Efficiencies

[maziecat23]

I much prefer the efficency calculations for bridges over towers.

[lucwilder42]

As much as I prefer the old efficiency scores, I'll admit that placing more importance on holding all the weight makes more sense for real applications. And chalker, I think it's a great idea. A lot of schools have gotten almost too good because they're used to the same old structures; if variable height is thrown in then this event will be much more exciting

[soccerkid812]

Yup, but boomilever is only in C division. Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in

what building event does div B get when div C has the boomilever?

[Efficiency]

Yup, but boomilever is only in C division. Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in

what building event does div B get when div C has the boomilever?

I'm pretty sure Division B only rotates between Elevated Bridge and Towers, and then Division C has Boomilever added on to the rotation.

[chalker]

what building event does div B get when div C has the boomilever?

I'm pretty sure Division B only rotates between Elevated Bridge and Towers, and then Division C has Boomilever added on to the rotation.

In the past that was true, however the tentative plan for the future is to sync B and C divisions up so that both have the same event at the same time, including Boomilever.

[rjm]

I have always preferred efficiency calculations over schemes which require carrying "all the load". "All the load" is a totally artificial quantity. If you want real-world applications, you will design like a real-world engineer and consider safety factors, long-term serviceability and maintenance costs, regional economy of materials and labor skills vs. costs of less readily available resources, weathering and cyclical variations in environmental conditions, adaptability to changing uses over the anticipated useful life of the structure, aesthetics, and so on. In this context, structural efficiency represents the capital cost of the structure and while it may be desirable to minimize that first cost, it is often not the primary consideration in the design and construction of the structure. So, to do this as a real-world "all the load" application, I'd expect everyone to bring in 30 gram towers and score beauty points.

Structure competitions such as Science Olympiad structure events are more similar to the research and testing which are done on materials, designs, and assemblies to demonstrate their ultimate strength. That's how the information that engineers use to build "safe" structures is determined. Real-world application here is the concept that test structures must be evaluated to form the base knowledge that allows engineers to do their jobs.

I've always contended that students learn more about structures by breaking them than they will ever learn from unbroken structures. Punishing them for breaking their structures seems counterproductive.

So far as B vs C future structure events are concerned, there is always an effort made to differentiate between the divisions even the the event is nominally the same. In general, the challenge is a bit more difficult for C.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

[dholdgreve]

Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in

Hmmm... I wonder who's leaking all our 'secret' committee discussions about next year's rules?

But seriously, we are considering incorporating height into the scoring formula (i.e. taller towers get more points). As I've done for other events, I'm happy to hear and pass along feedback about this idea (or any other you might have).

Whoa... If you are being serious here with the height thing, consider a few pragmatic points from those running this event:
Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.

If not, consider the safety implications of a 7th grader climbing a ladder to drop the loading chain down through their tower.

We have already crossed the height disadvantage line this year. By including height in the towers, will we be discriminating against shorter competitors?

Think of the venues. Many times the ceilings are at 8'-0", a potential limiting factor... This mean presposting the "deck" heights, similar to the way it is done in planes and copters

VERY BAD IDEA.

[soccerkid812]

[quote="dholdgreve"][quote="chalker"][quote="lucwilder42"] Word on the street is that towers may possibly get even harder next year with an new variable thrown in[/quote]

Hmmm... I wonder who's leaking all our 'secret' committee discussions about next year's rules?

But seriously, we are considering incorporating height into the scoring formula (i.e. taller towers get more points). As I've done for other events, I'm happy to hear and pass along feedback about this idea (or any other you might have).[/quote]

Whoa... If you are being serious here with the height thing, consider a few pragmatic points from those running this event:
Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.

If not, consider the safety implications of a 7th grader climbing a ladder to drop the loading chain down through their tower.

We have already crossed the height disadvantage line this year. By including height in the towers, will we be discriminating against shorter competitors?

Think of the venues. Many times the ceilings are at 8'-0", a potential limiting factor... This mean presposting the "deck" heights, similar to the way it is done in planes and copters

VERY BAD IDEA.[/quote]

I think the height variable will be an interesting twist into the event.

Not all teams with make their tower taller than the required min height though, because we do not know how many points height will add in the new scoring system. Also, I believe there should be a min and max height allowance.
I see where you come from with loading the chain down through the tower, but you can always work around that. I am sure the ladder wont be too high that is gives some teams a disadvantage.

[Littleboy]

Or make it so it is like the 2006 (i believe) bridge, where the proctor decided which of three spots you would test. You could have it so that the tower needs to have multiple spots to test from. That would also throw an interesting twist without the height problem.

[chalker]

Will there be a maximum height established? Is so, we may as well just set that as the required height, because everyone will be there anyway.

Yes, we've already thought of this issue and will have a maximum height if we go this route. I disagree that everyone 'will be there anyway', because tower weight will still be an issue, which means that the higher you go, the more you'll weigh. We are working on balancing the scoring formula to appropriately handle this tradeoff between height and weight.