Maybe not the variable height, as it might make some release mechanisms more complicated, but a weight that would change and had to be used to propel the vehicle would be cool. But since this is a new event and we're just getting started, it would be nice to not see to many major changes next yearphysicsphan wrote:I like the idea of the distance you are trying to optimize for scoring purposes. Maybe having a variable mass or initial height that the vehicle had to be release at to add the challenge that the variable distance did this year.Balsa Man wrote:Last thought is on what might be done next year. Precise timing being impractical, how else might you more precisely measure/score the “speed” factor? It comes from and is dictated by how well you do two things; a) maximize the velocity off the ramp, and b) minimize the friction loss rate through the run. Those same two factors happen to determine a precisely measurable value – how far the vehicle can roll. Out of curiosity, we did this test on our vehicles last weekend- T1 goes a bit over 30m; T2 is a bit over 20m. If (for space practicality), the ramp height were reduced a bit, and maybe the weight reduced some (less momentum = less distance capability), a ‘total distance capability’ factor could be used as a practical and precise scoring factor. Just a thought….
Also, I'm kinda confused with it, but whats the benifit of small diameter axels? I've heard people mention rotational inertia, but I just can't seem to understand how that effects speed that much. And from a building standpoint... How did other teams use bearings with the threaded rod? We ended up turning our own axel on a lathe, it seems out of reach for most teams(in fact, it took us a couple months to find someone who would help us turn it)