Scioly.org

ChocolateLove wrote:Oh man, the clump was a lot closer than expected, i thought 2nd was MILES ahead of me. I.e. like 5 points which is a huge difference at nats. But from 22.48 to ~19.9 only 3 points difference is insanely close

It was even closer than that. windu34's numbers were a bit off, and his actual score was 20.70.

First place got a 16.00. I was told by the event supervisor that it was so fast they almost didn't have time to react manually to it (but the photogates captured it correctly).

chalker wrote:

ChocolateLove wrote:Oh man, the clump was a lot closer than expected, i thought 2nd was MILES ahead of me. I.e. like 5 points which is a huge difference at nats. But from 22.48 to ~19.9 only 3 points difference is insanely close

It was even closer than that. windu34's numbers were a bit off, and his actual score was 20.70.

First place got a 16.00. I was told by the event supervisor that it was so fast they almost didn't have time to react manually to it (but the photogates captured it correctly).

That's really an impressive first place run! From what I heard, the device was pretty remarkable.

Chalker, do you think the event next year will still be focused on how fast and accurate the device is or will new characteristics be tested (I am thinking year #1 of MagLev vs year #2 of MagLev as an example)?

chalker wrote:

ChocolateLove wrote:Oh man, the clump was a lot closer than expected, i thought 2nd was MILES ahead of me. I.e. like 5 points which is a huge difference at nats. But from 22.48 to ~19.9 only 3 points difference is insanely close

It was even closer than that. windu34's numbers were a bit off, and his actual score was 20.70.

First place got a 16.00. I was told by the event supervisor that it was so fast they almost didn't have time to react manually to it (but the photogates captured it correctly).

Oh man.. a 1.78 point difference... that is a really tight clump.