Scores

[Rossyspsce]

I don't think I follow. Do you mean that the objective would be to make the car go as far as it can forward, then reverse back to a point?

I'd think just go forward past the end line (by any distance) and then reverse to a point would be enough - I don't think you need accuracy to stop in the endzone and accuracy to reverse to a point. And if you do that, it degrades fairly easily, as teams who are just starting out can choose not to attempt the endzone and just stop at the point. Give them a few meter penalty so they place behind anyone who makes it to the endzone and reverses at all, but ahead of cars that just don't work.

i would have to disagree with you on the last part. imo the end zone should be a BONUS not a penalty, which should be chosen as a balance between going for it and not. Similar to how scrambler or ev/buggy was back a few years ago with going around/threw cones. You can still be relatively competitive at invitationals/regionals/state(?) if you choose not to go for the bonus

[knightmoves]

i would have to disagree with you on the last part. imo the end zone should be a BONUS not a penalty, which should be chosen as a balance between going for it and not. Similar to how scrambler or ev/buggy was back a few years ago with going around/threw cones. You can still be relatively competitive at invitationals/regionals/state(?) if you choose not to go for the bonus

Tomayto / tomahto.

A bonus for doing X or a penalty for not doing X are equivalent.

With low-score-wins events like vehicle events, it's easier, in my opinion, to add a positive penalty for not doing X rather than a negative bonus (that leaves the winning teams on -400 or something). I'd think that reversing is sufficiently hard that getting anywhere close with reversing should rank above landing exactly on the target without it. Perhaps that means reversing is worth a meter of distance?

[Tendan]

i would have to disagree with you on the last part. imo the end zone should be a BONUS not a penalty, which should be chosen as a balance between going for it and not. Similar to how scrambler or ev/buggy was back a few years ago with going around/threw cones. You can still be relatively competitive at invitationals/regionals/state(?) if you choose not to go for the bonus

Tomayto / tomahto.

A bonus for doing X or a penalty for not doing X are equivalent.

With low-score-wins events like vehicle events, it's easier, in my opinion, to add a positive penalty for not doing X rather than a negative bonus (that leaves the winning teams on -400 or something). I'd think that reversing is sufficiently hard that getting anywhere close with reversing should rank above landing exactly on the target without it. Perhaps that means reversing is worth a meter of distance?

I would say a bonus should be something like 50 points (25 cm), not 200 points. That way a team can remain somewhat competitive without the bonus at competitions up to and, in some cases, including states.

Maybe a bonus should be scored like the can bonus for EV/buggy. A team can choose how big a risk they are willing to take, and the higher the risk, the higher the reward.

[PM2017]

i would have to disagree with you on the last part. imo the end zone should be a BONUS not a penalty, which should be chosen as a balance between going for it and not. Similar to how scrambler or ev/buggy was back a few years ago with going around/threw cones. You can still be relatively competitive at invitationals/regionals/state(?) if you choose not to go for the bonus

Tomayto / tomahto.

A bonus for doing X or a penalty for not doing X are equivalent.

With low-score-wins events like vehicle events, it's easier, in my opinion, to add a positive penalty for not doing X rather than a negative bonus (that leaves the winning teams on -400 or something). I'd think that reversing is sufficiently hard that getting anywhere close with reversing should rank above landing exactly on the target without it. Perhaps that means reversing is worth a meter of distance?

I would say a bonus should be something like 50 points (25 cm), not 200 points. That way a team can remain somewhat competitive without the bonus at competitions up to and, in some cases, including states.

Maybe a bonus should be scored like the can bonus for EV/buggy. A team can choose how big a risk they are willing to take, and the higher the risk, the higher the reward.

This is exactly what I was saying earlier.

[lavarball]

Golden Gate Invitational (GGS)) top six plus some estimated scores:

1. Iolani 4.5
2. Mira Loma ?
3. Albany 8.0
4. Monta Vista ?
5. Troy 8.5
6. Lynbrook 9.0

All six teams that won medals were less than 3 away. Iolani's two runs were near perfect.

Event was run on a nice gym floor with the grain. There were three tracks used, but I don't think there was any significant difference between the three tracks. The floor was mopped before the event started.

We bombed the event finishing in 11th and 17th with scores of 18.5 and 21.2.

Given that, what do people think nationals scores will be like? I'd guess less than 7 points to medal. Luck might be what determines where the best teams will fall.

Run distance was 10.0 for GGSO, which in theory should be easier than long distances like 11.5 and 12.0. If at Nationals they use a distance like 11.9, and the floor is smooth and level, then 7 to 8 sounds about right. OTOH, any issues with the floor, then it would be hard to estimate the medal threshold.

I feel like long distances are easier since there is less skid with less speed. I’m assuming the cars that placed at ggso go near perfectly straight, canceling out that issue. However, for our shorter distances there is more skid than there would be for further distances. Idk what I did but i used to get no skid but now I get super skid.

[Tendan]

Given that, what do people think nationals scores will be like? I'd guess less than 7 points to medal. Luck might be what determines where the best teams will fall.

Run distance was 10.0 for GGSO, which in theory should be easier than long distances like 11.5 and 12.0. If at Nationals they use a distance like 11.9, and the floor is smooth and level, then 7 to 8 sounds about right. OTOH, any issues with the floor, then it would be hard to estimate the medal threshold.

I feel like long distances are easier since there is less skid with less speed. I’m assuming the cars that placed at ggso go near perfectly straight, canceling out that issue. However, for our shorter distances there is more skid than there would be for further distances. Idk what I did but i used to get no skid but now I get super skid.

I would think that most medaling teams will have cars that don't skid at all (there are a lot who already do). That way there is no need for them to adapt to the flooring, and they shouldn't have to change as much between runs.

[sciolyperson1]

Run distance was 10.0 for GGSO, which in theory should be easier than long distances like 11.5 and 12.0. If at Nationals they use a distance like 11.9, and the floor is smooth and level, then 7 to 8 sounds about right. OTOH, any issues with the floor, then it would be hard to estimate the medal threshold.

I feel like long distances are easier since there is less skid with less speed. I’m assuming the cars that placed at ggso go near perfectly straight, canceling out that issue. However, for our shorter distances there is more skid than there would be for further distances. Idk what I did but i used to get no skid but now I get super skid.

I would think that most medaling teams will have cars that don't skid at all (there are a lot who already do). That way there is no need for them to adapt to the flooring, and they shouldn't have to change as much between runs.

If you want to optimize everything perfectly you can have a system which you can add weight/decrease weight in order to accommodate for skid and closer/farther distances. All flooring is different, you can apply different things to the wheels to get better results in different types of flooring (just make sure it doesnt leave a residue)

[mnoga]

I feel like long distances are easier since there is less skid with less speed. I’m assuming the cars that placed at ggso go near perfectly straight, canceling out that issue. However, for our shorter distances there is more skid than there would be for further distances. Idk what I did but i used to get no skid but now I get super skid.

I would think that most medaling teams will have cars that don't skid at all (there are a lot who already do). That way there is no need for them to adapt to the flooring, and they shouldn't have to change as much between runs.

If you want to optimize everything perfectly you can have a system which you can add weight/decrease weight in order to accommodate for skid and closer/farther distances. All flooring is different, you can apply different things to the wheels to get better results in different types of flooring (just make sure it doesnt leave a residue)

Our experience with floors primarily falls into two categories which I'll call normal and abnormal.

Normal is usually a gym wood floor refinished in the past two or three years at worst or a very smooth tile floor that is not wavy. There are no bumps or dents in the floor, at least where the supervisor sets up the track. Under a "normal" scenario wheel size and type has little affect on ability to hit the target point assuming breaking and aiming technique are solid.

Abnormal usually means a floor that is not smooth, possibly wavy, or there are dents/raised spots that your vehicle might roll over during the competition. Under an "abnormal" scenario wheel size and type can make a significant difference in the outcome.

Thinking back over several years involving Scrambler, EV, Mousetrap, and Gravity Vehicle competitions I'd estimate a normal floor is encountered about 75% or the time.