Scioly.org

JoeyC wrote:Even in thermo there's a paywall, where the better, more expensive insulating material you could get, the more likely you were to win. Hence the teams who brought devices made of wood and cotton were at around a 10 point disadvantage to those made of insulating foam, or even aerogels. This is the same time of paywall present in most lab and build events. In build events like Wright Stuff if you get the better propeller band (or rubber motor), you'll have a higher chance of winning than the team who literally just got a normal rubber band. However, in those events the materials used only give small advantages, and may not be worth the price; in boomilever there's not much room for a paywall at all once you get to using balsa wood. In sumobots there's just such a high paywall in terms of parts you could buy (because in our hi-tech world, there's always a stronger , smaller motor on the market meant for something like NASA use). In other words, in sumobots the money spent to performance correlation is too high; if you imagined it as a logarthmic graph, the point where money spent begins to no longer make a difference is way higher than that point for other graphs like boomi.

JoeyC wrote:Even in thermo there's a paywall, where the better, more expensive insulating material you could get, the more likely you were to win. Hence the teams who brought devices made of wood and cotton were at around a 10 point disadvantage to those made of insulating foam, or even aerogels. This is the same time of paywall present in most lab and build events. In build events like Wright Stuff if you get the better propeller band (or rubber motor), you'll have a higher chance of winning than the team who literally just got a normal rubber band. However, in those events the materials used only give small advantages, and may not be worth the price; in boomilever there's not much room for a paywall at all once you get to using balsa wood. In sumobots there's just such a high paywall in terms of parts you could buy (because in our hi-tech world, there's always a stronger , smaller motor on the market meant for something like NASA use). In other words, in sumobots the money spent to performance correlation is too high; if you imagined it as a logarthmic graph, the point where money spent begins to no longer make a difference is way higher than that point for other graphs like boomi.

builderguy135 wrote:

JoeyC wrote:Even in thermo there's a paywall, where the better, more expensive insulating material you could get, the more likely you were to win. Hence the teams who brought devices made of wood and cotton were at around a 10 point disadvantage to those made of insulating foam, or even aerogels. This is the same time of paywall present in most lab and build events. In build events like Wright Stuff if you get the better propeller band (or rubber motor), you'll have a higher chance of winning than the team who literally just got a normal rubber band. However, in those events the materials used only give small advantages, and may not be worth the price; in boomilever there's not much room for a paywall at all once you get to using balsa wood. In sumobots there's just such a high paywall in terms of parts you could buy (because in our hi-tech world, there's always a stronger , smaller motor on the market meant for something like NASA use). In other words, in sumobots the money spent to performance correlation is too high; if you imagined it as a logarthmic graph, the point where money spent begins to no longer make a difference is way higher than that point for other graphs like boomi.

I disagree with the first 2 parts. Thermo isn't really expensive unless you make it expensive. Same goes with wright stuff. Rubber motors are extremely cheap, you could get a year's supply with ~$20-40. Propellers are cheap as well. If you use a normal rubber band, you honestly deserve to lose. It just shows that you don't care about the materials you are using. 10 motors literally only costs $3.50. Experienced wright stuff builders could probably build a winning plane in around $20, not including glue and stuff.
Gliders are honestly more expensive than that if you know what you're doing. All of this comes from choosing the right wood.

Rossyspsce wrote:

builderguy135 wrote:

JoeyC wrote:Even in thermo there's a paywall, where the better, more expensive insulating material you could get, the more likely you were to win. Hence the teams who brought devices made of wood and cotton were at around a 10 point disadvantage to those made of insulating foam, or even aerogels. This is the same time of paywall present in most lab and build events. In build events like Wright Stuff if you get the better propeller band (or rubber motor), you'll have a higher chance of winning than the team who literally just got a normal rubber band. However, in those events the materials used only give small advantages, and may not be worth the price; in boomilever there's not much room for a paywall at all once you get to using balsa wood. In sumobots there's just such a high paywall in terms of parts you could buy (because in our hi-tech world, there's always a stronger , smaller motor on the market meant for something like NASA use). In other words, in sumobots the money spent to performance correlation is too high; if you imagined it as a logarthmic graph, the point where money spent begins to no longer make a difference is way higher than that point for other graphs like boomi.

I disagree with the first 2 parts. Thermo isn't really expensive unless you make it expensive. Same goes with wright stuff. Rubber motors are extremely cheap, you could get a year's supply with ~$20-40. Propellers are cheap as well. If you use a normal rubber band, you honestly deserve to lose. It just shows that you don't care about the materials you are using. 10 motors literally only costs $3.50. Experienced wright stuff builders could probably build a winning plane in around $20, not including glue and stuff.
Gliders are honestly more expensive than that if you know what you're doing. All of this comes from choosing the right wood.

Honestly I agree here. The thermo device I built cost less than $20 but still is the best thermo device I have seen around. As for Wright stuff, you can truly build a state winning plane for about $5, if on an extremely tight budget, or even $30, just look at coach chuck, who has his team build everything from scratch, and even had some national medals behind that. Rubber is fairly cheap buying directly from fss, which can get you a large supply for less than $10. However, the only difference to gliders that I can see is the amount of money one chooses to spend on a specific density/grain of wood. I think I understand the paywall a little better, but I know there are local companies in the area that have given prototype motors or used motors that they have no use for, which ig can be unique to my area, but if someone is determined enough, they are able to get the materials at low cost

builderguy135 wrote:

Rossyspsce wrote:

builderguy135 wrote:
I disagree with the first 2 parts. Thermo isn't really expensive unless you make it expensive. Same goes with wright stuff. Rubber motors are extremely cheap, you could get a year's supply with ~$20-40. Propellers are cheap as well. If you use a normal rubber band, you honestly deserve to lose. It just shows that you don't care about the materials you are using. 10 motors literally only costs $3.50. Experienced wright stuff builders could probably build a winning plane in around $20, not including glue and stuff.
Gliders are honestly more expensive than that if you know what you're doing. All of this comes from choosing the right wood.

Honestly I agree here. The thermo device I built cost less than $20 but still is the best thermo device I have seen around. As for Wright stuff, you can truly build a state winning plane for about $5, if on an extremely tight budget, or even $30, just look at coach chuck, who has his team build everything from scratch, and even had some national medals behind that. Rubber is fairly cheap buying directly from fss, which can get you a large supply for less than $10. However, the only difference to gliders that I can see is the amount of money one chooses to spend on a specific density/grain of wood. I think I understand the paywall a little better, but I know there are local companies in the area that have given prototype motors or used motors that they have no use for, which ig can be unique to my area, but if someone is determined enough, they are able to get the materials at low cost

I don't exactly think you could build a winning plane for $5, but my point is that it's not as expensive as most people think. Most people build everything from scratch, but the thing that costs the most are customizing materials. Light wood that is suitable for gliders is extremely hard to find, and buying it on specialized balsa gives it a 400% markup

Unome wrote:

builderguy135 wrote:

Rossyspsce wrote:
Honestly I agree here. The thermo device I built cost less than $20 but still is the best thermo device I have seen around. As for Wright stuff, you can truly build a state winning plane for about $5, if on an extremely tight budget, or even $30, just look at coach chuck, who has his team build everything from scratch, and even had some national medals behind that. Rubber is fairly cheap buying directly from fss, which can get you a large supply for less than $10. However, the only difference to gliders that I can see is the amount of money one chooses to spend on a specific density/grain of wood. I think I understand the paywall a little better, but I know there are local companies in the area that have given prototype motors or used motors that they have no use for, which ig can be unique to my area, but if someone is determined enough, they are able to get the materials at low cost

I don't exactly think you could build a winning plane for $5, but my point is that it's not as expensive as most people think. Most people build everything from scratch, but the thing that costs the most are customizing materials. Light wood that is suitable for gliders is extremely hard to find, and buying it on specialized balsa gives it a 400% markup

Hm, has the weight minimum for gliders gone down recently? It used to be high enough that you only needed moderately light wood to be competitive.

Unome wrote:

reverse wrote:

waffletree wrote:this was posted on pascioly.org 4 days ago: http://www.pascioly.org/files/Events_2020_041619.pdf

No topic changes in Astronomy or Dynamic Planet?

Chances are Astro won't change topic. I don't know about DP.

ericlepanda wrote:

JoeyC wrote:Even in thermo there's a paywall, where the better, more expensive insulating material you could get, the more likely you were to win. Hence the teams who brought devices made of wood and cotton were at around a 10 point disadvantage to those made of insulating foam, or even aerogels. This is the same time of paywall present in most lab and build events. In build events like Wright Stuff if you get the better propeller band (or rubber motor), you'll have a higher chance of winning than the team who literally just got a normal rubber band. However, in those events the materials used only give small advantages, and may not be worth the price; in boomilever there's not much room for a paywall at all once you get to using balsa wood. In sumobots there's just such a high paywall in terms of parts you could buy (because in our hi-tech world, there's always a stronger , smaller motor on the market meant for something like NASA use). In other words, in sumobots the money spent to performance correlation is too high; if you imagined it as a logarthmic graph, the point where money spent begins to no longer make a difference is way higher than that point for other graphs like boomi.

I see your point, but I don't believe that an increase in money would lead to any significant gains in performance in a small scale sumobot event. This (https://www.instructables.com/id/My-Min ... ype-Mrk12/) 500g sumobot used $16 geared motors and performed very well in a national (Philippines?) sumobot competition. Unlike a larger scale robotics event such as robo cross and robot arm, where the best high torque servo motors could easily cost > $30, dc motors for a highly competitive sumobot would cost < $20 each. The point of diminishing returns with regards to cost would be far easier to reach.

builderguy135 wrote:

Rossyspsce wrote:What made sumo bots so much pay to win? Like wouldn't you be able to buy an rc car and slap some mods from hardware store materials and call it a day or am I overlooking something?

Sumo bots is all about finding the strongest, heaviest, most durable, and hardest materials. These things don't come without a thicc price. Sure, you could slap some mods in an RC car, but a rich kid could just buy the strongest motors on some op but sketchy website combined with really expensive wheels and beat you easily, every single time.

Now imagine what nationals would be like. 10 rich kid teams with op sumo bots, 20 teams that aren't so rich but are trying as hard as they can without a good budget, and 30 more teams that just have no idea what they're doing and don't have the budget to compete with the other 30 relatively op teams.