Page 16 of 25

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 4:51 pm
by Vstorm34
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:


As far as I am aware there is no such rule that prohibits that.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 5:04 pm
by sciolyperson1
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:


If it's over 45cm, then its not betwen 40 and 45, so yes, you can get tiered.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 5:12 pm
by TheChiScientist
sciolyperson1 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:


If it's over 45cm, then its not betwen 40 and 45, so yes, you can get tiered.

My construction was set up so that my boom was 46cm long but I placed my cross wood where the loading block would rest at exactly 40cm-45cm! It's not made with the traditional wood placement at exactly the end of the boomilever. Thus a tier should not occur! Correct??

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 5:56 pm
by MadCow2357
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:

No such rule, what in the world happened?

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 6:05 pm
by Carrot
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:


Pretty sure that as long as the center of the loading block is within 40 to 45cm you should be good. If your boomi goes over 45cm but has the center of loading block within the range, you should not get tiered.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 13th, 2019, 9:19 pm
by TheChiScientist
MadCow2357 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:

No such rule, what in the world happened?
Carrot wrote:Pretty sure that as long as the center of the loading block is within 40 to 45cm you should be good. If your boomi goes over 45cm but has the center of loading block within the range, you should not get tiered.

Upon further investigation and review by me, my partner, and other people that compete in Boomilever we have determined that UChicago has misinterpreted Section 3 Subsection C of the Boomilever rules and prematurely declared my Boomilever tiered! Furthermore, the UChicago ES failed to notify me that my Boomilever was within a "construction violation", thus I was unable to arbitrate and correct their improper tier... There WILL be an arbitration as multiple injustices were made to the competitors (me and my partner) and no opportunity was given for clarification or arbitration. :evil: :evil: :evil: This is not cool...

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 4:29 am
by Unome
TheChiScientist wrote:
MadCow2357 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:

No such rule, what in the world happened?
Carrot wrote:Pretty sure that as long as the center of the loading block is within 40 to 45cm you should be good. If your boomi goes over 45cm but has the center of loading block within the range, you should not get tiered.

Upon further investigation and review by me, my partner, and other people that compete in Boomilever we have determined that UChicago has misinterpreted Section 3 Subsection C of the Boomilever rules and prematurely declared my Boomilever tiered! Furthermore, the UChicago ES failed to notify me that my Boomilever was within a "construction violation", thus I was unable to arbitrate and correct their improper tier... There WILL be an arbitration as multiple injustices were made to the competitors (me and my partner) and no opportunity was given for clarification or arbitration. :evil: :evil: :evil: This is not cool...

Chances of an arbitration post-competition are near-zero. This is something that you would have needed to identify and appeal during your device testing - refer to rule 4.j.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 6:17 am
by TheChiScientist
Unome wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:
MadCow2357 wrote:No such rule, what in the world happened?
Carrot wrote:Pretty sure that as long as the center of the loading block is within 40 to 45cm you should be good. If your boomi goes over 45cm but has the center of loading block within the range, you should not get tiered.

Upon further investigation and review by me, my partner, and other people that compete in Boomilever we have determined that UChicago has misinterpreted Section 3 Subsection C of the Boomilever rules and prematurely declared my Boomilever tiered! Furthermore, the UChicago ES failed to notify me that my Boomilever was within a "construction violation", thus I was unable to arbitrate and correct their improper tier... There WILL be an arbitration as multiple injustices were made to the competitors (me and my partner) and no opportunity was given for clarification or arbitration. :evil: :evil: :evil: This is not cool...

Chances of an arbitration post-competition are near-zero. This is something that you would have needed to identify and appeal during your device testing - refer to rule 4.j.

At the least, we are notifying UChicago of their error seeing how they are hosting a Div B. invitational and they need to correct it. Even if they don't process the arbitration...

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 6:21 am
by PM2017
TheChiScientist wrote:
Unome wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:Upon further investigation and review by me, my partner, and other people that compete in Boomilever we have determined that UChicago has misinterpreted Section 3 Subsection C of the Boomilever rules and prematurely declared my Boomilever tiered! Furthermore, the UChicago ES failed to notify me that my Boomilever was within a "construction violation", thus I was unable to arbitrate and correct their improper tier... There WILL be an arbitration as multiple injustices were made to the competitors (me and my partner) and no opportunity was given for clarification or arbitration. :evil: :evil: :evil: This is not cool...

Chances of an arbitration post-competition are near-zero. This is something that you would have needed to identify and appeal during your device testing - refer to rule 4.j.

At the least, we are notifying UChicago of their error seeing how they are hosting a Div B. invitational and they need to correct it. Even if they don't process the arbitration...

Not to downplay your disappointment (I know it sucks when an ES makes a mistake), but you need to chill out. Remember that these proctors are doing this for us competitors, and not for themselves. If they make a mistake, I know it's infuriating, but as someone who has made tests to run events, I also know that while ESes (usually) try their hardest, mistakes happen.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 6:49 am
by TheChiScientist
PM2017 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:
Unome wrote:Chances of an arbitration post-competition are near-zero. This is something that you would have needed to identify and appeal during your device testing - refer to rule 4.j.

At the least, we are notifying UChicago of their error seeing how they are hosting a Div B. invitational and they need to correct it. Even if they don't process the arbitration...

Not to downplay your disappointment (I know it sucks when an ES makes a mistake), but you need to chill out. Remember that these proctors are doing this for us competitors, and not for themselves. If they make a mistake, I know it's infuriating, but as someone who has made tests to run events, I also know that while ESes (usually) try their hardest, mistakes happen.

My main issue is that UChicago is notorious for following the rules to the dot. Which is what happened last year and no errors came from it. Yet while I understand mistakes can be made this one had so many oversights on my run. Other teams with similar circumstances did not run into these errors and in the end, I was the only one affected by this issue... Nevertheless, I just don't want anyone else to be affected by this oversight as it tanked me over 20 places.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 8:49 am
by sciencecat42
TheChiScientist wrote:
PM2017 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:At the least, we are notifying UChicago of their error seeing how they are hosting a Div B. invitational and they need to correct it. Even if they don't process the arbitration...

Not to downplay your disappointment (I know it sucks when an ES makes a mistake), but you need to chill out. Remember that these proctors are doing this for us competitors, and not for themselves. If they make a mistake, I know it's infuriating, but as someone who has made tests to run events, I also know that while ESes (usually) try their hardest, mistakes happen.

My main issue is that UChicago is notorious for following the rules to the dot. Which is what happened last year and no errors came from it. Yet while I understand mistakes can be made this one had so many oversights on my run. Other teams with similar circumstances did not run into these errors and in the end, I was the only one affected by this issue... Nevertheless, I just don't want anyone else to be affected by this oversight as it tanked me over 20 places.


It seems like UChicago wasn't as well run this year or they were trying something different as their boomilever loading system was completely different from the rules as well. Even if they did want to test how boomilevers would take load over an extended period of time, they should've considered how long it would take to test each boomilever.

However, I don't really see the point in making your boomilever longer than 45cm. Wouldn't that just add weight and mechanical disadvantage?

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 8:52 am
by DarthBuilder
sciencecat42 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:
PM2017 wrote:Not to downplay your disappointment (I know it sucks when an ES makes a mistake), but you need to chill out. Remember that these proctors are doing this for us competitors, and not for themselves. If they make a mistake, I know it's infuriating, but as someone who has made tests to run events, I also know that while ESes (usually) try their hardest, mistakes happen.

My main issue is that UChicago is notorious for following the rules to the dot. Which is what happened last year and no errors came from it. Yet while I understand mistakes can be made this one had so many oversights on my run. Other teams with similar circumstances did not run into these errors and in the end, I was the only one affected by this issue... Nevertheless, I just don't want anyone else to be affected by this oversight as it tanked me over 20 places.


It seems like UChicago wasn't as well run this year or they were trying something different as their boomilever loading system was completely different from the rules as well. Even if they did want to test how boomilevers would take load over an extended period of time, they should've considered how long it would take to test each boomilever.

However, I don't really see the point in making your boomilever longer than 45cm. Wouldn't that just add weight and mechanical disadvantage?


To add, boomilever ended at the time it was supposed to since they were ahead of schedule.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 8:55 am
by TheChiScientist
sciencecat42 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:
PM2017 wrote:Not to downplay your disappointment (I know it sucks when an ES makes a mistake), but you need to chill out. Remember that these proctors are doing this for us competitors, and not for themselves. If they make a mistake, I know it's infuriating, but as someone who has made tests to run events, I also know that while ESes (usually) try their hardest, mistakes happen.

My main issue is that UChicago is notorious for following the rules to the dot. Which is what happened last year and no errors came from it. Yet while I understand mistakes can be made this one had so many oversights on my run. Other teams with similar circumstances did not run into these errors and in the end, I was the only one affected by this issue... Nevertheless, I just don't want anyone else to be affected by this oversight as it tanked me over 20 places.


It seems like UChicago wasn't as well run this year or they were trying something different as their boomilever loading system was completely different from the rules as well. Even if they did want to test how boomilevers would take load over an extended period of time, they should've considered how long it would take to test each boomilever.

However, I don't really see the point in making your boomilever longer than 45cm. Wouldn't that just add weight and mechanical disadvantage?

My technique is special and weight gain is minimal to insignificant but they improperly measured where the chain goes and that's where the issue was.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 11:27 am
by dholdgreve
a number of kids at the Div B Centerville competition had the bolt out at 42.5 CM from the testing wall, having misread the rules. They must have thought that the inside edge of the block was to be 40 CM. This, of course is incorrect. It should be dimensioned from the wall to the CENTERLINE of the bolt to be at least 40 CM, and no more than 45 CM (although I have no idea why there is a maximum)

Also, FWIW, many, many Div B teams were way above the 20 CM drop line. Many as high or higher than Div C (at 15 CM). Still scratching my head on that one! Maybe thinking that by going shorter, they save weight? No clue!

Re: Boomilever B/C

Posted: January 14th, 2019, 12:02 pm
by waffletree
TheChiScientist wrote:
MadCow2357 wrote:
TheChiScientist wrote:Is there a rule against a Boomilever being tiered due to it being over 45cm?????? I received a tier for this yet as I review the construction parameters there is no such rule! Only Section 3 Subsection C states "The Boomilever must support the Loading Assembly (5.b.) at the loading point which must be between 40 cm and 45 cm from the testing wall (4.Part II.e.ii.)." but my Boomilever was in compliance with this rule! :evil: Am I missing something!! Please help! :cry:

No such rule, what in the world happened?
Carrot wrote:Pretty sure that as long as the center of the loading block is within 40 to 45cm you should be good. If your boomi goes over 45cm but has the center of loading block within the range, you should not get tiered.

Upon further investigation and review by me, my partner, and other people that compete in Boomilever we have determined that UChicago has misinterpreted Section 3 Subsection C of the Boomilever rules and prematurely declared my Boomilever tiered! Furthermore, the UChicago ES failed to notify me that my Boomilever was within a "construction violation", thus I was unable to arbitrate and correct their improper tier... There WILL be an arbitration as multiple injustices were made to the competitors (me and my partner) and no opportunity was given for clarification or arbitration. :evil: :evil: :evil: This is not cool...

oof rip