Design Logs

[knightmoves]

A requirement to submit design logs has cropped up in (at a glance) all the build events this year, including Bridge. However, in most events, the design log isn't really scored.

The Bridge design log (in rule 4) has a list of detailed and specific requirements. It is easy to imagine that many students will be in only partial compliance with these rules: they'll submit some sort of a log, but for example they won't have included predictions of which bit would break (4 a v) - just a record of what bits did break (4 a vi).

How will a student be scored in such a case? What is the intent here?

The scoring for Bridge does not include an assessment of the Design Log: the only mention of the log in the scoring is that "not submitting a Design Log" places you in Tier 2. So what does submitting an incomplete Design Log do? Is a "Design Log" defined by the entirety of rule 4, so that a student who just records builds and results, and not predictions, or one who records dimensions of balsa wood in fractions of an inch (as it is purchased) rather than metric units (4 a iv) is counted as having not submitted a Design Log, and so placed in Tier 2? That would seem unjust in the extreme.

Logs are obviously important for optimizing your design in a logical, scientific fashion. Doing a good job at it seems like it could reasonably attract some credit. But it seems rather harsh to count a very useful Design Log that almost meets the specifications in rule 4 as equivalent to not turning anything in at all.

[sneepity]

This was just my initial assumption but I feel like it has something to do with the nature of tournaments this year. Maybe it is to make sure students are actually building and testing their designs leading up to the competition? Especially if some tournaments are online.
But yeah all in all it seems a little unfair if someone's a little off to put them in tier 2. Realistically I don't think they would mind if you didn't do it exactly by the book.

[knightmoves]

This was just my initial assumption but I feel like it has something to do with the nature of tournaments this year. Maybe it is to make sure students are actually building and testing their designs leading up to the competition?

We've certainly had years before where the first balsa device we've built has been for our first invitational. And then after that, they've taken long enough to build that we basically build one device for each competition, test it at that competition, and then make changes the next time. I've heard some teams build a lot of devices, but I think they're unusual.

[cool hand luke]

we build about 75 devices a year.

[knightmoves]

we build about 75 devices a year.

That's a crazy number! I'm sure it's useful, but I have no idea where you find the time.

[sneepity]

This was just my initial assumption but I feel like it has something to do with the nature of tournaments this year. Maybe it is to make sure students are actually building and testing their designs leading up to the competition?

We've certainly had years before where the first balsa device we've built has been for our first invitational. And then after that, they've taken long enough to build that we basically build one device for each competition, test it at that competition, and then make changes the next time. I've heard some teams build a lot of devices, but I think they're unusual.

Bridges, just like all balsa and build events, is trial and error. It's hard for me to believe that some teams actually risk it all at competition and don't test designs beforehand. So maybe this is why the new design logs rule was imposed, so that competitors learn the good habit and make sure to test.

[knightmoves]

Bridges, just like all balsa and build events, is trial and error. It's hard for me to believe that some teams actually risk it all at competition and don't test designs beforehand. So maybe this is why the new design logs rule was imposed, so that competitors learn the good habit and make sure to test.

Invitationals are learning opportunities. We've always tested, of course, but we've tested individual members and parts of an assembly, to see how they stand up under the load. We don't have a proper test setup - all the tests we've done have been in a team member's garage, with a board with a hole drilled in it as a base, a bucket, and a hosepipe to fill with water.

Our builds have usually done OK, and we haven't usually been able to test much, if at all, outside competition. Judging by some of the other builds we've seen, we are quite a lot better prepared than average.

For me, it's not a question of learning good habits, but of available time. It has typically taken us 2-3 weeks of time to find enough time where we can sit together and construct a bridge. That's not far off the interval between invitationals that we attend. We come home from one competition, review the results of the build, discuss modifications, and then start building the device for the next competition. I'm impressed that Luke has time to build 75 devices in a season - that's an average of 2 a week or so - but I don't understand how he finds the time.

[sneepity]

Bridges, just like all balsa and build events, is trial and error. It's hard for me to believe that some teams actually risk it all at competition and don't test designs beforehand. So maybe this is why the new design logs rule was imposed, so that competitors learn the good habit and make sure to test.

Invitationals are learning opportunities. We've always tested, of course, but we've tested individual members and parts of an assembly, to see how they stand up under the load. We don't have a proper test setup - all the tests we've done have been in a team member's garage, with a board with a hole drilled in it as a base, a bucket, and a hosepipe to fill with water.

Our builds have usually done OK, and we haven't usually been able to test much, if at all, outside competition. Judging by some of the other builds we've seen, we are quite a lot better prepared than average.

For me, it's not a question of learning good habits, but of available time. It has typically taken us 2-3 weeks of time to find enough time where we can sit together and construct a bridge. That's not far off the interval between invitationals that we attend. We come home from one competition, review the results of the build, discuss modifications, and then start building the device for the next competition. I'm impressed that Luke has time to build 75 devices in a season - that's an average of 2 a week or so - but I don't understand how he finds the time.

Yeah, invies are ofc a way to learn an improvise. However I still feel like most teams test and make sure their builds are okay before competition.
:( Can you possibly bring that setup to school? Maybe that can help you test more often. And by good habits I was referring to keeping a log. It can help in the long term to note down what you did different and what succeeded for each build to be crystal clear :3
How long does it take you to build?

[knightmoves]

How long does it take you to build?

Probably 6-8 hours for one build, in previous years. We've usually found a Saturday we've been free, and got most of the build done then, then spent bits of time in the evening finishing off the last bits, sanding, etc. That's why two a week looks like quite a challenge!

Yes, of course we keep logs, and measure each piece of balsa.

[sneepity]

How long does it take you to build?

Probably 6-8 hours for one build, in previous years. We've usually found a Saturday we've been free, and got most of the build done then, then spent bits of time in the evening finishing off the last bits, sanding, etc. That's why two a week looks like quite a challenge!

Yes, of course we keep logs, and measure each piece of balsa.

ohh okay!!! :O welp good luck with your testing. it does take so long to build gahh