Hovercraft B/C

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby chalker » May 22nd, 2017, 7:45 pm

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places.
This is not true at all. Even within the medalists there was a significant time spread.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby chalker » May 22nd, 2017, 7:49 pm

Did you guys think that the track was level? The event supervisors told me that it was perfectly level but when I measured it with my level it seemed to be sloping up.
I wasn't there the whole time, but I don't think anyone ever said it was 'perfectly' level. It was level within the tolerances of the commercial levels we used (and we had multiple). However keep in mind that all measurement devices, including levels, have tolerances, so it's impossible to get things 'perfect'. Nor is that the intent of the event. Teams are given plenty of opporunities to adjust their vehicles to the variations in the tracks.

As an aside, it looks like there will be some BIG changes to this event next year. The rules committee discussed them at length and everyone seems to like them. Now I just have to actually write up all the details and test them out to make sure we aren't causing unintended issues. Sorry to be cryptic, but nothing is finalized yet, but thought I'd at least indicate the fact we are likely to make significant changes.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

UltramatrixMan
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 21st, 2017, 4:15 pm
Division: B
State: IL

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby UltramatrixMan » May 22nd, 2017, 7:52 pm

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places.
This is not true at all. Even within the medalists there was a significant time spread.
Hm, I did talk to the ES and must have misunderstood what he said to me. Can you at least give us some idea of how close the top 10 or so teams' scores were?

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby chalker » May 22nd, 2017, 7:55 pm

They did not announce it, they posted labels on the track that only a few people could see. Div B announced it.

That made it completely unfair. Teams that went later in the day could watch the event and easily get an idea of time and distance. All you had to do was time a run that was called for the 3x max and then divide by 3 to get the time, and you could see and estimate the distance. Those teams could then talk with coaches, etc. to make a strategy. Teams that were in the first block had no idea what they were facing until the moment they stepped up to the track. The rules state the length and time must be announced after impound specifically for that reason!
.
To clarify a bit here. I normally publicly announce to everyone, which is why you saw it publicly posted for Div B. The Div C event supervisor normally doesn't, but rather individually announces it. We debated this a bit and I decided not to push the issue. The wording in the rules is ambiguous enough that what he was doing is within the letter of the rules.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby chalker » May 22nd, 2017, 7:58 pm

The track was just mellamine, so I would guess many of the teams had calibrated on it, between the hints posted on the wikis and it just being a common material easily found in 8-foot sections.
The Div B track actually wasn't "just melamine". Many people didn't notice this, but there was a clear layer of contact paper shelf liner on top of the melamine. This was to allow for a replaceable surface in case of damage, and to ensure no air loss through the joint in the middle where the 2 4' boards abutted each other.

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

chalker
Member
Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
Division: Grad
State: OH

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby chalker » May 22nd, 2017, 7:59 pm

No, our track was entirely unaffected. As stated previously on the forums, I make sure to test on a wide variety of surfaces to ensure I can shoot for an accurate time. Using the data I have on melamine, polished stone, tile, plywood, steel, folding tables, etc, I have multiple formulas to predict the time of my vehicle with an accuracy of 1 second. Having scored within 1 second of the target on the first run (90% of the time, I do), I change the resistance to go for the gold.
I am SO excited to hear this! This is exactly the spirit of the event and I'm glad you followed it and it paid off!

Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair

UltramatrixMan
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 21st, 2017, 4:15 pm
Division: B
State: IL

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby UltramatrixMan » May 22nd, 2017, 8:29 pm

The track was just mellamine, so I would guess many of the teams had calibrated on it, between the hints posted on the wikis and it just being a common material easily found in 8-foot sections.
The Div B track actually wasn't "just melamine". Many people didn't notice this, but there was a clear layer of contact paper shelf liner on top of the melamine. This was to allow for a replaceable surface in case of damage, and to ensure no air loss through the joint in the middle where the 2 4' boards abutted each other.
Wow, you tripped me up then. Thankfully, it didn't impact our hovercraft during our runs.

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 22nd, 2017, 8:31 pm

As an aside, it looks like there will be some BIG changes to this event next year. The rules committee discussed them at length and everyone seems to like them. Now I just have to actually write up all the details and test them out to make sure we aren't causing unintended issues. Sorry to be cryptic, but nothing is finalized yet, but thought I'd at least indicate the fact we are likely to make significant changes.

Any hints?? :P

Is Faster better? Lightest mass wins? More direct rules? No max mass?
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

LittyWap
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: March 22nd, 2017, 1:44 pm
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby LittyWap » May 22nd, 2017, 8:32 pm

I really am praying for fastest wins, I had a design that got under a second!
Build score of 49.88/50 at Nationals!? Slacker! :evil:

Shady Side Academy Division C

Hovercraft, Thermodynamics, Chemistry Lab, Mat Sci

Free Thermo Test: https://adobe.ly/2Dnfrhu

Big P

UltramatrixMan
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: May 21st, 2017, 4:15 pm
Division: B
State: IL

Re: Hovercraft B/C

Postby UltramatrixMan » May 22nd, 2017, 8:41 pm

I really am praying for fastest wins, I had a design that got under a second!
\

I would wager that they will not ever make the competition fastest wins, because Chalker has said multiple times that fast is a safety issue, which was the whole problem with maglev. I also think that he said slower is harder from an engineering stand point too? Correct me if I'm wrong Chalker, which you already have multiple times today XD.


Return to “2017 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests