Towers B/C
Re: Towers B/C
If you were to build a tower with just x's, would you make the braces attached with butt joints or lap joints? It seems that the goal in making just x brace towers is to make them light, so would a 1/8 leg and 1/16 x brace using lap joints work?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 4320
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:48 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 227 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Towers B/C
I can't comment on the rest, but since the purpose of X's is to resist tension, you would want them to be lap joints.random-username wrote:If you were to build a tower with just x's, would you make the braces attached with butt joints or lap joints? It seems that the goal in making just x brace towers is to make them light, so would a 1/8 leg and 1/16 x brace using lap joints work?
-
- Coach
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:01 am
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Towers B/C
Ah, but in an Xs only configuration, they have to handle both tension and compression....Unome wrote:I can't comment on the rest, but since the purpose of X's is to resist tension, you would want them to be lap joints.random-username wrote:If you were to build a tower with just x's, would you make the braces attached with butt joints or lap joints? It seems that the goal in making just x brace towers is to make them light, so would a 1/8 leg and 1/16 x brace using lap joints work?

Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins, CO
-
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:37 pm
- Division: C
- State: MI
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Towers B/C
I feel like the X's and ladders is a better and easier design, but X's only is the only way to make a super light tower scoring 2500+.
2017 Results:
Haslett | Frankenmuth | Allendale | Regionals | Michigan State
Astronomy: 3 | NC | 1 | NC | -
Hovercraft: 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | -
Materials Science : 6 | 3 | 5 | 1 | -
Optics: 12 | 16 | 2 | 3 | -
Wind Power: 6 | 11 | NC | 2 | -
Team: 6 | Bad | 1 | 2 | - (Didn't stack teams until Allendale)
Haslett | Frankenmuth | Allendale | Regionals | Michigan State
Astronomy: 3 | NC | 1 | NC | -
Hovercraft: 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | -
Materials Science : 6 | 3 | 5 | 1 | -
Optics: 12 | 16 | 2 | 3 | -
Wind Power: 6 | 11 | NC | 2 | -
Team: 6 | Bad | 1 | 2 | - (Didn't stack teams until Allendale)
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:19 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Towers B/C
That's just build qualityMIScioly wrote:I feel like the X's and ladders is a better and easier design, but X's only is the only way to make a super light tower scoring 2500+.

Sleep is for the week; one only needs it once a week

God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman





God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
-
- Coach
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:01 am
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Towers B/C
So, I'm curious, how do you envision preventing inward bowing, having a 'tension only tower'? Building a slight bow into the legs?Raleway wrote:That's just build qualityMIScioly wrote:I feel like the X's and ladders is a better and easier design, but X's only is the only way to make a super light tower scoring 2500+.If you build a perfect tower with perfect cutting, gluing, and angles you would get a tension only tower that wouldn't bow inwards and would only require tension bracing (I think?) Every tower I've seen 2800+ or 3000+ are purely lap joints for tension members. However, do heed these people building these amazing towers are either using a well built precise jig and/or have years and years of experience choosing wood, designing, and building.
BTW, still don't know where the limit is for ladders and Xs, but I do know its above 2500. As I've said before, I understand all the engineering for ladders and Xs, but don't, yet, for Xs only when you get above...3200/3300. Clearly, there is a way to do it.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins, CO
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:19 pm
- Division: C
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Towers B/C
I personally haven't done it myself but have seen the teams with towers using only tension members. I think a good example of this working (on a much easier scale) is the Double Z design for Bridges last year- it solely relied on the tension members to work and many teams did not use compression members last year. I understand this year the compression force is much more to be reckoned with but some teams have managed to surpass that threshold. I can only think that they build a slight bow that is controlled with warping equally with a warm bath and then setting for about 3 days to let it dry fully in addition to great wood selection and building technique. Again, as I have not personally built one I can only comment my ideas on the teams that have magically succeeded.Balsa Man wrote:So, I'm curious, how do you envision preventing inward bowing, having a 'tension only tower'? Building a slight bow into the legs?Raleway wrote:That's just build qualityMIScioly wrote:I feel like the X's and ladders is a better and easier design, but X's only is the only way to make a super light tower scoring 2500+.If you build a perfect tower with perfect cutting, gluing, and angles you would get a tension only tower that wouldn't bow inwards and would only require tension bracing (I think?) Every tower I've seen 2800+ or 3000+ are purely lap joints for tension members. However, do heed these people building these amazing towers are either using a well built precise jig and/or have years and years of experience choosing wood, designing, and building.
BTW, still don't know where the limit is for ladders and Xs, but I do know its above 2500. As I've said before, I understand all the engineering for ladders and Xs, but don't, yet, for Xs only when you get above...3200/3300. Clearly, there is a way to do it.
Sleep is for the week; one only needs it once a week

