Towers B/C

Locked
Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Balsa Man »

Random Human wrote:
Raleway wrote:
Raleway wrote:I've heard a bunch of varied scores- top schools in the NE breaking 2800+, some Cali schools breaking the 3000 mark and getting near amazing 3300 (good lord the time needed for that and I guess money) but all in all, just strive to beat your own score. That should be motivational enough- also asking nearby invitationals or just invitationals in-state or that contain schools from your state could be beneficial as well.
Since I cannot find the edit function... these are division C scores
NoCal high schools getting that high?
May I ask which ones... As far as I know, I haven't heard much div C's above 3k, and barely in competitions....
Just a point of comparison; working with B and C teams-
comparable designs (meet 29cm circle bonus), estimated weight, scores at 14950 carried; 2775 C; 3037 B. C is about 9% heavier. Longer legs and higher density/more bracing.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
random-username
Member
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: March 18th, 2017, 12:39 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Towers B/C

Post by random-username »

How should the X's be attached to the legs? I've been using butt joints but I want to use lighter wood (1/16x1/16) for my X's. I'm not sure how I could attach it using a butt joint, as my legs are larger, (1/8x1/8). Would it be better to use a lap joint?
User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4319
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Unome »

random-username wrote:How should the X's be attached to the legs? I've been using butt joints but I want to use lighter wood (1/16x1/16) for my X's. I'm not sure how I could attach it using a butt joint, as my legs are larger, (1/8x1/8). Would it be better to use a lap joint?
Since X's are in tension, I would think a lap joint would be more appropriate.
Userpage

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
Balsa Man
Coach
Coach
Posts: 1318
Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
Division: C
State: CO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Balsa Man »

Unome wrote:
random-username wrote:How should the X's be attached to the legs? I've been using butt joints but I want to use lighter wood (1/16x1/16) for my X's. I'm not sure how I could attach it using a butt joint, as my legs are larger, (1/8x1/8). Would it be better to use a lap joint?
Since X's are in tension, I would think a lap joint would be more appropriate.
Well, it depends on the bracing...system/configuration you're using. In an Xs and ladders system; yes, Xs work only in tension; lap jointed. In an Xs only, the Xs have to carry both tension and compression forces. OK under tension, if the density is high enough. Under compression (from a leg starting to buckle to an adjacent leg), because they're not between the legs, the compression force is not along the centerline of the piece (non-axial loading). It will bow/buckle/break under significantly less force than it would if mounted between the legs. But as you note, with brace smaller than the leg, very difficult to get a joint that can handle the tension force the piece will also see.

All these issues/pros/cons are discussed in some detail if you care to look through previous pages.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
fdf4
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: March 5th, 2017, 11:34 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Towers B/C

Post by fdf4 »

Is it ok to have about a centimeter of leg freestanding past the last set of bracing?
Tesel
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 161
Joined: January 30th, 2016, 8:03 pm
Division: C
State: MI
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Tesel »

fdf4 wrote:Is it ok to have about a centimeter of leg freestanding past the last set of bracing?
I haven't tested it with a centimeter, but it should be good with about 0.5cm on either side and in fact that would be recommended. It allows you to put a tension piece at the bottom and a compression piece at the top to increase performance, while still meeting the bonus. Also, it allows you to evenly sand the tower to get all 4 points flush with the loading block or base.
University of Michigan Science Olympiad Div. C Event Lead

2018 MI Mission Possible State Champions
fdf4
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: March 5th, 2017, 11:34 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Towers B/C

Post by fdf4 »

Is there a downside to going over the recommended?
User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4319
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Unome »

fdf4 wrote:Is there a downside to going over the recommended?
The downside to having significant space between your lowest brace end and the bottom of the leg is that you know have a section of the tower that is essentially unbraced. For smaller values this shouldn't matter much; I would expect it only really becomes a problem when the length below the brace approaches the length between braces (not sure though).
Userpage

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.
fdf4
Member
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: March 5th, 2017, 11:34 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Towers B/C

Post by fdf4 »

Unome wrote:
fdf4 wrote:Is there a downside to going over the recommended?
The downside to having significant space between your lowest brace end and the bottom of the leg is that you know have a section of the tower that is essentially unbraced. For smaller values this shouldn't matter much; I would expect it only really becomes a problem when the length below the brace approaches the length between braces (not sure though).
Thank you, knowing this makes me less nervous going forth with my current tower!
Stear
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: March 14th, 2017, 9:34 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Towers B/C

Post by Stear »

I don't know about the rest of you guys and girls, but this season of science olympiad is over for me. My state tournament ending a couple weeks ago and I managed to place 2nd in Towers with the help of this forum thread. For that, I would like to say thank you to everyone. Towers has been my most favorite event for this year and after coming home I looked at all of the balsa wood events for the last ten years. From my observations I have concluded that Towers will stay for the next year. My question is for all of you people who have participated in the balsa wood events; do the rules for the balsa wood events change during the second year of their cycle? Something that you guys could think about is if the rules for Bridges in 2014-2015 were different from the rules in 2015-2016.
Locked

Return to “Towers B/C”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest