Boomilever B/C

Vstorm34
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: July 19th, 2018, 8:25 am
Division: C
State: VA

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby Vstorm34 » January 13th, 2019, 4:51 pm

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.

User avatar
sciolyperson1
Member
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: April 23rd, 2018, 7:13 pm
Division: C
State: NJ

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby sciolyperson1 » January 13th, 2019, 5:04 pm

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.
HSN '22
Roller Coaster National Champion '19
Mystery Architecture - 3rd '19
Battery Buggy - 4th '19, 5th '18
Mission Possible - 3rd '17

User avatar
TheChiScientist
Member
Member
Posts: 649
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 11:25 am
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: Hiding from the college bounty hunters.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby TheChiScientist » January 13th, 2019, 5:12 pm

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??
A Science Olympian from 2015 - 2019
Medal Count:30 8-)
Background In
Boomilever,Code Busters,Exp Design, Thermo, WIDI, Hovercraft, Bridges, Wright Stuff, Geocaching, Fermi

School:Crystal Lake Central High School Wiki
Assassinator #119 and Co-Conspirator in #120
President of The Builder Cult. Builders rise up!

User avatar
MadCow2357
Member
Member
Posts: 581
Joined: November 19th, 2017, 9:09 am
Division: C
State: RI
Location: Stark Industries Internship
Contact:

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby MadCow2357 » January 13th, 2019, 5:56 pm

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?
MadCow2357's Userpage
Projected 2020 Events: Boomilever, Gravity Vehicle
Considering: Fossils, Machines, Sounds of Music, Wright Stuff
Builder Cult - builders rise up! :)
Dank Memes Area Homeschool
234.36
#BalsaManForever

Carrot
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: January 8th, 2018, 8:16 am
Division: C
State: OH

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby Carrot » January 13th, 2019, 6:05 pm

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.

User avatar
TheChiScientist
Member
Member
Posts: 649
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 11:25 am
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: Hiding from the college bounty hunters.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby TheChiScientist » January 13th, 2019, 9:19 pm

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...
A Science Olympian from 2015 - 2019
Medal Count:30 8-)
Background In
Boomilever,Code Busters,Exp Design, Thermo, WIDI, Hovercraft, Bridges, Wright Stuff, Geocaching, Fermi

School:Crystal Lake Central High School Wiki
Assassinator #119 and Co-Conspirator in #120
President of The Builder Cult. Builders rise up!

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4036
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby Unome » January 14th, 2019, 4:29 am

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.
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

User avatar
TheChiScientist
Member
Member
Posts: 649
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 11:25 am
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: Hiding from the college bounty hunters.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby TheChiScientist » January 14th, 2019, 6:17 am

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...
A Science Olympian from 2015 - 2019
Medal Count:30 8-)
Background In
Boomilever,Code Busters,Exp Design, Thermo, WIDI, Hovercraft, Bridges, Wright Stuff, Geocaching, Fermi

School:Crystal Lake Central High School Wiki
Assassinator #119 and Co-Conspirator in #120
President of The Builder Cult. Builders rise up!

User avatar
PM2017
Member
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 5:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby PM2017 » January 14th, 2019, 6:21 am

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.
2018 Events
Astronomy, Mousetrap Vehicle, Mission Possible, Fermi Questions

2019 Events
Astronomy, Mousetrap Vehicle, Mission Possible, Fermi Questions :cry: , Circuit Lab

--
West High '19
UC Berkeley '23

User avatar
TheChiScientist
Member
Member
Posts: 649
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 11:25 am
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: Hiding from the college bounty hunters.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby TheChiScientist » January 14th, 2019, 6:49 am

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.
A Science Olympian from 2015 - 2019
Medal Count:30 8-)
Background In
Boomilever,Code Busters,Exp Design, Thermo, WIDI, Hovercraft, Bridges, Wright Stuff, Geocaching, Fermi

School:Crystal Lake Central High School Wiki
Assassinator #119 and Co-Conspirator in #120
President of The Builder Cult. Builders rise up!

sciencecat42
Member
Member
Posts: 74
Joined: March 14th, 2016, 7:07 pm
State: -

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby sciencecat42 » January 14th, 2019, 8:49 am

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?

DarthBuilder
Member
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: August 1st, 2017, 8:02 am
Division: Grad
State: IL

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby DarthBuilder » January 14th, 2019, 8:52 am

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.
Deleted

User avatar
TheChiScientist
Member
Member
Posts: 649
Joined: March 11th, 2018, 11:25 am
Division: Grad
State: IL
Location: Hiding from the college bounty hunters.

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby TheChiScientist » January 14th, 2019, 8:55 am

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.
A Science Olympian from 2015 - 2019
Medal Count:30 8-)
Background In
Boomilever,Code Busters,Exp Design, Thermo, WIDI, Hovercraft, Bridges, Wright Stuff, Geocaching, Fermi

School:Crystal Lake Central High School Wiki
Assassinator #119 and Co-Conspirator in #120
President of The Builder Cult. Builders rise up!

dholdgreve
Member
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: February 6th, 2006, 2:20 pm
Division: B
State: -

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby dholdgreve » January 14th, 2019, 11:27 am

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!
Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad

Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"

waffletree
Member
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: March 28th, 2018, 2:30 pm
Division: C
State: PA
Location: costco

Re: Boomilever B/C

Postby waffletree » January 14th, 2019, 12:02 pm

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
hhs
builder cult vp /// #treegang
234.36


Return to “Boomilever B/C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests