Towers B/C

[Unome]

From what I have heard, yes, Towers will be running from 2017-2019. If not it would be running from 2017-2018.

So basically, it's not confirmed? Seems like all speculation, given that you haven't mentioned which source you've gotten this official information from.

I've heard from many past coaches and friends that towers will be running from 2017-2019. Obviously, I'm not a national board member so I don't know for sure that that will happen. But that is all I know for now. The only thing I can guarantee you is that towers won't be running for 4 years and WILL come back next year.

It's possible you've heard something I've not, but the latest info I've heard is that they're staying with the two-year cycle. Most Tech event cycles have been the same for the last ~10 years (since the major realignment of rotations around 2007-2009). I doubt they would change, since the main determiner of event rotations seems to be how long it takes for teams to get really good at the event, and that tends to happen rather quickly with the balsa building events (as evidenced by the scores we're seeing).

[chalker]

Is this confirmed?

From what I have heard, yes, Towers will be running from 2017-2019. If not it would be running from 2017-2018.

So basically, it's not confirmed? Seems like all speculation, given that you haven't mentioned which source you've gotten this official information from.

The current plan is Towers next year, followed by 2 years of Boomilever. All of this is subject to SO Board approval later this year of course, but they rarely make changes in things like this. Source: the fact I'm one of the committee chairs and privy to the plans;)

[jakeLHS]

When attaching your top X to the top of the tower is it found to be better to glue to the side of the leg or the bottom of the square that is holding the loading block?

[Complexity02]

When attaching your top X to the top of the tower is it found to be better to glue to the side of the leg or the bottom of the square that is holding the loading block?

I would believe that it is better to glue to the side of the leg, since X's prevent legs from pulling apart. The top square does not really count as a part of the leg, and there is no need to bring the X's up there. The top square that the loading block is sitting on does not have any force pulling it apart, so X's would not help it.

[jakeLHS]

thank you for your input. That is what I was thinking, but I was not sure. I have heard many different outcomes from the X's only design and I am trying it out for myself.

[Balsa Man]

thank you for your input. That is what I was thinking, but I was not sure. I have heard many different outcomes from the X's only design and I am trying it out for myself.

Just for clarification- discussed previously, but to make sure you consider.
At the top, there is a force pushing the top ends of the legs in toward each other; on the order of 1-1.5kg. You have to have pieces in resisting that force; ladder pieces, butt jointed between the legs, with their top surface just a hair (a mm or two) below the leg top ends.

[musicalwhang]

Hey guys, here's my 2nd tower attempt before states. This was my last tower before moving on to build my final states competing tower.
On my first attempt, I had about a 9 gram tower that held ~6 kgs. This attempt, someone recommended that I used butt joints for the ladders on my 5 interval tower. I did this and it came in at ~7.4 grams. This tower held around 5-6 kg and didn't see much improvement from the previous tower. However, the places of failure were drastically different this time. I noticed that the bottom of the leg gave out first instead of the top. Going into my last tower, what should I focus on to get my score up? Thanks guys.
Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1BYt2 ... sp=sharing
Aftermath: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1BYt2 ... sp=sharing

[musicalwhang]

Here all the scores from my state, North Carolina.

DIVISION B
Results from 234 teams across the state
Efficiency 1st- 2,118.6
Efficiency 5th- 1,245.3
Efficiency 10th- 839.0
8 Teams with efficiencies above 1,000

DIVISION C
Results from 223 teams across the state
Efficiency 1st- 1,759.8
Efficiency 5th- 1,375.0
Efficiency 10th- 1,163.0
13 teams with efficiencies above 1,000

[Unome]

Here all the scores from my state, North Carolina.

DIVISION B
Results from 234 teams across the state
Efficiency 1st- 2,118.6
Efficiency 5th- 1,245.3
Efficiency 10th- 839.0
8 Teams with efficiencies above 1,000

DIVISION C
Results from 223 teams across the state
Efficiency 1st- 1,759.8
Efficiency 5th- 1,375.0
Efficiency 10th- 1,163.0
13 teams with efficiencies above 1,000

Do they compile scores from regions and distribute them? That's pretty cool.

[Balsa Man]

Hey guys, here's my 2nd tower attempt before states. This was my last tower before moving on to build my final states competing tower.
On my first attempt, I had about a 9 gram tower that held ~6 kgs. This attempt, someone recommended that I used butt joints for the ladders on my 5 interval tower. I did this and it came in at ~7.4 grams. This tower held around 5-6 kg and didn't see much improvement from the previous tower. However, the places of failure were drastically different this time. I noticed that the bottom of the leg gave out first instead of the top. Going into my last tower, what should I focus on to get my score up? Thanks guys.
Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1BYt2 ... sp=sharing
Aftermath: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1BYt2 ... sp=sharing

It's hard to tell for sure, but what I think I see in the video is a tension failure in your bottom '[strap'- the pieces right at the bottom, that need to be there to hold the bottom ends of the legs together; keep them from pushing apart. It looks like you butt jointed them like your ladders. Those bottom pieces aren't really ladders. The ladders above work under compression, to keep the legs from buckling inward toward each other, and the Xs work in tension. At the bottom, its all tension. Butt joints have virtually no strength under tension. Looking at the aftermath photo, it looks like the bottom piece let go between the center/closest to the camera leg, and the leg to the right. That led to the leg end moving out, and a buckling failure in the leg.
If you lap joint the bottom pieces (and make sure they're strong enough) should work better. Looks like you're using 1/16 for all the brace pieces. To work at the bottom, you'll probably need 1/16 at 0.4, maybe 0.5gr/36". 1/16 x 1/32 at 0.3, 0.4 would save a little weight, and get needed strength.