God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman





God bless Len Joeris | Balsaman
Re: Towers B/C
Here is a video of our tower tested at the Indiana State Competition several weeks ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XudIK9qGA
As you can see, our design was X's only except for a few ladders at the very top and bottom. These may not have been necessary, but we simply ran out of time to build another tower and test it before the competition. The tower weighed 6.2 grams and carried the full load for a score of 2419. My partner and I have spent the past three years building bridges and towers and it was very satisfying to end our Science Olympiad careers with a 1st at state after previously placing 5th and 3rd. As I am from a relatively new team, part of me wishes that Science O allowed state event winners to participate in just that event at nationals, perhaps in a separate "best of the best" division, but nevertheless I wish good luck to everyone competing in May.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XudIK9qGA
As you can see, our design was X's only except for a few ladders at the very top and bottom. These may not have been necessary, but we simply ran out of time to build another tower and test it before the competition. The tower weighed 6.2 grams and carried the full load for a score of 2419. My partner and I have spent the past three years building bridges and towers and it was very satisfying to end our Science Olympiad careers with a 1st at state after previously placing 5th and 3rd. As I am from a relatively new team, part of me wishes that Science O allowed state event winners to participate in just that event at nationals, perhaps in a separate "best of the best" division, but nevertheless I wish good luck to everyone competing in May.
-
- Coach
- Posts: 573
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:20 pm
- Division: B
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Towers B/C
Thanks for sharing... VERY nicely done, and congratulations on the gold! Now if we could only get other States (Ohio) in the 21st Century and use auto loaders, we'd be all set!GhostPants_ wrote:Here is a video of our tower tested at the Indiana State Competition several weeks ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XudIK9qGA
As you can see, our design was X's only except for a few ladders at the very top and bottom. These may not have been necessary, but we simply ran out of time to build another tower and test it before the competition. The tower weighed 6.2 grams and carried the full load for a score of 2419. My partner and I have spent the past three years building bridges and towers and it was very satisfying to end our Science Olympiad careers with a 1st at state after previously placing 5th and 3rd. As I am from a relatively new team, part of me wishes that Science O allowed state event winners to participate in just that event at nationals, perhaps in a separate "best of the best" division, but nevertheless I wish good luck to everyone competing in May.

Dan Holdgreve
Northmont Science Olympiad
Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"
Northmont Science Olympiad
Dedicated to the Memory of Len Joeris
"For the betterment of Science"
-
- Coach
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:01 am
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Towers B/C
Understand.Raleway wrote:I personally haven't done it myself but have seen the teams with towers using only tension members. I think a good example of this working (on a much easier scale) is the Double Z design for Bridges last year- it solely relied on the tension members to work and many teams did not use compression members last year. I understand this year the compression force is much more to be reckoned with but some teams have managed to surpass that threshold. I can only think that they build a slight bow that is controlled with warping equally with a warm bath and then setting for about 3 days to let it dry fully in addition to great wood selection and building technique. Again, as I have not personally built one I can only comment my ideas on the teams that have magically succeeded.Balsa Man wrote:So, I'm curious, how do you envision preventing inward bowing, having a 'tension only tower'? Building a slight bow into the legs?Raleway wrote:
That's just build qualityIf you build a perfect tower with perfect cutting, gluing, and angles you would get a tension only tower that wouldn't bow inwards and would only require tension bracing (I think?) Every tower I've seen 2800+ or 3000+ are purely lap joints for tension members. However, do heed these people building these amazing towers are either using a well built precise jig and/or have years and years of experience choosing wood, designing, and building.
BTW, still don't know where the limit is for ladders and Xs, but I do know its above 2500. As I've said before, I understand all the engineering for ladders and Xs, but don't, yet, for Xs only when you get above...3200/3300. Clearly, there is a way to do it.
Not related to towers, but not familiar w/ ‘double Z’ bridge approach, and how it could work with no compression members. Our bridge last year was at 7.5gr, second at State by about 20 points.
I’m with you thinking that high performance Xs only towers have got to be using bowed legs. Haven’t seen any – only have reports. Compression loading is less than in bridges last year- under 4kg vs 5-6kg.
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins, CO