 |
|
|
2003 NCCC Commentary and
Summary Note : The thoughts and opinions found on this page are my own and may not reflect or convey those of 3CT, Clemson University, Clemson Department of Civil Engineering, CNCCC, CSA, ASCE, MBT, or Drexel University. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, June 19-22, 2003 PART I : (June 29) BUCKY WINS, BUCKY WINS!!! University of Wisconsin Badgers overcome bad weather, rule changes and durability problems to swamp the competition. .........PART II : (July 7) academics and races, and a few mia culpas on my predictions ;) ............ PART III : Dents, dings and critiques .............. PART IV : a sentimental and gushy goodbye to the three members leaving the CNCCC in 2003..............PART V : Mike Carnivale and company got the job done, big time!
Congratulations to the University of Wisconsin-Madison concrete canoe team for winning their first-ever championship. Their canoe, "Chequamegon" (pronounced Shwa-Me-Gun)* weighed 145 pounds and was twenty-two feet long - the longest of any canoe this year. Wisconsin came to Philadelphia with most of their 2002 team intact and that experience was evident as they won the combined academic portion - 2nd in Paper, 1st in Oral - and finishing a strong second place in the combined races -two firsts, a second, and a fourth. Their men's paddling dominated, winning the Endurance race by 16 seconds and the Sprint race over two seconds. They were also tied for first place heading into the turn during the co-ed sprints when the paddlers appeared to lean just a bit too far as they were negotiating the buoy and the canoe swamped. This continues a trend for the national champion teams who for the past few years seem to swamp at some point during the co-ed sprints! * translates to "place of shallow water" in the language of the Ojibwa Native American tribe - somewhat prophetic considering the weather forced a change in the race location from the Schuykill River to FDR Lake - this lake normally is about two feet deep! After the awards ceremony team members Preston Tokheim, Jesse Larson, and Kurt Thuene expressed the concern they had at the time. "We knew we did well in the Oral and Final Product Aesthetic events and were confident that our Design Paper could give us a chance to win the whole thing, but with the loss of points in the co-ed race, eighth in the women's endurance race, and knowing that the durability score was going to hurt our Final Product rank, we got worried that if it was at least even after academics, these losses were enough to give the title to Clemson because they were the only team that finished ahead of us in race points". It turns out that in hind-sight those fears were unwarranted. During the academic portion of the competition UW had accumulated a 17-point lead over defending champion Clemson. Unknown to them at the time, Cal-Berkeley was 2.5 points down with Laval only three points behind Cal. As long as UW earned at least 2.5 points more than Cal in the combined races, the Badgers would take the hardware home. Wisconsin paddlers did their part, but they can thank NC State and Cal Poly for taking away enough race points to keep Laval and Cal Berkeley from making it more interesting than UW would like ;) To race, or not to race. That is the question. As a result of flooding and from a week of torrential rain culminated by four inches of rain on Friday,organizers Behind the scenes scramble to find alternate race locations. The race course site was initially chosen to be set-up on the Schuykill (skoo-kill) River. I say “initially” because by Saturday morning the river was well above flood stage and had not yet reached its peak crest. With water eight feet higher than normal and a 12+ mph current pushing small trees down stream, the races were in serious jeopardy of being cancelled to insure the safety of the participants and spectators. The host school, Drexel, and representatives from MasterBuilders and ASCE discussed several options regarding the race event, including not having the races at all. This would have been the first time at least one race was cancelled since 1996. That year the competition was held in Washington, D.C. with the races on the Potomac River. Heavy thunderstorms and lightning caused the races to come to an abrupt end with the men and women petite and grand championship races yet to be run. As several plans were being executed in parallel Friday evening, Mike Carnivale, Drexel’s project director for the competition received word from the Philadelphia public parks department that an alternate location might be available. At 7am on Saturday about twenty people from various groups such as Drexel, MasterBuilder, CNCCC, Philly Water Department, Philly Parks and Recreation, and the Army Corps of Engineers arrived at FDR park to check things out.* The site was nearly perfect. The only issue was that the water in the lake was slightly higher than normal, making the normal access ramps to dock inaccessible, but other than this little “temporary pedestrian bridge design opportunity" – and who better than Civils to meet that challenge?) everything about the site was a "go". In fact, it actually turned out to be a much better venue for spectators. Things were looking up. * Not enough “attaboys and attagirls” can be said for the folks from Drexel University, the Philadelphia Parks Dept, and probably a host of other departments and crews who totally got the job done on short notice, over a weekend, and without any visible red tape. I just kept shaking my head in amazement every time I saw a manager grab his radio and in less than an hour another resource arrived on site and another deliverable was met. You could see the pride and commitment in these folks - not just individual pride, but the job and quality of their work as a whole. As a project manager and a business owner, I thought to myself that this would be an example of teamwork and selflessness I would refer to in project management and leadership discussions for years to come. However, the logistical (re)arrangements with less than 24 hours before the races were enormous. First, the immediate area for the judges and spectators had to be cleaned, then came the task of contacting the numerous press outlets and caterer, DJ, port-a-john, tent, power generator, etc., etc., companies and of course, the students and spectators and make them aware of and give them directions to the new location for the race event. Did I mention this was Saturday and less than 24 hours before the start of the first race? MasterBuilders' Kelly Mawby was juggling three phones while scribbling notes down on pieces of paper and handing these to whomever was within arms reach of her. It was totally amazing to watch. Kelly is the MVP floor general for the NCCC. Oh, I almost forgot a small detail … the race course still needed to be set up! It was 4pm when the buoys and course were delivered. That left about 4 hours of daylight to get the course ready**. By nightfall the work setting the course was about half complete, which meant a 4:30am wake-up call the next morning for the course-setters. The plan was to arrive at the site at 5am and have the course set in 3 hours. However, the powerboat was not available until 6:30, and after the final line was pulled tight, the races started at 9:15, instead of 8 o’clock. Still, not bad at all considering where things were just 24 hours earlier! ** Depending on the make-up of the bottom of the lake, it can take from 4 to 12 hours to connect and set the five 100-meter stainless steel cables, two block and tackle (pulleys) and anchors at each corner, fill the buoys with air, attach a buoy clip to each nylon string for each buoy, tie the string to the buoy, set the buoys, and then pull the course taught. If the bottom of the lake is slick (vegetation or silt), or you have a lot of debris (tree stumps, tricycles ;) then your anchors move or your stainless steel cables get snagged and contain slack. If this slack is not removed and the cables are not tensioned (straight) to their actual length, the course and lane lengths are not correct – meaning that one lane may be 100 meters while another may be 90 meters. The folks who set the course take great care to insure that the cables are tight and the course is exact – e.g. every lane is the same. So remember this in the future when you are cursing those in the powerboat setting the course to hurry-up ;) – only when they are finished can each team be assured that no lane offers an advantage over another. So, you now have an insight into what was going on behind the scenes while the presentations were in progress. Since I volunteered to be “behind the scenes”, I did not see a single presentation this year and am unable to give my personal top ten for this event. However, I did attend the final product portion of the competition and can give my personal top-ten for this event. But let’s look at things in order of judging, starting with the Design Paper. PART II : Academics and Races Since the Design Paper standings are a complete mystery until the awards ceremony, it's only after the scores are released before a play-by-play scenario of the competition can be given. Placing high in the Design Paper is extremely important - more so than any other portion of the competition. No other event creates such a large point differential between 1st and 6th (15 points). A team placing 1-3 has a nine to twenty-seven point lead over a team placing 6-10. Unless such a team simply blows it in Oral Presentation and Races, they will be in the running for number one. Again, the design paper is IMPORTANT! Cal Berkeley took top honors in this category, and in addition to this also won the Tony Chrest award -given in honor of Anthony P. (Tony) Chrest, a champion of the concrete canoe competitions on both the regional and national level, to the team that demonstrates superior and creative use of technology and materials in the construction of their concrete canoe. The design team from Cal actually formed sheets of concrete, placed these individual sheets on the canoe and then vibrated the form causing the seems between the concrete sheets to close. This is a common technique in the industry, but was the first time used in the construction of a concrete canoe. There are a few advantages to this method such as controlling thickness, and ease and speed of applying the concrete. When the 2003 papers become available, be sure to check out Berkeley's as well as the other top papers. As a part of collaborative effort with ConcreteCanoe.org, U of Wisconsin keeps a copy of the top 5 design papers each year. Speaking of Wisconsin ... the Badgers finished second in the paper, with Oklahoma, Laval and Milwaukee School of Engineering closing out the top five in order. Complete Design Paper scoring can be found here. Tracking my pre-competition top five, Cal led Wisconsin by 3, Laval by 9 points, Clemson by 21, and Western Kentucky by 27 points - and my "sneak-in" pick, Oklahoma was definitely in contention only 6 points down. Being this far down after one event (even though no team knows at the time where they stand), Clemson and Western Kentucky would have to win big in the Oral Presentations to get back in contention. The difference between 1st and 6th in the Orals is twelve points, and it was apparent during Oral Presentations that six teams were a cut above the rest of the competition and would vie for the critical top five places in this category. Clemson and WKU needed to grab 1-2 and hope that 3-5 were anyone other than than Cal and Wisconsin. "Not so fast my friend!" Wisconsin's presentation clearly stood out as tops, while Cal, Clemson, and WKU seemed to be in a dead-heat. After the judges' scoring was in, Cal edged Clemson by a whopping 0.00012 points for second place with WKU and Laval capping the top five. I know I say this every year, but I have to give "props" where "props" are due. Laval's 5th place in 2003 and their 3rd place last year says a great deal about how hard this team has worked - not only on their presentation delivery, but