General Discussion

[Frogger4907]

2 things...
1. If they ever made a smartphone app, they would probably charge the same as the hard copy of the rules, because that is how they get money.
2. This conversation doesn't belong on the tower building forum, move it somewhere else.

unless you have express permission to make an online copy. I think I remember seeing one like that.

I'm rather sure you remember wrong. That said, there are online copies of TRIAL events on the soinc.org website, and some of the states run modified versions of the events and post modified rules for those. But in terms of the actual national standard rules for a given year, they are copyright registered and not allowed to be distributed in any other form.

As a side note, I've been pushing for 2 years for the creation of a smartphone app version of the rules that could be bought in various app stores (and actually have created a prototype one that's been shown to various national committee members). I'm sure it'll happen eventually.

I'm curious though (and I realize this is a non-scientific sampling), but would you all be interested in such a thing? What price would you be willing to pay? Would you want to be able to buy individual event rules, or just the whole rule manual? What platform would you use (i.e. iOS, Android, BB, etc)?

Hello. I think that is a brilliant idea! I happen to own an iPhone, and it'd be much easier for me to whip that out instead of lugging around the rules. I think it would be easier if all of the rules were in one app. There could be a simple list of events for the year, and you could navigate from there. Every year the app could be updated to accomidate the new rules. I wouldn't mind paying 99 cents or even $1.99 for an app like such. It'd be much more efficient and productive, and it'd limit our paper use. If you could please update me on how this process is going for you; I am quite intrigued.

[baker]

Can anyone say what the max base height and the min overall height is?

[A Person]

Max base: none
Min Height: 40cm, I think

[Balsa Man]

Can anyone say what the max base height and the min overall height is?

I believe by "base" you mean the lower part, below the upper "chimney" part that has to fit inside an 8cm diameter circle.
For C Div, it is 15 cm, for B-Div it is 30cm; that is, the 8cm circle has to be able to come down within 15cm of the testing base; the platform the tower stands on.
Minimum overall height is 40 cm.

[baker]

Thank you, you understood what I was asking.. Looking at last years rules, the lower section was 15 cm for C div and 30 cm for B. There appears to be no change other than over all height. Is there any other change from last year?

Can anyone say what the max base height and the min overall height is?

I believe by "base" you mean the lower part, below the upper "chimney" part that has to fit inside an 8cm diameter circle.
For C Div, it is 15 cm, for B-Div it is 30cm; that is, the 8cm circle has to be able to come down within 15cm of the testing base; the platform the tower stands on.
Minimum overall height is 40 cm.

[rjm]

The height scoring is the only substantial change to the towers. You could enter last year's tower without modification, if you wish. Rules changes are typically incremental, changing one or two things so that teams can build on the previous year's experiences and still keep the event interesting. Making the height a scoring element allows teams to build to familiar parameters while also giving teams a strategic choice over the range of heights. I think this is more interesting than simply changing the maximum height to a new fixed value.

There were some changes to the wording of the event, which won't change the event much. An extra scoring tier was added to the scoring for "competition violations". Traditonally, this event had construction parameters only, and the competition is described in Section 5 in terms of how the ES is supposed to run the event. Event supervisors will have to determine how they will interpret specific "competition violations". That can't be done in this forum. If in doubt about any specific rules, as always, there's the clarification process.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

[Balsa Man]

Event supervisors will have to determine how they will interpret specific "competition violations". That can't be done in this forum. If in doubt about any specific rules, as always, there's the clarification process.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

Thanks, as always for your insights, Bob. I think the variable height is a cool new twist.

I'm wondering if a question I raised earlier falls into the competition violation arena, and wondered if you (or anyone else) had any thoughts.
Building to the 70cm max height has scoring advantages; as discussed it will certainly require a higher level of building precision. However, even if built precisely, at a 70cm height, competitors will.....be at the mercy of event supervisors relative to the levelness of the testing platform; it will take a lot less out-of-levelness for premature failure of a 70cm tower than a 40 cm tower-placing an unfair (and unknown) disadvantage on those who choose to build tall.
The only way I can think of for a competitor to control that variable would to bring and use tools to check level, and place shimming to compensate. Would have to be done within the 10 min setup and run window, of course. There is nothing in the rules prohibiting such an approach. Are you aware of any reason this would/should not be ok?

Thanks,

[rjm]

So far as checking the level of the test base and shimming the tower or base, I can only offer my personal opinion. Nothing official here, that's for the clarification process.

Rule 2.c says that the ES will provide all testing and assessment devices. Rule 3.g says that the tower is a single structure, with no separate or detached parts. Rule 4.b says that the test base is level, although no particular standard or specification for level is given, so it will be up to the ES to meet the rule to his best judgment. Rule 5.a permits no alterations to the tower after presenting it to the judges. Rule 5.e describes that the team members set up the tower on the test base and set up the block and bucket.

Nothing here requires an ES to permit a team to check the set up. Use of shims to level either the tower or the test base would mean that either the tower has separate pieces (the shims) or the team is providing part of the testing apparatus (the shims). The ES has already determined that the test base is level at the beginning of the day, when he/she set up, even if done poorly. Alteration of the set up by any team means that not all teams compete on the same condition. The competition description does not give the team the right to do anything other than set the tower on the test base. If I were the ES, I would not even allow a team to check the level of the test base, because that would open up the entire competition to endless questions about accuracy and demands for confirmation by every team. An arbitration board would very likely tell you that the test base represents an even playing field for all teams (or, I suppose, they could throw out the event...). So, in my opinion, I don't think a team can do anything about it.

The ES should not permit this to become a competition violation. He/she should simply not permit the team to alter the set-up (by saying "no").

Rule 4.f allows that an ES MAY have another test base, and you can ask to use it.

Really, I think a better answer to the whole question, is to recommend that teams build towers which are robust enough to tolerate a small but reasonable error in the test set-up, and for teams to accept the consequences of not building in a little extra strength.

You take your chances.

Just my thoughts.

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

[Balsa Man]

Bob, Your thoughts, as always, are much appreciated. Understand what you're saying, and why.
Clearly worth an official submittal and rules interpretation, because, as I said, at a 70cm tower height, a) it won't take much variation in levelness to have a significant effect on the load a.....true/straight tower will carry, and b) the ability of event supervisors to set up a really level playing field will be.....highly variable.

[jander14indoor]

Again, not a clarification site, so just informed opinion.

I see two limits to how level you can ensure the test device is. One technical/monetary, the other social/organizational. Not entirely unrelated, but easier to discuss seperately.

First, how level is level? Just like with linear measurements, while level may have some theoretical absolute, your ability to measure and hold level is subject to error. First you have to have a "flat" surface to level. As a woodworker, I think in terms of 1/16th of an inch is pretty good across a structure built as the 'best' test devices I've seen. The worst, more like 1/8 or worse. As a machinist, I can envision a test surface good to a couple of thousandths of an inch or less, but who could afford them? Then you have to level them. What are you using, a level that's been knocking around the house for years? Could be out 1/4 inch in a foot. New level, maybe 1/64. My master precision level that cost $500 new, .0005 in. in a foot. What's good enough to be "fair".

Second, execution. Given the volunteer nature of SO and event supervisors, there's a limit to how much we can control things from the center. Lets say we specify a level surface to .01 inch. How many regional supervisors have the tools to measure that accurately? Your talking at least a precision straight edge and feeler gauges ($100 plus) to check for flat, and a machinists level ($100 used). In addition, there's expertise involved with using such precision equipment. And don't even mention what happens when the supervisor doesn't show and I have to find some willing parent or college student to step in, unprepared, to run the event last minute, even if I hand them the equipment.

Now, don't read this and think I believe nothing should be done. I'm a big advocate for the nationals providing event supervisors more technical and how to help on these events. Good supervision is key to the integrity of SO. And why a standard challenge of mine to everyone is, if you know how to do it better, volunteer! We ALWAYS need event supervisors.

But, for the competitors my recommendation is to be prepared for less than ideal conditions. I coach and supervise mostly the flying events. I ALWAYS counsel the students NOT to push the rules. If the limit is 30.0 cm rotor diameter, don't build yours larger than 29.8 cm. For towers, I've already mentioned the need to consider designing in a degree of robustness for non-level surfaces. I know there's a limit to how robust you can be for high efficiency, but you better build in SOME unless you KNOW the capability of every supervisor in every competition you'll go to.

By the way, having the students consider risk/reward is an intentional part of the rules. It was explicitly discussed when we added the tandem helicopter bonus to that event and the height bonus to towers. Taller is more sensitive, is it worth it?

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI