Re: PICTURES, SCORES, VIDEOS!!
Posted: March 10th, 2019, 8:28 am
-Cow481 wrote:Have there been ny reports of div b teams that have a pretty good chance of going to nats getting over 2500?
-Cow481 wrote:Have there been ny reports of div b teams that have a pretty good chance of going to nats getting over 2500?
I think they just forgot the 'a' in the word "any"sciolyperson1 wrote:At Cornell, the highest place a NY team got in boomi was 12th (Brother Fox). I'd guess around 700.Cow481 wrote:Have there been ny reports of div b teams that have a pretty good chance of going to nats getting over 2500?
At Garnet, the highest place a NY team got in boomi was 7th (Bay C), with a score of just under 600.
So unless Gelinas, Murphy, Eagle, or Bay improved drastically, I don't think that anyone will go over 2500.
lmao... (－‸ლ)Vstorm34 wrote:I think they just forgot the 'a' in the word "any"sciolyperson1 wrote:At Cornell, the highest place a NY team got in boomi was 12th (Brother Fox). I'd guess around 700.Cow481 wrote:Have there been ny reports of div b teams that have a pretty good chance of going to nats getting over 2500?
At Garnet, the highest place a NY team got in boomi was 7th (Bay C), with a score of just under 600.
So unless Gelinas, Murphy, Eagle, or Bay improved drastically, I don't think that anyone will go over 2500.
Talked to my source and boom in question weighed approx. 6.7g and held maximum weight + a little extra.mnoga wrote:Heard a report of a 2200+ boom in the C division today at the UCSB Regional (SoCal) from a very good source. I'll attempt to confirm.TheChiScientist wrote:I'm currently doing research into the feasibility of a 3000 boomilever but I would say that 3000 is a stretch as currently there has only been one report of a Div. C boom breaking 2k. So far research has been promising but otherwise, nothing stands out. As for Div. B, I would say that a 3000 boom is much more feasible.donutsandcupcakes wrote:Do you guys think anyone would come to nationals with 3000 efficiency? or close to it somewhere like 2800-3000?
Impressive. My 2k boom ran on near similar specs but it didn't hold all the weight. By any chance do you know what team it was? Nice to see that 2k is achievable.mnoga wrote:Talked to my source and boom in question weighed approx. 6.7g and held maximum weight + a little extra.mnoga wrote:Heard a report of a 2200+ boom in the C division today at the UCSB Regional (SoCal) from a very good source. I'll attempt to confirm.TheChiScientist wrote: I'm currently doing research into the feasibility of a 3000 boomilever but I would say that 3000 is a stretch as currently there has only been one report of a Div. C boom breaking 2k. So far research has been promising but otherwise, nothing stands out. As for Div. B, I would say that a 3000 boom is much more feasible.
I believe school was Oak ParkTheChiScientist wrote:Impressive. My 2k boom ran on near similar specs but it didn't hold all the weight. By any chance do you know what team it was? Nice to see that 2k is achievable.mnoga wrote:Talked to my source and boom in question weighed approx. 6.7g and held maximum weight + a little extra.mnoga wrote:
Heard a report of a 2200+ boom in the C division today at the UCSB Regional (SoCal) from a very good source. I'll attempt to confirm.
No. To what I know, Gelinas, Bay Academy, and Murphy have not broken 2500 yet.Cow481 wrote:Have there been ny reports of div b teams that have a pretty good chance of going to nats getting over 2500?
1. Well if varies but best boom designs to use are compression boxes.sciencecat42 wrote:Has anyone seen any trends between top scoring designs? Like are they the basic single two compression members with some lateral bracing, or are they compression boxes, tubes, bowed, etc.? Additionally, does vertical bracing (connecting compression to tension) do anything?
Thanks, that is nice to know. I've been building a few compression box designs but none have reached 1000 yet. Guess I'll keep building them.TheChiScientist wrote: 1. Well if varies but best boom designs to use are compression boxes.