Boomilever B/C

[dholdgreve]

Very well stated, Len... as always!

[jander14indoor]

Please don't take anything I said as indicative of how a clarification should or will go!! I'm only speaking unofficially, seriously. Clarifications go through a committee, as did the rules, so even if I have input it is only one voice. I have been the minority more than once, including the events I've supervised at Nationals. I abide by written clarifications.

Personally, I don't like the openness/uncertainty, don't even like the hooks. Go ahead and ask those clarification questions. And once answered, however it goes, just design around it.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[chalker]

Rather than go down that path, I would have to argue that, because of the now recognized consequences of the rule as written, a decision to not clarify and provide a minimum length would have to come from an intention to rule out a design approach, and impose a wild card factor. If such intentions are not there, not at work, with all due respect, it seems to me there is only one reasonable way to proceed.

As I've said before, the general policy is to only issue rules clarifications in extreme situations (as opposed to responding to FAQs, which we do far more frequently). There is a lot of history and reasoning behind this philosophy that I won't get into, but please know that the decision to NOT issue a clarification is rarely due to some specific intention, but rather a desire to 'work within the rules as printed'.

As Jeff has said several times, we highly encourage you all to submit questions - in fact the more similar questions on a particularly topic the more likely an issue will 'rise to the top of the pile' for consideration. However, don't be surprised if all that results of it is a FAQ response saying you are encouraged to contact individual event supervisors in advance of the tournament to discuss this issue - we tend to try to defer supervisor specific equipment issues to the individual event supervisors whenever we can.

[Flavorflav]

Hmmm… I must be missing something…. The lack of specification of the (minimum) shaft length for the load block eyebolt has, I believe, the effect of eliminating booms with a single compression member. Given that, and, if, in fact, no clarification is forthcoming, one has to conclude an intention to do so.

This isn't really my forte so forgive me if I'm completely wrong, but it seems to me that rule 3d requiring the block to be supported 5 cm above contact depth has the effect of ruling out most tension design as well.

[Balsa Man]

Rather than go down that path, I would have to argue that, because of the now recognized consequences of the rule as written, a decision to not clarify and provide a minimum length would have to come from an intention to rule out a design approach, and impose a wild card factor. If such intentions are not there, not at work, with all due respect, it seems to me there is only one reasonable way to proceed.

As I've said before, the general policy is to only issue rules clarifications in extreme situations (as opposed to responding to FAQs, which we do far more frequently). There is a lot of history and reasoning behind this philosophy that I won't get into, but please know that the decision to NOT issue a clarification is rarely due to some specific intention, but rather a desire to 'work within the rules as printed'.

As Jeff has said several times, we highly encourage you all to submit questions - in fact the more similar questions on a particularly topic the more likely an issue will 'rise to the top of the pile' for consideration. However, don't be surprised if all that results of it is a FAQ response saying you are encouraged to contact individual event supervisors in advance of the tournament to discuss this issue - we tend to try to defer supervisor specific equipment issues to the individual event supervisors whenever we can.

Thanks, chalker,
I hear, understand, and do appreciate you providing your take and insights. Thanks.
I personally don’t think the implications make much sense, but that’s just my personal take, and no offense intended.

In Boom, and all the other “balsa structure” variants (bridges, towers) the key to doing well is to ....apply good engineering practices; control variables; change one thing at a time; get to a good design then develop and refine it.
One of the critical variables - arguably the most important - is what I’ve called “geometry” before- making sure all the pieces are correctly, symmetrically lined up – and that the configuration doesn’t change between builds. The only way to reliably do that is with some sort of jig work. Doing that well and precisely takes significant time. To have invested the time to get geometric control and do proper engineering development of a design, and then find you have to shift to a completely different design (and develop it) is something you don’t want to have to do.

So, given this, early checking with regional and state folk is obviously the prudent thing to do. For anyone planning/hoping to go to Nationals, they’re going to have to figure out how to chase down that contact and get the question resolved. If the national rules clarification process isn’t the way, I’m not sure how to get that done....
======
Flavorfav,

The rule actually reads: “The loading block must be supported at a height higher than 5.0 cm below the contact depth.” Very different than “5cm above contact depth” – so, no, it doesn’t exclude either tension booms, or the single compression member configuration this discussion’s been around

[UQOnyx]

I may be wrong, but isn't it possible to ask for a clarification at a state level?

[iwonder]

I think it depends on the state. National clarifications generally supersede state ones, but in some special cases it may not.

[UQOnyx]

Exactly. So unless there is a national clarification, should not a State one suffice

[iwonder]

In my experience best practice is to ask for a national one regardless


Perhaps someone else out there has more insight into this than I do, however.

[jander14indoor]

State clarifications generally reflect unique conditions for the state tournament, or something the state supervisor thinks the national rules clarifications haven't dealt with or have dealt with wrong. Most of the time states abide by national clarifications, but as their tournaments occur before clarifications close, they may not be available.

And yes, different states have different ways to deal with clarifications.

Hmm, national vs state clarifications and who supersedes who. There is a statement on the national website under policies: All Science Olympiad Policies (requirements, clarifications, FAQs, etc.) provided on the http://www.soinc.org website apply to all teams and must be treated as if they were included in the printed rules. which would make one think that national clarifications override state or regional ones. But in practice, states and regions deviate from the national rules somewhat regularly. Example, they may run less (or more) than 23 events. They may replace an event. They determine how the rules are implemented at their tournament. So in practice, published/available local clarifications override national ones. At least that's been my experience.

Now, here in Michigan, it is the policy of the state board to abide by all national clarifications available. Unless the state board explicitly decides otherwise, typically very reluctantly. And then the state clarification overrides the national one.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI