Airloom — run `run_20260714_015948`

22 generation(s) · 310 candidates (176 valid) · regenerated 03:04:20

every candidate the run has flown, in evaluation order. Gray dots are evaluated designs — height is the aggregate energy score in Wh/km across all scenarios, lower is better. The black step line tracks the best so far, stepping down at each labeled improvement. Red ×’s on the ∞ row are invalid designs that failed a check and never flew. Click any black improvement dot to jump to that candidate’s detail card below.

candidatecandidate
One evaluated design, drawn at its aggregate energy score across all scenarios. Lower is better.off scaleoff scale
A valid but far-off candidate above the 95th-percentile cap, drawn hollow at the top edge so one terrible design does not squash the interesting region.best so farbest so far
Step line tracking the lowest energy score reached so far; each black dot is an improvement. Click one to jump to that candidate’s detail card.×invalid (design fail)invalid (design fail)
Failed a structural or geometric check and never flew the scenarios, so it has no finite score — plotted on the ∞ row.generationgeneration
Alternating shaded bands group the candidates of each generation (labeled g0, g1, … below the axis); hover a band for its candidate count.claude-designedclaude-designed
A purple halo marks candidates proposed by the Claude designer; a light purple generation band means Claude had input that generation (designer round).g ⟳pivot generationpivot generation
Patience ran out on a plateau: this generation was bred from far-apart parents to re-diversify the pool.

the game board

bolted down — the fixed kit

motors	4× 2806-class, ≤22,000 rpm, ≤500 W each
props	7×4 3-blade (MA GF 7×4 measured tables)
battery	6S1P 21700 Li-Ion, 4.2 Ah, 470 g
pack limits	0.15 Ω sag, ≤45 A (≈821 W ceiling)
electronics	30.5 mm FC/ESC stack (needs ≥20 mm gap), camera, VTX, ELRS, GPS
non-frame mass	783 g

hard constraints (fitness = ∞, no flight)

FC/ESC stack must fit the deck gap
arm root tongues may not collide on the main plate
each tongue’s bolt pair must land on plate material
rotor–rotor / rotor–frame clearance ≥ 5 mm, prop disks vs deck & battery checked in 3D
arm stress, tip deflection & 1P resonance (×1.5 safety)
≤10% of the mission thrust-limited (rotor, motor or pack)

the levers — 12 genes

	min	seed	max
arm length	×0.75	×1.00	×1.35
arm width	×0.75	×1.00	×1.40
arm waist	×0.55	×1.00	×1.30
arm thickness (mm)	4	6	9
front sweep	30°	31°	52°
rear sweep	34°	36°	62°
plate length	×0.85	×1.00	×1.30
plate width	×0.85	×1.00	×1.25
deck gap (mm)	20	30	45
battery wedge	0°	2°	15°
plate thickness	×0.70	×1.00	×1.60
material	cf_plate … asa (6 materials)

×1.00 on every scale gene = the real Source One V6 7in DC, measured from the official plate drawings; the search deforms those real outlines, never free-form shapes.

the weather — every candidate flies all of it

calm warm	25 C, no wind, no rain (baseline / sanity case)
cold headwind	5 C, 8 m/s from north, moderate Dryden turbulence
storm	5 C, 8 m/s north, severe turbulence, 25 mm/h rain
crosswind	15 C, 10 m/s pure crosswind from east, moderate turbulence
gusty light	10 C, 4 m/s from northwest, severe gusts (control effort & loads)
hot thin	35 C, density altitude 1500 m (thin air), light wind

one mission: 4 km out-and-back at 12 m/s, 30 m AGL. Fixed gust seeds — every candidate flies identical turbulence, so score differences are frame differences. Fitness = mean Wh/km + 0.5 × worst scenario.

the process

the loop

tournament selection (k = 3) with SBX crossover and decaying Gaussian mutation; the top 2 carry over unchanged, random immigrants keep diversity, and a stalled search pivots to crosses with its most genetically distant decent ancestors. Every 3 generations — and at every pivot — a headless Claude reads the elites’ telemetry, the failure histogram and its own past proposals, and injects design hypotheses of its own (violet in the family tree); after each generation it writes the lab-notebook notes on every card. Every candidate ever built is archived here, failures included.

the physics

each candidate flies all six scenarios at 100 Hz: measured UIUC propeller tables, Dryden gusts with per-scenario fixed seeds (every frame sees identical weather), a battery that sags under load and caps deliverable power, and drag priced from the frame’s actual rasterized silhouettes with CFD-calibrated coefficients — 12 OpenFOAM RANS cases measured the handbook buildup roughly 2× too pessimistic at cruise tilt and pinned the interference between parts (−27 % at 20°). The corrected model reproduces the measured drag to ±3 %.

the audit

before a leaderboard is trusted, the top frames are re-flown under perturbed model assumptions (±30 % drag coefficients, ±10 % rotor tables, altered rain physics); the current ordering survives every perturbation with rank correlation ≥ 0.95 and no champion change. Champions then face a refined structural check — stress concentrations at bolt holes and cutouts, as-printed strength knockdowns — and ship with a bench print-and-test protocol, because simulation ends where a vise begins.

generation 21

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.095 of gene range
pivot σ 0.285 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 21 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 11 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.289 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3042, "arm_width_scale": 0.7603, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.1774, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3405, "plate_length_scale": 0.9714, "plate_width_scale": 1.0101, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0005} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 12, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 11 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 5e6a89c8 — Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocksflew at 6.504 Wh/km
candidate 8b5de20a — Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimuflew at 8.053 Wh/km
candidate 555e0858 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family's shared trait is long arms (1.27-1.31) near stock sweep; this pivot goes to the opposite extreme -- short arm_length_scale (0.80) to cut arm mass -- compensating the resulting rotor-tip-clearance risk with far-wider-than-stock sweep (47/58 deg) and plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule, testing a genuinely compact-frame region no elite has explored.
candidate 39f2e737 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every prior max-stiffness attempt (wide width/waist/thickness) confounded the stiffness gain with the elite's long-arm mass and triggered arm-resonance-with-rotor-1P failures, so this pivot pairs near-max arm width/waist/thickness with a much SHORTER arm (0.85) instead -- shifting the natural frequency away from 1P while keeping total mass in check -- isolating real structural stiffness for the fi
candidate 76523eca — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Same short-arm, wide-sweep frontal/side-profile pivot as the failed design, but trimmed to the proven-safe 43/52 deg sweep pairing (validated at plate 1.28/1.24 in a prior generation) and the waist relaxed from the max-pinch 0.55 to 0.65 so the root tongue geometry isn't over-narrowed at the more extreme rotation.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

6db77ae0e3e7

6.319 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

a3e915aff1c6

6.341 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

321458e4fe8e

6.384 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.90

9e44ec74f3f7

6.422 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.93

5e6a89c82c1d

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

7bba02524c77

6.621 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.08

0a47694a74b8

6.704 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	4.33
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.94
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.15

8b5de20a6d4e

8.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.19
cold_headwind	5.22
crosswind	4.93
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	4.47
storm	6.20

fe3e0aede10d

8.090 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.22
cold_headwind	5.22
crosswind	4.96
gusty_light	4.73
hot_thin	4.51
storm	6.23

b117b3da4364

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

e6aff9563f8c

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

24af3796f70c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

827158d42c32

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2c3798403caa

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 20

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.098 of gene range
pivot σ 0.294 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 20 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 10 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 10 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 21664820 — The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,flew at 8.018 Wh/km
candidate f45e862c — Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability iflew at 6.619 Wh/km
candidate cc53cd9d — Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage tolerancflew at 6.514 Wh/km

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

3280daa84a2f

6.289 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

99c5d37c02df

6.313 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

32354be55061

6.323 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

8d3baceec6ce

6.339 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

cc53cd9d248e

6.514 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.00

9fc7fb69eb8b

6.589 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.06

f45e862cd6b3

6.619 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

04ff0826e748

6.678 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.31
crosswind	4.10
gusty_light	3.92
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.13

216648201249

8.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.18
cold_headwind	5.18
crosswind	4.91
gusty_light	4.69
hot_thin	4.46
storm	6.17

dc624f621edb

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

37cf390d4601

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

c90d90d7c88c

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

c9fa6339c0ff

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

2406afc3979d

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 19

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.101 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 19 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 9 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 624da8bb — The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded pieceinvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
candidate 0e35d1c3 — Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.flew at 6.588 Wh/km
candidate 696632b2 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every elite sits at near-stock sweep because wide-sweep attempts keep getting offset by the plate-scale mass they require, so push sweep far past stock (front +10.6, rear +14 deg, matching the ratio of the one prior VALID wide-sweep design) combined with a near-max battery wedge and the elite's leanest arm dimensions to isolate pure frontal/side-profile reduction from any stiffness-driven mass con
candidate 63167a16 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite also shares a near-maximum arm_length_scale (1.26-1.31) that has never been abandoned, so test a genuinely short-wheelbase/high-disk-loading stance (~30% shorter arms than any elite) with only moderate width/waist since a shorter beam needs less material to resist bending, staying at stock sweep and floor plate thickness to isolate the wheelbase axis from every other trait.
candidate 35e24bd2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Same contrarian pivot testing moderate arm width/waist (0.95/0.70) against the elite family's minimum-width-and-waist recipe, but raise arm_length_scale from the failed 0.92 to 1.08 to restore rotor-tip clearance while staying well below the elites' near-max 1.27-1.31 arm length.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

96f545f25cbe

6.298 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.84

d3b6554ace86

6.431 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.96
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.94

bd388d17a4cf

6.496 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.99

0e35d1c372f5

6.588 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.06

8bd7e8d0aa04

6.618 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

28ee1aea28cb

6.874 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.60
cold_headwind	4.44
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.04
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.28

8ca690fa1442

7.577 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	4.95
crosswind	4.64
gusty_light	4.43
hot_thin	4.20
storm	5.82

fd0496c33092

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

4e91de63adb4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

83064d76f9ee

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

42b3468e3332

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

19868d12b115

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

45099c22a47c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.57
crosswind	4.29
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.38

624da8bb96ab

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	4.27
cold_headwind	5.25
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	4.56
storm	6.28

generation 18

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.104 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 18 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 8 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 8 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 7adc86c1 — Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.flew at 6.646 Wh/km
candidate d8d770d5 — Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
candidate 008f747c — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Abandon the elite's long-thin-arm minimum-mass trait entirely by shrinking arm_length_scale to the compact end of the range (0.82) with moderately increased width/waist/thickness for tip stiffness at the shorter span, testing whether a tighter, stiffer disk-loading regime beats the long-arm low-drag strategy.
candidate 55f7c203 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Fixes the rotor-tip-overlap failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.82 to 1.0 (still well short of the elite's 1.27-1.31) while keeping the same stiffer wide-waist, thicker-shaft storm-specialist geometry untouched, testing a moderate-length stiff arm as a genuine pivot from the elite's thin-minimal-mass family.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

52ab8e14cb63

6.310 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

f6397fd6043c

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

a8cec93bcca6

6.546 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

7adc86c167f8

6.646 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.27
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.10

5fed623f6b65

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

404108ce71d8

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

da2ee1294058

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

781cc66535e0

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

a66e30ecde2f

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

9c39ed818cc8

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

f66bf5675cbb

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

c47e1f6da0e0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

82e4f3f643e4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d8d770d5f10a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.02

generation 17

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	1
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.107 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 17 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 7 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 7 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 83f19dec — Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.flew at 6.475 Wh/km
candidate 232aae29 — Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.flew at 6.504 Wh/km
candidate 41f6a585 — Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.flew at 6.769 Wh/km
candidate d70fce55 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every non-carbon material pivot so far failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-waist, thin-arm, floor-thickness shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer; this pivot properly commits to PLA+ (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065, arm_waist relaxed to 0.85, arm_width to 0.85 and plate_thickness_scale to 1.0, giving real margin above the printed-material floors instead of ch

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

95e7cba302ec

6.296 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

0b92faa29d10

6.384 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

83f19dec5965

6.475 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.97

232aae2975ed

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.99

6a910b7b31dd

6.647 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.11

41f6a5857003

6.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.17
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.20

e69f4fe82b1c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

2f4ca49a31f0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

70e5d32f5850

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

281fd479fb78

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

f8c049a2a28e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

d87336fcc2c0

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

1c0b2050be82

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

53ba7d23d390

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

generation 16

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.111 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 16 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 6 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate a072202c — Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elitflew at 6.630 Wh/km
candidate cadb6dac — Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate f2511166 — Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.flew at 6.641 Wh/km
candidate e1d629ce — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family has converged on a symmetric near-stock, minimum-everything (thin waist, thin width, floor thickness) stance that has plateaued on storm/crosswind; this pivot keeps the elite's low-mass thin arms but pushes rear_sweep_deg alone to a genuinely wide 50 deg (asymmetric DeadCat stance) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule, testing whether real aerodynamic/yaw-stability

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

5ec33e3dea91

6.322 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

c61da0591e9a

6.337 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

b3aaaeaeec58

6.367 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.88

37eb0ed73f7e

6.418 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.92

fb0aaa4c0bbf

6.475 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.97

a072202cd3c9

6.630 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.28
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.10

f25111665ee7

6.641 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.27
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.10

f9f7a0a90601

7.779 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.02
cold_headwind	5.12
crosswind	4.75
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	4.29
storm	5.99

cb6dc8edc94d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3359f647701d

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

f8c9ae899625

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

700786179886

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

c84184dd7731

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

cadb6dac34da

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.17
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.75
storm	5.19

generation 15

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.114 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 15 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 5 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 470c4fea — Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deckflew at 6.574 Wh/km
candidate a55c3afa — Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.flew at 7.773 Wh/km
candidate 4e66ffd7 — Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate e69b2732 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — The elite family shares thin/narrow/floor-thickness arms (width 0.75-0.86, waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) with near-stock sweep -- storm has stayed pinned at 4.82-4.84 Wh/km across all of them despite every other scenario improving, suggesting arm flex under gust loading (not mass or drag) is now the binding constraint on storm; this isolates pure arm structural stiffness (max width, max waist/no-na
candidate 239d2504 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every elite and every prior material pivot has stayed at material~0.0 (carbon) because past non-carbon attempts bundled the switch with a heavy wide-stance or thin-arm combo that failed on tip deflection or web thickness; this isolates a genuinely tougher thermoplastic (PETG, 0.75) at stock sweep and elite-like plate scale, with arm width/waist pulled back from the elite's drag-optimized extremes

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

210243eee823

6.284 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

fb429755f2c9

6.309 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.84

d7ed8abf5d4a

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

7d6bb6555ba3

6.360 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.88

567629068d98

6.397 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.91

bb51c78c03f1

6.525 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.01

470c4fea7616

6.574 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.05

a55c3afad400

7.773 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.04
cold_headwind	5.05
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.31
storm	5.98

1d127f47417e

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

22d0b8aa0446

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2a4226f51df6

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

7b4d6d97d3a2

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

4e66ffd73fcf

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.47
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.28

generation 14

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.118 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 14 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 4 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 03a2ffd5 — The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynamiflew at 6.991 Wh/km
candidate 19c8d082 — Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materiainvalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
candidate e8b47537 — Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.flew at 6.371 Wh/km
candidate e1f8e520 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite sits at arm_length_scale ~1.3 (low disk loading, long low-drag arms) with battery_wedge_deg untouched at 0, so this pivot flips both traits at once -- a compact, higher-disk-loading frame (arm_length_scale 0.90) paired with an aggressive 14 deg battery tilt to slash frontal area -- isolating whether a shorter/lighter airframe plus real drag-shedding tilt beats the long-arm family on co

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

2bd9dc0e44f5

6.324 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.85

e8b475371bd4

6.371 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

7d84b9157ec6

6.373 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.89

f06711515158

6.379 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

415bf8bfe69b

6.395 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.91

bd01e3ab19cf

6.468 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.97

d418422a216b

6.478 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.98

03a2ffd572b3

6.991 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.50
crosswind	4.30
gusty_light	4.10
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.37

2f82e3339abb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

a2a30a063191

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

47e4b91aecdb

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

8353dbb95b00

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

091ed3266995

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

19c8d0829c1b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.83

generation 13

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.121 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 13 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 3 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate e28f0289 — Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.flew at 6.840 Wh/km
candidate 197c2380 — Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.flew at 7.025 Wh/km
candidate 3844ac93 — Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.flew at 6.757 Wh/km
candidate 87fd3524 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Abandon the elite family's max-arm-length/thin-everything trait entirely: shrink to near-minimum arm length for higher disk loading but restore arm width/waist/thickness toward the middle of the range for real structural stiffness, testing whether a compact stiff core beats the plateaued long-thin-arm minimalism on storm without paying its usual mass tax.
candidate a8ab6930 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Abandon the elite family's stock-sweep constraint: push both sweeps far beyond stock for a genuinely wide stance (unlike prior failed wide-stance attempts that piled on thick arms), while keeping arms thin/light for low drag/mass and raising plate_length/width_scale well past the web-crush floor so the tongue bolts and webs stay safely seated, isolating stance-width benefit from the mass penalty t

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

cc237e7244c5

6.318 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.85

ff46e60afeaa

6.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

ad77afd2152e

6.340 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

45484fc05b8f

6.350 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.87

b62c94c67395

6.370 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

1989cce8f069

6.380 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

89860fd49516

6.512 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	5.00

3844ac93fc4c

6.757 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.78
storm	5.19

e28f02892326

6.840 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.60
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.84
storm	5.25

197c23808897

7.025 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	4.52
crosswind	4.32
gusty_light	4.13
hot_thin	3.92
storm	5.40

f580c8168a5f

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

75753b64d8cc

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

96f27774bf9c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

8c3f49668738

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 12

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	10
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.125 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 12 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 10, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate af149969 — Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.flew at 6.355 Wh/km
candidate ddf19b53 — Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.flew at 6.311 Wh/km
candidate 17da73c8 — Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.flew at 6.333 Wh/km
candidate a2cca76f — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Push arm_length_scale to its true maximum (1.35, beyond any elite's ~1.30) to further lower disk loading and hover power, while keeping arms at floor width/waist/thickness, sweeps at exact stock (zero plate-scale compensation needed), and floor plate thickness/carbon to stay in the proven low-mass recipe.
candidate 7bc9fa75 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Isolate deck_gap as a storm-clearance lever by raising it to 0.036 (well past the elite ~0.026 and the FC-stack minimum) while holding plate_thickness_scale at the floor and sweeps at exact stock, unlike the earlier failed deck_gap attempt that confounded the effect with added plate mass.

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

b0b7ac5673d3

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

ddf19b536a16

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

518308dd763e

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

17da73c894cb

6.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

1b84d46a56fc

6.346 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.87

af1499695456

6.355 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

3007a946fb33

6.458 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.96

6a0308f66ca3

6.497 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.99

e5336935405c

6.771 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.98
hot_thin	3.79
storm	5.20

65e6a5f0f3b8

7.423 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.91
cold_headwind	4.76
crosswind	4.55
gusty_light	4.36
hot_thin	4.16
storm	5.70

81b319d910b1

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

4e477467edbf

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

422a660d16fa

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

638bd2f1c787

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 11

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

423a5b75b462

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

dfc78b499744

6.366 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

e0575966e577

6.406 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.92

b7770d597f13

6.415 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

b1d5fcb24f99

6.533 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

fc2c7ef36dda

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

5fa016e60352

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7c7bb013dfe2

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

ab38d7aba00d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

9d5c4afef43d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

6a49f495e1e3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3d15d3b4bd87

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

8f0cd6f3c5bc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

generation 10

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

423a5b75b462

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

a0a25432bc7e

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

b11bd9e31fc9

6.351 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

44ef779fcdde

6.352 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

17e316010361

6.372 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.89

20e595a9b3bb

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.90

12db578f6d9a

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.90

f7f19e696159

6.427 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.93

90910ad23a0b

6.494 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

7cde9c33ec87

6.513 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	5.00

1d6ed7910f85

6.616 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.06
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

4f00eb4dd7f0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

0e5d846ccfa1

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.69

fd317283218c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.75

4a2bcbc84f7a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 9

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	11

mutation σ 0.137 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 9 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.412 Wh/km-agg, frame 108 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0121, "arm_width_scale": 0.8495, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.3446, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.576, "plate_length_scale": 0.9653, "plate_width_scale": 1.0537, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.3574, "material": 0.1089} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.39, "cold_headwind": 4.07, "crosswind": 3.94, "gusty_light": 3.78, "hot_thin": 3.62, "storm": 4.92}
fitness 6.454 Wh/km-agg, frame 107 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1836, "arm_width_scale": 0.7548, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5504, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4905, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.0706, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0312, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.8637, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.057, "material": 0.0648} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.4, "cold_headwind": 4.11, "crosswind": 3.97, "gusty_light": 3.8, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.95}
fitness 6.461 Wh/km-agg, frame 107 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1955, "arm_width_scale": 0.8684, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5523, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.2426, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7588, "plate_length_scale": 1.1303, "plate_width_scale": 1.0585, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1364, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.9624, "material": 0.0385} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.4, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.97, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.466 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8568, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.481, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.9638, "plate_length_scale": 1.0686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0569, "material": 0.0659} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.41, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.478 Wh/km-agg, frame 113 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0278, "arm_width_scale": 0.8776, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.3641, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5706, "plate_length_scale": 0.9759, "plate_width_scale": 1.0538, "deck_gap": 0.0328, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.4402, "material": 0.0976} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.42, "cold_headwind": 4.11, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.82, "hot_thin": 3.65, "storm": 4.97}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 7, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 8d9fd4a0 — Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.flew at 6.291 Wh/km
candidate 01f642b6 — Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.flew at 6.523 Wh/km
candidate 2ab37da5 — Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.flew at 6.429 Wh/km
candidate 6921b5fe — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Test whether a tough printed material (PA12-CF) at the minimum viable plate thickness can match carbon's efficiency on a lean, near-stock-sweep frame, unlike prior bulky printed-material attempts that added unnecessary mass.

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

12db578f6d9a

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.90

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

2ab37da5aded

6.429 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.93

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

5bf4af89c395

6.497 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

0a44e521470e

6.517 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.00

01f642b698ee

6.523 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.01

7c1296374769

6.579 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.05

d5b7768c74ba

6.677 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.28
crosswind	4.11
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.13

9b1ad93e6ae7

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

1cb131f8dcd9

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.74

f210f6970d00

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

d07e9eb4efa0

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.80

f9975e637f95

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c90e6c04d60b

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

generation 8

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

b3ee16482b7f

6.478 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.97

a7d348b99940

6.483 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.97

73a3de639945

6.491 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

b39589cfab1f

6.495 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.66
storm	4.98

86c66adc78ab

6.503 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

d54e044418d8

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.99

7d41c5bf7fcb

6.510 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.00

b547bba47781

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

b23f0b070efd

6.630 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

f47a31a3f356

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

5598a12c0ccc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a673d06cc9f2

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

a7e5fcb66d8d

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

d39357c00a75

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 7

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

d60afe7b910e

6.461 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

81d8723d6e5f

6.483 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

1168a75cc018

6.484 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

3a014cf57ee0

6.490 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

6efaa89a1475

6.491 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

ab90f4d019fa

6.537 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

9d30a0e485e1

6.582 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.05

7d332c7c589b

6.654 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.11

3177bdcfbc1f

6.802 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.22

558b1a7ddb64

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	4.73
crosswind	4.49
gusty_light	4.30
hot_thin	4.10
storm	5.63

b9cf335c58f1

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

11501a421b71

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

b2a0e07f4c1e

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

91a0d5bb94ed

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 6

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	11

mutation σ 0.150 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 6 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.466 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8568, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.481, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.9638, "plate_length_scale": 1.0686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0569, "material": 0.0659} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.41, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.528 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1896, "arm_width_scale": 0.8692, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5522, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 33.2424, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0119, "plate_length_scale": 1.0688, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1155, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1004, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.16, "crosswind": 4.02, "gusty_light": 3.85, "hot_thin": 3.67, "storm": 5.01}
fitness 6.547 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1896, "arm_width_scale": 0.8692, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5522, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 31.7017, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0119, "plate_length_scale": 1.0688, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1155, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1546, "material": 0.072} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.17, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.67, "storm": 5.03}
fitness 6.547 Wh/km-agg, frame 112 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1869, "arm_width_scale": 0.8514, "arm_waist_scale": 0.7119, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.5276, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.4614, "plate_length_scale": 1.0668, "plate_width_scale": 1.062, "deck_gap": 0.0294, "battery_wedge_deg": 4.7339, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.053, "material": 0.0792} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.02}
fitness 6.552 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0045, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.067, "plate_width_scale": 1.0617, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.03}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 3, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 7b8317ed — Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.flew at 7.262 Wh/km
candidate ed5a193d — Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.flew at 7.377 Wh/km
candidate 0744daaf — Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.flew at 6.943 Wh/km
candidate 9a762f4b — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Compact minimal-mass frame: shortens the wheelbase and thins arm/plate stock well below the elite cluster to shed frame mass for hot_thin/cruise efficiency, betting that the elites' long-arm strategy has more mass to give up than disk-loading penalty to pay at stock sweep.
candidate 8e3389f7 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Low-drag headwind/crosswind specialist: minimum arm width and waist plus an aggressive near-max battery tilt at exactly stock sweep to cut frontal/cross-sectional area, targeting the wind-facing scenarios rather than mass.

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

d60afe7b910e

6.461 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

50e6dee87d3a

6.466 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

0b455cc0f748

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

a1df3773912d

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

f9862e99b160

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

6d9a8f3e0bc1

6.539 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

1ae7f66cd948

6.586 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.06

1bcf9c39a3df

6.631 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.09

a94a56bc9f09

6.788 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.21

939d4b0bcd16

6.881 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.86
storm	5.28

0744daafc6e2

6.943 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.46
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.33

7b8317ed444b

7.262 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	4.67
crosswind	4.46
gusty_light	4.26
hot_thin	4.05
storm	5.58

ed5a193d02ea

7.377 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	4.75
crosswind	4.54
gusty_light	4.33
hot_thin	4.11
storm	5.67

bd9d3434a36d

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

b3151e8e8a36

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

generation 5

50e6dee87d3a

6.466 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

f9862e99b160

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

89bafd954020

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.03

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

6a3d68fd906b

6.568 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.04

71f9b10676b2

6.595 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.06

203a5f646386

6.635 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

b324108bd3fb

6.637 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

d3770c40a877

6.692 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.30
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.14

9f193ade7d89

6.811 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.82
storm	5.23

412f5906d4ae

6.873 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.23
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.86
storm	5.27

6c59f94f5dd5

7.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.65
crosswind	4.39
gusty_light	4.17
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.47

5fdc8f9feb1b

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

78e246731fc8

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

e69646c004a3

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

f97426ea97fc

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)

generation 4

89bafd954020

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.03

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

305d09e58ec7

6.627 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.09

838da14e4706

6.654 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.92
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.11

b135fda4746b

6.800 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.22

4217f90da111

6.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.44
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.27

7d22b27cf9e4

7.139 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.67
crosswind	4.40
gusty_light	4.18
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.49

aa4dfe645fa0

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

137d29b15ab2

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

945c4e9c8052

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

f40d394738b2

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

33f73a334e76

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

65a40445a59f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

fc1469ad1abe

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

43a8c3b07b39

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 3

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	9
mutants (single parent)	2

mutation σ 0.164 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 3 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.552 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0045, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.067, "plate_width_scale": 1.0617, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.03}
fitness 6.719 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0948, "arm_width_scale": 0.7946, "arm_waist_scale": 0.8092, "arm_thickness": 0.0069, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3743, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.6449, "plate_length_scale": 1.066, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0312, "battery_wedge_deg": 10.4674, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0, "material": 0.288} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.5, "cold_headwind": 4.35, "crosswind": 4.15, "gusty_light": 3.95, "hot_thin": 3.73, "storm": 5.16}
fitness 6.790 Wh/km-agg, frame 130 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8799, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6032, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6322, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.431, "plate_length_scale": 0.9426, "plate_width_scale": 0.9959, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7085, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.55, "cold_headwind": 4.36, "crosswind": 4.18, "gusty_light": 3.99, "hot_thin": 3.79, "storm": 5.21}
fitness 6.807 Wh/km-agg, frame 132 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.35, "arm_width_scale": 0.8577, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5917, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.5277, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3405, "plate_length_scale": 0.9431, "plate_width_scale": 0.996, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0368, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0069} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 4.37, "crosswind": 4.2, "gusty_light": 4.0, "hot_thin": 3.8, "storm": 5.23}
fitness 6.828 Wh/km-agg, frame 137 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.0498, "plate_width_scale": 0.9971, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.59, "cold_headwind": 4.36, "crosswind": 4.21, "gusty_light": 4.02, "hot_thin": 3.83, "storm": 5.24}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 1, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate edbeb491 — Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.flew at 6.977 Wh/km
candidate a76a6566 — Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.flew at 6.705 Wh/km
candidate 4ac62300 — Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.flew at 7.026 Wh/km
candidate 738d04e5 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Sweep-diverged crosswind hypothesis: push rotor azimuth well past stock (front 40, rear 48) with plate scales raised ~0.15 per the coupling rule to protect the FC-stack webs, testing an unexplored rotor-placement regime for crosswind/storm gains.
candidate 03f8842c — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Ultra-light short-wheelbase design: shrink arm length and deck_gap to their safe minimums with stock sweeps (avoiding the plate-web/tongue failure zone) and thinner plates, betting mass reduction beats the elites' 114-116 g on hot_thin.

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

d3bc126ea7b7

6.687 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.94
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.13

a76a6566ac11

6.705 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.15

cb6b6c5540f9

6.719 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.16

30f7b0f6b0b7

6.755 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.75
storm	5.19

edbeb4914449

6.977 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.53
crosswind	4.30
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.36

4ac6230067c7

7.026 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	4.55
crosswind	4.34
gusty_light	4.12
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.40

09309f9a3ffc

7.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.04
cold_headwind	5.12
crosswind	4.77
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.30
storm	5.99

3edb9219bf87

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c5f9522e79bb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7233d53a3e8b

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

bb0eed2bdfef

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a7df2893e710

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

bf2e6f93d302

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.77

a634b4cbe897

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 2

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

cb6b6c5540f9

6.719 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.16

4743fc24d9d8

6.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.79
storm	5.21

567a47539bb8

6.807 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.23

8e06d4306a70

6.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.24

f7529dac5308

6.868 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.23
gusty_light	4.04
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.27

15c422327b08

7.622 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	5.01
crosswind	4.67
gusty_light	4.45
hot_thin	4.20
storm	5.86

5ed287457f78

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

525912aa347b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

18764ba12399

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

b24c2b7ec3dc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3acb6f67aff0

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

13deecb4fddf

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

018cf7cf45d5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

0969790bc7ed

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

6c9aba1081db

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

generation 1

567a47539bb8

6.807 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.23

8e06d4306a70

6.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.24

7792e42599f3

6.886 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.29

155527aa42e6

6.901 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

9f8cb660ef38

6.908 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

74b3739c8c62

7.727 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.97
cold_headwind	5.10
crosswind	4.74
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	4.24
storm	5.95

0e87bd2659ae

7.765 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.05
cold_headwind	5.03
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.32
storm	5.97

147c162c7115

7.970 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.16
cold_headwind	5.18
crosswind	4.88
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	4.43
storm	6.13

c7930fc5ffc6

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3aa7d17fe4ff

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

8647cb40064a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

be7ac6212cf7

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

debe542fc520

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

c7d45f84f4ce

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

4775089f5490

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	4.60
crosswind	4.43
gusty_light	4.23
hot_thin	4.03
storm	5.52

adb2a0016661

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 0

inputs

✦ claude designer · opening round — gen-0 design hypotheses · 5 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

seeds (baseline + random probes)	11
claude-designed	5

mutation σ 0.180 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 0 · opening round — gen-0 design hypotheses · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): (no generations evaluated yet)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
(none yet -- this is generation 0: propose diverse OPENING design hypotheses that stake out different regions of the genome space)

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
(none yet)

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 5 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 89ffb906 — Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.flew at 8.479 Wh/km
candidate 7792e425 — Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.flew at 6.886 Wh/km
candidate 59b9a52c — Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.flew at 7.127 Wh/km
candidate 9f8cb660 — Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.flew at 6.908 Wh/km
candidate 9be55419 — Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.flew at 7.598 Wh/km
candidate 0769309e — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Low-drag speed racer: long slender waisted arms and minimal-frontal-area carbon-plate build at stock sweeps to hold bolt registration while chasing the lowest steady-cruise Wh/km.
candidate cc82d367 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Ultralight hot/thin-air specialist: short thin arms and PLA+ at the minimum viable plate thickness to cut absolute mass for low-density-air scenarios.
candidate afda73b2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Wide-sweep compact X hypothesis: pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a tighter crosswind silhouette, growing the deck plates to protect the tongue bolts, printed in tough PA12-CF.
candidate a642e36d — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Cold-headwind glider: near-minimum sweeps (kept just off the exact minimum to dodge tongue collision) with narrow waisted arms and a steep battery wedge to minimize frontal area into a headwind, printed PETG.

7792e42599f3

6.886 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.29

9f8cb660ef38

6.908 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

baac55fb3837

6.936 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.32

59b9a52c15fa

7.127 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	4.59
crosswind	4.39
gusty_light	4.18
hot_thin	3.98
storm	5.47

fb21f27a5a37

7.288 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	4.75
crosswind	4.48
gusty_light	4.27
hot_thin	4.04
storm	5.60

9be55419299a

7.598 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.90
cold_headwind	5.00
crosswind	4.68
gusty_light	4.43
hot_thin	4.17
storm	5.85

ac6152897717

7.761 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.05
cold_headwind	5.03
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.31
storm	5.97

89ffb906b148

8.479 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.42
cold_headwind	5.47
crosswind	5.21
gusty_light	4.96
hot_thin	4.72
storm	6.53

8ecbc7aa7d42

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

6d3cc3001311

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

bed953f57acd

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

7cbc2d5ef0dc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c49a7137ae88

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

8b125eb28127

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c34eb7329dd8

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

14d6fcbb04f9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

candidate details & parentage

click a model to open it full-screen: the full-kit model, its evolved components alone, a side-by-side with the oldest ancestor of its lineage rotating in sync, the net change vs that ancestor, the lineage trail (every ancestor ghosted), and a replay that steps generation by generation from the oldest ancestor to the candidate (3D models load on demand when an overlay opens)

candidate 54a73703249erun champion

click to open the 3D model

evolved:armsarms
Evolved part: the four arms — length, width, waist, thickness and sweep genes reshape them.deck plates + standoffsdeck plates + standoffs
Evolved part: the stacked deck plates and standoffs — plate size, thickness and deck gap genes reshape them.fixed kit:batterybattery
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.FC/ESC stackFC/ESC stack
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.wiring/XT60wiring/XT60
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.motorsmotors
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.prop disksprop disks
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.

metric	value
energy score	6.257 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.857 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.801 Wh/km
frame mass	90.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisParent was already essentially at the front (6.286), so this pivot makes a small, careful bet: trim the arm waist and length just a bit further to shed the last bit of unneeded mass.

methodTightened arm waist slightly, shortened arm length a touch, nudged arm width up marginally, and made a tiny material blend adjustment.

result6.257 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the previous best-so-far of 6.274. Every scenario improved a little, including storm dropping to 4.80, suggesting this lands right at a mass/stiffness sweet spot rather than winning on any single scenario. Worth exploring rear sweep near 36° next to see if it compounds with this gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.297	140.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.989	169.4	38.8°
crosswind	3.848	163.5	33.6°
gusty_light	3.689	156.7	32.5°
hot_thin	3.516	149.4	27.5°
storm	4.801	204.0	30.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1704aea48de9new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.274 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.867 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.815 Wh/km
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent again, but instead of touching front sweep (already tuned), the bet was that rear-arm sweep was the next untapped lever, paired with the same plate-thinning trick that had been working.

methodIncreased rear sweep by about 3 degrees, thinned the plate stock (0.75x to 0.70x), left the material blend essentially at the parent's value, and stretched arm length marginally.

resultFitness hit 6.274, the best result of the generation and a NEW WINNER, beating not just its parent (6.291) but also sibling ba61fc4b63fb's 6.286. Storm score matched ba61fc4b63fb almost exactly, but small gains stacked across calm, cold, crosswind, gusty, and hot scenarios pushed it ahead, suggesting the rear-sweep tweak has broader benefit than the front-sweep one. Worth testing next: combine this rear-sweep change with ba61fc4b63fb's arm-waist change to see if the two mass-saving moves stack further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.301	140.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.003	170.1	38.9°
crosswind	3.862	164.1	33.7°
gusty_light	3.699	157.1	32.6°
hot_thin	3.521	149.6	27.5°
storm	4.815	204.6	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6db77ae0e3e7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.319 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.893 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.852 Wh/km
frame mass	95.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 3280da (6.29) and 54a737 (6.26) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 36.5° (was rear sweep 39.3°), material 0.08 (was material 0.00), plate width ×0.99 (was plate width ×1.01), deck gap 24.9 mm (was deck gap 26.0 mm).

resultAggregate 6.319 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.044	171.8	39.1°
crosswind	3.885	165.1	33.7°
gusty_light	3.722	158.1	32.7°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.6°
storm	4.852	206.1	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a3e915aff1c6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.341 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.907 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.868 Wh/km
frame mass	94.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 32354b (6.32) and 9fc7fb (6.59) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate length ×0.92 (was plate length ×0.97), plate width ×1.02 (was plate width ×1.00), arm width ×0.78 (was arm width ×0.76), rear sweep 35.6° (was rear sweep 36.7°).

resultAggregate 6.341 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.328	141.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.067	172.8	39.4°
crosswind	3.896	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.733	158.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.549	150.8	27.7°
storm	4.868	206.8	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 321458e4fe8e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.384 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.933 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	100.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 54a737 (6.26) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate length ×1.14 (was plate length ×0.97), deck gap 33.0 mm (was deck gap 26.1 mm), arm thickness 4.3 mm (was arm thickness 4.0 mm), rear sweep 37.3° (was rear sweep 36.2°).

resultAggregate 6.384 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.349	142.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.082	173.4	39.2°
crosswind	3.934	167.1	34.1°
gusty_light	3.760	159.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.574	151.8	27.6°
storm	4.900	208.2	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9e44ec74f3f7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.422 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.956 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.932 Wh/km
frame mass	99.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 3280da (6.29) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 35.8 mm (was deck gap 26.0 mm), arm waist ×0.74 (was arm waist ×0.55), battery wedge 2.0° (was battery wedge 0.0°), plate length ×0.93 (was plate length ×0.97).

resultAggregate 6.422 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.363	142.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.130	175.4	39.7°
crosswind	3.945	167.6	34.2°
gusty_light	3.778	160.5	33.1°
hot_thin	3.588	152.4	27.8°
storm	4.932	209.5	34.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.74
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5e6a89c82c1d✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.009 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.990 Wh/km
frame mass	102.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.15, arm width ×0.80, arm waist ×0.60, arm thickness 4.5 mm.

resultAggregate 6.504 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.416	145.1	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	34.3°
gusty_light	3.826	162.6	33.0°
hot_thin	3.638	154.6	27.8°
storm	4.990	212.0	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7bba02524c77

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.621 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.081 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.081 Wh/km
frame mass	114.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via mutation

hypothesisLocal perturbation of a selected parent to probe its neighborhood. Parents: 9fc7fb (6.59) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.08 (was plate width ×1.00), deck gap 26.7 mm (was deck gap 27.8 mm).

resultAggregate 6.621 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.481	147.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.259	180.9	40.0°
crosswind	4.067	172.8	34.5°
gusty_light	3.892	165.3	33.2°
hot_thin	3.706	157.4	27.9°
storm	5.081	215.9	35.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	44.7°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a47694a74b8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.704 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.131 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.147 Wh/km
frame mass	115.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 04ff08 (6.68) and 8d3bac (6.34) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 45.3° (was front sweep 48.9°), deck gap 29.4 mm (was deck gap 25.9 mm), plate width ×1.25 (was plate width ×1.24), material 0.08 (was material 0.07).

resultAggregate 6.704 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.512	149.2	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.333	184.1	40.3°
crosswind	4.119	175.0	35.1°
gusty_light	3.936	167.2	33.5°
hot_thin	3.738	158.8	28.0°
storm	5.147	218.7	36.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	45.3°
rear sweep	49.1°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8b5de20a6d4e✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.053 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.953 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.200 Wh/km
frame mass	219.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.10, arm width ×1.35, arm waist ×1.25, arm thickness 7.5 mm.

resultAggregate 8.053 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.190	178.0	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.225	222.0	41.0°
crosswind	4.925	209.2	35.4°
gusty_light	4.705	199.9	34.0°
hot_thin	4.473	190.0	28.3°
storm	6.200	263.4	39.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fe3e0aede10d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.090 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.977 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.225 Wh/km
frame mass	227.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via mutation

hypothesisLocal perturbation of a selected parent to probe its neighborhood. Parents: 216648 (8.02) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.07 (was plate width ×1.00), plate length ×0.94 (was plate length ×1.00), arm thickness 7.9 mm (was arm thickness 7.5 mm), arm waist ×1.14 (was arm waist ×1.20).

resultAggregate 8.090 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.257 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.220	179.3	25.8°
cold_headwind	5.221	221.8	40.6°
crosswind	4.957	210.6	35.1°
gusty_light	4.732	201.0	33.7°
hot_thin	4.506	191.4	28.1°
storm	6.225	264.5	38.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	7.9 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b117b3da4364

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 99c5d3 (6.31) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 20.5 mm (was deck gap 26.4 mm), front sweep 30.0° (was front sweep 33.0°), plate width ×1.04 (was plate width ×1.00), arm length ×1.25 (was arm length ×1.28).

resultINVALID -- deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	20.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e6aff9563f8c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 54a737 (6.26) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate thickness ×1.48 (was plate thickness ×0.70), plate width ×0.88 (was plate width ×1.00), deck gap 30.4 mm (was deck gap 26.1 mm), material 0.00 (was material 0.13).

resultINVALID -- arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.48
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 24af3796f70c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 8d3bac (6.34) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm waist ×0.75 (was arm waist ×0.55), rear sweep 43.8° (was rear sweep 39.6°), front sweep 32.9° (was front sweep 31.8°), plate length ×1.00 (was plate length ×1.00).

resultINVALID -- arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 827158d42c32

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: c90d90 Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×0.86 (was plate width ×1.01), plate length ×0.91 (was plate length ×1.01), rear sweep 48.6° (was rear sweep 52.8°), battery wedge 3.2° (was battery wedge 2.4°).

resultINVALID -- plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	30.3°
rear sweep	48.6°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	27.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2c3798403caa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 54a737 (6.26) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 28.9 mm (was deck gap 26.1 mm), material 0.23 (was material 0.13), plate length ×0.99 (was plate length ×0.97), front sweep 32.8° (was front sweep 33.5°).

resultINVALID -- plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3280daa84a2f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.289 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.875 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.827 Wh/km
frame mass	92.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover paired the near-best 6.274 genome with the weaker 6.588 one, betting that only picking up a tiny width/sweep nudge from the weaker parent would keep performance close to the stronger one.

methodVery slightly widened the plate and increased front sweep a touch; arm thickness was left unchanged between parents.

resultFitness came in at 6.289, very close to the 6.274 parent and just short of the 6.257 best-so-far — not a new winner, but it confirms this region of the genome is a strong, stable local optimum. The tiny width/sweep tweaks were nearly neutral. Worth testing: nudge front sweep back down toward the champion's own value to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.306	140.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.018	170.7	38.9°
crosswind	3.867	164.3	33.7°
gusty_light	3.706	157.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.527	149.8	27.5°
storm	4.827	205.1	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 99c5d37c02df

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.313 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.890 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.846 Wh/km
frame mass	93.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThis pivot came directly off the reigning champion (54a73703249e, 6.257), betting that small refinements — slightly wider arms and a purer carbon-fiber blend — could squeeze out an incremental improvement.

methodWidened the arms a little, nudged rear sweep up marginally, shifted the material blend closer to pure carbon fiber, and thickened the arm waist slightly.

resultFitness landed at 6.313, slightly worse than the 6.257 champion — did not dethrone it. The extra arm width and waist mass likely outweighed any benefit from the purer material, nudging the storm scenario up to 4.85. Worth testing: apply the material shift alone, without widening the arms, to isolate whether purer carbon fiber helps on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.719	158.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.539	150.3	27.6°
storm	4.846	205.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 32354be55061

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.323 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.896 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	94.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover blended the same 6.298 performer with the 6.274 near-best genome, betting that a wider deck gap and reduced rear sweep together would improve rotor clearance and efficiency.

methodWidened the deck gap by several millimeters, reduced rear sweep, lengthened the arms slightly, and nudged front sweep up marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.323, worse than both parents and off the 6.257 best-so-far — the blend underperformed either input alone. The wider deck gap likely added structural mass without a proportional efficiency return. Worth testing: apply the deck-gap widening alone against the 6.274 parent to confirm it's the culprit before combining it with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.318	141.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.051	172.1	39.2°
crosswind	3.888	165.2	34.0°
gusty_light	3.723	158.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.7°
storm	4.854	206.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	36.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8d3baceec6ce

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.339 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.905 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.866 Wh/km
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover combined two near-best performers (6.298 and the 6.257 champion), betting that blending their plate-length and arm-length traits could produce something better than either parent.

methodGrew the plate length toward full stock scale, lengthened the arms slightly, and nudged rear sweep up marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.339, worse than both parents and off the 6.257 best-so-far — the cross did not combine favorably. The slightly longer arms and plate appear to have added drag or mass without a matching benefit, reflected in a higher storm figure (4.87). Worth testing: repeat the cross but hold arm length fixed at the better parent's value, varying only plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.325	141.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.4°
crosswind	3.897	165.6	34.0°
gusty_light	3.732	158.5	32.9°
hot_thin	3.547	150.7	27.7°
storm	4.866	206.7	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cc53cd9d248e✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.514 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.014 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.001 Wh/km
frame mass	102.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing the pa12_cf material family — instead of the cf_plate dominating the population — with arm geometry close to the population's converged sweep angles, to see if a different material could open a new efficiency path.

methodBuilt from scratch using pa12_cf material with moderate arm thickness and waist, sweep angles near the population's converged values (33°/37°), standard deck gap, and stock-scale plate thickness.

resultFitness came in at 6.514 — better than the other two designer entries this generation but still well off the 6.257 best-so-far. The material swap alone didn't overcome the extra mass pa12_cf's thicker-wall requirement imposes. Worth testing: graft the population's converged sweep and plate-length values onto a pa12_cf frame to give the material a fairer, more competitive genetic context.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.402	144.5	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.204	178.6	39.9°
crosswind	4.016	170.6	34.6°
gusty_light	3.829	162.7	33.2°
hot_thin	3.628	154.1	27.9°
storm	5.001	212.5	35.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9fc7fb69eb8b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.589 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.061 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.057 Wh/km
frame mass	112.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same 6.431 parent, this sibling pivot bet on the opposite lever — more front sweep instead of rear — paired with a longer plate, to see if front-loaded sweep would handle crosswind and gust scenarios better.

methodIncreased front sweep substantially, lengthened the main plate, lengthened the arms slightly, and trimmed rear sweep a little.

resultFitness came in at 6.589, worse than the 6.431 parent and far off the 6.257 best-so-far — not a winner. The extra front sweep and longer plate likely added drag and mass that outweighed any stability gain, with storm and cold-headwind scenarios both elevated. Worth testing: isolate the front-sweep increase without the plate lengthening to see which change is actually costing efficiency.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.237	180.0	39.8°
crosswind	4.050	172.1	34.4°
gusty_light	3.874	164.6	33.1°
hot_thin	3.686	156.6	27.8°
storm	5.057	214.8	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	44.7°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.8 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f45e862cd6b3✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.619 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.081 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.077 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing whether repositioning the battery mass via a steep wedge tilt, combined with slim long arms and a wide plate, could improve weight distribution independent of the arm-geometry lineage dominating the population.

methodBuilt from scratch with long, slim arms, a pronounced 46° rear sweep, a 20%-wider plate, and a steep 15° battery wedge tilt not seen elsewhere in this generation.

resultFitness came in at 6.619, well off the 6.257 best-so-far and middling among the designer entries this generation. With no direct lineage to compare against, the result sits closer to the weaker cluster of frames, suggesting the steep battery tilt didn't pay off. Worth testing: graft the battery wedge tilt alone onto the current champion's other genes to isolate its effect cleanly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.482	147.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.261	181.0	39.7°
crosswind	4.070	172.9	34.5°
gusty_light	3.891	165.3	33.2°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	27.9°
storm	5.077	215.7	34.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 04ff0826e748

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.678 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.115 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.125 Wh/km
frame mass	113.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was already trailing the leading cluster at 6.588, so this pivot bet that pushing sweep angles further and thickening the arm waist would trade a little mass for better aerodynamic and structural balance.

methodIncreased front sweep further, thickened the arm waist, lengthened the arms slightly, and trimmed rear sweep marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.678, worse than the 6.588 parent and well off the 6.257 best-so-far — not a new winner. The added waist mass and extra sweep likely cost more in drag and weight than they returned in stiffness, especially visible in the storm scenario (5.13). Worth testing: vary front sweep and arm waist independently rather than together, to see which one is actually hurting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.504	148.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.308	183.0	40.2°
crosswind	4.104	174.4	34.9°
gusty_light	3.922	166.6	33.4°
hot_thin	3.728	158.4	28.0°
storm	5.125	217.7	36.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	48.9°
rear sweep	48.8°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	12.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 216648201249✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.018 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.932 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.171 Wh/km
frame mass	221.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing an intentionally over-built, heavy-duty frame — thick arms, thick waist, wide deck gap — betting that extra structural margin might unlock better storm/high-wind performance even at a weight cost.

methodBuilt from scratch with much thicker and wider arms (7.5mm thick, 30% wider, 20% thicker waist), a 40mm deck gap, and plates 35% thicker than stock — no lineage, everything pushed toward heavy and stiff.

resultFitness came in at 8.018, far worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and the worst result in this generation — the mass penalty of over-building dominated every scenario, including storm (6.17). This confirms the population is well past the point where added structural margin helps; efficiency gains now come from trimming mass, not adding it. Worth testing: if stiffness is still worth exploring, target one dimension at a time (e.g. waist only) rather than compounding thickness across arm, waist, and plate simultaneously.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.179	177.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.185	220.3	40.8°
crosswind	4.910	208.6	35.2°
gusty_light	4.688	199.2	33.8°
hot_thin	4.462	189.5	28.2°
storm	6.171	262.2	38.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dc624f621edb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent sat right at the current best-so-far (6.257), so this pivot bet that shrinking the arms and pushing the material blend fully to carbon fiber could shave more weight without giving up stiffness.

methodShortened the arms substantially (from 27% over stock to just 7% over), shifted the material blend entirely to pure carbon fiber, trimmed rear sweep slightly, and thickened the plates a touch.

resultInvalid: shortening the arms brought the rotor disc too close to the deck/battery stack, a hard clearance violation. The lesson is that arm length can't be cut in isolation once deck gap and battery placement are tuned to a longer arm. Worth testing: repeat the same material/arm-length bet but widen the deck gap or drop the battery wedge to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	34.8°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37cf390d4601

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent's fitness hadn't resolved (null), so this pivot explored a very different structural region — much wider arms and a tighter deck gap — to see if a stiffer, more compact frame in the pa12_cf material family could carve out a new niche.

methodWidened the arms substantially, reduced front sweep, tightened the deck gap by several millimeters, and thinned the plates slightly.

resultInvalid: the thinner plates fell below the minimum wall gauge pa12_cf requires (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor). The lesson is that pa12_cf's thickness floor is stricter than cf_plate's, so thickness cuts that are safe in carbon fiber can break the mold-strength constraint here. Worth testing: keep plate thickness at or above the pa12_cf floor while still exploring the wider-arm, tighter-deck-gap idea.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×1.29
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	30.4°
rear sweep	34.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c90d90d7c88c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent stuck at 6.431, this pivot bet that a much sharper rear sweep (more V-tail-like) plus a slight battery tilt could cut rear-facing drag and improve weight balance.

methodPushed rear sweep up sharply, added a small battery wedge tilt, and trimmed front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: the sharper rear sweep caused the arm root tongues to collide on the main plate, a geometric packing failure. This shows large sweep swings need matching changes to arm root width or position to keep the tongues clear. Worth testing: pair a big rear-sweep increase with a narrower arm root or repositioned tongue to avoid the collision.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.5°
rear sweep	52.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	2.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9fa6339c0ff

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was near the best-so-far at 6.274, so this pivot bet that shortening the main plate while lengthening the arms could trim mass without compromising stiffness.

methodShortened the plate length noticeably, increased plate thickness slightly, reduced front sweep, and lengthened the arms further.

resultInvalid: shortening the plate thinned the mid-plate web below the required minimum (1.11mm vs 1.47mm needed), even with the higher thickness multiplier — the length cut dominated the web geometry. This shows plate-length and plate-thickness interact in a way that a simple thickness bump can't fully compensate for. Worth testing: check mid-web thickness directly when shrinking plate length, or apply a larger thickness increase to offset it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2406afc3979d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis self-crossover of the 6.298 performer bet that thicker plates plus a purer carbon-fiber blend could add stiffness margin and push past the current leader.

methodSubstantially thickened the plates, trimmed front sweep slightly, and shifted the material blend to pure carbon fiber.

resultInvalid: the thicker plate geometry caused the arm root tongues to collide on the main plate — the same failure mode seen in c90d90d7c88c. This repeated failure shows plate thickness above roughly 0.85x needs matching arm-root spacing to avoid tongue collisions. Worth testing: cap plate thickness increases below that threshold, or widen arm root spacing whenever thickness is pushed higher.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96f545f25cbe

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.298 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.880 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.835 Wh/km
frame mass	92.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover between two near-best performers, 1704aea48de9 (6.274) and 52ab8e14cb63 (6.31); bet was that blending their deck gap and material traits could land between or beat both.

methodDeck gap opened (26.0→29.5mm), material nudged marginally toward cf_plate blend (0.00→0.01), arm width effectively unchanged.

result6.298 — lands between the two parents but doesn't beat best-so-far (6.257), coming within about 0.04 of it. This suggests a deck gap near 29–30mm is a mild lever worth isolating on the champion lineage itself. Worth testing: apply just the deck-gap increase directly to reigning champion 54a73703249e and see if it pushes past 6.257.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.307	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.029	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.872	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.710	157.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.6°
storm	4.835	205.4	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3b6554ace86

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.431 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.962 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.937 Wh/km
frame mass	103.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossover of strong performer 1704aea48de9 (6.274), exploring nearby mutations to see if minor thickening/widening could round out its edges.

methodArm thickness increased (4.0→4.6mm), plate slightly lengthened (×0.97→×1.01), arm width widened (×0.76→×0.81), deck gap opened (26.0→27.2mm).

result6.431 — worse than the parent's 6.274 and off best-so-far. The added arm and plate mass outweighed any structural benefit, consistent with this generation's pattern that thickening past the champion lineage's lean profile costs efficiency. Worth testing: the deck-gap increase in isolation, since deck-gap changes haven't clearly hurt elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.376	143.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.115	174.8	39.3°
crosswind	3.957	168.1	34.0°
gusty_light	3.787	160.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.602	153.0	27.6°
storm	4.937	209.7	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bd388d17a4cf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.496 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.002 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.989 Wh/km
frame mass	107.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent f6397fd6043c (6.487) had plateaued with a front-heavy sweep and a fairly thin plate; the bet was that rebalancing sweep front-to-rear while nudging plate thickness up a touch could trim drag without tripping the web-thickness constraint.

methodRear sweep opened slightly (47.1°→48.4°), front sweep trimmed a hair (44.0°→43.8°), plate thickness nudged up slightly (×0.71→×0.75), plate width essentially unchanged.

result6.496 — essentially flat with, and marginally worse than, the parent's 6.487; not a new winner against the 6.257 best-so-far. The small thickness increase likely added just enough mass to cancel out any drag benefit from the sweep rebalance. Worth testing: the same sweep tweak but with thickness held flat or reduced, to see if the sweep benefit shows through without the added mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.405	144.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.168	177.1	39.8°
crosswind	3.996	169.8	34.5°
gusty_light	3.821	162.3	33.0°
hot_thin	3.632	154.3	27.7°
storm	4.989	211.9	34.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	43.8°
rear sweep	48.4°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0e35d1c372f5✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.588 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.060 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.057 Wh/km
frame mass	108.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisClaude-designer candidate testing a lean-arm, high-sweep, large-plate hypothesis with a large forward battery wedge, betting that shifting CG forward would help headwind/crosswind efficiency.

methodHand-designed genome: moderate arm length (×1.15) with a lean section (4.5mm, ×0.75 width, ×0.55 waist), steep sweeps (44°/50°), enlarged plate (×1.28/×1.24), thin plate (×0.70), and a large 13.0° battery wedge.

result6.588 — valid but well off best-so-far (6.257) and behind most pivots this generation, worst in storm (5.06) and cold headwind (4.24). The steep sweep angles and oversized plate likely added drag/mass the wedge's CG benefit didn't offset. Worth testing: keep the lean arm profile (close to the champion's) but dial the wedge back to 4–5° and shrink the plate toward the champion's dimensions to isolate whether the wedge alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.455	146.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.245	180.3	39.8°
crosswind	4.051	172.1	34.7°
gusty_light	3.872	164.5	33.2°
hot_thin	3.679	156.3	27.9°
storm	5.057	214.8	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8bd7e8d0aa04

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.618 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.077 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.082 Wh/km
frame mass	118.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent a8cec93bcca6 (6.546) ran a short plate with a thick section and tight waist; bet was that lengthening the plate while relaxing the waist and thinning the plate could trade mass for structural margin.

methodPlate lengthened (×0.96→×1.16), arm waist relaxed (×0.55→×0.75), plate thickness reduced (×1.24→×1.06), deck gap tightened (40.7→36.4mm).

result6.618 — worse than the parent (6.546) and well off best-so-far. The longer plate and looser waist likely added more mass/drag than the thinner section saved. Worth testing: the plate-length increase in isolation, holding waist and deck gap at the parent's values, to see if length alone is the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.240	180.1	39.7°
crosswind	4.074	173.1	34.5°
gusty_light	3.893	165.4	33.0°
hot_thin	3.702	157.3	27.7°
storm	5.082	215.9	33.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 28ee1aea28cb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.874 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.234 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.280 Wh/km
frame mass	133.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent f6397fd6043c (6.487); bet was that beefing up arm thickness and committing fully to pure cf_plate (dropping the material blend) would buy stiffness headroom worth its weight.

methodArm thickness increased substantially (4.0→5.6mm), arm width widened (×0.75→×0.81), plate width trimmed (×1.23→×1.19), material shifted fully to pure cf_plate.

result6.874 — clearly worse than the parent (6.487) and best-so-far. The heavier, thicker arms cost more in every scenario than the material purity or narrower plate saved, most visible in storm (5.28) and crosswind (4.22). Worth testing: the material-purity shift alone, without the arm thickness increase, to isolate whether mass or material choice drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.596	152.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.436	188.5	40.4°
crosswind	4.225	179.5	34.9°
gusty_light	4.036	171.5	33.5°
hot_thin	3.833	162.8	28.0°
storm	5.280	224.3	36.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	47.5°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.19
deck gap	25.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ca690fa1442

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.577 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.664 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.825 Wh/km
frame mass	178.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via immigrant

hypothesisA second random immigrant, probing a heavy, over-built corner of the design space to test whether robustness through mass could still be competitive.

methodFresh random genome: long arms (×1.27) with a very thick section (7.2mm), moderate waist (×0.71), aggressive sweeps (49.5°/44.2°), large plate (×1.29/×1.21), wide deck gap (35.9mm), battery wedge 5.3°, cf_plate.

result7.577 — valid but far worse than best-so-far (6.257) and near the bottom of the generation, worst in storm (5.82) and crosswind (4.64). The thick arms and oversized plate add mass that the efficiency metric punishes across every scenario, confirming over-built robustness isn't free in Wh/km terms. Worth testing: keep the aggressive sweep angles but pair them with much leaner, shorter arms closer to the champion's profile.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.947	167.7	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.948	210.2	41.1°
crosswind	4.640	197.1	35.8°
gusty_light	4.427	188.1	34.1°
hot_thin	4.199	178.4	28.4°
storm	5.825	247.5	40.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	7.2 mm
front sweep	49.5°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	5.3°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fd0496c33092

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent 54a73703249e is the reigning best-so-far (6.257); bet was that shortening the plate and pushing sweep asymmetry further (more rear, less front) could shave mass and drag off the champion.

methodPlate shortened (×0.97→×0.85), rear sweep opened (36.2°→41.1°), front sweep pulled in (33.5°→30.0°), arm width widened slightly (×0.77→×0.86).

resultInvalid — the shortened plate failed the web-thickness check (1.11mm vs 1.47mm stock minimum) without a compensating thickness increase. This shows the champion's plate length is already close to the minimum safe margin at its current thickness. Worth testing: the same sweep changes with plate length left near the champion's value, or shortened only alongside a proportional thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e91de63adb4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent d8d770d5f10a was itself unevaluated/invalid; the bet was that shortening the plate while thickening it and adding a small battery wedge might fix whatever made the parent non-viable.

methodPlate shortened (×1.00→×0.85), plate thickness increased (×1.00→×1.14), front sweep opened slightly (31.4°→33.4°), small battery wedge added (0→0.9°), material asa.

resultInvalid — plate web still too thin (1.12mm vs 1.47mm stock); the length cut outpaced the thickness gain, the same failure mode as fd0496c33092. Lesson: shrinking plate length is unsafe unless thickness scales up more aggressively than it did here. Worth testing: skip the length cut for this lineage and test the wedge/sweep changes on the parent's original plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	34.8°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	asa

parents

candidate 83064d76f9ee

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent c47e1f6da0e0 was unevaluated; bet was that shifting the material blend toward pet_cf and thickening the plate could unlock a lighter, still-stiff configuration.

methodMaterial blend shifted toward pet_cf (0.02→0.40), plate thickness increased (×0.70→×1.05), rear sweep tightened (38.2°→35.2°), arm thickness trimmed (4.5→4.0mm).

resultInvalid — plate_top too thin (1.30mm vs 1.75mm stock). The pet_cf shift raises the required minimum web thickness well above what a cf_plate design would need, so the same relative thickening fell short. Lesson: material choice changes the safety margin needed, not just the stiffness/weight tradeoff. Worth testing: keep the pet_cf shift but push plate thickness closer to ×1.3–1.4 to clear the material-specific minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.3 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 42b3468e3332

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent c47e1f6da0e0; bet was that a large plate-thickness jump plus a forward battery wedge would give enough structural margin while improving CG balance.

methodPlate thickness increased substantially (×0.70→×1.25), battery wedge added (0→3.9°), plate width nudged (×0.95→×0.98), arm length nudged (×1.31→×1.33).

resultInvalid — plate_top still too thin (1.39mm vs 1.75mm stock) despite the big thickness increase, even with cf_plate material. This suggests the battery wedge itself may be locally carving out web material at the plate top independent of the thickness gene. Worth testing: the same thickness increase without the battery wedge, to see if removing the wedge alone clears the constraint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.6 mm
battery wedge	3.9°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 19868d12b115

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisParents were the reigning best-so-far 54a73703249e (6.257) and an unevaluated f66bf5675cbb; bet was that blending in wider arms and a lower rear sweep from the second parent could nudge the champion further.

methodArm width widened (×0.77→×0.85), plate thickness increased slightly (×0.70→×0.77), rear sweep reduced (36.2°→34.0°), front sweep raised marginally (33.5°→34.2°).

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a geometric interference distinct from this generation's web-thickness failures. The wider arm combined with the closer front/rear sweep angles left no clearance at the root. Worth testing: keep the small sweep adjustments but revert arm width to the champion's value to check whether sweep alone is viable without the collision.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 45099c22a47c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	133.5 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 19 via immigrant

hypothesisRandom immigrant meant to inject diversity into a population converging around the 6.25–6.5 band; explores a larger, higher-sweep design point on pet_cf material.

methodFresh random genome: moderate arm scaling (length ×1.20, width ×1.03, waist ×1.16, thickness 4.7mm), aggressive sweeps (49.6°/41.1°), enlarged thick plate (×1.27/×1.13, ×1.22 thickness), battery wedge 4.0°, pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection specific to pet_cf, meaning this material is too compliant for the chosen arm length/thickness. Confirms pet_cf needs shorter or thicker arms than cf_plate to pass deflection checks. Worth testing: rerun this same geometry with cf_plate, or with meaningfully thicker arms, to see if the underlying design point has merit once the material mismatch is fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×1.16
arm thickness	4.7 mm
front sweep	49.6°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 624da8bb96ab✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	234.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisClaude-designer candidate testing a deliberately over-built, high-stiffness hypothesis — thick, wide arms and a thick plate — to see if maximal structural margin could open room for bolder sweep/deck-gap choices elsewhere.

methodHand-designed genome: arm length ×1.10, width ×1.35 (much wider), waist ×1.25 (looser), thickness 8.0mm (heaviest arm section this generation), plate thickness ×1.50, deck gap 38.0mm, moderate sweeps (34°/37°).

resultInvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P, a dynamic constraint rather than a static one. The thick, wide, stiff arm shifted the natural frequency into the rotor's excitation band. Lesson for the designer: maximizing section stiffness isn't safe by itself — arm geometry must also dodge the rotor's 1P frequency. Worth testing: keep the arm width/waist but trim thickness or extend length to detune the arm away from 1P.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	8.0 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 52ab8e14cb63

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.310 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.844 Wh/km
frame mass	93.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a near-best performer (6.296) with the reigning champion (6.257), the bet is that combining their genes could produce a new best.

methodWidened the plate slightly, tightened the deck gap by about 1.7 mm, trimmed front sweep marginally, and kept arm thickness unchanged.

result6.31 -- lands between the two parents but does not beat the champion's 6.257, so no new winner. Storm remains the worst scenario at 4.84 Wh/km, suggesting the plate widening or deck-gap tightening cost a small margin versus the champion baseline. Next idea: test the deck-gap tightening alone against the champion to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.314	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.1°
crosswind	3.881	164.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.536	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.844	205.8	31.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f6397fd6043c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.997 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.982 Wh/km
frame mass	105.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker high-sweep parent (6.475) with the champion (6.257), the bet is that the champion's genes would pull the aggressive-sweep design toward better efficiency.

methodTrimmed rear sweep by about 3 degrees, nudged front sweep up slightly, and left plate dimensions essentially unchanged from the high-sweep parent.

result6.487 -- essentially matches the weaker parent, not the champion, showing the extreme 44/47-degree sweep angles dominate the outcome regardless of crossover with a low-sweep champion. Confirms high sweep is a losing direction this generation. Next idea: stop breeding from high-sweep (>40 degree) lineages and focus offspring on the champion's ~30-33 degree sweep range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.403	144.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.168	177.1	39.9°
crosswind	3.986	169.3	34.5°
gusty_light	3.815	162.1	33.1°
hot_thin	3.627	154.1	27.8°
storm	4.982	211.6	34.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	47.1°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a8cec93bcca6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.546 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.034 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.024 Wh/km
frame mass	111.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents (6.504 and 6.384), the bet is that combining their differing strengths -- plus an untested battery tilt -- could beat either alone.

methodBlended genes from both parents, lengthened the arms further, added a 2.3-degree battery wedge, and made small deck-gap and rear-sweep tweaks.

result6.546 -- worse than both parents, not a new winner. The crossover failed to combine advantages additively; storm remained the weak scenario at 5.02 Wh/km. Next idea: test the battery wedge tilt in isolation on the stronger parent to see if it's what dragged performance down.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.440	146.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.195	178.2	39.2°
crosswind	4.024	171.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.853	163.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.667	155.8	27.7°
storm	5.024	213.4	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.7 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7adc86c167f8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.646 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.094 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.103 Wh/km
frame mass	115.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate deliberately exploring a divergent concept from the low-sweep champion lineage: compact waisted arms, steep sweep, a large plate footprint, and a notable battery tilt.

methodShorter, narrower, more waisted arms than the champion, steep 43/52-degree front/rear sweep, an oversized plate (25% longer, 25% wider), and an 8-degree battery wedge.

result6.646 -- well behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind most valid crossovers, reinforcing (alongside f6397fd6043c) that steep sweep angles hurt efficiency across scenarios, especially storm at 5.10 Wh/km. Next idea: retry this compact-plate concept but with sweep angles pulled back into the champion's 30-33 degree range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.484	148.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.271	181.4	39.7°
crosswind	4.084	173.5	34.6°
gusty_light	3.908	166.0	33.1°
hot_thin	3.715	157.8	27.8°
storm	5.103	216.8	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	43.0°
rear sweep	52.0°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5fed623f6b65

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent lineage never got evaluated, so this pivot is a blind bet: stiffen the arm dramatically while shrinking the plate footprint to see if a beefier, tighter frame pays off.

methodNearly doubled arm thickness to 7.0 mm, narrowed the plate width slightly, thickened the plate multiplier, and pulled the deck gap in by about 5.5 mm.

resultInvalid: the main plate web collapsed to just 0.21 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum. Despite the higher plate-thickness multiplier, shrinking plate width while ballooning arm thickness ate all the web material at the arm root. Worth testing next: repeat the thicker-arm bet but hold plate width at parity so the web isn't starved.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×0.86
plate width	×0.90
deck gap	34.8 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.91
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 404108ce71d8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from a near-best parent (6.274), this pivot bets that a much more compact frame -- shorter arms, tighter deck gap -- would cut drag further.

methodShrank deck gap from 26 mm to 20 mm, shortened arms, and widened both the plate and the arms slightly.

resultInvalid: 20 mm deck gap can't physically fit the FC/ESC stack. A hard packaging floor, not an aero tradeoff. Next idea: retry the arm-shortening/widening bet but keep deck gap at or above ~26 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate da2ee1294058

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisPivoting directly off the reigning best-so-far frame, this candidate bets that a longer plate and wider deck gap would improve stack clearance and stability without giving up the champion's efficiency.

methodLengthened the plate by about 27%, widened the deck gap by roughly 9.5 mm, reduced front sweep to 30 degrees, and nudged arm thickness up slightly.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Growing the plate while cutting front sweep to 30 degrees pushed the tongue geometry into overlap. Next idea: test the plate-length increase alone, holding front sweep at the champion's ~33.5 degrees.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.3°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 781cc66535e0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent trailing the best-so-far by over a tenth of a point, this pivot bets that flattening front sweep and widening the arms would recover some of that gap.

methodCut front sweep to 30 degrees, lengthened the plate slightly, widened the arms, and thickened the plate marginally.

resultInvalid: same arm-root tongue collision as the sibling pivot from the champion lineage. This is the second candidate this generation to fail exactly at 30-degree front sweep, suggesting that angle is a real geometric floor for this plate/arm combination. Next idea: test front sweep reduction alone (no plate-length change) to isolate whether sweep or plate growth is the real culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a66e30ecde2f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisAlso branching from the current champion, this candidate bets that heavy structural reinforcement -- thicker plate and arms -- plus a small battery tilt for CG tuning could squeeze out more robustness.

methodNearly 50% thicker plate multiplier, thicker arm (4.7 mm), front sweep cut to 30 degrees, and a new 1.6-degree battery wedge added.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide again, the third pivot this generation to die at 30-degree front sweep regardless of what else changed. This strongly indicates 30 degrees is a hard geometric wall for the tongue design, not something reinforcement can compensate for. Next idea: test a more conservative sweep floor around 31-32 degrees, or redesign tongue spacing to scale with sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.7 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.9 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9c39ed818cc8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisWith its parent unevaluated, this pivot takes a blind structural bet: fatten the arm cross-section (less waist taper, thicker) for extra strength margin.

methodIncreased arm waist ratio substantially, thickened the arm to 4.8 mm, and nudged front sweep down and rear sweep up a couple degrees.

resultInvalid: plate web thinned to 1.43 mm, just under the 1.90 mm stock minimum. The wider arm waist appears to eat directly into the plate's material budget at the root. Next idea: pair any arm-waist increase with a compensating bump in plate thickness multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f66bf5675cbb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent is well off the pace (6.647 vs 6.257 best), so this pivot bets that a broader structural overhaul -- wider/thicker arms and a different material blend -- could fix whatever weak point is holding it back.

methodWidened and thickened the arms further, increased arm waist ratio, and shifted the material blend composition.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide, the fourth collision failure this generation. Piling reinforcement onto an already-underperforming design just pushed the tongue geometry over the edge instead of fixing the underlying weakness. Next idea: tie tongue spacing to arm width automatically so reinforcement bets don't reliably trigger this constraint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×1.23
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c47e1f6da0e0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (6.274 and 6.384), the bet is that narrowing the plate while thickening the arms would trade a little material for better efficiency.

methodNarrowed plate width by 5%, thickened arms to 4.5 mm, slightly reduced rear sweep, and made a small material-blend shift.

resultInvalid: plate web thinned to 1.12 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. This is the third case this generation of narrower plate plus thicker arms breaking the web-thickness constraint, confirming a reliable failure pattern. Next idea: when narrowing plate width, hold arm thickness at the parent baseline or compensate with a plate-thickness multiplier bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	25.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 82e4f3f643e4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	132.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 18 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, meant to inject diversity and probe a far corner of the design space -- steep sweep angles, a large battery tilt, and PETG instead of carbon fiber -- in case the population is plateauing around the champion's design.

methodFully random genome: long/waisted/thick arms, steep 49/48-degree front/rear sweep, oversized plate length, large 13.3-degree battery wedge, and PETG material.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin at 0.51 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. The aggressive plate dimensions combined with the softer PETG material left no structural margin. Next idea: constrain immigrant sampling so plate web thickness scales appropriately when PETG or other softer materials are drawn.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.28
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	48.9°
rear sweep	48.1°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d8d770d5f10a✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate testing whether swapping to ASA material, with baseline plate dimensions and champion-adjacent sweep angles, could unlock a lighter or more robust structure.

methodSwitched material to ASA, thickened the arm to 6.0 mm, widened and increased arm waist moderately, and kept plate dimensions at baseline (1.0x) with sweep close to the champion's values.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure. ASA's lower stiffness relative to the carbon-fiber plate couldn't support the arm length/thickness combination under load even with the thicker 6 mm arm. Next idea: retry ASA with either a shorter arm length or a further-increased arm thickness (7 mm+) to pass the deflection check.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 95e7cba302ec

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.296 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.879 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.834 Wh/km
frame mass	92.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a mid-pack performer; the bet was that slimming the arms a touch further and steepening the rear sweep would cut drag without pushing any dimension past its structural margin.

methodArm width narrowed slightly further, rear sweep steepened by about 2 degrees, plate length nudged up a hair, arm thickness left unchanged.

resultFitness improved to 6.296 from the parent's 6.322, but stayed short of the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far — not a new winner. Storm remains the worst scenario at 4.83, suggesting the frame is still paying a mass or stiffness penalty in the roughest condition. Worth testing next: hold this arm width and sweep combo but attack storm robustness directly, e.g. via a small arm-thickness bump instead of further slimming.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.304	140.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.029	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.871	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.709	157.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.526	149.8	27.6°
storm	4.834	205.4	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	33.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b92faa29d10

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.384 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.934 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	96.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via crossover

hypothesisA crossover bet that blending a decent performer's wider arm waist into the current champion's geometry might combine the best of both.

methodArm waist widened toward the non-champion parent's value, material shifted toward a more mixed blend, deck gap nudged slightly.

resultFitness came in at 6.384, worse than both parents (6.337 and 6.257) and off the best-so-far — the wider waist blend added drag or mass without a matching payoff, a negative interaction rather than synergy. Not a new winner. Next: test the arm-waist widening in isolation off the champion alone to see if it's the waist change itself or the crossover combination that hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.354	142.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.099	174.1	39.5°
crosswind	3.920	166.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.757	159.6	33.0°
hot_thin	3.575	151.9	27.8°
storm	4.900	208.2	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 83f19dec5965✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.475 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.988 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.973 Wh/km
frame mass	104.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate that kept the champion's arm dimensions but deliberately pushed much wider sweep angles and a larger plate footprint, betting the extra sweep would pay off despite the added plate mass.

methodArm length, width, waist and thickness matched the champion; front sweep and rear sweep both steepened substantially, and plate length and width both enlarged well past stock.

resultValid at 6.475, but well off the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far, with storm scenario (4.97) again the heaviest penalty — the larger plate footprint likely added more mass/drag than the wider sweep angles recovered. Next: keep the champion's compact plate and test the wide sweep angles alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.392	144.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.158	176.6	39.8°
crosswind	3.979	169.0	34.5°
gusty_light	3.808	161.8	33.1°
hot_thin	3.619	153.7	27.8°
storm	4.973	211.3	34.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	43.4°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 232aae2975ed✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.008 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.993 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA second designer candidate that isolated plate thickness as the single variable, keeping everything else matched to the champion, to test whether extra stiffness pays for itself.

methodArm dimensions, sweep angles, plate length/width and deck gap all matched the champion; plate thickness multiplier nearly doubled.

resultValid at 6.504, but worse than the 6.257 champion despite matching its geometry almost exactly — the added plate mass from the thickness increase wasn't offset by any robustness gain. This confirms the champion's leaner plate thickness is closer to optimal than heavier alternatives. Next: if testing stiffness again, compensate elsewhere in the mass budget (e.g. thinner arms) rather than a blanket plate-thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.157	176.6	39.0°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.831	162.8	32.7°
hot_thin	3.647	154.9	27.6°
storm	4.993	212.1	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a910b7b31dd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.647 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.093 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.110 Wh/km
frame mass	119.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via mutation

hypothesisSame weak-performing parent as several pivots this generation; the bet was a small nudge toward the cf_plate mainline geometry to see if it closes the gap to the leaders.

methodArm waist widened slightly, plate length brought to full stock, arm length trimmed a touch, material shifted fully to cf_plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.647, essentially flat with the parent's 6.63 and well off the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far. Storm scenario (5.11) is again the worst offender, suggesting this whole parent lineage carries a structural drag or mass penalty that small mutations can't fix. Next: abandon this lineage in favor of pivots off the stronger champion family.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.286	182.1	40.3°
crosswind	4.080	173.3	34.6°
gusty_light	3.904	165.8	33.4°
hot_thin	3.706	157.4	27.9°
storm	5.110	217.1	36.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×1.15
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 41f6a5857003✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.769 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.169 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.201 Wh/km
frame mass	121.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA third designer candidate testing a more conservative build philosophy — thicker arms, wider waist, shorter length, PLA-plus material — as a 'sturdier but heavier' contrast to the lean cf_plate champion.

methodArm length shortened, arm width and waist both widened, arm thickness increased substantially, material switched to pla_plus, sweep/plate/deck-gap left matched to the champion.

resultValid but the weakest of the three designer candidates at 6.769, far from the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far, with storm scenario (5.2) again the worst offender. The heavier PLA-plus, thick-arm approach clearly costs more energy than it buys in robustness. Next: abandon the thick-arm/PLA direction for this frame — the lean cf_plate family is dominating every scenario tested this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.520	149.5	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.390	186.5	40.3°
crosswind	4.171	177.2	35.0°
gusty_light	3.973	168.8	33.5°
hot_thin	3.757	159.6	28.1°
storm	5.201	221.0	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e69f4fe82b1c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent needed to shed plate mass and improve weathercocking behavior in crosswinds; the bet was a shorter plate paired with a much sharper rear sweep.

methodPlate length cut substantially, rear sweep increased by nearly 6 degrees, with small nudges to arm waist and width.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.11 mm against a 1.47 mm stock minimum, so the plate-length cut was too aggressive for this lineage's thickness setting. This shows plate length and plate thickness are tightly coupled here and can't be moved independently by this much. Next: retry the same rear-sweep steepening but keep plate length within a few percent of the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2f4ca49a31f0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	176.8 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a heavy, thick-armed underperformer; the bet was that slimming the arms and shortening the plate could recover most of that lost efficiency.

methodArm width reduced substantially, arm waist widened, plate length shortened, rear sweep flattened slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web dropped to 1.02 mm against a 1.90 mm stock requirement. Because the parent already carried thick arms and a heavier plate-thickness multiplier, cutting plate length on top of that combination blew through the safety margin faster than expected. Lesson: candidates descended from this heavier lineage can't tolerate the same plate-length cuts the lean cf_plate mainline can. Next: keep plate thickness fixed and vary only sweep angles when working from this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	8.1 mm
front sweep	43.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 70e5d32f5850

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was lagging the leaders; the bet was that a shallower front sweep and longer arms would improve airflow while trimming the waist pinch.