also on their English. Just two years ago Laval placed 20th and Orals, primarily due to translation issues, but since then they are averaging 4th. Hey, did I mention that Laval is in a French-speaking province of Canada? What advantage would Laval have if the Orals had to be presented in French? How many of us can even say five French words? In other words (no pun intended), a little jab is in order for the remaining 12-15 native English-speaking schools at Nationals who finish behind Laval in the Paper and Orals - HEY, you're getting pounded in these events by a group who uses English as a second language! Keep it up Laval! Looking at how things were stacking up at this point: Cal led Wisconsin by half a point, Laval by 16.5 points, Oklahoma by 21, Clemson by 23.5 points, and Western Kentucky by 32 points. Also on the radar now was Michigan Tech, at 27.5 points behind Cal. Complete Oral Presentation scoring can be found here. Visit Alabama-Huntsville's site for details and commentary on each team's presentation including judges questions. The third and final academic event this year (just in case you have not read the rules, there are no Displays in 2003 ;) is the Final Product. There are two new twists in the scoring of this event in 2003. First, in addition to each judge's score (5 total), a "peer" score is given equal weight in the formula (drop the highest and lowest and average the remaining four scores) used to determine Final Product Aesthetics scoring. Additionally, Final Product Durability plays a much more significant factor than it has in the past. (see NCCC rule IV.B.2 for specifics). Also new this year was the significant restriction on the use of paint. I'd estimate that paint was limited to less than 5% of the canoe (inside and out). I like this rule - primarily because you get to see the true nature of the concrete, it's behavior compared to design, and now teams can't complain "it's all paint" when another school wallops them in Final Product. As a result of the rule regarding the use of paint, the canoes did not look as nice as they have in the past, however, I was very impressed with what I saw. The five canoes really stood out, with another 5-6 in the second tier, and another 4-5 in the last tier before there was a significant drop-off in quality. I was immediately drawn to Western Kentucky's boat because I initially thought they were in violation of the rule that bans the use of stain or any finish on the inside of the canoe. It turns out that the two-tone color schema was achieved by using one color of concrete for the inner layers and then another color for the outer layers. WKU also had inlay designs at the ends of their canoe - the only team to do so at nationals. As usual, Laval had a beautiful canoe - the lines on this canoe were just amazing, and the shot-crete technique they used to apply the concrete seems to really work for un-painted and unfinished concrete. Absent on their canoe were the varying shading and splotches seen on most of the other canoes - caused by patching or variations in the mix ingredients. Wisconsin had a sweet-looking canoe, definitely in the top three in aesthetics. But as I mentioned earlier, Durability is a major factor in Final Product scoring. Just on pure aesthetics (prior to Durability judging, and not including deductions), here was the top ten: Western Kentucky, Laval, Wisconsin, Clemson, Oklahoma, Cal Poly, Boise State, Iowa State, Drexel, and Michigan Tech. After durability and deductions were factored in, Cal Poly and Wisconsin suffered the largest losses dropping nine and six places to 15th, and 9th, respectively. The benefactors were Milwaukee School of Engineering - moving up five spots from 13th to 7th, and Iowa State and Michigan Tech each jumped four spots to 4th and 6th, respectively. Cal also improved, but not enough to get the Bears in to the top ten and points. As you can see, the durability and deductions can change things considerably - and the prettiest canoe, hands-down, might not crack the top 10 if it cracks up on the race course! The complete scoring for the Final Product event can be found here. With Cal unable to grab any points in the Product category, and with Wisconsin's 9th place earning the Badgers three points, 'Ol Bucky pulled ahead of Cal by 2.5 points and thus, also won the Academic portion of the competition. It's interesting to note how little, if at all, Wisconsin was hurt by its drop from 3rd to 9th in Final Product - it lost only nine potential points. While a team does not want to lose ANY potential points, the least costly* event for a slip is the Final Product portion of the competition. Comparatively, using the example of UW dropping from 3 to 9 in Product - and losing 9 potential points .... a 3rd place drop to 9th place in Paper or Oral costs your team 18 and 15 points, respectively. * Wisconsin scored big points where it matters most - Paper and Orals, and built a large lead going into the Final Product event. While the Badgers made up ground on Cal, the remainder of my the other five schools edged closer to Wisconsin. Heading into the races, here's what the scoreboard looked like: Wisconsin led Cal by 2.5 points, Laval by 5.5, Oklahoma by 11.5, Clemson by 17, and Western Kentucky by 19.5 points. Michigan Tech closed its gap to 22.5 points behind Wisconsin. Wisconsin only had to hold its own against Cal, Laval, and Oklahoma - a top five finish in each race would keep all other teams out of the picture. Just like Western Kentucky in 2002, the national title was Wisconsin's to lose. MORE TO COME SOON! PART III: Dents, dings and critiques PART IV : a sentimental and gushy goodbye to the three members leaving the CNCCC in 2003
PART V : Mike Carnivale and company got the job done, big time!
|
The competition
started with canoe swamp tests on Friday. Some areas around Philly
began looking like swamps after four inches of rain fell during a 24-hour
period causing flash flood warnings throughout surrounding Philly
locations. However, it appears that a new group of 
