Scioly.org

after about twenty more designs i got a consistent 1076 score.
mass: 12 grams
load: 12 kilos

dholdgreve wrote:I did not see her design back in 2005 (and probably would not remember it if I had), but I don't believe the rule about no part of the bridge extending below the testing surface was in place at that time, allowing for the really creative and the risk takers to design a buttress into their bridges, saving as much as 2 grams from other designs... Now that the rule exists, it may be more challenging to exceed the 2005 scores than you think.

Looking at a old copy of the rules I have (which I'm not sure or not were the ones from 2005), the bridge could extend up to 2cm below the testing surface.

chalker wrote: Looking at a old copy of the rules I have (which I'm not sure or not were the ones from 2005), the bridge could extend up to 2cm below the testing surface.

More than enough for a good solid buttress design!
Also, this year's rules place the bridge on unsecured blocks laying on the testing platform, so even if you were allowed to buttress into the blocks, the H loads would just push the blocks apart.

Just got back from the Mira Loma invite. I'm in C division so I didn't really pay attention to the B division scores but I know the 1st place for B wasn't over 2000.

C Div.
1st - 2608
2nd ~ 2300
3rd ~ 2000

Winner of the Northmont (Ohio) Division B Bridges score was 2,084, Second was in the 1,600s

Just got back from an invitational, and the first place bridge was right about at 1600. I don't know any of the other scores, but it seems that this was a slightly less competitive tournament.

Just something interesting to think about, what would all of you consider an accurate multiplier to convert a boom efficiency (or even a tower efficiency) to a bridge efficiency? Just as an example, I won a tournament about this time last year with a boom of about 1000 efficiency, but today 1600 won. Does that mean a 1000 boom is equivalent to a 1600 bridge? Not that this really actually matters, I'm just curious what you all think.

Friedoyster3 wrote:Just got back from an invitational, and the first place bridge was right about at 1600. I don't know any of the other scores, but it seems that this was a slightly less competitive tournament.

Just something interesting to think about, what would all of you consider an accurate multiplier to convert a boom efficiency (or even a tower efficiency) to a bridge efficiency? Just as an example, I won a tournament about this time last year with a boom of about 1000 efficiency, but today 1600 won. Does that mean a 1000 boom is equivalent to a 1600 bridge? Not that this really actually matters, I'm just curious what you all think.

I'd say that a boomilever about 1000 efficiency is > a bridge with 1600 efficiency, if by a little. Any comparison is quite pointless, as there should already be enough data already from invitationals and whatnot to judge a good score for placing at regionals/states/nationals.

Of course, placing scores also depend on the quality of the competing schools. At the Mira Loma Invite, the highest efficiency was >2500, the 2nd highest was >2000.

Bridge weighed 8.85 g and broke at 15 kg, so the efficiency was 1690ish. Division C, it won invites by a mile so I'm worried that others may use my design

I know how you feel. Our school's bridge won by 800 points (we broke 2000)

hi im andrew wrote:Bridge weighed 8.85 g and broke at 15 kg, so the efficiency was 1690ish. Division C, it won invites by a mile so I'm worried that others may use my design

As long as no one took pictures of your bridge, I wouldn't worry too much about it. In addition to design, there are so many other things that need to be considered when making bridges such as densities of members or types of wood used, which aren't apparent from just looking at the bridge.