expecting more straight towers that try to just go for the raw score that may be easier or a repeat from past years the basic two part tower, or just a straight gradual pyramid design because triangular pyramids are some of the inherently strongest structures.