Comparisons & Results

In the end, our bridge came out on top in efficiency, though it didn't quite hold as much weight. Using the equation mass supported over mass of bridge times 100, we were able to determine that our bridge's efficiency was 7278% while the other team's efficiency was only 6185%. While these are both rather strong numbers, the main reason that ours came out on top was because one one factor: the mass of the bridge. While our bridge was only 35.8 g, our opponents bridge was 48.7 g. Of course, if one were to predict which bridge should hold the most one would think it would be the heavier one, but when it comes to efficiency, in this case it didn't equal out. Our bridge held only 2620.9 g to our opponent's 2970.9 g, but the difference there is only slight in comparison to the difference between the two masses of the bridges. The leading question now however is, why did our opponent's bridge not come out on top despite what seems to be a superior design (pictured below)

To be concise, the reason is because of the sideways truss that our bridge utilized. Our opponent's bridge, though more sturdy throughout the process of adding weight, eventually began to twist at the top because it only had a slight support against side to side motion. On the other hand, though our bridge wasn't quite as sturdy in regards to the downward force exerted on it, it was very good at withstanding any form of twisting, therefore it was able to hold its shape.

Conclusions

To be perfectly honest, both of our teams made large errors in our bridge design that cost us valuable strength, but on the other hand though, both of us made very good choices in regards to what we did, so what can we do to improve our bridge designs?

Franky, the best way would have been to combine the ideas that both of our bridges worked on separately. Our opponent's bridge focused more on the downward forces that were going to be exerted on the bridge, but neglected to notice the sideways motions that would inevitably also occur when weight was added. Then, on the other side of the spectrum, our bridge instead focused more on the forces of torque instead of weight, and as a result was unable to hold as much downward force as our opponent's. In essence, if our opponents had utilized a design that focused a bit more on sideways motion, they likely would have completely outstripped our bridge, but the same could have been true for our bridge had we provided more support against downward motion. All in all, I feel that it taught both of our groups a lesson: don't ignore one force in favor of excessively counteracting the another.