Gravity Vehicle C
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 292
- Joined: March 24th, 2011, 10:28 am
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
Illusionist - did you have any issues with skidding, with the thin cd wheels?
Also, has anyone heard anything more about changes with this event for next year?
Also, has anyone heard anything more about changes with this event for next year?
-
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
What are people doing to get times down? We have a very short design, 3" diameter wheels, and some good SAE40 Bronze Bushings, besides replacing them with ball bearings(which seems expensive...) I can't think of anything to make it go faster, and yes, the ramp height it already as high as possible.
Also, what kinds of scores are people getting? We finished up our state contest here and was wondering... the distance was 8.5m, our time was 4.3s(2nd run was 3.85s), we predicted 4.2s and our distance was 60mm, which should be a score of 277.5. (I know about the score tracker, but there are only 3 other scores up, this seemed like a larger base for comparison )
Also, what kinds of scores are people getting? We finished up our state contest here and was wondering... the distance was 8.5m, our time was 4.3s(2nd run was 3.85s), we predicted 4.2s and our distance was 60mm, which should be a score of 277.5. (I know about the score tracker, but there are only 3 other scores up, this seemed like a larger base for comparison )
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown
-
- Member
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: January 9th, 2009, 7:30 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: OH
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 56 times
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
Seeing as how we are just now starting to talk about changes on the committee, there's nothing to 'hear' yet.twototwenty wrote: Also, has anyone heard anything more about changes with this event for next year?
Student Alumni
National Event Supervisor
National Physical Sciences Rules Committee Chair
- illusionist
- Member
- Posts: 942
- Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
- Division: C
- State: MI
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
Yes, there was skidding, especially at the shorter distances. However, it was consistent between runs (at least in our case). You will have a lot of issues with CDs if your vehicles weighs a lot though, such as bending and excessive/inconsistent skid.twototwenty wrote:Illusionist - did you have any issues with skidding, with the thin cd wheels?
Also, has anyone heard anything more about changes with this event for next year?
-
- Coach
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
The things that will help your speed/time have been discussed at some length, multiple times in this thread- worth going back and reviewing......iwonder wrote:What are people doing to get times down? We have a very short design, 3" diameter wheels, and some good SAE40 Bronze Bushings, besides replacing them with ball bearings(which seems expensive...) I can't think of anything to make it go faster, and yes, the ramp height it already as high as possible.
Also, what kinds of scores are people getting? We finished up our state contest here and was wondering... the distance was 8.5m, our time was 4.3s(2nd run was 3.85s), we predicted 4.2s and our distance was 60mm, which should be a score of 277.5. (I know about the score tracker, but there are only 3 other scores up, this seemed like a larger base for comparison )
Bearings for sure; smaller diameter, light wheels, narrow, relatively hard tires (e.g. O-rings), mass near the upper limit; maximize the distance the center of mass falls; minimize the friction losses.
Some interesting mumbers from our two team's vehicles:
Team 1: 10m in 3.62 sec, 7.5m in 2.5 sec, 5m in 1.82 sec
Team 2: 10m in 4.08 sec, 7.5m in 2.95 sec, 5m in 2.04 sec.
Same chassis plate, wheels, tires, bearings. Wheels about 2" diameter, O-ring tires, 1/8th" axles; center of mass <<1" off the ground
T1 is at 2.3kg; T2 is at about 1.8kg
T1 is running a low friction braking system, with a gear off the axle driving a threaded nylon rod, on which a very low friction "thread-chaser" is run; it trips a spring-loaded braking system trigger that drives a "dog-clutch" into one wheel. A bar inside one wheel that rotates w/ the wheel; a "disc package" that rides on the axle on bearings next to the wheel (3 ~1" diameter discs glued/pinned together), with a "dog" on the wheel side of it; when the brakes trip, the disc package is driven into the wheel; dog engages bar. There is an elastic band attached to the outside/circumference of the middle disc in the package, and then there is a ratchet disc- teeth cut in it, and a carbon fiber strip set so that the end of it gently rides the teeth. When the dog engages, the disc package rotates w/ the wheel, stretching the elastic, the ratchet bar keeps it from rebounding, and braking takes place over about 1/2 of a revolution (essentially no skidding). T2 is running a conventional wingnut braking system.
T2 center of mass gives about 60%R/40%F weight distribution; CM starts at about 24cm down from 1m.
