Scioly.org

It seems to me that people are getting better scores in div c, is this because they can make theirs weigh less more easily because they only have to make it to 15cm under the hook? Even though it is weaker, they can still make it hold and be around 6-7. Last year in towers, div c’s were automatically heavier and weaker because it was 60 cm tall instead of the 50 that div b had.

Isn't it the same specs as 2014? Div B is much easier to make a higher efficiency because there is less force on the compression members.

RobertYL wrote:Isn't it the same specs as 2014? Div B is much easier to make a higher efficiency because there is less force on the compression members.

I believe 2014 boomis has to be between 45-50cm long for both divisions. And top scores at nats then we’re like 3000 for B and 2300 for C. So you’d expect both top scores to be beyond that this year.

RobertYL wrote:

TheSquaad wrote:

Dreamz wrote:
Winner was 2500 score I heard. Not confirmed though

Div B or C?

Can confirm.
1st: 5.9 g with full
2nd: 6.22 g with full (from above)
3rd: 6.59 g with full (me!)

Did these three use similar designs? That's a pretty tight grouping.

JonB wrote:

RobertYL wrote:

TheSquaad wrote:
Div B or C?

Can confirm.
1st: 5.9 g with full
2nd: 6.22 g with full (from above)
3rd: 6.59 g with full (me!)

Did these three use similar designs? That's a pretty tight grouping.

I'm willing to bet all 3 are compression box boomilevers. Given the tight grouping, it's the most likely scenario.

Bruh I can't even dream of those weights right now. Are you talking about box beam boomilevers, as mentioned here?

https://scioly.org/wiki/index.php/Boomi ... eam_Design

I'm sure this design wouldn't weigh much, but I've stuck to traditional boomilevers for this season just because I don't know how to build a box beam boom.

TheChiScientist wrote:

JonB wrote:

RobertYL wrote:
Can confirm.
1st: 5.9 g with full
2nd: 6.22 g with full (from above)
3rd: 6.59 g with full (me!)

Did these three use similar designs? That's a pretty tight grouping.

I'm willing to bet all 3 are compression box boomilevers. Given the tight grouping, it's the most likely scenario.

Could also be compression tubes, I’ve built a few and they also weigh ~5-6g.
Most likely some type of design that has one hollow compression member though.

They could very well be normal boomilever designs, i was able to make a 5 gram boomi, it didn't do very well, but i was try to see if 3000 was possible, it looks like you have to get really lucky with the wood you get (very strong but very light) and have a pretty good design. I think 2500 is very possible and top 3 at nats will be over 2500.

TheChiScientist wrote:

JonB wrote:

RobertYL wrote:
Can confirm.
1st: 5.9 g with full
2nd: 6.22 g with full (from above)
3rd: 6.59 g with full (me!)

Did these three use similar designs? That's a pretty tight grouping.

I'm willing to bet all 3 are compression box boomilevers. Given the tight grouping, it's the most likely scenario.

I was lucky enough to be there for the 1st place boom test and I can attest that they are all not the same design. 1st was a chimney boom design and 3rd was a standard tension boom design, no frills or edits for the compression beams, just two compression members.

There's not really any reason to speculate designs unless you were there yourself. Just keep building and keep testing. Most designs have a similar cap for efficiency, you just need to spend time trimming down any excess weight.

New York- Division B
1st- 9.54g holding 15kg
Any other Div B NY scores?