Score Discussion

Locked
User avatar
windu34
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1353
Joined: April 19th, 2015, 6:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL
Location: Gainesville, Florida

Score Discussion

Post by windu34 » October 16th, 2018, 6:38 pm

Nationals Predictions
1.) 12
6.) 19
20.) 45

This was much harder for me to predict than Mission. I was pretty disappointed in the MTV scores from last years Nationals, i really thought they would be higher better. These predictions reflect that.
Boca Raton Community High School Alumni
Florida State Tournament Director 2020
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Member
kevin@floridascienceolympiad.org || windu34's Userpage

Circuit Lab Event Supervisor for 2020: UT Austin (B/C), MIT (C), Solon (C), Princeton (C), Golden Gate (C), Nationals (C)

User avatar
PM2017
Member
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: January 20th, 2017, 5:02 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: Enjoying College! :D

Re: Score Discussion

Post by PM2017 » October 16th, 2018, 9:24 pm

windu34 wrote:Nationals Predictions
1.) 12
6.) 19
20.) 45

This was much harder for me to predict than Mission. I was pretty disappointed in the MTV scores from last years Nationals, i really thought they would be higher. These predictions reflect that.
I'm assuming you meant lower scores (as in better scores.)
The time score this year is going to be much higher, simply because the change in direction is so much after the start, so I'd wager that scores would be even higher than you predicted.
West High '19
UC Berkeley '23

Go Bears!

User avatar
windu34
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1353
Joined: April 19th, 2015, 6:37 pm
Division: Grad
State: FL
Location: Gainesville, Florida

Re: Score Discussion

Post by windu34 » October 17th, 2018, 12:52 pm

PM2017 wrote:
windu34 wrote:Nationals Predictions
1.) 12
6.) 19
20.) 45

This was much harder for me to predict than Mission. I was pretty disappointed in the MTV scores from last years Nationals, i really thought they would be higher. These predictions reflect that.
I'm assuming you meant lower scores (as in better scores.)
The time score this year is going to be much higher, simply because the change in direction is so much after the start, so I'd wager that scores would be even higher than you predicted.
Ah yes sorry I meant the scores were worse than I expected them to be. I would agree with that, except this is the second year so it should be a bit more competitive than a direct comparison from last year
Boca Raton Community High School Alumni
Florida State Tournament Director 2020
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Member
kevin@floridascienceolympiad.org || windu34's Userpage

Circuit Lab Event Supervisor for 2020: UT Austin (B/C), MIT (C), Solon (C), Princeton (C), Golden Gate (C), Nationals (C)

User avatar
Alex-RCHS
Member
Member
Posts: 536
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:46 pm
Division: C
State: NC
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Score Discussion

Post by Alex-RCHS » January 7th, 2019, 7:06 pm

Anyone want to update with some scores?
About me!
Raleigh Charter HS (NC) 2018
UNC-Chapel Hill 2022

User avatar
mnoga
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: March 19th, 2015, 6:12 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: Los Altos, CA

Re: Score Discussion

Post by mnoga » January 13th, 2019, 11:01 am

Alex-RCHS wrote:Anyone want to update with some scores?
Mira Loma C approximate results and discussion:

1. Mira Loma: 17
2. Troy: 18
3. Albany: somewhere between 17 and 33
4. Mtn View: 33

1. Mira Loma was running on their home floor. On their first run cup tipped over when it hit the VTP tape strip but it stayed in front of vehicle and landed on top of the CTP. Car backed up and missed the VTP by about 2.5cm. Car wasn't particularity fast with a total run time of 14.5 seconds. Their second run missed the CTP by a few centimeters but they were slightly closer to the VTP.

2. Troy had a mechanical issue on their first run. On their second run they were about three centimeters from the CTP and a couple of centimeters from the VTP. Car was fast with a run time of about 10 seconds. Because of their bad 1st run, Troy had no information to adjust for their 2nd run, so this car can probably score around 11 or 12 with a near perfect run. Note: Troy had an issue with their log, so they incurred a penalty and did not actually finish 2nd.

3. I did not see Albany run their car so I have no idea what they actually scored. They did win the NorCal State last year.

4. Mtn View had same issue as Mira Loma on their 1st run as the cup tipped over but it was pushed around 11cm short of the CTP. Their car backed up around 5 from the VTP. Mtn View's second run was better as the cup did not tip over and they managed to push the cup 9cm short of the CTP and it backed up 1.5cm from the VTP. The Mtn View car run time was around 12 seconds. I believe Mtn View did not make the correct adjustment on the 2nd run by subtracting one winding for the backward leg, thereby adding one extra winding to the forward leg.

RECOMMENDATION: VTP 5cm x 2.5cm tape should be reduced to very small 0.5 cm square thereby lessening chances of cup tipping over.

shrewdPanther46
Member
Member
Posts: 435
Joined: October 9th, 2017, 6:25 pm
Division: C
State: NJ

Re: Score Discussion

Post by shrewdPanther46 » January 13th, 2019, 11:22 am

mnoga wrote:
Alex-RCHS wrote:Anyone want to update with some scores?
Mira Loma C approximate results and discussion:

1. Mira Loma: 17
2. Troy: 18
3. Albany: somewhere between 17 and 33
4. Mtn View: 33

1. Mira Loma was running on their home floor. On their first run cup tipped over when it hit the VTP tape strip but it stayed in front of vehicle and landed on top of the CTP. Car backed up and missed the VTP by about 2.5cm. Car wasn't particularity fast with a total run time of 14.5 seconds. Their second run missed the CTP by a few centimeters but they were slightly closer to the VTP.

2. Troy had a mechanical issue on their first run. On their second run they were about three centimeters from the CTP and a couple of centimeters from the VTP. Car was fast with a run time of about 10 seconds. Because of their bad 1st run, Troy had no information to adjust for their 2nd run, so this car can probably score around 11 or 12 with a near perfect run. Note: Troy had an issue with their log, so they incurred a penalty and did not actually finish 2nd.

3. I did not see Albany run their car so I have no idea what they actually scored. They did win the NorCal State last year.

4. Mtn View had same issue as Mira Loma on their 1st run as the cup tipped over but it was pushed around 11cm short of the CTP. Their car backed up around 5 from the VTP. Mtn View's second run was better as the cup did not tip over and they managed to push the cup 9cm short of the CTP and it backed up 1.5cm from the VTP. The Mtn View car run time was around 12 seconds. I believe Mtn View did not make the correct adjustment on the 2nd run by subtracting one winding for the backward leg, thereby adding one extra winding to the forward leg.

RECOMMENDATION: VTP 5cm x 2.5cm tape should be reduced to very small 0.5 cm square thereby lessening chances of cup tipping over.
What rules did the mira loma invitational use for mousetrap?

sciencecat42
Member
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: March 14th, 2016, 7:07 pm

Re: Score Discussion

Post by sciencecat42 » January 13th, 2019, 11:28 am

Given that those above scores are some of the best in the nation, could you make a relatively competitive car for state by ignoring the reverse angle completely? Let's say you hit the CTP perfectly and get around a 10s run time, your score would be 20.

User avatar
mnoga
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: March 19th, 2015, 6:12 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: Los Altos, CA

Re: Score Discussion

Post by mnoga » January 13th, 2019, 12:26 pm

shrewdPanther46 wrote:
mnoga wrote:
Alex-RCHS wrote:Anyone want to update with some scores?
Mira Loma C approximate results and discussion:

1. Mira Loma: 17
2. Troy: 18
3. Albany: somewhere between 17 and 33
4. Mtn View: 33

1. Mira Loma was running on their home floor. On their first run cup tipped over when it hit the VTP tape strip but it stayed in front of vehicle and landed on top of the CTP. Car backed up and missed the VTP by about 2.5cm. Car wasn't particularity fast with a total run time of 14.5 seconds. Their second run missed the CTP by a few centimeters but they were slightly closer to the VTP.

2. Troy had a mechanical issue on their first run. On their second run they were about three centimeters from the CTP and a couple of centimeters from the VTP. Car was fast with a run time of about 10 seconds. Because of their bad 1st run, Troy had no information to adjust for their 2nd run, so this car can probably score around 11 or 12 with a near perfect run. Note: Troy had an issue with their log, so they incurred a penalty and did not actually finish 2nd.

3. I did not see Albany run their car so I have no idea what they actually scored. They did win the NorCal State last year.

4. Mtn View had same issue as Mira Loma on their 1st run as the cup tipped over but it was pushed around 11cm short of the CTP. Their car backed up around 5 from the VTP. Mtn View's second run was better as the cup did not tip over and they managed to push the cup 9cm short of the CTP and it backed up 1.5cm from the VTP. The Mtn View car run time was around 12 seconds. I believe Mtn View did not make the correct adjustment on the 2nd run by subtracting one winding for the backward leg, thereby adding one extra winding to the forward leg.

RECOMMENDATION: VTP 5cm x 2.5cm tape should be reduced to very small 0.5 cm square thereby lessening chances of cup tipping over.
What rules did the mira loma invitational use for mousetrap?
State Rules and the run distance was 3.4m ... Teams were made aware before competition that Mira Loma would be using State Rules.

User avatar
mnoga
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: March 19th, 2015, 6:12 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Location: Los Altos, CA

Re: Score Discussion

Post by mnoga » January 13th, 2019, 12:41 pm

sciencecat42 wrote:Given that those above scores are some of the best in the nation, could you make a relatively competitive car for state by ignoring the reverse angle completely? Let's say you hit the CTP perfectly and get around a 10s run time, your score would be 20.
Reverse angle? Are you saying you run straight and then try to adjust steering at CTP? Or are you talking fixed path but aiming slightly right and curving slightly right?

20 is definitely achievable at any distance if you run a fixed path AND you know a priori the rules you are running under, that is, Regional (0.1m), State (0.25m), or National (0.5m). You can adjust your curvature depending upon distances from imaginary line that runs thought the SP and the CTP.

Zxcvbnm123
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: October 14th, 2018, 8:22 pm

Re: Score Discussion

Post by Zxcvbnm123 » January 13th, 2019, 2:01 pm

mnoga wrote:
sciencecat42 wrote:Given that those above scores are some of the best in the nation, could you make a relatively competitive car for state by ignoring the reverse angle completely? Let's say you hit the CTP perfectly and get around a 10s run time, your score would be 20.
Reverse angle? Are you saying you run straight and then try to adjust steering at CTP? Or are you talking fixed path but aiming slightly right and curving slightly right?

20 is definitely achievable at any distance if you run a fixed path AND you know a priori the rules you are running under, that is, Regional (0.1m), State (0.25m), or National (0.5m). You can adjust your curvature depending upon distances from imaginary line that runs thought the SP and the CTP.
He means straight forward and back.

Locked

Return to “Mousetrap Vehicle C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests