Scrambler C
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
First, let me get out that I don't care about this rule; I didn't see it to be a challenge.
Now, I mean honestly, I thought the intent was to provide a challenge in some way or form (although obviously, there are loopholes). But if the intention was to prevent the damage of the floors being used, then I have to say, that is to me sheer idiocy. Most launchers are made of rigid material and quite often can have nails and other rough objects sticking out of them. Even if the weights hit the launcher and not the floor, isn't there still a considerable amount of force to do damage anyways? If anything, if that was their concern, then reduce the maximum weight limit.
Now, I mean honestly, I thought the intent was to provide a challenge in some way or form (although obviously, there are loopholes). But if the intention was to prevent the damage of the floors being used, then I have to say, that is to me sheer idiocy. Most launchers are made of rigid material and quite often can have nails and other rough objects sticking out of them. Even if the weights hit the launcher and not the floor, isn't there still a considerable amount of force to do damage anyways? If anything, if that was their concern, then reduce the maximum weight limit.
-
- Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 3rd, 2013, 6:09 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
Well, without giving too much away, yes, we had to factor in a lot of variables that arose with a faster launcher. We had to spend over 9 hours the day before state (staying at school past midnight) working on improving our distance score. I'd prefer not to say what distances we are getting, but I'll say that there's a compromise between speed and accuracy and you just have to find out what works for you.joeyjoejoe wrote:Wow, with a run time of 1.4 seconds, I wonder what kind of stopping accuracy you have. Its got to be light and movin' fast so I imagine you'd have to factor in a lot of skid.
We get around 3 seconds pretty consistently so we'd have to get over 8cm closer than you to compensate for a speed like that.
I think the reasoning for the rule is to prevent damage to the floor; I don't see why they'd put this rule in as some sort of challenge, as it wouldn't really challenge the science/physics of the Scrambler. I can definitely see why they'd put this rule in protect the floors. My old launcher was denting our school's floor whenever we tested, so we put a piece of carpet underneath the weight and it stopped the dents. No other parts of our launchers or any launchers I have seen have damaged the floors with any "nails and other rough objects sticking out of them".Now, I mean honestly, I thought the intent was to provide a challenge in some way or form (although obviously, there are loopholes). But if the intention was to prevent the damage of the floors being used, then I have to say, that is to me sheer idiocy. Most launchers are made of rigid material and quite often can have nails and other rough objects sticking out of them. Even if the weights hit the launcher and not the floor, isn't there still a considerable amount of force to do damage anyways? If anything, if that was their concern, then reduce the maximum weight limit.
Alumni of Mounds View HS, MN
Check out the University of Minnesota Gopher Invite for Div B!
Past Events: Air Trajectory (2015 Nats: 2nd), Bungee Drop (2014 Nats: 7th), Circuit Lab, Elastic Launched Glider, Electric Vehicle (2016 Nats: 1st), Geocaching, Remote Sensing, Scrambler (2015 Nats: 4th)
Check out the University of Minnesota Gopher Invite for Div B!
Past Events: Air Trajectory (2015 Nats: 2nd), Bungee Drop (2014 Nats: 7th), Circuit Lab, Elastic Launched Glider, Electric Vehicle (2016 Nats: 1st), Geocaching, Remote Sensing, Scrambler (2015 Nats: 4th)
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
I don't know. If you were to build some platform to intercept and prevent the weight from hitting the floor, you'd lose some gravitational potential energy. The general observation I made was that not many people thought of using paper (myself included) because we had no idea what our state coordinator wanted.
It's amazing how many people used ramp launchers at states.
It's amazing how many people used ramp launchers at states.
-
- Member
- Posts: 179
- Joined: April 11th, 2011, 4:20 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
Were those people tiered?nxtscholar wrote:I don't know. If you were to build some platform to intercept and prevent the weight from hitting the floor, you'd lose some gravitational potential energy. The general observation I made was that not many people thought of using paper (myself included) because we had no idea what our state coordinator wanted.
It's amazing how many people used ramp launchers at states.
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
I'll put it this way. Only 7 out of the 26 teams that competed weren't tiered. 8th place used a ramp and got tiered two. So yeah, quite a bit of building infractions.
It was just as comical as it was heartbreaking to see teams spend minutes trying to "fix" a problem that could never be solved.
It was just as comical as it was heartbreaking to see teams spend minutes trying to "fix" a problem that could never be solved.

-
- Member
- Posts: 179
- Joined: April 11th, 2011, 4:20 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
Wow. That's kinda surprisingnxtscholar wrote:I'll put it this way. Only 7 out of the 26 teams that competed weren't tiered. 8th place used a ramp and got tiered two. So yeah, quite a bit of building infractions.
It was just as comical as it was heartbreaking to see teams spend minutes trying to "fix" a problem that could never be solved.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: October 6th, 2012, 11:27 am
- Division: C
- State: LA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
-
- Member
- Posts: 261
- Joined: November 14th, 2013, 6:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: NJ
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
I used a pulley launcher, 3 pulleys. I mean, to be honest, looking at youtube videos of previous scramblers helped me a lot. You get to see a lot of different designs and take the best features out of each one, and add your own ideas.
- jacobxc
- Member
- Posts: 101
- Joined: November 30th, 2011, 4:15 am
- Division: C
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Scrambler C
I don't think this time is possible. Because if my math is right that is a speed of 1278mph.wjnewhouse wrote: we were able to get a run time of 1.4 seconds at state
Real atheletes run miles not yards
-
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Scrambler C
I'm that's definitely some weird math 
It's 5.7 m/s, which amounts to 12.8mph
(8m/1.4s = 5.7m/s | 5.7m/s = 12.8mph)

It's 5.7 m/s, which amounts to 12.8mph
(8m/1.4s = 5.7m/s | 5.7m/s = 12.8mph)
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests