I don’t see any of those lifting to heights of, let’s say, 12 feet. Neither this thread nor the one I posted in earlier exclude heights like that. Being trained professionally as a scientist, I find it very disconcerting to see a whole group of comparable height examples used to show a method is the fastest for all heights. It’s like swinging many pendulums with amplitudes only up to 5 degrees, seeing they’re all very nearly simply harmonic, and then claiming pendulums always undergo simple harmonic oscillation without having tried much higher amplitudes which would have shown this to be a false conclusion.
I wouldn’t disagree with you for these lower competition heights. My post elsewhere about the utility of a scissor lift was specifically questioning about pushing to much higher heights and about the simplicity of locking it down well for safety. The DR4B will need arms around 6 feet long, so at very least there is no way it will fit in a small length/width region, which is something the scissor lift can still do. If I get the opportunity soon, I’ll try to build two very tall lifts to compare them. It would also be good to build two (or more) stacked DR4B (QR4B?) to improve the comparison. Even with aluminum, this is going to take a lot of motors and rubber bands. Hopefully someone can get this done before I can.
Maybe the DR4B will still be faster. Maybe not. But until I see something a lot higher, I’m not buying such a general conclusion from such a limited set of example heights. Statements that people like me who recognize that the “blanket evidence” really isn’t because it is severely lacking in breadth and so are holding off on judgement until we have a better set of evidence are “ignoring or not accepting” bother me. Some people probably are “ignoring or not accepting” such evidence. But some of us are very careful about sample sizes, breadth of the sample, and extrapolation.