Scioly.org

I think negative scores are feasible, I know Wheeled Vehicle had negative scores

windu34 wrote:I don't quite understand the scoring for EV.
With my current vehicle's scores:
TS: 2 seconds so 2 points with new rules
DS: ~2cm so 2 points with new rules
BS: (assuming I am able to build the vehicle I plan to build and am able to achieve my goal) .2*(100-20)=16
So then 2+2-16= -12?
Am I missing something?

Maybe it's 20 points for 2 seconds, 20 points for 2cm, and -16 for bonus, so final score=34. That seems like a more likely weight for the bonus to me.

isn't 20 +20 -16 = 24 and not 34 ?

retired1 wrote:isn't 20 +20 -16 = 24 and not 34 ?

Yeah that was a typo

Unome wrote:

windu34 wrote:I don't quite understand the scoring for EV.
With my current vehicle's scores:
TS: 2 seconds so 2 points with new rules
DS: ~2cm so 2 points with new rules
BS: (assuming I am able to build the vehicle I plan to build and am able to achieve my goal) .2*(100-20)=16
So then 2+2-16= -12?
Am I missing something?

Maybe it's 20 points for 2 seconds, 20 points for 2cm, and -16 for bonus, so final score=34. That seems like a more likely weight for the bonus to me.

Looks like 1 cm is 1 pt, and 1 sec is also 1 pt. I dont think it would make much sense making this bonus equate to 1.6 cm since then it would be far more beneficial to not go for the bonus which would cause accuracy way worse than 2 cm (except at nationals).

Bazinga+ wrote:

Unome wrote:

windu34 wrote:I don't quite understand the scoring for EV.
With my current vehicle's scores:
TS: 2 seconds so 2 points with new rules
DS: ~2cm so 2 points with new rules
BS: (assuming I am able to build the vehicle I plan to build and am able to achieve my goal) .2*(100-20)=16
So then 2+2-16= -12?
Am I missing something?

Maybe it's 20 points for 2 seconds, 20 points for 2cm, and -16 for bonus, so final score=34. That seems like a more likely weight for the bonus to me.

Looks like 1 cm is 1 pt, and 1 sec is also 1 pt. I dont think it would make much sense making this bonus equate to 1.6 cm since then it would be far more beneficial to not go for the bonus which would cause accuracy way worse than 2 cm (except at nationals).

Yeah I agree

windu34 wrote:What do you guys think will be the best method to obtain the bonus? Electronic or mechanical steering?
The way I see it, we can either fix the frame of the vehicle to turn or use a servo

I've had the thought that having a steering servo that you can adjust electronically to trim the vehicle could end up being easier than making mechanical adjustments. It seems with most vehicles that I've seen, steering adjustments are very touchy.

You could also have some fun trying active steering too. Not sure that it would actually give any advantage, but you can pick up a three-axis accelerometer for around $5, and could run a PID controller to minimize lateral acceleration. Would be interested to see how well this could be made to work, seeing how MEMS accelerometers can be rather noisy.

So will one can will be one meter to either side of the midpoint?
And then the second can is placed wherever the competitor chooses?

rgandhi2002 wrote:So will one can will be one meter to either side of the midpoint?
And then the second can is placed wherever the competitor chooses?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the stationary can will be 1 meter to the right of the centerline. Can someone clarify whether it is mandatory to place the other can on the track? Can you leave both cans off the track? Do the rules specify bounds to the student-placed can?

windu34 wrote:

rgandhi2002 wrote:So will one can will be one meter to either side of the midpoint?
And then the second can is placed wherever the competitor chooses?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the stationary can will be 1 meter to the right of the centerline. Can someone clarify whether it is mandatory to place the other can on the track? Can you leave both cans off the track? Do the rules specify bounds to the student-placed can?

Also how wide is the track? I have a feeling that may have been mentioned elsewhere but...