Scioly.org

It is going to take something over an efficiency of 45,000,000 this year to be in the top few at Nationals (that's carries all the weight, 15,000 grams, and a mass of 5 grams). In past years the top towers of very similar dimensions have carried all the weight and had a mass of under 5 grams. It is also going to be very hard for a tower that doesn't carry all the mass to beat one that does. To beat a tower that carried 15kg and had a mass of 5 grams, with one that carried 14kg, the 14kg carrying tower would have to have a mass of about 4.3 grams. With the old rules you could beat a 5gr tower that carried 15kg, with a tower that had a mass of 4.67 grams and carried 14kg. When you start getting down into the extremely competitive (low mass) towers, losing an additional 0.37 gram (7%) become very very difficult. I am betting that the top scoring towers this year are going to carry all the mass (or very close to it).

It is probably going to make sense this year to actually test the tower to almost 100% (15kg), even though in past years this would have been very risky and would have possibly done some damage to the structure.

I'd actually wager it'll be well more than 45,000,000 to be in the top few. It wouldn't surprise me if a team or two hit 60 million.

Me and my "tower crew" (we have like 4 people working on it cause we want to place first at state again ) built our first tower yesterday and tested it today - it was about 8.35 g and held 16.1kg.

So that's like 26.9 million...what do you guys think of the competitiveness of this score? I fee like we can really improve if we get the weight down - which we definitely should be able to seeing as it held an extra kg.

lllazar wrote:Me and my "tower crew" (we have like 4 people working on it cause we want to place first at state again ) built our first tower yesterday and tested it today - it was about 8.35 g and held 16.1kg.

So that's like 26.9 million...what do you guys think of the competitiveness of this score? I fee like we can really improve if we get the weight down - which we definitely should be able to seeing as it held an extra kg.

It seems reasonably good I think people will have higher efficiencies than that though.
Here is a Weight to Hold Spreedsheet

Slow down everyone! The load supported is in kg, not grams. So, divide your scores (not efficiencies) by a cool million.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the C division dimensions are identical to the 2005-6 season and that the B divisions dimensions are identical to the 2007-8 season? Yes, I've been coaching this stuff for too long. Interesting wrinkle in the scoring though.

JimY wrote:Slow down everyone! The load supported is in kg, not grams. So, divide your scores (not efficiencies) by a cool million.

yea I relized that after I made that spreadsheet. I will update it eventually :\

JimY wrote:Slow down everyone! The load supported is in kg, not grams. So, divide your scores (not efficiencies) by a cool million.

By the way, has anyone noticed that the C division dimensions are identical to the 2005-6 season and that the B divisions dimensions are identical to the 2007-8 season? Yes, I've been coaching this stuff for too long. Interesting wrinkle in the scoring though.

You are correct sir. But the issues regarding holding all the mass remain the same.

has anyone tested a tower yet? how did it go?

we have tested about 6 but the highest was a 13.5 so not too good

is there any reason to build the tower higher than required?