Hovercraft B/C

[LittyWap]

Luckily I'm div B....

Don't fret cheese! I may see you there! You'll know who I am, once I turn on my craft. My craft has a tendency to give people stitches..... including me and my building coach! It's extremely loud, to say the least.

Ohh yes I think I remember yours. Were you in the first time slot? We were the third team in the front row at 8:15. We ended up getting max weight with 19.5 out of 21 time score.

No, sorry. I was the last time slot and had max mass with a time of 20.9. Considering their precision was to the tenth of a second, we had the best build score possible, that wasn't exactly 21s. Having asked the proctors, they reported I was the closest to the target time, and achieved a build score of 49.88.

[UltramatrixMan]

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places. It's unfortunate because I believe it is impossible to calibrate for any track more accurately than ~ 0.5 seconds. Beyond that, it is just luck. The test was pretty easy and relatively short, so that did not separate teams as had been expected. I was a little disappointed because I think that had it been a harder test my team could've done better than some of the other teams and moved up a little bit.

[Ashernoel]

Don't fret cheese! I may see you there! You'll know who I am, once I turn on my craft. My craft has a tendency to give people stitches..... including me and my building coach! It's extremely loud, to say the least.

Ohh yes I think I remember yours. Were you in the first time slot? We were the third team in the front row at 8:15. We ended up getting max weight with 19.5 out of 21 time score.

No, sorry. I was the last time slot and had max mass with a time of 20.9. Considering their precision was to the tenth of a second, we had the best build score possible, that wasn't exactly 21s. Having asked the proctors, they reported I was the closest to the target time, and achieved a build score of 49.88.

Wow... this and states your build is crrrrazy! Grats!

[Ashernoel]

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places. It's unfortunate because I believe it is impossible to calibrate for any track more accurately than ~ 0.5 seconds. Beyond that, it is just luck. The test was pretty easy and relatively short, so that did not separate teams as had been expected. I was a little disappointed because I think that had it been a harder test my team could've done better than some of the other teams and moved up a little bit.

Lol this was not at all the case for div c. It was all the test xD

[UltramatrixMan]

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places. It's unfortunate because I believe it is impossible to calibrate for any track more accurately than ~ 0.5 seconds. Beyond that, it is just luck. The test was pretty easy and relatively short, so that did not separate teams as had been expected. I was a little disappointed because I think that had it been a harder test my team could've done better than some of the other teams and moved up a little bit.

Lol this was not at all the case for div c. It was all the test xD

Yeah I know, most C teams struggled a lot more with the device and from what I've heard it was run much more poorly.

[Ashernoel]

For Division B, I know that all of the top 12 or so teams had times within a half of a second, and that was all that determined the places. It's unfortunate because I believe it is impossible to calibrate for any track more accurately than ~ 0.5 seconds. Beyond that, it is just luck. The test was pretty easy and relatively short, so that did not separate teams as had been expected. I was a little disappointed because I think that had it been a harder test my team could've done better than some of the other teams and moved up a little bit.

Lol this was not at all the case for div c. It was all the test xD

Yeah I know, most C teams struggled a lot more with the device and from what I've heard it was run much more poorly.

Wellllll I don't think it was run poorly, but here are my remarks:

The check in was really good and thorough. All of the regulations were checked and everything done completely as intended.

The test was long had some super hard fluid problems imo and harder hovercraft questions that weren't just from Wikipedia.

Running the hover itself was decent. The timing directions protection of track and ability to fidget after turning on the motors were awesome. My only complaints were that the distance from the starting place to photogate were not fixed, so it may go through 5s after starting if on a low second set or 8 who knows, which was annoying, and the SLIGHTLY thinner tracks at the front. It wasn't noticeable by eyesight and had to pointed out.

In my experience, for div C, I thought it was run superbly well. Met all expectation and being able to touch the hover after turning on the motor was an added bonus!

[UltramatrixMan]

Lol this was not at all the case for div c. It was all the test xD

Yeah I know, most C teams struggled a lot more with the device and from what I've heard it was run much more poorly.

Wellllll I don't think it was run poorly, but here are my remarks:

The check in was really good and thorough. All of the regulations were checked and everything done completely as intended.

The test was long had some super hard fluid problems imo and harder hovercraft questions that weren't just from Wikipedia.

Running the hover itself was decent. The timing directions protection of track and ability to fidget after turning on the motors were awesome. My only complaints were that the distance from the starting place to photogate were not fixed, so it may go through 5s after starting if on a low second set or 8 who knows, which was annoying, and the SLIGHTLY thinner tracks at the front. It wasn't noticeable by eyesight and had to pointed out.

In my experience, for div C, I thought it was run superbly well. Met all expectation and being able to touch the hover after turning on the motor was an added bonus!

Well I'm glad to hear that you had good experiences, but I personally know a competitor on one of the C teams that had their hovercraft started behind the start line and which was not moved up when they asked the ES. The ES was also rude to them, so idk if that was a fluke or what.

[Ashernoel]

Yeah I know, most C teams struggled a lot more with the device and from what I've heard it was run much more poorly.

Wellllll I don't think it was run poorly, but here are my remarks:

The check in was really good and thorough. All of the regulations were checked and everything done completely as intended.

The test was long had some super hard fluid problems imo and harder hovercraft questions that weren't just from Wikipedia.

Running the hover itself was decent. The timing directions protection of track and ability to fidget after turning on the motors were awesome. My only complaints were that the distance from the starting place to photogate were not fixed, so it may go through 5s after starting if on a low second set or 8 who knows, which was annoying, and the SLIGHTLY thinner tracks at the front. It wasn't noticeable by eyesight and had to pointed out.

In my experience, for div C, I thought it was run superbly well. Met all expectation and being able to touch the hover after turning on the motor was an added bonus!

Well I'm glad to hear that you had good experiences, but I personally know a competitor on one of the C teams that had their hovercraft started behind the start line and which was not moved up when they asked the ES. The ES was also rude to them, so idk if that was a fluke or what.

hm maybe.... I could see that happening. We asked them to move ours up a little, and the guy who was running the track we were on was apprehensive about starting the photogate early. Maybe next year a rule change will make the distance separating the front of the vehicle and the photogates more consistent and fair, but who knows @pplthatcandothat

[fn2187]

I can second that, Div C times were all over the place and the test was probably what decided top 10. Our hovercraft was 5 seconds off the time yet we end up placing second in the event!

[UltramatrixMan]

Wellllll I don't think it was run poorly, but here are my remarks:

The check in was really good and thorough. All of the regulations were checked and everything done completely as intended.

The test was long had some super hard fluid problems imo and harder hovercraft questions that weren't just from Wikipedia.

Running the hover itself was decent. The timing directions protection of track and ability to fidget after turning on the motors were awesome. My only complaints were that the distance from the starting place to photogate were not fixed, so it may go through 5s after starting if on a low second set or 8 who knows, which was annoying, and the SLIGHTLY thinner tracks at the front. It wasn't noticeable by eyesight and had to pointed out.

In my experience, for div C, I thought it was run superbly well. Met all expectation and being able to touch the hover after turning on the motor was an added bonus!

Well I'm glad to hear that you had good experiences, but I personally know a competitor on one of the C teams that had their hovercraft started behind the start line and which was not moved up when they asked the ES. The ES was also rude to them, so idk if that was a fluke or what.

hm maybe.... I could see that happening. We asked them to move ours up a little, and the guy who was running the track we were on was apprehensive about starting the photogate early. Maybe next year a rule change will make the distance separating the front of the vehicle and the photogates more consistent and fair, but who knows @pplthatcandothat

Technically, I believe that the rules do state the hovercraft must be started at the start line and that the photogates must also be at the start line (rules 5. k. and 5. n.). Correct me if I'm reading them wrong, but the combination of those two seem to suggest that. Still, I would second the call for more clear statement of that in the rules (pls Chalker).