Anyone have any clue what is new for this year?
Guess that means I have to start working on my bucket shot aiming skills!!Anyone have any clue what is new for this year?
Yes;) Might as well give a high level summary of major changes since this is in my committee. As always though, you really need to read the actual rules to understand the specifics:
-Nominal mass items like strings / container walls aren't considered part of the falling mass
-Max device size reduced: 70cm cube C, 80cm cube B
-Foam golf balls allowed
-Launch area size reduced: 1m square
-Far target can be up to 2m right or left of the centerline
-Bucket shot max points increased to 300
My rule manual is coming in tommorow haha. I just am super impatient and excited to start. The 70cm cube size restrictions will probably be the most difficult part but it can definitely be done. Thank you very much for the info I can't wait to start building!!!!!Anyone have any clue what is new for this year?
Yes;) Might as well give a high level summary of major changes since this is in my committee. As always though, you really need to read the actual rules to understand the specifics:
-Nominal mass items like strings / container walls aren't considered part of the falling mass
-Max device size reduced: 70cm cube C, 80cm cube B
-Foam golf balls allowed
-Launch area size reduced: 1m square
-Far target can be up to 2m right or left of the centerline
-Bucket shot max points increased to 300
Exactly the approach we use for this event and many other builds. If you're starting out and aren't sure if something will work, just test the main step(s) that might not work. If you're dropping a mass onto a bottle, you probably don't need to make a contraption that drops the mass yet. And if something just barely works, there's a chance it won't work under slightly different conditions.Just test. The important thing is that your machine is consistent.
For the far target, couldn't you just bring a laser pointer to aim your device and then use Pythagorean theorem to find the distance?I think that in theory, that would be ideal, but in all practicality, it's probably not going to work. My goal for this year is to make something that is super consistent, and can accurately be modeled by some kind of function. Rather than using physics to find a function, I think you'd just be better off just testing it a bunch and then making a regression equation. With the far target no longer on the center line, there are way to many individual places that the target could be to test and perfect all of them.
Yes, but the problem is that you're going to get numbers like 6.243237 or something. It is impractical to test every single possible distance, because there will be so many this year. Having some kind of function for weight or height dropped from in relation to distance would be much more practical.For the far target, couldn't you just bring a laser pointer to aim your device and then use Pythagorean theorem to find the distance?I think that in theory, that would be ideal, but in all practicality, it's probably not going to work. My goal for this year is to make something that is super consistent, and can accurately be modeled by some kind of function. Rather than using physics to find a function, I think you'd just be better off just testing it a bunch and then making a regression equation. With the far target no longer on the center line, there are way to many individual places that the target could be to test and perfect all of them.
Usually all graphs are done in the same format by the team so if one graph has a mistake, they all will have the same mistake. The point of the graphs is that students are SUPPOSED to be graphing velocity by time, acceleration by time, etc. We are SUPPOSED to be using physics to calculate how to calibrate our device (of course most students don't)I didn't see anything in the rules prohibiting laser alignment (unlike scrambler, for instance), so I imagine it'll be a simple Pythagorean calculation, and I imagine the hope is that the graphs will actually be useful!
Speaking of graphs, rule 6.c.v seems a little weird - only one graph gets scored, but that score gets multiplied by 4? What if a team makes 3 great graphs but a mistake on the 4th one which is scored? Or vice versa? If it's just a time issue to get all graphs scored, why not require just one? Or let the students decide which of the 4 to score, not "selected by the event supervisor."
Return to “Air Trajectory B/C”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests