Your mileage may vary.iwonder wrote:Is it wrong then that I've had ES's let me attempt to fix the device during the 10 minute run to bring it back into spec? It doesn't disallow it in the rules and in other events like maglev I believe that's considered the norm.
No one has control over it, but I'll say BroNi is certainly a very kinda/awesome person. At States somehow we had one of our dowels just barely over the 4 cm (argh, I had checked it literally 5 times). But thankfully I impounded some sandpaper and during the 10 mins he allowed us to use it to bring it in specpenclspinner wrote:Your mileage may vary.iwonder wrote:Is it wrong then that I've had ES's let me attempt to fix the device during the 10 minute run to bring it back into spec? It doesn't disallow it in the rules and in other events like maglev I believe that's considered the norm.
Your individual regional/state event supervisor will run their event as they see fit. No one has control over that =/
.If I saw that I would consider it to be illegal. I'm not sure how they lifted a two kg weight with a pencil and dowel rod, but it seems like it couldn't be considered a release because the scrambler which includes the launcher isn't truly in a ready-to-launch position.nxtscholar wrote:I was just wondering how other E/C interpreted rule 2g, where it states teams have to use a pencil to "actuate a release mechanism". I saw a team build a hammer launcher and use the pencil itself as the release mechanism, in the sense that rather than lift the hammer into it's start position with their hands, they used the pencil with a dowel attached to move the hammer.
I, too, would declare that illegal. For me, a legal release mech would be similar to a Gravity Vehicle's release mech; the contraption has a release mech independent of the pencil and must also be stable (ie it doesn't require any people to hold a part up, etc). Personally, we built a mount for the weight around 97cm and that did the trick for us. Then, all we had to do was push the mass off using the pencil.nxtscholar wrote:I was just wondering how other E/C interpreted rule 2g, where it states teams have to use a pencil to "actuate a release mechanism". I saw a team build a hammer launcher and use the pencil itself as the release mechanism, in the sense that rather than lift the hammer into it's start position with their hands, they used the pencil with a dowel attached to move the hammer.
The distance was 10.2m, our time score was around 2.7 seconds, and the distance score was around 80cm. 1st place had a time of around 5 seconds but finished within an estimated 5-18cm of the wall (dunno for sure though, so take my estimates with a grain of salt). It's interesting that distance plays the bigger role on scoring, because upon looking at the scoring formula there's a 5:1 ratio between the time and distance scores. For every 0.01 seconds, the time is multiplied by 5 but the distance is a 1cm:1 point ratio, so we assumed time would be determining factor between the top few places. We soon realized, however, that most vehicles will have a similar speed, so the distance score becomes increasingly imperative. Just as long as the egg doesn't break on the 1st run then yes. If they can't fix it on the 2nd run, however, they remain in a lower tier.Toad25 wrote:So if something falls off the egg transport on the first run, it is technically a construction violation. Should said team be awarded a second run be awarded?
Doesn't sound like it. Could you please PM me the Maine results, i.e. who won? (for the wiki).Toad25 wrote:Thank you! A teams weight fell through their vehicle at states today (it was built like a boom) but they were awarded a second run (even though they had other violations, the ES wasn't well informed). They ended up getting the silver medal in the event and that won them the meet. Just wondering if it was legit
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
