Gravity Vehicle C

Locked
engineeringmaniac
Member
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: June 20th, 2009, 9:15 pm
Division: C
State: WY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by engineeringmaniac »

Even if the skidding is consistent, what is there to prevent backlash with the string system? Thats why ive always strayed away from it...

What about useing a little bit wider wheels to eliminate skid?
User avatar
fishman100
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 478
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 1:26 pm
Division: Grad
State: VA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by fishman100 »

engineeringmaniac wrote:Even if the skidding is consistent, what is there to prevent backlash with the string system? Thats why ive always strayed away from it...

What about useing a little bit wider wheels to eliminate skid?
2 years ago I used the string system for Battery Buggy and it worked just fine. We never had any problems with backlash/skid, etc.
Frogger4907 wrote:
engineeringmaniac wrote:The wheel size depends on your ramP and brake system. That being said, what are your guys' thoughts on braking systems? Obviously the wingnut will still be popular...
I'm definitely thinking putting string around both axles that's attached so they both stop at the same time, which gets double the stopping power. The skidding should be consistent.
How would you wind that? I tried to wind string around both axles but it didn't work and it frustrated me.
Langley HS Science Olympiad '15
User avatar
Primate
Member
Member
Posts: 409
Joined: January 15th, 2009, 4:34 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by Primate »

fishman100 wrote:
Frogger4907 wrote:
engineeringmaniac wrote:The wheel size depends on your ramP and brake system. That being said, what are your guys' thoughts on braking systems? Obviously the wingnut will still be popular...
I'm definitely thinking putting string around both axles that's attached so they both stop at the same time, which gets double the stopping power. The skidding should be consistent.
How would you wind that? I tried to wind string around both axles but it didn't work and it frustrated me.
Drill a hole through both axles, thread the end of the string in, and tie. Measure out slightly over 10m, cut the string, and attach to other axle with the same procedure. Wind all the string up on the front axle--make sure to wind forwards. Then, wheel the vehicle back the appropriate distance, and you're done!

Now, in competition, you'll have to estimate the number of winds you'll need, since you can't roll your vehicle along the floor. Do a bunch of tests ahead of time to determine your winds/distance ratio. It''ll still be quite accurate.
events 2012 gravity vehicle, robot arm, thermodynamics, tps
Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1388
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by Flavorflav »

Dabbler wrote:If it is the same material, I see that as user error or it got bumped during transport.
Has to be, unless it was on ice. 10 cm is a lot of skid for mousetrap.
User avatar
bearasauras
Member
Member
Posts: 410
Joined: March 4th, 2003, 8:33 pm
State: CA
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 115 times
Contact:

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by bearasauras »

haverstall wrote:Calibrate? Unless you go to the competition area the week before, calibration is going to be hard.

2 years ago, for mousetrap, we had perfectly calibrated the MTV for our school's floor, but at the state competition, we missed the line by around 10 cm. And the floor apparently was level. And it looked exactly like our school's floor.
Do you know if there was a finish on the track and was the track clean? I've seen a different in performance of the brakes right before and right after the track is cleaned, but I agree with those above that 10cm is quite a bit.
User avatar
haverstall
Member
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 9:52 am
Division: Grad
State: MN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by haverstall »

Ok, maybe I should have been more precise in my wording.

It came short of the line by 10 cm our first try, and then came short by about 5 cm on our second try. And it was weird, because we were doing the same exact turns we had used at school.
The surface looked pretty clean to me, but we were just so confused on how after so much testing, we still came short.

Maybe it was user error, but I think my other point still stands, that calibration for different floors is pretty hard unless you're testing on the actual surface itself.
Mounds View Science Olympiad 2008-2012 || 6th, Remote Sensing, 2011 Nationals

Co-Tournament Coordinator of Gopher Science Olympiad Invitational
Co-Chair of Minnesota Science Olympiad Alumni
User avatar
fishman100
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 478
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 1:26 pm
Division: Grad
State: VA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by fishman100 »

haverstall wrote:Ok, maybe I should have been more precise in my wording.

It came short of the line by 10 cm our first try, and then came short by about 5 cm on our second try. And it was weird, because we were doing the same exact turns we had used at school.
The surface looked pretty clean to me, but we were just so confused on how after so much testing, we still came short.

Maybe it was user error, but I think my other point still stands, that calibration for different floors is pretty hard unless you're testing on the actual surface itself.
My partner and I were testing at the exact location that BB was going to be held and got pretty good results. But the next day (the day of the competition) we did everything the same but ended up getting a lower score than we wanted. (Maybe they cleaned the floors after we left...that might have been a factor in the buggy's performance.) So even if you're testing on the same surface it may still be hard to calibrate.
Langley HS Science Olympiad '15
User avatar
nerpas
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: April 9th, 2011, 11:56 am
Division: C
State: MN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by nerpas »

Regarding mousetraps going shorter than tested at competitions ( :evil: :evil: :evil: =my feelings regarding this phenomenon )...
We came to the conclusion that it was due to our string (dental floss) stretching during repeated testing, then shrinking down again overnight. (of course, this is just a hypothesis)
User avatar
haverstall
Member
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: February 25th, 2011, 9:52 am
Division: Grad
State: MN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by haverstall »

nerpas wrote:Regarding mousetraps going shorter than tested at competitions ( :evil: :evil: :evil: =my feelings regarding this phenomenon )...
We came to the conclusion that it was due to our string (dental floss) stretching during repeated testing, then shrinking down again overnight. (of course, this is just a hypothesis)
Actually, this was the year you went to Greece, and I think we used normal string (which could still fall under your hypothesis)?

It's funny that we're talking about MTV on Gravity Vehicle forum...
Mounds View Science Olympiad 2008-2012 || 6th, Remote Sensing, 2011 Nationals

Co-Tournament Coordinator of Gopher Science Olympiad Invitational
Co-Chair of Minnesota Science Olympiad Alumni
User avatar
nerpas
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: April 9th, 2011, 11:56 am
Division: C
State: MN
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Gravity Vehicle C

Post by nerpas »

haverstall wrote: Actually, this was the year you went to Greece, and I think we used normal string (which could still fall under your hypothesis)?

It's funny that we're talking about MTV on Gravity Vehicle forum...
Oh yes, I know! I think we both had the same problem...maybe it's a MV thing? :P

And, in the interests of being semi-on topic... Based on our experiences with mousetrap, string brakes might not be as accurate as non-stretchable methods.
Locked

Return to “2012 Build Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests