RFI Responses

RFI 01 - Rule 6.4.3.2

Question: The information that we are being requested to submit for Safety Report 2, per Rule 6.4.3.2, is quite extensive and I am unsure if it will be possible to provide a detailed level of information on everything within the limits of 5 pages. Would the OC consider raising the page limit for the 2nd Safety Report? Answer: After review with the organizing committee members, safety report 2 will have no page limit but instead will have a maximum allowable word limit of 2500. Calculations must still be presented in the appendices, while graphs, pictures, and figures are encouraged to be placed within the body of the report. This item will be updated in version 2 of the rules.


RFI 02 - Theme Registration

Question: I am wondering if it is possible for my Team to reserve our theme prior to the pre-registration of September 1st as described in V1 of the Rule Book. This would allow us to start our art related preparation work sooner during the downtime of what is left of Summer. Approval of this request would significantly ease our workload during the Fall semester. Alternatively, I would appreciate it if we could have our short-list of potential themes screened by the OC for their appropriateness or similarity. Answer: The OC has decided to allow teams to pre-register their themes. The start date for theme registration will coincide with the release of this RFI response, and a form will be provided on this website for teams to submit their theme. The OC will evaluate each theme submission and reply to each team whether or not their theme choice is conditionally approved. If two teams submit similar themes, the decision of which team will be allowed to proceed will depend on which team submitted first, as well as if either team is reusing a theme from a past virtual competition. Teams will need to provide sufficient proof to the OC that they have started work on their theme for a previous competition. Once competition registration is open, theme selection will be first come, first serve.


RFI 03 - Rule 6.4.5: Report Dates

Question: Safety Report 2 feedback is to be received by December 5th, per Rule 6.4.5. Our ski casting is planned to be before December 5th but that would cause a problem if feedback showed that our mix and/or profile design had to be changed to further satisfy Rules 6.4.3.2.2 (point 6) along with Rule 6.4.3.2.3 (point 3) respectively. Would it be possible to receive feedback at an earlier date? Even if that means moving the Safety Report 2 Submission date earlier than November 18th? Answer: These dates were chosen as a balance between giving teams enough time to finalize a design before writing reports, having a feasible amount of time for judges to review, and having enough time for feedback and changes to be implemented in the fabrication. For these reasons, we will not be changing the deadlines. Teams should have enough confidence after the first report feedback and execute a majority of fabrication. Safety Report 2 is intended to add details and justifications to the designs rather than creating changes to the design.


RFI 04 - Rule Number: 6.1.1: Clarification of Due Date

Question: Message: In Table 1 under section 6.1 Deliverable Due Dates there are the following deliverables and their corresponding dates: Technical Exhibition Presentation Media due JANUARY 6TH, 2023 @11:59:59pm PST Technical Presentation (digital) due JANUARY 20TH, 2023 @11:59:59pm PST We are just looking for some clarification on the difference between these two deliverables as they have separate submission dates. Answer: The competition rules have been updated to version two and have taken this question into account. Changes have been made to deliverables and deliverable descriptions. Please read version #2. If you are still unclear on the deliverables, please re-submit the RFI for further clarification.


RFI 06 - Rule Number: 6.6.9: Sliding Surface Clarification

Question: Just to clarify when you say "Sliding Surface(s) used in previous GNCTR events" do you mean just the mix or the geometric profile of the ski as well. Just want to know because the rule says "a 50% score Deduction with a maximum of a 4 point deduction on any Event where said Sliding Surface(s) are used in a Run." which is a lot and we don't want to lose those points. Answer: The goal of this rule is to mandate the manufacturing of all new parts for the competition. As such, if a part was used at a previous competition, including the skis (sliding surface), re-using the part would result in a maximum 50% point reduction in events in which these parts were used. One addendum to this rule is that if parts were manufactured for the 2022 competition and your team would like to reuse them, then it must be stated in the initial registration alongside the submission of your 2022 competition technical report. Following this submission, using these parts would not result in deductions. In conclusion, yes you can reuse the design of the geometric profile, just as long as you are manufacturing a new ski.


RFI 05 - Rule Number: 7.5.1 Re-using Previous year mix designs

Question: Looking for clarification if a base concrete mix design be reused from a previous year. If this is allowed, will tests need to be reperformed or can previous data be used? Also, can ski design and reinforcement be reused from the previous 2022 design? since they didn't end up being used in construction. Answer: Mix designs from previous years can inform the teams' 2023 mix design as the team sees fit. The report should reflect why the team chose to use the chosen mix design in a fashion that is not plagiarised from the 2022 report. The cylinders that are brought to the competition for testing must be cast at the same time as the skis and must reflect the data that is reported in the final report.


RFI 07 - Rule Number: 7.4.1.3: Define Clear Line of Site

Question: The rule states "Deployment of brakes must be completed by an individual who has a clear line of sight out of the front or sides of the toboggan." Does a clear line of sight mean completely transparent or if a mesh was used that would be okay? Answer: The person engaging the brakes must be able to clearly see the braking zone to safely deploy the brakes. Any material used in the manufacturing of the superstructure or enclosure of the toboggan must allow for a reasonable view of the safety zone to the operator. A material like mesh would be suitable if it meets the above and all safety requirements.


RFI 08 - JLHA Documentation Requirements

Question: The Job Hazzard Analysis form is due on the 15th of September, but we have not been able to get our year started as the semester just started. Can we have the deadline pushed back? Answer: The deadline for the first Job Hazzard Analysis (JHA) form has been changed to be on the date the team starts manufacturing. This change will be reflected in the rules upon the release of Version 4 and will be considered to overrule Version 3. As an aside, the JHA should not be considered a large submission. It should be around four pages, including team signatures, after being filled out.


RFI 10 - KPI Audit Rubric Question

Question: It says under Project Baseline that an appropriate level of detail would be max 4 weeks duration... Our team starts designing the toboggan in May and builds until January... Could you clarify what is meant by maximum four weeks? Or is it meant to say minimum? Thanks! Answer: The maximum length of a single sub task is 4 weeks, that means that if you are designing for four months you should have at minimum 4 subtasks that describe the different stages of design. The breakdown for example could have the following : Preliminary design, Design phase 1, Preliminary FEA, … and so on. With no one bar extending over 4 weeks.


RFI 09 - Rule Number: 7.5.1.1: Salvaging Suspension

Question: Our team is considering a leaf suspension as one of our design alternatives and were wondering if the leaf suspension taken off a golf cart would be allowed if detailed calculations proved it to suffice in our design? Answer: A purchased suspension system with well-described properties would be appropriate for the competition if adequate justification for use is included in the safety reports and final report. A leaf spring suspension from a golf cart would be acceptable as long as detailed tests were done to determine its material properties (spring constant, young's modulus, max travel, tensile strength, etc.). This includes destructive testing to determine the limitations of the spring. Once the material properties are known and incorporated in the design they can be justified for use in the toboggan.