T1CM starts just under 10cm down from 1m; ends up w/ about 55/45 weight distribution. There is a "bay" in the chassis plate, into which an approx 2kg lead weight slides. It rides on rods that slant up from near the middle to about 3" above the back. At the start, the weight is pulled up, so it ends up above the back edge of the chassis. There is a horizontal bar on the ramp, with a trigger bar that engages the weight (the trigger bar is moved with the pencil to start it off). On the underside of the chassis is a trigger bar that engages a piece of metal rod glued to the surface of the ramp. The other end of that bar extends into the front area of the "bay". The weight has a screw mounted on the front edge. As the weight comes into the bay, the end of the screw hits the trigger lever, releasing the vehicle to roll. Adjusting the screw allows the vehicle to be released to roll just as the weight slams into the bay. Loud pop, and off she goes.... We call it our gravity supercharger
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins, CO
- illusionist
- Member
- Posts: 942
- Joined: March 20th, 2010, 4:13 pm
- Division: C
- State: MI
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
I'd love to see a video of that launching and braking system at the end of this year!
-
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: May 10th, 2011, 8:25 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
Thanks for the help, I will definitely keep those tips in mind while making plans for next year, and I agree, I would love to see that launch and braking system at the end of the year... it sounds like it took a lot of work to make it happen.
'If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room' - Unknown
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 292
- Joined: March 24th, 2011, 10:28 am
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
-
- Coach
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: November 13th, 2008, 3:01 am
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
I will definitely try to get video, and share it- it's pretty cool to watch; State is tomorrow.
Cost?- let’s see. If you had to go out and buy everything, right at $200- carbon fiber- $35, Bearings- $30, wheels & tires- $25, titanium front axle- $10, Epoxy- $15, Rubberized CA glue- $7, Lexan & Plexi- $10 (bought as scrap pieces fm local plastics company), Balsa- $10, nylon 3/8 threaded rod- $10, gears- $10, T6061-T6 aluminum- $10 (w/ a lot left over), rod & tube for gravity supercharger (stainless steel rods, brass tube that slip-fits over rod)-$10, miscellaneous hardware (screws, nuts, bushings)- $15, a (2+kg) chunk of lead- $5 (fm a metal recycler). Actual cost to us was more like $150, because we had things around from other events/previous years.
Bringing this together was one of the neater/better “design and implement exercises” I’ve been involved in over the years- the guys learned a lot. Good up-front analysis of what scored more points, the factors going in maximizing speed & precision, analysis of materials & properties, constructability analysis (how to get needed level of precision w/ tools available), and adjustability analysis- what things needed to be designed/built to be adjustable, and how to do that. Some really good proof-of-concept/prototyping work early-on, with good design changes and evolution from that, so that when the actual build was done, it…..worked- it was linear, and they didn’t have to circle back and make significant changes.
As one example, the gravity supercharger went through a very interesting evolution. First thing last fall, we put together a half scale, simple test chassis; ¼” plywood chassis plate, disc wheels on bushings. Used some chunks of steel bar for getting the weight up. Basic physics analysis said we wanted as much of the mass starting as high above the floor as possible. Found that with the mass stacked over the back axle, it didn’t want to roll straight at all- major wandering; with it in the middle, though, it did roll straight.
So, I asked the question, “can you think of any way to have the best of both worlds?”- have the mass starts high/to the back, and end up in the middle??. The first answer was a “trapeze.” Two vertical bars up from midpoint with a rod between them at the top; two arms down from that rod, with the steel bar (with a length a bit less than chassis width) hanging on them- pull the steel bar back/up, let it go, would swing down to the middle- put a stop block in to stop it at the middle. Realized two things; that going from around 200gr of moving mass to around 2kg (in final/actual vehicle) would present all sorts of problems in how to get the trapeze strong/stiff enough (without being really heavy), and having the weight end up above the chassis plate did not maximize the downward end of the distance the center of mass could fall.
So, cut a “bay” out of the back half of the chassis plate- so front half was solid, back half was “legs” extending back, with open space between them. Extended the trapeze arms so the weight ended up swinging in at the bottom edge/side of the chassis plate. Did some brain-storming on "how else can we get the weight to move from high/over the back to low in the middle"? First iteration was a plate- a piece of 3/32nds plexi- low end at the front of the bay, upper end above/over the real axle; steel bar weight would slide down it, but would rotate unpredictably on the way down.
From work on our robot arm, we’d found out about how well tubes sliding on rods worked (with tube i.d. just slightly bigger than rod o.d). That led to the configuration we ended up with. Rods (1/8” stainless steel, highly polished) are anchored in lexan blocks mounted on the underside of the chassis plate at the edge of the “bay”; they angle back (at about 25 degrees from horizontal) to a bit behind the rear axle; lexan bracket pieces glued to the inside of the chassis plate “legs” hold/mount the upper/back ends of the rods. With the vehicle on the ramp, the rods are at about 85 degrees from horizontal, so the lead weight falls almost vertically. 2kg falling 10-ish cm is a pretty good shot of energy. The lead weight is held in a framework of ¼” thick lexan pieces, and that framework holds 5/32nds” brass tube pieces (i.d. just a hair bigger than 1/8th”). Getting the rods parallel, and in a plane, and the tubes parallel and aligned with the rods was a challenging exercise in precision, and for this system to work, it has to be precise. But when you do that, even with the vehicle sitting horizontal on the floor, the weight slides freely down the rods. Front face of the weight assembly is shaped/angled so that it gets full/close contact with the edge of the bay. 1/16th thick lexan plate on the edge of the bay; ¼” thick lexan plate on the front edge of the weight provides a good elastic collision when weight meets bay edge (i.e., maximum energy transfer - of the 2kg falling ~10cm -from the collision). The carbon fiber/balsa core sandwich of the chassis plate acts as a very effective sounding board; the “whack” of the weight hitting home really resonates. With the energy shot, the vehicle launches much faster than it does from just a rolling start.
So, especially when you add in the complexities/challenges of the braking system, it is in one sense certainly…..a bit over the top; a lot of time & effort, and a significant cost. The Team 2 vehicle went down a significantly simpler pathway, and ended up with performance pretty close to T1. A very good demonstration of an important concept; once you’re at a “good” level, the incremental “cost” of improvement (time/energy, and $s) tends to really ramp up. Each year, in coaching the building events, I try to end up with a mix of “intensity” put into the various events; for some, the ‘game” is how to get a decent device at minimal time and cost; for some, its “let’s go for it- do something really well.” Depends on who wants to really invest time, and who is fighting the time demands of things other than Science-O. This year, my two Team 1 guys really wanted to go for it on GV from the beginning, and so we did. They ended up with a way cool machine, and they learned a heck of a lot along the way. As a coach, what more can you ask for….. it’s been a lot of fun.
Couple last thoughts, then, on the incremental improvement in speed that the Team 1 guys were able to produce – and the nature of this event.
The improvement – the speed difference between the two vehicles – is absolutely real; enough carefully timed runs on both vehicles now to know for sure there is a 0.2 (at 5m) to 0.4 (at 10m) second difference. Scoring-wise, that’s the same value as 2 to 4cm off-target. But, given the fact of hand timing, the difficulty the folk timing being able to clearly see both start of movement and end of movement, reaction time variations in different people – the unavoidable human factor, a difference of this magnitude is at a high risk of getting lost in actual competition timing and scoring. I’m quite certain that at many competitions across the country, the time scoring component scores/places were different than “reality.”
But, as I’ve said before, there is no practical way to get precise, actual times. So, there is an inherent, unavoidable “roll of the dice factor” in the event, and where it comes into play the most is at the “top end”- those little differences that could/should be ‘the winning edge.” Even given this, though, I have to say,I think it’s a neat event.
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….
Cost?- let’s see. If you had to go out and buy everything, right at $200- carbon fiber- $35, Bearings- $30, wheels & tires- $25, titanium front axle- $10, Epoxy- $15, Rubberized CA glue- $7, Lexan & Plexi- $10 (bought as scrap pieces fm local plastics company), Balsa- $10, nylon 3/8 threaded rod- $10, gears- $10, T6061-T6 aluminum- $10 (w/ a lot left over), rod & tube for gravity supercharger (stainless steel rods, brass tube that slip-fits over rod)-$10, miscellaneous hardware (screws, nuts, bushings)- $15, a (2+kg) chunk of lead- $5 (fm a metal recycler). Actual cost to us was more like $150, because we had things around from other events/previous years.
Bringing this together was one of the neater/better “design and implement exercises” I’ve been involved in over the years- the guys learned a lot. Good up-front analysis of what scored more points, the factors going in maximizing speed & precision, analysis of materials & properties, constructability analysis (how to get needed level of precision w/ tools available), and adjustability analysis- what things needed to be designed/built to be adjustable, and how to do that. Some really good proof-of-concept/prototyping work early-on, with good design changes and evolution from that, so that when the actual build was done, it…..worked- it was linear, and they didn’t have to circle back and make significant changes.
As one example, the gravity supercharger went through a very interesting evolution. First thing last fall, we put together a half scale, simple test chassis; ¼” plywood chassis plate, disc wheels on bushings. Used some chunks of steel bar for getting the weight up. Basic physics analysis said we wanted as much of the mass starting as high above the floor as possible. Found that with the mass stacked over the back axle, it didn’t want to roll straight at all- major wandering; with it in the middle, though, it did roll straight.
So, I asked the question, “can you think of any way to have the best of both worlds?”- have the mass starts high/to the back, and end up in the middle??. The first answer was a “trapeze.” Two vertical bars up from midpoint with a rod between them at the top; two arms down from that rod, with the steel bar (with a length a bit less than chassis width) hanging on them- pull the steel bar back/up, let it go, would swing down to the middle- put a stop block in to stop it at the middle. Realized two things; that going from around 200gr of moving mass to around 2kg (in final/actual vehicle) would present all sorts of problems in how to get the trapeze strong/stiff enough (without being really heavy), and having the weight end up above the chassis plate did not maximize the downward end of the distance the center of mass could fall.
So, cut a “bay” out of the back half of the chassis plate- so front half was solid, back half was “legs” extending back, with open space between them. Extended the trapeze arms so the weight ended up swinging in at the bottom edge/side of the chassis plate. Did some brain-storming on "how else can we get the weight to move from high/over the back to low in the middle"? First iteration was a plate- a piece of 3/32nds plexi- low end at the front of the bay, upper end above/over the real axle; steel bar weight would slide down it, but would rotate unpredictably on the way down.
From work on our robot arm, we’d found out about how well tubes sliding on rods worked (with tube i.d. just slightly bigger than rod o.d). That led to the configuration we ended up with. Rods (1/8” stainless steel, highly polished) are anchored in lexan blocks mounted on the underside of the chassis plate at the edge of the “bay”; they angle back (at about 25 degrees from horizontal) to a bit behind the rear axle; lexan bracket pieces glued to the inside of the chassis plate “legs” hold/mount the upper/back ends of the rods. With the vehicle on the ramp, the rods are at about 85 degrees from horizontal, so the lead weight falls almost vertically. 2kg falling 10-ish cm is a pretty good shot of energy. The lead weight is held in a framework of ¼” thick lexan pieces, and that framework holds 5/32nds” brass tube pieces (i.d. just a hair bigger than 1/8th”). Getting the rods parallel, and in a plane, and the tubes parallel and aligned with the rods was a challenging exercise in precision, and for this system to work, it has to be precise. But when you do that, even with the vehicle sitting horizontal on the floor, the weight slides freely down the rods. Front face of the weight assembly is shaped/angled so that it gets full/close contact with the edge of the bay. 1/16th thick lexan plate on the edge of the bay; ¼” thick lexan plate on the front edge of the weight provides a good elastic collision when weight meets bay edge (i.e., maximum energy transfer - of the 2kg falling ~10cm -from the collision). The carbon fiber/balsa core sandwich of the chassis plate acts as a very effective sounding board; the “whack” of the weight hitting home really resonates. With the energy shot, the vehicle launches much faster than it does from just a rolling start.
So, especially when you add in the complexities/challenges of the braking system, it is in one sense certainly…..a bit over the top; a lot of time & effort, and a significant cost. The Team 2 vehicle went down a significantly simpler pathway, and ended up with performance pretty close to T1. A very good demonstration of an important concept; once you’re at a “good” level, the incremental “cost” of improvement (time/energy, and $s) tends to really ramp up. Each year, in coaching the building events, I try to end up with a mix of “intensity” put into the various events; for some, the ‘game” is how to get a decent device at minimal time and cost; for some, its “let’s go for it- do something really well.” Depends on who wants to really invest time, and who is fighting the time demands of things other than Science-O. This year, my two Team 1 guys really wanted to go for it on GV from the beginning, and so we did. They ended up with a way cool machine, and they learned a heck of a lot along the way. As a coach, what more can you ask for….. it’s been a lot of fun.
Couple last thoughts, then, on the incremental improvement in speed that the Team 1 guys were able to produce – and the nature of this event.
The improvement – the speed difference between the two vehicles – is absolutely real; enough carefully timed runs on both vehicles now to know for sure there is a 0.2 (at 5m) to 0.4 (at 10m) second difference. Scoring-wise, that’s the same value as 2 to 4cm off-target. But, given the fact of hand timing, the difficulty the folk timing being able to clearly see both start of movement and end of movement, reaction time variations in different people – the unavoidable human factor, a difference of this magnitude is at a high risk of getting lost in actual competition timing and scoring. I’m quite certain that at many competitions across the country, the time scoring component scores/places were different than “reality.”
But, as I’ve said before, there is no practical way to get precise, actual times. So, there is an inherent, unavoidable “roll of the dice factor” in the event, and where it comes into play the most is at the “top end”- those little differences that could/should be ‘the winning edge.” Even given this, though, I have to say,I think it’s a neat event.
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….
Len Joeris
Fort Collins, CO
Fort Collins, CO
-
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: January 18th, 2009, 1:26 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: PA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Gravity Vehicle C
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….
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests