Towers B/C

Alke · Post by **Alke** » March 12th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Thank you Balsa Man.

windu34's Userpage · Post by **windu34** » March 12th, 2017, 2:22 pm

Balsa Man: I'm not a balsa builder, but found your post incredibly helpful and not impossible to decipher. Thank You

jakeLHS · Post by **jakeLHS** » March 12th, 2017, 2:49 pm

hi! I have built towers/bridges for 4 years and have always used traditional super glue. I would like to know some advantages/disadvantages of using CA glue instead, and if is worth making the switch. All input is appreciated thanks in advance!

BuildingFriend · Post by **BuildingFriend** » March 12th, 2017, 2:56 pm

jakeLHS wrote:hi! I have built towers/bridges for 4 years and have always used traditional super glue. I would like to know some advantages/disadvantages of using CA glue instead, and if is worth making the switch. All input is appreciated thanks in advance!

Super glue has CA (Cyanoacrylate) and CA glue is the same as "super glue". There are different strengths and variations of CA glue such as thickness and curing time. Light CA is super drippy and is pigeon to work with. Medium CA is probably your best bet. The difference usually how it's bottled, marketing, price, and gel VS liquid. You can get CA glue from Great Planes (my preferred source) or really any hobby store. CA glue is just labeled for more serious builders rather than just super glue which has the connotation of all around fixing and for general use.

sciencepeeps · Post by **sciencepeeps** » March 12th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Yesterday at the CLC regional, a B team got a score of... 3844. It did not go for the bonus, was a standard design with ten X's and no ladders. We have tried this design before, but it has never been so light? How would a team do this, without making their compression pieces so light that they immediately collapse? The compressions appeared to be 1/16 by 1/16, and the tensions were either 1/32, 3/64, or 1/16 square. It was 3.85g and held 14.8 kilos.

Userpage · Post by **Unome** » March 12th, 2017, 5:05 pm

sciencepeeps wrote:Yesterday at the CLC regional, a B team got a score of... 3844. It did not go for the bonus, was a standard design with ten X's and no ladders. We have tried this design before, but it has never been so light? How would a team do this, without making their compression pieces so light that they immediately collapse? The compressions appeared to be 1/16 by 1/16, and the tensions were either 1/32, 3/64, or 1/16 square. It was 3.85g and held 14.8 kilos.

Do you know whether this was Daniel Wright or Woodlawn? (and do you know how Daniel Wright scored?) That's bordering on crazy territory right there.

Complexity02 · Post by **Complexity02** » March 12th, 2017, 5:53 pm

I have seen about 3 division B towers above 3000, and Div C tower at 2700. One thing in common for all of them are their bracings are purely X, and they are non bonus tower. Yesterday at regionals, a Div B team held all at 4.5 grams, so a 3.85 gram tower breaking at 14.8kg could be believable

sciencepeeps · Post by **sciencepeeps** » March 12th, 2017, 6:29 pm

Unome wrote:
sciencepeeps wrote:Yesterday at the CLC regional, a B team got a score of... 3844. It did not go for the bonus, was a standard design with ten X's and no ladders. We have tried this design before, but it has never been so light? How would a team do this, without making their compression pieces so light that they immediately collapse? The compressions appeared to be 1/16 by 1/16, and the tensions were either 1/32, 3/64, or 1/16 square. It was 3.85g and held 14.8 kilos.
Do you know whether this was Daniel Wright or Woodlawn? (and do you know how Daniel Wright scored?) That's bordering on crazy territory right there.

Yes, it was Woodlawn. I think Daniel Wright got second, but I don't know their score. The efficiency was somewhere between 2500-3844 (sorry for being so unspecific).

321Kaboom · Post by **321Kaboom** » March 12th, 2017, 6:52 pm

sciencepeeps wrote:
Unome wrote:
sciencepeeps wrote:Yesterday at the CLC regional, a B team got a score of... 3844. It did not go for the bonus, was a standard design with ten X's and no ladders. We have tried this design before, but it has never been so light? How would a team do this, without making their compression pieces so light that they immediately collapse? The compressions appeared to be 1/16 by 1/16, and the tensions were either 1/32, 3/64, or 1/16 square. It was 3.85g and held 14.8 kilos.
Do you know whether this was Daniel Wright or Woodlawn? (and do you know how Daniel Wright scored?) That's bordering on crazy territory right there.
Yes, it was Woodlawn. I think Daniel Wright got second, but I don't know their score. The efficiency was somewhere between 2500-3844 (sorry for being so unspecific).

Yes it was Woodlawn, their score is unbelievable

Random Human · Post by **Random Human** » March 12th, 2017, 9:11 pm

321Kaboom wrote:
sciencepeeps wrote:
Unome wrote: Do you know whether this was Daniel Wright or Woodlawn? (and do you know how Daniel Wright scored?) That's bordering on crazy territory right there.
Yes, it was Woodlawn. I think Daniel Wright got second, but I don't know their score. The efficiency was somewhere between 2500-3844 (sorry for being so unspecific).
Yes it was Woodlawn, their score is unbelievable

What state is Woodlawn in?

Scioly.org

Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Re: Towers B/C

Who is online

Connect

Learn

Get Involved

About

Disclaimer