Gravity Vehicle C

[SciOlyCactus45]

Hi! I'm new to this event so I have a few questions.
1. Is the brachistochrone curve even needed anymore? Someone mentioned this, but the time doesn't include going down the ramp so I'm not sure if there is really a benefit then.
2. What is the wingnut spring system mentioned in the forum? Is there a spring that the wingnut runs into to decelerate the car?
3. Is there any benefit to cars with a chassis that looks like an capital I, so like the connection between the front and rear axles is in the middle, not on the sides (if that makes sense), VS a car that has the connections on both sides (so like a rectangle)?

Thanks

[MTV<=>Operator]

Hi! I'm new to this event so I have a few questions.
1. Is the brachistochrone curve even needed anymore? Someone mentioned this, but the time doesn't include going down the ramp so I'm not sure if there is really a benefit then.
2. What is the wingnut spring system mentioned in the forum? Is there a spring that the wingnut runs into to decelerate the car?
3. Is there any benefit to cars with a chassis that looks like an capital I, so like the connection between the front and rear axles is in the middle, not on the sides (if that makes sense), VS a car that has the connections on both sides (so like a rectangle)?

Thanks

1. No, you are exactly right
2. Yes, that is what was being referred to
3. Other than being lighter weight, I don't think there are any

[sciolyperson1]

Hi! I'm new to this event so I have a few questions.
3. Is there any benefit to cars with a chassis that looks like an capital I, so like the connection between the front and rear axles is in the middle, not on the sides (if that makes sense), VS a car that has the connections on both sides (so like a rectangle)?
Thanks

IMO easier to build, although it could be a bit weaker if not built properly. Either works fine, there's not much going on in the center of the car anyways. I've stuck with capital I cars rather than rectangle cars because I don't really think there's a difference in performance.

[T&J101]

Instability definitely. There's a reason why cars nowadays have 4 wheels instead of 3. I may be wrong, but I think that there is another possible disadvantage to 3 wheels. windu said that a large wheelbase is less prone to drifting (wheel slippage and stuff), so my guess is that a 3 wheeled design is more prone to drifting since the triangular wheelbase significantly decreases the area. Can someone clarify this?

Yea it makes sense, any small deviation in the axle angle would be amplified by aggressive wheel base design.

Also this year start height of the car isn’t measure so would it be ok to walk off both sides? I’m thinking I should attach spring loaded rollers to both walls for a clean, straight run.

Can you clarify "walk off both sides" ?

Sorry I sent this from my phone, I meant wall off both sides to allow the rollers on the car to push against.

[T&J101]

Instability definitely. There's a reason why cars nowadays have 4 wheels instead of 3. I may be wrong, but I think that there is another possible disadvantage to 3 wheels. windu said that a large wheelbase is less prone to drifting (wheel slippage and stuff), so my guess is that a 3 wheeled design is more prone to drifting since the triangular wheelbase significantly decreases the area. Can someone clarify this?

Yea it makes sense, any small deviation in the axle angle would be amplified by aggressive wheel base design.

Also this year start height of the car isn’t measure so would it be ok to walk off both sides? I’m thinking I should attach spring loaded rollers to both walls for a clean, straight run.

What would be the advantage of spring loaded rollers vs. conventional ones? I've thought about this idea earlier but the hard part seems to be designing the channel the rollers slot in as it would need to match the profile of the ramp.

There wouldn’t necessarily have to be channels for the rollers, just a wall for them to push up against, if you have two walls the left rollers could be spring loaded to move outwards and the other side could be a set distance. This would allow the car to be perfectly parallel to the wall.

[Tendan]

Yea it makes sense, any small deviation in the axle angle would be amplified by aggressive wheel base design.

Also this year start height of the car isn’t measure so would it be ok to walk off both sides? I’m thinking I should attach spring loaded rollers to both walls for a clean, straight run.

What would be the advantage of spring loaded rollers vs. conventional ones? I've thought about this idea earlier but the hard part seems to be designing the channel the rollers slot in as it would need to match the profile of the ramp.

There wouldn’t necessarily have to be channels for the rollers, just a wall for them to push up against, if you have two walls the left rollers could be spring loaded to move outwards and the other side could be a set distance. This would allow the car to be perfectly parallel to the wall.

It might be best to just go without a system to guide the car down the ramp. It would generate unnecessary friction, the largest drawback of rails, and if the car is misaligned, the action taken by the system could slow it down to the point that it doesn't reach the target or it could throw it even further off course. Therefore, you would likely score better without the system even if you align incorrectly.

Also, you may or may not have to deal with the recoil from the spings firing away from the car as it exits the walled section, but I have no idea if this could actually be a problem.

For now, I'm just sticking with lining up a spot on the car with a spot on the ramp. Ramp guidance systems might just be a bit too finicky to be worthwhile.

[lindsmaurer]

What would be the advantage of spring loaded rollers vs. conventional ones? I've thought about this idea earlier but the hard part seems to be designing the channel the rollers slot in as it would need to match the profile of the ramp.

There wouldn’t necessarily have to be channels for the rollers, just a wall for them to push up against, if you have two walls the left rollers could be spring loaded to move outwards and the other side could be a set distance. This would allow the car to be perfectly parallel to the wall.

It might be best to just go without a system to guide the car down the ramp. It would generate unnecessary friction, the largest drawback of rails, and if the car is misaligned, the action taken by the system could slow it down to the point that it doesn't reach the target or it could throw it even further off course. Therefore, you would likely score better without the system even if you align incorrectly.

Also, you may or may not have to deal with the recoil from the spings firing away from the car as it exits the walled section, but I have no idea if this could actually be a problem.

For now, I'm just sticking with lining up a spot on the car with a spot on the ramp. Ramp guidance systems might just be a bit too finicky to be worthwhile.

The issue I see with this approach is if the ramp isn't perfectly made, the car will be skewed while rolling down the ramp, while a guidance system would theoretically fix that issue

[sciolyperson1]

There wouldn’t necessarily have to be channels for the rollers, just a wall for them to push up against, if you have two walls the left rollers could be spring loaded to move outwards and the other side could be a set distance. This would allow the car to be perfectly parallel to the wall.

It might be best to just go without a system to guide the car down the ramp. It would generate unnecessary friction, the largest drawback of rails, and if the car is misaligned, the action taken by the system could slow it down to the point that it doesn't reach the target or it could throw it even further off course. Therefore, you would likely score better without the system even if you align incorrectly.

Also, you may or may not have to deal with the recoil from the spings firing away from the car as it exits the walled section, but I have no idea if this could actually be a problem.

For now, I'm just sticking with lining up a spot on the car with a spot on the ramp. Ramp guidance systems might just be a bit too finicky to be worthwhile.

The issue I see with this approach is if the ramp isn't perfectly made, the car will be skewed while rolling down the ramp, while a guidance system would theoretically fix that issue

Instead of adding a guidance system, why not just make the ramp perfectly straight lol

[lindsmaurer]

It might be best to just go without a system to guide the car down the ramp. It would generate unnecessary friction, the largest drawback of rails, and if the car is misaligned, the action taken by the system could slow it down to the point that it doesn't reach the target or it could throw it even further off course. Therefore, you would likely score better without the system even if you align incorrectly.

Also, you may or may not have to deal with the recoil from the spings firing away from the car as it exits the walled section, but I have no idea if this could actually be a problem.

For now, I'm just sticking with lining up a spot on the car with a spot on the ramp. Ramp guidance systems might just be a bit too finicky to be worthwhile.

The issue I see with this approach is if the ramp isn't perfectly made, the car will be skewed while rolling down the ramp, while a guidance system would theoretically fix that issue

Instead of adding a guidance system, why not just make the ramp perfectly straight lol

when you figure out how to be 100% sure that’s it’s perfectly straight let me know

[windu34]

Instead of adding a guidance system, why not just make the ramp perfectly straight lol

when you figure out how to be 100% sure that’s it’s perfectly straight let me know

Me too