methodFront sweep flattened slightly, arm waist trimmed, arm length stretched, battery wedge tilted a small amount.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a mounting-geometry failure from stretching the arms while flattening the sweep. This reveals arm length and front sweep are coupled at the mount interface: lengthening arms needs either a steeper sweep or more tongue clearance to stay clear. Next: retest the longer arm length while holding front sweep at or above its parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 281fd479fb78

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent never flew at all, so this was a repair attempt — opening the deck gap and tilting the battery wedge to fix whatever had killed it, while keeping the narrow-arm family.

methodBattery wedge angle increased sharply, deck gap widened, arm width increased slightly, plate length brought back up near full stock.

resultStill invalid, but for a different reason than the parent — plate web thinned to 1.45 mm against a 1.90 mm requirement. The repair fixed one constraint but exposed another: this lineage's low plate-thickness multiplier can't support near-stock plate length. Next: raise plate thickness before touching plate length or width again in this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	39.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f8c049a2a28e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	121.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisSame underperforming parent as several other pivots this generation; the bet was widening the deck gap and locking in cf_plate material to shave weight.

methodDeck gap widened, plate width trimmed slightly, material shifted fully to cf_plate, arm width increased a touch.

resultInvalid — plate web thinned to 1.38 mm against a 1.75 mm requirement. Widening the deck gap while trimming plate width ate into the top plate's web margin. Lesson: deck-gap increases on this parent need a thickness increase to compensate, not a width cut. Next: retry the deck-gap widening alone, holding plate width and thickness at the parent's values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.11
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d87336fcc2c0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisDescended from the reigning best-so-far, this pivot bet on toughening the arms and tightening the frame — thicker arms, shorter deck gap, flatter front sweep, longer arms — to push past the plateau.

methodArm thickness nearly doubled, deck gap shrunk considerably, front sweep flattened, arm length stretched further.

resultInvalid — the deck gap shrank too far for the FC/ESC stack to physically fit. A costly lesson coming from the champion lineage: deck gap has a hard practical floor that can't be traded away even for stiffness gains. Next: keep deck gap near or above the champion's value and test the thicker-arm idea in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.8 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1c0b2050be82

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 17 via immigrant

hypothesisA pure random immigrant injected to keep diversity in a population that has plateaued around the current best-so-far; no parent performance to react to.

methodEntirely fresh genome — wider arms, much steeper front and rear sweep angles, wide deck gap, tilted battery wedge, thick plate, petg material.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, a basic mounting failure typical of unconstrained sampling at extreme sweep angles. This confirms the population's tight clustering around 30-something-degree sweep angles isn't just historical drift but a real geometric ceiling. Next: bias immigrant sampling to keep sweep angles under roughly 45 degrees so bolt alignment holds more often.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.07
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	51.8°
rear sweep	56.0°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 53ba7d23d390

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via mutation

hypothesisDescended from the current best-so-far, this mutation bet on a small refinement — steepening front sweep and trimming plate length to shave a bit more drag off an already-strong design.

methodFront sweep increased, plate length shortened slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web thinned to 1.34 mm against a 1.75 mm requirement. Even a modest length cut on the champion's already-lean plate crosses the structural floor, showing the champion's plate geometry has little slack left. Next: try the front-sweep steepening alone, without touching plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5ec33e3dea91

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.322 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.895 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisSame champion parent as candidate c61da0591e9a; this pivot tests a gentler version of the deck-gap-widening idea paired with a wider arm to see if a moderate step pays off where the aggressive one didn't.

methodDeck gap widened to 33.7mm from 26.1mm (a smaller jump than the sibling pivot), arm width increased to 0.81x from 0.77x, plate width trimmed slightly, front sweep pulled in a touch.

resultFitness landed at 6.322 — worse than the 6.257 champion but the best result among this generation's valid candidates. It confirms deck-gap widening is directionally costly even at a smaller step, and the extra arm width didn't offset it. Worth trying the champion's original deck gap with just the wider arm in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.053	172.2	39.4°
crosswind	3.885	165.0	34.0°
gusty_light	3.723	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.539	150.4	27.7°
storm	4.854	206.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c61da0591e9a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.337 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.863 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 54a73703249e sits at the current best-so-far; this pivot bets that opening up the deck gap and adding a slight battery wedge could redistribute weight for a further gain without touching the arm/plate footprint much.

methodDeck gap widened from 26.1mm to 40.1mm, battery tilted to 0.9° from flat, arm length trimmed marginally, rear sweep pulled in slightly to 35.6°.

resultFitness rose to 6.337, worse than the 6.257 parent and no threat to best-so-far. Storm (4.86) drove most of the penalty, suggesting the wider deck gap added frontal area/weight without any aero payoff. Worth testing a smaller deck-gap increase (e.g. +5mm) in isolation to see if any of this move helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.332	141.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.062	172.6	39.3°
crosswind	3.895	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.731	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.551	150.9	27.7°
storm	4.863	206.6	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3aaaeaeec58

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.367 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.926 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.882 Wh/km
frame mass	97.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7d6bb6555ba3 (6.36) was already off the frontier; this pivot swaps sweep bias between front and rear to test whether reversing which end sweeps more helps.

methodRear sweep reduced to 34.0° from 38.0°, front sweep increased to 37.3° from 36.2°, arm width and deck gap nudged marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.367, essentially flat vs the 6.36 parent and well off the 6.257 best-so-far. Swapping sweep bias didn't move the needle, suggesting this parent's sweep angles aren't the limiting factor. Next worth trying a bigger structural change off this lineage rather than more sweep tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.362	142.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.068	172.8	39.2°
crosswind	3.912	166.2	33.8°
gusty_light	3.750	159.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.579	152.0	27.6°
storm	4.882	207.4	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.6 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37eb0ed73f7e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.418 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.957 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.924 Wh/km
frame mass	99.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (567629068d98 at 6.397, 1704aea48de9 at 6.274) bets that blending their sweep and material genes finds a combination better than either alone.

methodMaterial blended toward cf_plate, front sweep pulled back to 47.4° from 49.2°, arm width widened to 0.88x, battery wedge increased slightly to 1.4°.

resultFitness landed at 6.418, worse than both parents and well off the 6.257 best-so-far. The blend didn't inherit either side's better traits — a front sweep near 47° looks too aggressive for this arm/plate combination. Worth trying a crossover that keeps sweep closer to the stronger parent's value instead of averaging.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.113	174.7	39.6°
crosswind	3.936	167.2	34.0°
gusty_light	3.777	160.5	33.0°
hot_thin	3.604	153.1	27.7°
storm	4.924	209.2	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	47.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb0aaa4c0bbf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.475 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.992 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.965 Wh/km
frame mass	101.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent fb429755f2c9 (6.309) had headroom; this pivot bets that a strong battery wedge plus a wider, thicker plate could rebalance the airframe for a gain.

methodBattery wedge tilted sharply to 4.7° from flat, plate width widened to 1.08x, plate thickness increased to 0.86x from 0.70x, arm length extended to 1.35x.

resultFitness worsened sharply to 6.475 from the 6.309 parent, with every scenario getting worse, especially storm (4.97). The aggressive battery tilt combined with a much heavier plate likely added drag and mass with no offsetting benefit. Next worth isolating the battery wedge alone at a smaller angle to see if it's the wedge or the plate thickening that hurt more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.156	176.6	39.6°
crosswind	3.971	168.7	34.0°
gusty_light	3.809	161.8	33.0°
hot_thin	3.634	154.4	27.8°
storm	4.965	210.9	34.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	24.2 mm
battery wedge	4.7°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a072202cd3c9✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.630 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.082 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.096 Wh/km
frame mass	117.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored probe testing whether deliberately thickening the arm waist well beyond the champion lineage's slender profile buys enough stiffness margin to justify its added weight.

methodHand-set to a champion-like footprint (arm length 1.30x, sweep near 32°/37°, deck gap 26mm) but with arm waist fattened to 1.10x, roughly double the champion's typical value, and thickness at 4.5mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.63, notably worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and worse than most pivots this generation. The fat waist added mass across every scenario without a compensating aero or structural win, suggesting the champion's slender waist is already close to optimal for this material/thickness combo. Next worth testing an intermediate waist (~0.7-0.8x) to find where the mass penalty starts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.275	181.6	40.3°
crosswind	4.071	172.9	34.6°
gusty_light	3.894	165.4	33.3°
hot_thin	3.696	157.0	27.9°
storm	5.096	216.5	36.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f25111665ee7✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.641 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.092 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.097 Wh/km
frame mass	116.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing whether a much larger plate footprint, for potential payload/battery growth, combined with aggressive rear sweep could still be competitive on efficiency.

methodHand-set with plate length and width both scaled up substantially (1.22x/1.25x) versus the champion's near-stock plates, rear sweep pushed to 46°, moderate arm thickness at 4.5mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.641, worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and similar in magnitude to a072202cd3c9's shortfall. The oversized plates added drag/weight across every scenario without a compensating benefit, reinforcing that the champion's near-stock plate footprint sits closer to the efficient frontier. Next worth testing a smaller plate upsize (~1.05-1.10x) to find where footprint growth stops being a net loss.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.485	148.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.267	181.3	39.9°
crosswind	4.085	173.6	34.7°
gusty_light	3.904	165.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.713	157.7	27.8°
storm	5.097	216.6	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f9f7a0a90601

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.779 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.785 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.989 Wh/km
frame mass	187.9 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 16 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, meant to test whether an entirely different region of design space — heavier arms, wider plates, softer material — could out-compete the refined champion lineage.

methodArms scaled up across the board (length, width, waist all above 1x, thickness 8.3mm), plates enlarged and thickened to 1.35x, deck gap widened to 36.9mm, material switched to pla_plus.

resultFitness came in at 7.779, far worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and the worst valid result this generation. The oversized arms/plates plus a weaker, denser material piled on mass across every scenario, especially storm (5.99). This confirms the champion lineage's slimmer, cf_plate-based approach is well ahead of this design region — no need to explore further immigrants this heavy.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.024	171.0	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.124	217.7	41.7°
crosswind	4.750	201.8	36.0°
gusty_light	4.533	192.6	34.6°
hot_thin	4.287	182.1	28.7°
storm	5.989	254.4	42.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.18
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	45.0°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cb6dc8edc94d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent ba61fc4b63fb (6.286) was solid but not leading; this pivot bets that narrowing the plate and tightening the deck gap trims mass for a free efficiency gain.

methodPlate width cut to 0.85x from 1.00x, deck gap tightened to 22.8mm from 26.0mm, rear sweep opened slightly, plate length trimmed marginally.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.45mm against a 1.90mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate width while also tightening deck gap squeezed the load path below the structural floor. Lesson: plate width and deck gap can't both shrink together without also increasing plate thickness to compensate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3359f647701d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 1704aea48de9 (6.274) was near the frontier; this pivot bets that switching toward the lighter pa12_cf material could shave weight even with a slightly wider plate.

methodMaterial shifted toward pa12_cf, plate width increased to 1.09x, battery wedge added at 1.4°, plate length trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid — resulting plates came out at 1.4mm, below the 1.6mm minimum pa12_cf requires. The plate-thickness multiplier that was fine for cf_plate isn't enough once material switches to a weaker plastic. Lesson: material swaps to pa12_cf need a compensating plate-thickness bump, not just a width change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	26.5 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f8c9ae899625

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent as b3aaaeaeec58; this pivot goes further, betting that a much fatter arm waist buys enough stiffness margin to allow a more aggressive rear-sweep shape.

methodArm waist thickened to 0.78x from 0.55x, rear sweep swept back hard to 45.2° from 38.0°, front sweep pulled forward to 31.4°, plate length trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue's bolt holes ended up missing the main plate entirely. Stacking a big waist change with a large sweep swing moved the arm-to-plate mounting geometry out of alignment. Lesson: sweep and waist changes need to be tested independently before combining, since together they can break the bolt pattern.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.6 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 700786179886

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	73.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent as the two deck-gap pivots; this mutation randomly probes a wider, more sharply swept plate with a beefier material near the champion's structural envelope.

methodPlate width increased to 1.07x, rear sweep opened to 40.2° from 36.2°, battery wedge added at 1.9°, arm thickness bumped to 4.3mm, with material shifting toward pa12_cf.

resultInvalid — same failure mode as 3359f647701d: resulting plates measured 1.4mm against pa12_cf's 1.6mm minimum. A random mutation landed in the same material/thickness trap independently, reinforcing that pa12_cf pivots need a thickness floor the current gene ranges aren't respecting. Worth flagging pa12_cf moves to auto-bump plate thickness so this stops recurring.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	40.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c84184dd7731

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 210243eee823 (6.284) with bb51c78c03f1 (6.525) bets that taking the better parent's tighter dimensions while pulling sweep back could combine their strengths.

methodFront sweep pulled back to 45.8° from 48.7°, deck gap tightened to 21.0mm from 23.2mm, arm width and length trimmed marginally.

resultInvalid — the tightened deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack. Crossover recombination pulled the gap below the avionics clearance floor even though neither parent's change looked extreme individually. Lesson: deck gap needs a hard lower bound enforced during crossover, not just mutation/pivot.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	45.8°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	21.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cadb6dac34da✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	122.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing whether petg — cheaper and more forgiving than cf_plate — could work if arms are beefed up enough to compensate for its lower stiffness.

methodHand-set with thick 6.5mm arms, 0.80x waist, and full-thickness (1.00x) plates, built entirely in petg instead of cf_plate.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded limits even with the thickened geometry. This confirms petg's modulus is too low for this arm envelope regardless of how much material is added; matching cf_plate's stiffness would require disproportionate thickness that likely costs more in weight than switching material saves. Lesson: petg is probably not viable for this frame's arm design without a fundamentally different arm profile — worth deprioritizing further petg attempts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 210243eee823

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.284 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.874 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.819 Wh/km
frame mass	90.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two solid ~6.3 performers on the bet that blending their front-sweep and arm-length traits could land closer to the frontier.

methodNarrowed the arm width, shortened arm length slightly, and kept front sweep and deck gap close to the parents' values.

result6.284 — better than both parents (6.324 and 6.373) and very close to the 6.257 best-so-far, though it doesn't overtake it. This reinforces that a slimmer arm width (~0.77) is a consistently winning trait this generation. Worth combining this candidate's front sweep with the champion's arm waist/length to try to beat 6.257 outright.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.325	141.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.011	170.4	39.0°
crosswind	3.851	163.6	33.5°
gusty_light	3.702	157.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.538	150.3	27.5°
storm	4.819	204.7	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	48.7°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ba61fc4b63fbnew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.286 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.874 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.824 Wh/km
frame mass	92.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisThe reigning champion and the runner-up were both cf_plate designs sitting right at the current plateau; the bet was that blending their sweep, waist, and plate-thickness settings could shave a little more mass/drag without leaving the material family that was already working.

methodIncreased front-arm sweep by about 1.7 degrees, thinned the plate stock a bit further (from 0.75x to 0.70x of stock), let the arm waist taper a touch less aggressively, and nudged the material blend slightly while staying inside the cf_plate family.

resultFitness came in at 6.286, edging past both parents (6.291 and 6.308) to become a NEW WINNER at the moment it was evaluated. The thinner plates likely trimmed mass with no structural penalty, delivering small gains across every scenario. Worth testing next: push the plate-thickness multiplier even lower to find where the cf_plate margin actually breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.310	140.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.013	170.5	39.2°
crosswind	3.866	164.2	33.7°
gusty_light	3.705	157.4	32.7°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.5°
storm	4.824	204.9	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb429755f2c9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.309 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.890 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.839 Wh/km
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-6.3 performers were crossed on the bet that a sharper front sweep could trim aero losses further.

methodIncreased front sweep to 52° from 48.6°, narrowed the arm slightly, and left plate width unchanged.

result6.309 — an improvement over both parents (6.324 and 6.379) but still behind the 6.257 best-so-far. Gains were spread evenly across scenarios, suggesting front sweep near 50° is a mild, broad-based aero win. Worth pushing front sweep further, toward 52-55°, combined with the champion's slim arm waist.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.335	141.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.864	164.2	33.7°
gusty_light	3.715	157.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.548	150.7	27.6°
storm	4.839	205.6	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d7ed8abf5d4a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.845 Wh/km
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisThis crosses the prior best-so-far parent (6.274) with itself, essentially a local mutation probe to see if nearby arm-width and rear-sweep tweaks can improve on it directly.

methodWidened the arm slightly and straightened the rear sweep a touch, both modest changes from the parent.

result6.311 — slightly worse than the parent it came from (6.274) and behind the new best-so-far of 6.257. The small arm-width increase likely added marginal mass without a stiffness payoff. Worth trying the opposite direction — narrowing arm width below the parent's value — since that pattern won elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.313	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.036	171.4	39.3°
crosswind	3.881	164.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.536	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.845	205.8	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d6bb6555ba3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.360 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.920 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.880 Wh/km
frame mass	97.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely-matched strong parents (6.373 and 6.371) were crossed on the bet that recombining their traits could squeeze out an incremental gain.

methodShortened the plate about 5%, pulled the material blend fully back to pure carbon-fiber plate, and nudged the battery wedge up slightly.

result6.36 — better than both parents, but the generation's best-so-far had already moved to 6.257 (set by 54a73703249e), so this falls short. Storm remains the costliest scenario (4.88), suggesting these two parents were already near a local plateau. Worth crossing this line with the new champion's slimmer arm waist next.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.349	142.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.070	172.9	39.4°
crosswind	3.909	166.1	33.8°
gusty_light	3.745	159.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.568	151.6	27.6°
storm	4.880	207.3	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 567629068d98

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.397 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.944 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.906 Wh/km
frame mass	99.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisThe fitter parent (6.324) was already near the front of the pack, so this pivot bets that lengthening the plate slightly while trimming arm length can free up a bit more efficiency.

methodLengthened the main plate about 7%, thickened the arm slightly to 4.3 mm, shortened arm length a touch, and added a small 0.7° battery wedge.

resultCame in at 6.397 — worse than its stronger parent (6.324) and short of the pre-generation best (6.274). Storm was the biggest drag (4.91 Wh/km), suggesting the thicker arm added mass without buying enough stiffness back. Worth retrying the plate-length change alone, without the arm thickness bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.380	143.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.089	173.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.926	166.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.767	160.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.597	152.8	27.6°
storm	4.906	208.4	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	49.2°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb51c78c03f1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.525 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.021 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisDrawing on a much weaker parent's wider-arm traits, this pivot bets that a beefier arm waist and width could add stiffness margin for the storm scenario without costing too much elsewhere.

methodWidened the arm width and waist noticeably, eased the front sweep back to 46°, and stretched arm length slightly.

resultLanded at 6.525, worse than its stronger parent (6.324) and well off the pre-generation best. Storm again the weak point (5.01), pointing to the wider arm just adding drag and mass. Lesson: this generation's winners consistently keep arm waist near 0.55 — worth reverting to that instead of widening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.434	145.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.201	178.5	40.2°
crosswind	3.993	169.6	34.4°
gusty_light	3.833	162.8	33.3°
hot_thin	3.655	155.3	27.9°
storm	5.009	212.8	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	35.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 470c4fea7616✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.574 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.051 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.045 Wh/km
frame mass	118.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed seed from the Claude-designer role, exploring a fresh baseline independent of the evolutionary lineage — testing a slim arm paired with a thick plate and generous deck gap as a hand-picked structural hypothesis.

methodHand-set a slim, narrow-waisted arm at 4.0 mm thickness, but combined it with a large 40 mm deck gap and a heavily thickened plate (x1.50).

result6.574 — well behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind the top evolved lineage. The oversized deck gap and thick plate likely added mass the evolved lines have learned to avoid, since winners cluster around 22-26 mm deck gap and ~x0.70 plate thickness. Worth rerunning this same arm seed with a tighter deck gap and thinner plate to align with what evolution has already found.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.191	178.1	38.8°
crosswind	4.042	171.7	33.7°
gusty_light	3.873	164.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.692	156.9	27.5°
storm	5.045	214.3	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a55c3afad400✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.773 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.781 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.985 Wh/km
frame mass	199.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed test of whether a much beefier, wider and thicker arm could buy enough structural margin to pay off across the adverse-weather battery.

methodHand-set a heavily widened arm (x1.40) with a thick waist (x1.30) and 7.0 mm thickness, on the same large 40 mm deck gap.

result7.773 — the worst result in this batch, far behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind nearly every evolved candidate. The heavy arm drove up cost in every scenario, especially storm (5.98), confirming that the evolutionary trend toward slim arms (waist ~0.55, width ~0.75-0.85) is correct. This heavy-arm design line looks like a dead end worth abandoning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.040	171.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.048	214.5	41.2°
crosswind	4.756	202.0	35.5°
gusty_light	4.542	193.0	34.0°
hot_thin	4.315	183.3	28.3°
storm	5.985	254.2	40.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1d127f47417e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents were well off the pace (6.99 and 7.60), so this pivot bets on a more aggressive redesign: a straighter rear arm and a much tighter deck gap to shed frontal area and mass rather than making an incremental tweak.

methodStraightened the rear sweep, shifted the material blend toward a stiffer composite, thickened the plate about 17%, and shrank the deck gap from 28 mm down to 21.5 mm.

resultInvalid — the deck gap collapsed below what the FC/ESC stack needs to physically fit. This confirms deck gap has a hard floor somewhere above 21.5 mm regardless of how the plate is thickened. Worth testing the same sweep/material bet again but holding deck gap at 23 mm or more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	21.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 22d0b8aa0446

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisOne parent was already invalid and the other weak (7.79), so this pivot gambles on a material swap toward a lighter plastic plus a narrower, longer plate to cut weight.

methodShifted the material blend heavily toward petg, narrowed the plate width about 6%, lengthened the arm, and thinned the plate slightly.

resultInvalid — the main plate web thinned to 0.84 mm against a 1.90 mm structural stock minimum. The narrower plate combined with the material and thickness change pushed the web past its floor. Next: keep plate thickness at or above the parent's x0.90 whenever pairing a lighter material with a narrower plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	petg

parents

candidate 2a4226f51df6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisWith a strong parent at 6.379, this pivot bets that tilting the battery and opening the deck gap could improve cooling/CG balance enough to offset the extra structure needed.

methodAdded a 10.5° battery wedge, nearly doubled the deck gap increase to 33.4 mm, and shortened the plate about 15% to compensate.

resultInvalid — the mid plate web thinned to 1.12 mm against a 1.47 mm stock minimum. Shortening the plate to make room for the bigger deck gap took too much material from the mid section. Lesson: large deck-gap increases need plate thickness compensation, not plate-length reduction. Worth retrying the wedge/gap idea while holding plate length near the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	33.4 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7b4d6d97d3a2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisStrong parent at 6.371, so this pivot bets that a wider arm paired with a straighter front sweep could add stiffness and cut aero losses simultaneously.

methodWidened the arm, reduced front sweep to 30°, nudged battery wedge up to 15°, and trimmed arm thickness slightly.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The wider arm combined with the reduced front sweep pushed the root geometry into interference. Teaches that arm width and front sweep are coupled near the mount; next time keep front sweep at 32° or above whenever pushing arm width past about 0.85.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e66ffd73fcf✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed test of whether a cheaper, softer petg material could still hold up structurally if paired with a moderately thickened, wider arm.

methodHand-set a moderately widened arm at 6.5 mm thickness with a 42 mm deck gap, switched material to petg, and thinned the plate to x0.85.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded limits under petg. The thicker 6.5 mm arm wasn't enough to compensate for petg's lower stiffness at this length and waist. Teaches that petg alone can't substitute for a stiffer composite at these arm proportions; worth retrying this exact geometry with cf_plate material instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2bd9dc0e44f5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.324 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.899 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.851 Wh/km
frame mass	92.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisWith the reigning best-so-far as one parent, this pivot explores whether a much sharper front sweep and tighter deck gap can trade a little arm mass for better aerodynamic balance across the weather scenarios.

methodSwept the front arms much further forward, pulled the rear sweep back slightly, narrowed the arms, and tightened the deck gap.

resultValid at 6.324 Wh/km — clearly better than its weaker parent (7.127) but slightly behind the 6.274 best-so-far parent, so no new record. The aggressive front-sweep swing likely added drag/handling penalty in crosswind and storm that offset any calm-air gain. Next: try a smaller, more incremental front-sweep nudge from the 6.274 baseline rather than a ~17° jump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.340	141.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.049	172.0	39.3°
crosswind	3.873	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.723	158.2	32.9°
hot_thin	3.555	151.0	27.7°
storm	4.851	206.1	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	48.6°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e8b475371bd4✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.371 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.928 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.887 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA designer fresh build testing whether an aggressive battery-wedge tilt (shifting CG) could unlock efficiency the evolved population hasn't explored, on otherwise lean evolved-like proportions.

methodFresh design with lean arm and plate proportions close to top evolved frames, but with a much steeper battery wedge tilt than any current-generation candidate.

resultValid at 6.371 Wh/km — respectable and close to the evolved pack's mid-6.3s cluster, though still behind the 6.274 best-so-far. The steep battery tilt didn't hurt as much as expected, suggesting CG shift is a relatively low-cost gene the population hasn't explored much. Next: cross this battery-wedge idea onto the actual best-so-far frame to see if it stacks additively.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.355	142.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.079	173.3	39.2°
crosswind	3.920	166.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.753	159.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.573	151.8	27.7°
storm	4.887	207.6	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7d84b9157ec6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.373 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.928 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.890 Wh/km
frame mass	98.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched competitive frames tests whether nudging their front sweep angle can push performance past both.

methodThe only real change is a steeper front sweep angle; the rest of the genome stays close to the shared parent values.

resultValid at 6.373 Wh/km, essentially matching but not beating either parent (6.37/6.35) — a near-neutral single-gene change. Suggests front sweep alone, in this narrow range, isn't the lever separating top performers. Next: hold front sweep fixed at the better parent's value and vary a different single gene, e.g. plate thickness, to find a more sensitive lever.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.357	142.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.077	173.2	39.3°
crosswind	3.915	166.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.753	159.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.577	151.9	27.6°
storm	4.890	207.7	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f06711515158

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.379 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.931 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.896 Wh/km
frame mass	98.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of a solid mid-pack frame explores nearby mutations in plate proportions and arm waist to see if small perturbations can beat the parent outright.

methodWidened and lengthened the plate slightly, loosened the arm waist a touch, and thickened the arm marginally.

resultValid at 6.379 Wh/km, slightly worse than the 6.34 parent — the small plate/waist perturbations added marginal weight without a matching gain. This parent seems to sit at a local optimum where small moves in any direction cost efficiency. Next: try a self-cross that shrinks, rather than grows, plate width to test the opposite direction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.358	142.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.084	173.5	39.2°
crosswind	3.915	166.3	33.8°
gusty_light	3.755	159.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.579	152.0	27.6°
storm	4.896	208.0	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	22.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 415bf8bfe69b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.395 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.940 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.909 Wh/km
frame mass	99.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a competitive frame with the reigning best-so-far bets that blending their plate proportions and material tweak could combine the best-so-far's efficiency with the other parent's structural margin.

methodShifted the material parameter slightly within the carbon-plate family, trimmed the plate length a bit, and loosened the arm waist slightly.

resultValid at 6.395 Wh/km, worse than both parents (6.38 and 6.274) — the blend landed structurally in between but lost efficiency in every scenario relative to the best-so-far. Simple gene-averaging isn't finding a better point here. Next: try crossing with the plate length locked to the best-so-far's value and vary only the material parameter.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.358	142.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.097	174.1	39.4°
crosswind	3.931	167.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.765	159.9	32.9°
hot_thin	3.582	152.2	27.7°
storm	4.909	208.6	33.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bd01e3ab19cf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.468 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.985 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.967 Wh/km
frame mass	107.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the current best-so-far, this pivot tests whether a stiffer, longer arm and thicker plate can extend its edge further into storm conditions.

methodWidened the arms noticeably, lengthened them slightly, thickened the plate, and nudged the material parameter within the carbon-plate family.

resultValid at 6.468 Wh/km, clearly worse than the 6.274 best-so-far parent — the extra arm and plate mass outweighed any storm-scenario robustness gain. Reinforces that the best-so-far is already near the weight/stiffness sweet spot and further beefing up loses more than it gains. Next: try thickening only the plate, not the arm width, to isolate which change costs the most.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.393	144.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.146	176.2	39.7°
crosswind	3.976	168.9	34.2°
gusty_light	3.806	161.7	33.0°
hot_thin	3.620	153.8	27.7°
storm	4.967	211.0	33.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d418422a216b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.478 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.990 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.976 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that beefing up arm width and thickness on a mid-pack frame would improve storm/crosswind stiffness enough to offset the added mass.

methodWidened the arms back toward stock, thickened them slightly, eased the front sweep, and opened the deck gap marginally.

resultValid at 6.478 Wh/km, worse than both the 6.333 parent and the 6.274 best-so-far — the added arm bulk cost more across every scenario than the stiffness bought back. Confirms this frame lineage is weight-limited, not stiffness-limited. Next: revert the width/thickness increase and test the sweep/deck-gap change alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.391	144.1	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.170	177.2	39.9°
crosswind	3.979	169.0	34.4°
gusty_light	3.808	161.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.618	153.7	27.8°
storm	4.976	211.4	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.3 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 03a2ffd572b3✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.991 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.304 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.374 Wh/km
frame mass	143.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designer fresh build testing a bulkier, higher-stiffness durability-first frame, wagering that beefier arms and plates pay off in storm robustness even at a mass penalty.

methodFresh design with notably longer/thicker arms, a wide/long plate, thick plate walls, and a pronounced rear sweep — heavier and stiffer across the board than typical evolved frames.

resultValid but weak at 6.991 Wh/km, well behind the 6.274 best-so-far and every other candidate this generation — the mass penalty from oversizing everything at once overwhelmed any robustness gain, with storm the worst score of the batch. Confirms the evolved population's lean frames already sit closer to the efficient edge than a designer's build-it-strong heuristic. Next: have the designer start from an evolved parent's proportions and dial up only one dimension, e.g. plate thickness, instead of a from-scratch bulky build.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.649	155.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.503	191.3	40.2°
crosswind	4.298	182.6	34.8°
gusty_light	4.105	174.4	33.3°
hot_thin	3.897	165.5	27.9°
storm	5.374	228.3	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2f82e3339abb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisff46e60afeaa was a solid mid-pack frame; this pivot bets that shaving more mass from the plate (shorter, thinner, narrower arms) can push efficiency further before structural limits bite.

methodShortened the main plate further, narrowed the arms slightly, thinned the plate more, and eased the front sweep angle a touch.

resultInvalid — the plate web dropped to 1.11mm against a 1.47mm stock minimum, so it failed the structural check before it could fly. Stacking three separate weight-cuts (shorter plate, thinner plate, narrower arm) in the same direction at once was too aggressive. Next: try only one of these cuts at a time to find where the wall-thickness floor actually sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a2a30a063191

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisTries to recover a strong parent's efficiency by opening the deck gap for better airflow while trimming plate size to shed weight.

methodWidened the deck gap substantially, shrank the plate width and length, and pulled the arm length in slightly.

resultInvalid — the main plate web thinned to 1.29mm against a 1.90mm stock minimum, so shrinking both plate dimensions at once broke the structural floor, the same failure mode as other plate-shrink pivots this generation. Next: keep plate dimensions near parent levels and test the deck-gap widening in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	39.7°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 47e4b91aecdb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	116.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that a much larger deck gap plus thicker arms could improve stability in gusty/storm conditions on a frame whose parent already sat competitively.

methodNearly doubled the deck gap, tightened the arm waist, lengthened the plate, and thickened the arms substantially.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate, a geometric interference from combining a much thicker arm with a tighter waist. Shows the arm-thickness and waist genes aren't independent — pushing one against print-space limits requires easing the other. Next: retest the deck-gap/plate-length change alone, keeping arm thickness and waist at parent values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8353dbb95b00

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that a wider plate and steeper battery wedge (shifting CG) could improve handling enough to justify a much thicker arm waist for durability.

methodMore than doubled the arm waist thickness, widened the plate, tripled the battery tilt angle, and tightened the deck gap substantially.

resultInvalid — the deck gap shrank too far for the FC/ESC stack to fit. Squeezing the deck gap while also growing the waist and plate left no room for electronics clearance. Next: keep the deck gap near parent levels while testing the battery-wedge and waist changes separately.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×1.22
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	20.1 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 091ed3266995

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 14 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing PLA+ as a lighter/cheaper alternative material family, probing whether the population's carbon-plate dominance is a local optimum rather than a global one.

methodFresh random genome — smaller arms, wide/long plate, wide deck gap, built in PLA+ instead of carbon plate.

resultInvalid — plates measured 1.5mm against PLA+'s 1.6mm minimum wall requirement, since PLA+ is weaker than carbon plate and needs thicker walls for the same geometry. Useful negative data point: plate-thickness settings here were tuned for cf_plate's stock minimums, not PLA+'s stricter ones. Next: rerun similar immigrants but scale plate thickness up specifically for PLA+'s minimum before evaluating fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	39.9°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 19c8d0829c1b✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA designer fresh build testing PET-CF as a tougher, more impact-resistant alternative to carbon plate, on an otherwise lean, evolved-like arm geometry.

methodFresh design with long, narrow, tightly-waisted arms similar to top evolved frames, but built from PET-CF instead of carbon plate.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded the limit for PET-CF, since its stiffness is lower than carbon plate and this arm geometry was sized for cf_plate's rigidity, not PET-CF's flex. Shows material swaps can't reuse cf_plate arm proportions directly. Next: retest PET-CF with a shorter or wider arm profile sized for its lower modulus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cc237e7244c5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.318 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.848 Wh/km
frame mass	93.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents clustered near best-so-far, the bet was that blending a wider front sweep with a modestly tighter deck gap could nudge past the plateau.

methodFront sweep increased ~3.8°, deck gap trimmed by 1.2 mm, plate width held at parent value.

resultValid at 6.318, the best result of this generation's candidates and very close to best-so-far (6.274) without quite beating it; storm remains the heaviest scenario (4.85) but the frame is otherwise well balanced. Worth testing: trim deck gap a bit further toward 23-24 mm while holding front sweep fixed to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.326	141.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.038	171.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.884	165.0	33.9°
gusty_light	3.722	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.546	150.6	27.6°
storm	4.848	206.0	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ff46e60afeaa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.333 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.903 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.860 Wh/km
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the two close parents, the bet was that borrowing the leaner arm/plate thickness from one while adding a touch more front sweep would blend their strengths.

methodArms thinned back to 4.0 mm, plate thinned slightly, front sweep increased ~1.8°, material blend lightened slightly.

resultValid at 6.333, beating both parents individually but still short of best-so-far (6.274); the leaner structure helped but the extra front sweep may have cost some of that gain. Worth testing: the same thinner arm/plate combo without the front sweep bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.331	141.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.057	172.4	39.3°
crosswind	3.891	165.3	34.0°
gusty_light	3.729	158.4	32.9°
hot_thin	3.550	150.8	27.7°
storm	4.860	206.5	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ad77afd2152e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.340 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.867 Wh/km
frame mass	94.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisBuilt from the current best-so-far, this candidate bet that a wider front sweep and a stiffer, thicker-waisted arm combined with a trimmed deck gap could push past the plateau.

methodFront sweep opened by ~8°, plate widened 6%, arm waist thickened, deck gap trimmed by ~3 mm.

resultValid but slightly worse than its best-so-far parent (6.34 vs 6.274), dragged down mainly by storm (4.87); the added frontal area from the wider sweep and plate likely outweighed the deck-gap savings. Worth testing: the deck-gap trim in isolation on the best-so-far genome, without the sweep/waist changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.335	141.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.2°
crosswind	3.885	165.1	33.8°
gusty_light	3.731	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.554	151.0	27.6°
storm	4.867	206.8	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	23.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 45484fc05b8f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.350 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.912 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.875 Wh/km
frame mass	96.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was solid but not leading, so the bet was a heavier material blend plus a small battery wedge could rebalance CG and edge out a gain.

methodFront sweep pulled back ~1.3°, material blend shifted heavier, small 0.7° battery wedge added, arm waist nudged.

resultValid at 6.35, essentially flat versus the 6.311 parent and short of best-so-far; the heavier material blend likely added mass without an aero payoff. Worth testing: keep the battery wedge but revert the material blend back toward the lighter setting to isolate its contribution.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.337	141.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.900	165.7	33.9°
gusty_light	3.739	158.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.559	151.2	27.6°
storm	4.875	207.1	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b62c94c67395

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.370 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.925 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.891 Wh/km
frame mass	98.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same best-so-far parent, the bet here was that slightly longer, thicker arms would buy structural margin cheaply while a modest deck-gap trim clawed back some efficiency.

methodArm length extended ~3%, arm thickness increased 0.3 mm, deck gap cut by 1.3 mm, rear sweep eased back slightly.

resultValid at 6.37, worse than both the best-so-far parent and its sibling ad77afd2152e; the extra arm length/thickness added mass that the small deck-gap saving couldn't offset, with storm again the weak point (4.89). Worth testing: the arm-thickening alone, without the length increase, to see if it's a net loss on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.342	142.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.083	173.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.917	166.4	33.9°
gusty_light	3.751	159.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.565	151.5	27.7°
storm	4.891	207.8	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	24.7 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1989cce8f069

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.380 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.931 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.898 Wh/km
frame mass	99.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThis candidate tested the opposite direction from the deck-gap-tightening attempts: betting that a wider gap plus the lightest material and thicker arm waist would still net a win through mass savings.

methodDeck gap widened by 5 mm, arm waist thickened, material switched to the lightest blend, plate shortened slightly.

resultValid but the weakest successful pivot this generation at 6.38; widening the deck gap clearly added drag/mass the lighter material couldn't compensate for, confirming the gap should move down, not up, from 26 mm. Worth testing: keep the pure-light material choice but pair it with a deck-gap trim instead of an expansion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.353	142.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.085	173.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.919	166.5	34.1°
gusty_light	3.756	159.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.576	151.9	27.7°
storm	4.898	208.1	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89860fd49516

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.512 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.011 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.002 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisThe bet was that a longer plate combined with more rear sweep and battery wedge would improve stability enough to offset the added structure.

methodPlate lengthened 8%, rear sweep increased 3°, battery wedge roughly doubled, deck gap trimmed slightly.

resultValid but worst of this generation's crossovers at 6.512, worse than both parents; storm (5.0) shows the added mass and wedge hurt worst-case performance most. Worth testing: the rear sweep/wedge combo without the plate lengthening to isolate which change is the real culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.409	144.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.193	178.1	40.2°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	34.6°
gusty_light	3.827	162.6	33.3°
hot_thin	3.636	154.5	27.9°
storm	5.002	212.5	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3844ac93fc4c✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.757 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.162 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.189 Wh/km
frame mass	128.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisThe bet was that a bulkier, more swept airframe with a larger plate footprint might trade some efficiency for wind stability and still come out ahead.

methodHand-designed genome: longer/thicker arms, wider front and rear sweep angles, notably larger plate length and width, wider deck gap.

resultValid at 6.757, the best of this generation's three designer seeds but still far off best-so-far; the enlarged plate and wide sweep angles added mass and frontal area beyond what any stability gain offset, with storm the weakest scenario (5.19). Worth testing: shrink the plate footprint back toward stock while keeping the wider sweep angles, to see if sweep alone contributes value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.540	150.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.338	184.3	39.5°
crosswind	4.154	176.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.973	168.8	33.0°
hot_thin	3.777	160.5	27.8°
storm	5.189	220.4	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e28f02892326✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.840 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.217 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.247 Wh/km
frame mass	132.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisA fresh designer seed exploring a stockier, untapered arm baseline with a generous deck gap and steep battery wedge, testing whether a conservative structural design could compete outside the pivot/crossover lineage.

methodHand-designed genome: full-length untapered arms at 5.5 mm thickness, 42 mm deck gap, 14° battery wedge, thick plate.

resultValid at 6.84, well behind best-so-far and the weakest of this generation's three designer seeds; the oversized deck gap and steep wedge likely added drag and mass across every scenario, including storm (5.25). Worth testing: a designer seed with deck gap near 26 mm and battery wedge near 0-2° to isolate whether the arm geometry alone can compete.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.602	153.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.381	186.1	39.1°
crosswind	4.210	178.8	34.1°
gusty_light	4.025	171.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.836	162.9	27.7°
storm	5.247	222.9	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 197c23808897✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.025 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.326 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.399 Wh/km
frame mass	148.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisThis designer seed bet that over-building the arms — thick and barely tapered — would provide structural margin without an aero penalty.

methodHand-designed genome: longer, thicker (6.0 mm) arms with minimal waist taper, near-stock deck gap, zero battery wedge, thinner plate.

resultValid but the worst candidate this generation at 7.025, far off best-so-far, with every scenario elevated (storm 5.4). This teaches that arm thickness beyond ~4-4.5 mm with minimal waist taper is a clear loss under this fitness metric. Worth testing: a designer seed with thinner, more tapered arms closer to what the pivot lineage has converged on (roughly 4.0 mm, 0.55-0.65 waist).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.673	156.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.518	192.0	40.1°
crosswind	4.319	183.5	34.6°
gusty_light	4.125	175.3	33.3°
hot_thin	3.921	166.6	27.9°
storm	5.399	229.4	35.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f580c8168a5f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThe near-best parent suggested there was still headroom in stiffening the plate and tightening the electronics deck, so this candidate bet on a thicker plate plus a leaner deck stack to shave mass and drag.

methodPlate thickness increased substantially, deck gap cut by 6 mm, a 2° battery wedge added, and the material blend lightened.

resultInvalid: the tightened deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack. This confirms 26 mm is close to the real floor and that thickening the plate eats into the same clearance budget. Worth testing: trim deck gap alone by 1-2 mm without touching plate thickness to find the true minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 75753b64d8cc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisWith the stronger parent still trailing best-so-far, the bet was that a tighter deck stack combined with more battery wedge could recover some efficiency.

methodDeck gap cut by ~3.7 mm, battery wedge nearly doubled, plate widened slightly and thinned slightly.

resultInvalid for the same reason as its sibling: FC/ESC stack collision. Two independent failures around 20-23 mm strongly suggest the stack clearance floor sits close to 24-25 mm. Worth testing: deck gap at 24-25 mm alone, holding wedge and plate width at parent values, to bracket the floor precisely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	22.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96f27774bf9c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the strong parent, the bet was that a much larger rear sweep would improve crosswind/yaw balance enough to justify the structural risk.

methodRear sweep increased by 11°, plate and arms widened slightly, material blend shifted.

resultInvalid: the large rear sweep moved the arm tongues off the plate's bolt pattern. This shows sweep changes are bounded by the fixed bolt layout, likely capping rear sweep well below 47° for this arm length. Worth testing: rear sweep increases in smaller ~5° steps to find the real ceiling before bolts miss.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	47.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8c3f49668738

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two equally-scored parents, the bet was that narrowing the plate while opening the deck gap slightly could cut mass without compromising structure.

methodPlate narrowed 6%, deck gap opened 2.2 mm, arm waist thinned slightly.

resultInvalid: the narrower plate's web thickness fell below the structural minimum (0.85 mm vs 1.90 mm stock). This teaches that plate width and thickness are coupled — narrowing width without compensating thickness risks failing the web-thickness floor. Worth testing: narrow the plate width but pair it with a plate-thickness increase to keep the web above 1.90 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	28.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b0b7ac5673d3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.887 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.841 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best-so-far (1704aea48de9, 6.274) with the near-best ba61fc4b63fb (6.286) aimed to combine the champion's efficiency with a thicker plate for extra structural margin.

methodThickened the plate (x0.70→x0.78), tightened the arm waist slightly (x0.59→x0.55), and marginally lengthened the arms (x1.30→x1.31).

result6.308, close to but not surpassing either parent - not a new best-so-far. The plate thickening added mass that offset the tighter waist's savings, confirming the champion's thinner x0.70 plate is closer to optimal. Worth testing next: repeat this cross with plate thickness left untouched at x0.70 to isolate the waist/length effect alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.319	141.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.0°
crosswind	3.878	164.7	33.7°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.5°
storm	4.841	205.7	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ddf19b536a16✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.845 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet on pushing arm length further than the elite lineage's ~x1.30 norm (to x1.35) while keeping battery wedge at 0° and the thin-plate recipe intact, testing whether the arm-length trend keeps paying off.

methodExtended arm length to x1.35, kept arm width/waist/thickness at the proven thin values, enlarged the plate slightly (x1.00/x1.03), and held battery wedge at 0°.

result6.311, competitive but still short of the 6.274 best-so-far - not a new winner, and close to several crossover results in the same 6.30-6.35 band, suggesting x1.35 arm length sits near a plateau rather than an improvement. Worth testing next: keep arm length at x1.35 but shrink plate length/width back toward x0.97 to shed the extra plate mass added here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.313	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.039	171.6	39.2°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.535	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.845	205.8	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 518308dd763e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.889 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.843 Wh/km
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisba61fc4b63fb sits close to best-so-far, so this self-pairing bet that thickening the arm waist while trimming arm length slightly could add robustness without losing efficiency.

methodThickened the arm waist from x0.59 to x0.70 and shortened arm length slightly from x1.30 to x1.27.

result6.311, a step back from the 6.286 parent - the added waist material outweighed the modest length savings. Confirms the parent's thinner waist was closer to optimal. Worth testing next: trim arm waist further below x0.59 while holding length at x1.30 to see if the trend keeps improving.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.322	141.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.879	164.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.542	150.5	27.6°
storm	4.843	205.8	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17da73c894cb✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.333 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.902 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.861 Wh/km
frame mass	95.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet on testing whether a substantially larger deck gap (36 mm vs the elite 26 mm) trades battery/deck clearance for an aerodynamic or structural benefit, while otherwise matching the elite arm recipe.

methodKept the elite thin-arm proportions (x1.30 length, x0.76 width, x0.55 waist) but widened the deck gap from the usual 26.0 mm to 36.0 mm, with the same enlarged plate as its sibling candidate.

result6.333, worse than its tighter-deck-gap sibling (ddf19b536a16 at 6.311) and short of the 6.274 best-so-far - confirms deck gap widening is a mass/drag penalty, consistent with candidate 1b84d46a56fc's finding. Worth testing next: stop exploring wider deck gaps and instead probe values below 26.0 mm to find the tight-clearance boundary.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.324	141.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.054	172.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.896	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.730	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.547	150.7	27.7°
storm	4.861	206.5	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1b84d46a56fc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.346 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.910 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.872 Wh/km
frame mass	95.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisParent ba61fc4b63fb sat near best-so-far at 6.286; crossing it with the heavier e0575966e577 (6.406) bet that blending their arm-width and deck-gap traits could combine strengths rather than dilute them.

methodWidened arm width from x0.75 to x0.86 and opened the deck gap from 26.0 mm to 28.4 mm, leaving plate length essentially unchanged.

resultLanded at 6.346, worse than either parent and well off the 6.274 best-so-far. The wider arm and larger deck gap added mass/drag across every scenario (storm rose to 4.87) without any offsetting gain. Worth testing next: pull the deck gap back toward 26 mm while keeping the parent's other genes, to isolate whether width or gap was the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.333	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.063	172.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.902	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.737	158.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.555	151.0	27.6°
storm	4.872	207.0	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate af1499695456✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.355 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.918 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.875 Wh/km
frame mass	91.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet that a much steeper battery wedge (12°) combined with an elevated rear sweep, layered onto the elite thin-arm/thin-plate recipe, could unlock a gain the mutation/crossover operators hadn't found.

methodKept the proven thin-arm proportions (x1.30 length, x0.76 width, x0.55 waist, x0.70 plate thickness) but raised rear sweep to 39.3° and pushed battery wedge to a steep 12.0°.

result6.355, worse than the 6.274 best-so-far and worse than near-identical crossovers using 0° wedge - the steep tilt looks like a net drag/mass penalty, echoing the same pattern seen in candidate 3007a946fb33. Storm rose to 4.88. Worth testing next: try battery wedge in smaller 2-4° increments rather than jumping straight to 12°, to find any beneficial range before ruling it out.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.342	142.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.079	173.3	39.3°
crosswind	3.909	166.0	34.0°
gusty_light	3.742	159.0	32.9°
hot_thin	3.559	151.2	27.7°
storm	4.875	207.1	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3007a946fb33

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.458 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.979 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.959 Wh/km
frame mass	104.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisParent e0575966e577 carried a modest battery wedge that hadn't yet paid off; this cross bet that pairing further arm lengthening with a slightly reduced wedge angle might recover efficiency.

methodLengthened arms (x1.30→x1.35), widened them slightly (x0.75→x0.79), increased rear sweep (36.3°→37.4°), and nudged battery wedge down (1.9°→1.7°).

result6.458, worse than both parents and the 6.274 best-so-far - the extra arm length and width added mass without any gain, and storm rose to 4.96. Battery wedge continues to underperform across this generation's crosses. Worth testing next: drop battery wedge to 0° entirely on an otherwise strong parent to check if tilt is a net negative overall.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.143	176.0	39.4°
crosswind	3.972	168.8	34.1°
gusty_light	3.801	161.5	32.9°
hot_thin	3.613	153.5	27.7°
storm	4.959	210.7	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.7°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a0308f66ca3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.497 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.002 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.989 Wh/km
frame mass	104.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents mid-pack (6.366, 6.291), this cross gambled that adding a battery wedge tilt on top of wider, longer arms might unlock an aerodynamic gain not yet seen in the elite lineage.

methodWidened arms substantially (x0.86→x1.01), lengthened them (x1.27→x1.35), and introduced a 1.5° battery wedge tilt.

result6.497, clearly worse than both parents and the 6.274 best-so-far. The combined mass from bulkier arms plus wedge tilt hurt every scenario, especially storm (4.99). Worth testing next: isolate the battery wedge alone on a proven thin-arm parent to see if tilt helps independent of arm bulk.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.405	144.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	40.2°
crosswind	3.987	169.4	34.5°
gusty_light	3.818	162.2	33.3°
hot_thin	3.630	154.2	27.9°
storm	4.989	212.0	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e5336935405c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.771 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.173 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.196 Wh/km
frame mass	128.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6.533, 6.415) were already well off the elite pace; this cross explored a bulkier, wide-deck-gap region of the space, betting that extended arms and a steeper battery wedge might unlock gains.

methodSubstantially widened the deck gap (34.5 mm→41.3 mm), lengthened the arms (x1.19→x1.33), steepened the battery wedge (2.0°→5.4°), and widened the plate (x1.07→x1.13).

result6.771, the weakest valid candidate this generation and far off the 6.274 best-so-far - stacking a wider deck gap, longer arms, steeper wedge, and wider plate compounded mass/drag penalties across every scenario. This lineage is diverging further from the elite region. Worth testing next: retire this parent pair in favor of crosses seeded from the top-4 elite lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.551	150.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.342	184.4	39.8°
crosswind	4.178	177.5	34.9°
gusty_light	3.982	169.2	33.1°
hot_thin	3.786	160.8	27.8°
storm	5.196	220.8	34.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	5.4°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 65e6a5f0f3b8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.423 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.573 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.700 Wh/km
frame mass	176.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injects fresh diversity to counter convergence around the 6.27-6.4 elite band, exploring a bulkier, thicker-armed region of the design space unrelated to the current lineage.

methodFresh random genome: shorter but much wider/thicker arms (x0.94 length, x1.21 width, 6.6 mm thickness), a steep 44.2° front sweep, an enlarged plate (x1.06/x1.06), a wide 35.9 mm deck gap, a 3.2° battery wedge, and a thick x1.30 plate.

result7.423, the weakest candidate this generation and far off the 6.274 best-so-far - the over-built structure added mass and drag in every scenario, especially storm (5.70). This confirms the elite lineage's thin-arm, narrow-deck-gap direction is well-founded. Worth testing next: bias future immigrants toward lighter-weight starting genomes rather than uniform random draws.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.907	166.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.761	202.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.550	193.3	34.4°
gusty_light	4.356	185.1	33.2°
hot_thin	4.161	176.8	27.9°
storm	5.700	242.2	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	6.6 mm
front sweep	44.2°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 81b319d910b1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were competitive (6.308 and 6.286), so this cross bet that combining longer arms with a reduced rear sweep and a thinner plate could shave off more mass.

methodReduced rear sweep from 36.0° to 34.0°, lengthened the arms slightly (x1.26→x1.30), and thinned the plate (x0.74→x0.70).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Pushing arm length up while tightening rear sweep closed the clearance margin at the root simultaneously. Worth testing next: lengthen the arms alone while holding rear sweep near 36° to preserve root clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e477467edbf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing with the reigning best-so-far (1704aea48de9, 6.274) aimed to inherit its efficiency while testing whether shorter arms and a tighter deck gap could shed more mass and drag.

methodShortened arms considerably (x1.26→x1.15), thickened the plate (x0.74→x0.86), and tightened the deck gap (26.2 mm→23.7 mm).

resultInvalid: the rotor came too close to the deck/battery. Shrinking arm length and deck gap together closed out the rotor clearance margin. Worth testing next: shorten the arms alone while keeping deck gap near 26 mm to find the clearance boundary safely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	35.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	23.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 422a660d16fa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth mid-pack parents (6.291, 6.366) suggested the general trend that thinner, narrower plates help, so this cross bet on pushing both plate width and thickness down together for more mass savings.

methodNarrowed plate width (x1.00→x0.95) and thinned plate thickness (x0.75→x0.70) simultaneously.

resultInvalid: the plate web dropped to 0.99 mm, under half the 1.90 mm stock minimum. Width and thickness reductions compound rather than being independently safe. Worth testing next: thin the plate alone while holding plate width at the parent's value to map the safe thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 638bd2f1c787

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBet on testing whether a switch to pa12_cf material paired with a thicker arm wall could permit a lighter overall structure, exploring beyond the cf_plate material that has dominated so far.

methodSwitched material toward pa12_cf, thickened the arm wall (4.0 mm→5.1 mm), and narrowed the arm width (x0.86→x0.78).

resultInvalid: plate thickness (inherited from cf_plate-tuned parents) fell to 1.4 mm, below pa12_cf's 1.6 mm minimum wall requirement. Material swaps need their own plate-thickness re-tuning, since pa12_cf needs thicker walls than cf_plate for equivalent strength. Worth testing next: if retrying pa12_cf, explicitly raise the plate thickness gene above 1.6 mm before combining with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8d9fd4a01c9anew best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.291 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.876 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.828 Wh/km
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.30, arm width ×0.76, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.0 mm.

resultAggregate 6.291 Wh/km. NEW BEST-SO-FAR at evaluation time. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.308	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.018	170.7	39.0°
crosswind	3.868	164.3	33.7°
gusty_light	3.707	157.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.5°
storm	4.828	205.1	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 423a5b75b462

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.887 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.842 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) tests whether blending in a wider arm and thinner plate from the second parent can nudge the champion lineage even leaner.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.76 to ×0.86, shortened arm length slightly from ×1.30 to ×1.26, and trimmed plate width and thickness marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.308, just shy of the 6.291 best-so-far and matching sibling a0a25432bc7e almost exactly. The wider arm didn't help enough to beat the champion's narrower profile, suggesting arm width near ×0.76 is closer to the local optimum than ×0.86. Next: try isolating just the arm-length trim without the width increase to see which change is actually helping.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.028	171.1	39.2°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.538	150.3	27.6°
storm	4.842	205.7	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dfc78b499744

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.366 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.922 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.888 Wh/km
frame mass	97.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up with a mid-tier design, betting that loosening the arm waist and shifting the material blend could combine the runner-up's efficient sweep with the other parent's structural margin.

methodLoosened the arm waist taper, nudged the material blend toward the boundary that elsewhere flips to pa12_cf (though it stayed cf_plate here), widened the plate slightly, and thinned the plate stock a touch.

resultFitness landed at 6.366, between its two parents (better than 6.427, worse than 6.308) and off the pace of the 6.274 leader. It picked up some of the runner-up's efficiency, but the looser arm waist likely added enough drag/mass to cancel most of the gain. Worth testing next: repeat the cross with arm waist held at the runner-up's tighter setting to isolate whether that half of the blend is the useful part.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.343	142.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.072	173.0	39.3°
crosswind	3.913	166.2	33.9°
gusty_light	3.749	159.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.567	151.5	27.6°
storm	4.888	207.7	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e0575966e577

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.406 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.948 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.916 Wh/km
frame mass	101.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisAlso crossing the champion with the runner-up, but this time betting on stiffness and stability -- adding a battery wedge tilt and thicker arms in hopes of buying robustness in the harder scenarios like storm and crosswind.

methodTilted the battery mount about 2 degrees, thickened the arms from 4.0mm to 4.6mm, bumped front sweep slightly, and trimmed arm width fractionally.

resultFitness landed at 6.406, worse than both parents (6.291 and 6.308) and well behind the new best of 6.274. Every scenario score rose versus the champion, showing the thicker arms and wedge tilt added mass/drag without buying enough robustness to pay for it. Worth testing next: try the battery wedge alone at under 1 degree, without the arm-thickness increase, to isolate whether tilt has any standalone benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.369	143.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.095	174.0	39.1°
crosswind	3.942	167.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.774	160.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.593	152.6	27.6°
storm	4.916	208.9	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b7770d597f13

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.415 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.955 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.920 Wh/km
frame mass	107.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack designs that shared elevated sweep and plate proportions, betting that combining their deck-gap and arm-thickness traits could close some of the gap to the leaders.

methodTightened the deck gap slightly (about 31.6mm to 29.5mm), thickened the arms to 4.3mm, trimmed front sweep by about 1 degree, and kept plate length the same as both parents.

resultFitness came in at 6.415, worse than both parents (6.372 and 6.351) and far off the 6.274 leader. The cross didn't inherit either parent's strengths and only added arm mass, with every scenario score landing above the leader pack. Worth testing next: stop breeding from this deck-gap/arm-thickness lineage and redirect crossovers toward the champion pool instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.398	144.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.072	173.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.933	167.1	33.0°
gusty_light	3.782	160.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.621	153.8	27.3°
storm	4.920	209.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	38.9°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b1d5fcb24f99

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.533 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.027 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.012 Wh/km
frame mass	113.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisEffectively a self-pairing of an already-weak design, betting that stretching plate length while trimming arm width could recover some of its fitness deficit.

methodStretched plate length by roughly 9%, trimmed arm width fractionally, and left everything else -- including the sizable battery wedge tilt and already-thick plates -- unchanged from the parent.

resultFitness was 6.533, worse even than the already-weak parent (6.494) and far off the 6.274 best-so-far. Stretching plate length alone added mass without touching the parent's real problems (heavy wedge, thick plates). Worth testing next: prune this lineage from future breeding and replace it with fresh immigrants rather than trying to patch it gene by gene.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.442	146.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.166	177.0	39.0°
crosswind	4.025	171.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.849	163.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.668	155.8	27.6°
storm	5.012	212.9	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	34.5 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fc2c7ef36dda

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	72.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 11 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent; the bet was to shift the design out of the cf_plate family into pa12_cf, chasing whatever mass/cost tradeoff that plastic offers, while loosening the arm waist and widening the plate slightly.

methodLoosened the arm waist taper, widened the plate a few percent, shortened arm length slightly, and pushed the material blend far enough to cross into the pa12_cf family instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid: the plate was too thin for pa12_cf's manufacturability floor (1.4mm vs the 1.6mm minimum required). The mutation changed material family but kept a plate-thickness setting tuned for cf_plate's looser gauge requirement. Lesson: any material swap needs a compensating thickness bump baked in, or it inherits a gauge that's illegal for the new plastic. Worth testing next: repeat this exact cross but with plate thickness bumped up 15-20% to respect pa12_cf's floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5fa016e60352

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.5 g
material	asa
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing a very different design region -- steep sweep angles, heavier arms, and asa plastic -- to check whether the search has overlooked a viable design outside the cf_plate cluster the leaders live in.

methodA fresh random design with shorter arms, a wider/thicker cross-section, very aggressive front/rear sweep (47/61 degrees), a steep battery wedge, thick plates, and asa plastic instead of carbon fiber.

resultInvalid: despite a large plate-thickness multiplier, the computed web at the main plate came out far below asa's minimum gauge (0.37mm vs 1.90mm required). The extreme sweep and length/width combination erodes plate material faster than the thickness setting can compensate. Lesson: at high sweep angles, the thickness multiplier doesn't scale linearly with actual print-safe web thickness -- this region is geometrically infeasible. Worth testing next: cap sweep angle for asa/petg immigrants to a range pre-validated against the plate-web model.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×1.12
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	5.9 mm
front sweep	47.3°
rear sweep	61.1°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7c7bb013dfe2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents, betting that shrinking the deck gap and lengthening the arms could cut frontal area and mass for a meaningful efficiency win.

methodShrank the deck gap sharply (about 26.9mm to 20.0mm), widened the arms to match the wider parent, trimmed rear sweep about 2 degrees, and stretched arm length slightly beyond either parent.

resultInvalid: a 20mm deck gap doesn't leave enough vertical clearance for the FC/ESC stack, a hard manufacturability floor. Lesson: deck gap has a firm lower bound in the low-to-mid 20s (mm), and crossovers keep landing there when both parents already sit close to the edge. Worth testing next: give deck gap a protected floor in the sampler, above the electronics stack height, so evaluations aren't wasted here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	34.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ab38d7aba00d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up with a near-identical sibling of the same fitness, betting that shrinking plate length while holding arm width could trim mass from an already-strong design.

methodShrank plate length by about 5% while nudging arm width up fractionally, leaving sweep, plate thickness, and material as in the runner-up.

resultInvalid: shrinking plate length while arm width stayed high pinched the plate-top web below the cf_plate minimum (1.00mm vs 1.75mm required). Lesson: plate length and arm width interact at the plate-top web, so trimming one without relaxing the other can break even a strong parent design. Worth testing next: pair any plate-length reduction with a small plate-width or thickness increase to preserve top-web margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d5c4afef43d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant probing the heavy-arm, high-sweep, asa-plastic region, betting that a bulkier structural profile with an inflated arm waist might unlock a storm-tolerant design outside the current cluster.

methodA fresh random design with near-parent arm length, an arm waist wider than the arm itself, thick 6.7mm arms, steep front/rear sweep (43/52 degrees), large plates, a big battery wedge, and asa plastic.

resultInvalid: the same failure mode as the other asa immigrant -- the plate-thickness multiplier didn't survive the geometry, leaving the main plate web at 1.20mm against asa's 1.90mm minimum. Lesson: this second asa/high-sweep failure confirms it's a systematic dead zone, where steep sweep plus an enlarged arm waist starves plate web thickness regardless of the thickness gene. Worth testing next: exclude arm-waist-over-1.0x combined with sweep-over-40 degrees from the immigrant sampler until the plate model is checked analytically against that region.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×1.24
arm thickness	6.7 mm
front sweep	43.3°
rear sweep	52.1°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×1.57
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a49f495e1e3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing a short, wide-arm, high-sweep petg design, betting a stockier arm profile might trade some efficiency for print robustness.

methodA fresh random design with arms shortened about 22%, widened arms, steep front sweep (nearly 50 degrees), moderate plate size, and petg plastic.

resultInvalid: the short arm length combined with the steep sweep moved the arm's tongue/bolt pattern completely off the edge of the main plate -- a geometric interference, not a strength failure. Lesson: arm length and sweep jointly decide whether mounting bolts land on the plate, and this pairing crossed that line. Worth testing next: add a fast bolt-pattern feasibility pre-filter before running full sims on short-arm, high-sweep immigrants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	49.8°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3d15d3b4bd87

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.1 g
material	petg
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant, betting on a compact, steep-sweep petg design with a strong battery wedge tilt to probe aggressive aerodynamic tilting as a new strategy.

methodA fresh random design with near-parent arm length, high symmetric front/rear sweep (52/52 degrees), large plates, a tight 20.1mm deck gap, a steep 14-degree battery wedge, and petg plastic.

resultInvalid: the same deck-gap floor violation as 7c7bb013dfe2 -- 20.1mm doesn't clear the FC/ESC stack. Lesson: the deck-gap floor is being hit independently by both crossover and random immigrants this generation, which argues for a harder constraint in the sampler rather than catching it only at evaluation. Worth testing next: raise the immigrant sampler's minimum deck gap directly into the mid-20s (mm).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	51.8°
rear sweep	51.8°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	20.1 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8f0cd6f3c5bc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents, betting that narrowing plate width while pushing plate thickness even higher could shore up structural margin for a robustness gain.

methodNarrowed plate width back toward stock (about 1.05x to 1.00x), increased the already-thick plate stock further (1.41x to 1.46x), and left the deck gap essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: even with plate thickness pushed higher, the plate-top web still came in under the cf_plate minimum (1.25mm vs 1.75mm required), because the sweep angles inherited from the parents (about 34/38 degrees) were already carving that spot thin. Lesson: increasing the thickness multiplier doesn't rescue plate-top margin when sweep angle is the real driver of the thin spot. Worth testing next: once sweep exceeds roughly 33 degrees, check plate-top web thickness explicitly rather than relying on the blanket thickness multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.46
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a0a25432bc7e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.840 Wh/km
frame mass	92.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with a weaker but differently-swept design (5bf4af89c395, 6.497) probes whether borrowing its front sweep angle can help without dragging down performance.

methodIncreased front sweep from about 32° to 35.5°, tightened the deck gap from 26.0 to 25.0 mm, and nudged plate width down slightly, keeping the cf_plate material.

resultLanded at 6.308, essentially matching sibling 423a5b75b462 and staying just above the 6.291 best. Not a new winner, but confirms the champion's core arm/plate proportions dominate over the borrowed sweep angle. Next idea: hold the champion's sweep exactly and vary only deck gap in finer steps to see if 25-26 mm is truly optimal.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.324	141.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.875	164.6	33.7°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.542	150.5	27.6°
storm	4.840	205.6	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b11bd9e31fc9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.351 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.913 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.876 Wh/km
frame mass	96.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with mid-pack 88460ed9a2e2 (6.454) tests whether a thicker arm waist can allow a thinner plate without losing structural margin.

methodThickened the arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.67, opened the deck gap from 26.0 to 28.3 mm, and trimmed plate width and thickness slightly.

resultFitness landed at 6.351, close to sibling 44ef779fcdde but still behind the 6.291 best. The thicker waist added mass that the thinner plate and wider deck gap couldn't fully offset. Next: try the thicker waist paired with the champion's original deck gap (26.0 mm) rather than opening it further, to isolate whether the gap change is hurting more than helping.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.334	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.067	172.8	39.5°
crosswind	3.903	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.739	158.9	32.9°
hot_thin	3.557	151.1	27.6°
storm	4.876	207.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	28.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 44ef779fcdde

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.352 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.913 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.877 Wh/km
frame mass	97.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with weaker 7c1296374769 (6.579) tests whether a wider arm from the weaker parent can be tolerated if paired with a thinner plate to keep mass in check.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.76 to ×0.93, opened the deck gap slightly from 26.0 to 26.9 mm, and thinned the plate marginally from ×0.75 to ×0.73.

resultFitness landed at 6.352, between the two parents but still behind the 6.291 best. The wider arm cost more than the thinner plate saved, consistent with other siblings this generation showing the champion's narrower arm width is hard to beat. Next: hold arm width fixed at the champion's value and vary only deck gap to isolate its individual effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.333	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.068	172.8	39.4°
crosswind	3.903	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.739	158.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.557	151.1	27.6°
storm	4.877	207.2	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.9 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17e316010361

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.372 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.929 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.886 Wh/km
frame mass	103.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via mutation

hypothesisParent 12db578f6d9a (6.387) was a mid-pack cf_plate design; this mutation bets that pushing the front arms further forward while trimming plate thickness and opening the deck gap slightly can shave mass without losing stiffness where it hurts.

methodIncreased front sweep from about 34° to 40°, thinned the plate slightly (×1.41 to ×1.33 stock thickness), and widened the deck gap from 30.3 to 31.6 mm.

resultFitness improved modestly to 6.372 from the parent's 6.387, but still trails the standing best of 6.291. The extra sweep likely cut a touch of drag/mass without tripping any structural limit, but the thinner plate wasn't enough to close the gap to the champion. Worth trying: keep this sweep angle but pair it with the champion's leaner arm-length/width combo instead of the thicker plate lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.378	143.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.041	171.7	37.9°
crosswind	3.908	166.0	33.0°
gusty_light	3.759	159.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.599	152.9	27.3°
storm	4.886	207.6	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 20e595a9b3bb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.387 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	105.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisA near-duplicate crossover of 12db578f6d9a (6.387) with 056184de8923 (6.412), essentially testing whether recombination without real gene movement reproduces the parent's performance as a sanity baseline.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to parent 12db578f6d9a, with no meaningful change to sweep, plate, or material.

resultFitness landed at 6.387, matching the parent exactly, confirming the crossover contributed no new information here. It's a wasted evaluation but a useful control point showing the pipeline reproduces known results faithfully. Next: bias crossover selection away from near-identical parents to avoid burning evals on redundant candidates.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.378	143.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.049	172.0	37.8°
crosswind	3.921	166.6	33.0°
gusty_light	3.769	160.1	32.0°
hot_thin	3.603	153.1	27.2°
storm	4.900	208.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 12db578f6d9anew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.387 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.899 Wh/km
frame mass	105.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and d54e04 (6.50) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate length ×0.92 (was plate length ×0.97), arm length ×0.96 (was arm length ×1.01), plate thickness ×1.41 (was plate thickness ×1.36), front sweep 33.9° (was front sweep 33.3°).

resultAggregate 6.387 Wh/km. NEW BEST-SO-FAR at evaluation time. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.381	143.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.046	171.9	37.8°
crosswind	3.921	166.6	32.9°
gusty_light	3.769	160.1	32.0°
hot_thin	3.605	153.2	27.2°
storm	4.899	208.1	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f7f19e696159

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.427 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.961 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.934 Wh/km
frame mass	106.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 2ab37da5aded (6.429) with mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) bets that reducing front sweep back toward 30° while keeping a slightly thicker plate can recover some of the performance lost in both parents.

methodReduced front sweep from about 32° to 30° and nudged plate thickness up marginally from ×1.10 to ×1.11, with arm length essentially unchanged.

resultFitness landed at 6.427, close to parent 2ab37da5aded's 6.429 and still well off the 6.291 best. The sweep reduction alone wasn't enough to unlock a real gain, implying this parent pair's arm/plate proportions are the limiting factor rather than sweep angle. Next: pair this lower sweep angle with the champion's arm-width and plate-length values instead of this parent lineage's.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.090	173.7	38.4°
crosswind	3.951	167.9	33.5°
gusty_light	3.789	161.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.614	153.5	27.4°
storm	4.934	209.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.11
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 90910ad23a0b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.494 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.003 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	109.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (88460ed9a2e2 6.454, 01f642b698ee 6.523) bets that widening the deck gap and growing the plate slightly can find a better balance point between them.

methodOpened the deck gap from 31.2 to 34.5 mm, grew plate width and length slightly, and widened the arm marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.494, roughly splitting the difference between its parents but nowhere near the 6.291 best-so-far. Growing both plate dimensions together while opening the deck gap looks like it just adds mass without any offsetting gain. Next: this parent pair seems to have plateaued; better to cross either parent directly with the champion lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.423	145.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.139	175.9	38.9°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.827	162.6	32.6°
hot_thin	3.648	155.0	27.6°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	34.5 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7cde9c33ec87

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.513 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.013 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.000 Wh/km
frame mass	110.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 5bf4af89c395 (6.497) with near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) bets that borrowing the champion's compact plate proportions can lift the weaker parent's performance closer to the front of the pack.

methodGrew plate length slightly from ×1.16 to ×1.19, thickened the arm waist marginally, and tightened the deck gap from 33.3 to 32.9 mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.513, actually worse than both parents (6.497 and 6.291), so the recombination lost ground rather than gaining it. The larger plate combined with the wider arm waist likely added mass without a compensating benefit, and storm again shows the largest hit at 5.00. Next: this cross should be abandoned in favor of pairing 8d9fd4a01c9a with parents that share more of its plate geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.164	176.9	39.4°
crosswind	4.013	170.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.834	162.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.647	154.9	27.6°
storm	5.000	212.4	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1d6ed7910f85

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.616 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.075 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.082 Wh/km
frame mass	119.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two weaker parents (01f642b698ee 6.523, 88460ed9a2e2 6.454) bets that combining their wider arms and larger plates might find a niche the fitter lineage hasn't explored, even though both starting points already trail the best-so-far.

methodWidened arms from ×0.78 to ×0.91, lengthened arms from ×1.05 to ×1.12, grew the plate slightly, and introduced a small 0.2° battery wedge tilt.

resultFitness worsened to 6.616, below both parents and far off the 6.291 best. Bulking up arm width and length together likely added mass faster than any aerodynamic or stiffness benefit could offset, especially visible in the storm scenario spiking to 5.08. Next: this parent pair looks like a dead end for further crossover; better to retire this lineage and seed new mutations from the champion instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.472	147.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.236	180.0	39.2°
crosswind	4.063	172.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.892	165.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.705	157.4	27.6°
storm	5.082	215.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.12
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	47.8°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4f00eb4dd7f0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via mutation

hypothesisStarting from the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291), this mutation bets that shrinking the plate footprint further and opening the deck gap can trim more mass off an already-strong design.

methodShortened plate length from ×0.97 to ×0.89 of stock and increased the deck gap from 26.0 to 27.7 mm, with a negligible plate-width bump.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.02 mm against a 1.75 mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate length on this lineage eats directly into web thickness margin, so the champion's plate is already close to the structural floor. Lesson for next time: any further plate-length shrink on this branch needs a compensating thickness increase, not just a smaller footprint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0e5d846ccfa1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two mid-pack cf_plate parents (12db578f6d9a 6.387, 056184de8923 6.412), this crossover bets that switching toward a lighter pa12_cf material blend alongside a shorter, thicker-waisted arm can unlock a mass win neither parent achieved alone.

methodShifted material composition further toward pa12_cf, shortened arm length from ×0.96 to ×0.90, shrank plate length from ×0.92 to ×0.88, and thickened the arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.61.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure under pa12_cf. The material swap reduces stiffness enough that even with a thicker waist the arm flexes too much at the tip. This echoes a recurring pattern this generation: pa12_cf crossovers keep failing deflection unless arm thickness itself (not just waist) is beefed up. Next: try pa12_cf only paired with a thicker arm cross-section, not just a fatter waist.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fd317283218c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) with weaker 5bf4af89c395 (6.497) bets that a pa12_cf material shift combined with reduced front sweep and increased rear sweep could unlock a lighter, still-stiff-enough frame.

methodReduced front sweep from about 34° to 31°, increased rear sweep from 38° to 40.5°, shifted material composition toward pa12_cf, and shrank plate length slightly.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure under pa12_cf, the same failure mode seen in sibling 0e5d846ccfa1. This confirms pa12_cf crossovers in this generation consistently lack the stiffness margin these arm geometries need. Next: stop testing pa12_cf on these arm-length/width combos until arm thickness itself is increased to compensate for the material's lower stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4a2bcbc84f7a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of champion-adjacent 12db578f6d9a (6.387) tests whether reducing rear sweep and widening the plate can tighten the frame's footprint for a small efficiency gain.

methodReduced rear sweep from about 38° to 35° and widened the plate from ×1.05 to ×1.09, with a small shift back toward cf_plate material.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap, tip clearance violated. Pulling rear sweep down that far closes the angle between rear rotors faster than the wider plate can compensate for, putting adjacent rotor disks into collision. Lesson: rear sweep below roughly 36-37° on this arm-length lineage isn't viable without also lengthening the arms. Next: try the same plate widening but hold rear sweep near 38° or increase arm length to preserve clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 056184de8923new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.412 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.953 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.919 Wh/km
frame mass	108.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisWith d60afe7b910e having just shown thinner arms pay off, and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466) still the most efficient base geometry, the bet was to fuse 71f9b10676b2's (6.595) thin-arm trend with 50e6dee87d3a's proven sweep/gap tuning.

methodTrimmed arm length slightly (×1.13→×1.01), thinned the arms further (4.6mm→4.0mm), and left plate length and front sweep essentially unchanged.

result6.412 Wh/km — another NEW WINNER, beating the just-set 6.461 mark from d60afe7b910e. Shorter, thinner arms combined with 50e6dee87d3a's sweep geometry improved every scenario, most notably storm (4.92) and calm_warm (3.39). Worth testing: hold arm thickness at 4.0mm and sweep arm length down further to find where the strength margin starts to break.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.390	144.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.066	172.7	37.9°
crosswind	3.942	167.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.783	160.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.615	153.6	27.3°
storm	4.919	209.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2ab37da5aded✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.429 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.962 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.935 Wh/km
frame mass	106.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.05, arm width ×0.82, arm waist ×0.60, arm thickness 4.2 mm.

resultAggregate 6.429 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.390	144.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.095	174.0	38.5°
crosswind	3.949	167.7	33.5°
gusty_light	3.789	161.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.615	153.6	27.4°
storm	4.935	209.6	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 88460ed9a2e2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.454 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.978 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.951 Wh/km
frame mass	106.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid mid-6.4s performers; this cross tests whether slimming the arm width further and adding a slight battery tilt can trim drag beyond what either parent achieved alone.

methodNarrowed arm width to 75% (from 86%), tilted the battery wedge up to 1.9° from flat, opened the deck gap marginally to 31.2mm, and pulled rear sweep in slightly to 34°.

result6.454 Wh/km — the best result of this generation, beating both parents (6.466, 6.487), but still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The narrower arm cut drag evenly across every scenario, including the gen's best storm figure (4.95), suggesting slim arm width plus a small battery tilt is a productive direction. Next: push arm width narrower still (below 0.75x) while holding everything else fixed, to see if drag keeps falling before hitting a structural limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.402	144.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.113	174.7	38.7°
crosswind	3.974	168.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.804	161.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.626	154.1	27.5°
storm	4.951	210.3	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5bf4af89c395

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.497 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.004 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.988 Wh/km
frame mass	109.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 86c66a (6.50) and 88460e (6.45) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 38.5° (was rear sweep 36.6°), arm length ×1.19 (was arm length ×1.21), plate thickness ×0.92 (was plate thickness ×0.94), plate length ×1.16 (was plate length ×1.16).

resultAggregate 6.497 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.412	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.155	176.5	39.2°
crosswind	4.001	170.0	34.3°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.640	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.988	211.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a44e521470e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.517 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.017 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.999 Wh/km
frame mass	111.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b39589 (6.50) and 056184 (6.41) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: battery wedge 3.8° (was battery wedge 0.2°), deck gap 31.1 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), plate width ×1.24 (was plate width ×1.25), arm width ×0.90 (was arm width ×0.90).

resultAggregate 6.517 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.444	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.154	176.5	38.7°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.839	163.1	32.5°
hot_thin	3.667	155.8	27.5°
storm	4.999	212.4	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	3.8°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 01f642b698ee✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.523 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.018 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	113.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.05, arm width ×0.78, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.0 mm.

resultAggregate 6.523 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.429	145.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.161	176.8	38.6°
crosswind	4.010	170.3	33.8°
gusty_light	3.842	163.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.660	155.5	27.5°
storm	5.009	212.8	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7c1296374769

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.579 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.055 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.049 Wh/km
frame mass	116.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b547bb (6.53) and 056184 (6.41) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 38.8° (was front sweep 33.2°), arm waist ×0.75 (was arm waist ×0.67), battery wedge 1.2° (was battery wedge 0.1°), rear sweep 41.0° (was rear sweep 42.3°).

resultAggregate 6.579 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.475	147.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.192	178.1	38.8°
crosswind	4.035	171.4	33.6°
gusty_light	3.875	164.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	27.5°
storm	5.049	214.5	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d5b7768c74ba

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.677 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.114 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.126 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 86c66a (6.50) and 88460e (6.45) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.23 (was plate width ×1.06), arm waist ×0.63 (was arm waist ×0.55), deck gap 36.0 mm (was deck gap 33.3 mm), rear sweep 34.0° (was rear sweep 36.6°).

resultAggregate 6.677 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.283	181.9	39.9°
crosswind	4.113	174.7	34.7°
gusty_light	3.927	166.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.734	158.6	27.8°
storm	5.126	217.8	34.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9b1ad93e6ae7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	116.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: f47a31 and 73a3de (6.49) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm width ×0.91 (was arm width ×0.95), deck gap 24.0 mm (was deck gap 24.2 mm).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	24.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1cb131f8dcd9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and a7d348 (6.48) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: material 0.29 (was material 0.11), plate length ×0.90 (was plate length ×0.97), arm length ×1.08 (was arm length ×1.01), deck gap 31.5 mm (was deck gap 30.2 mm).

resultINVALID -- arm tip deflection (pa12_cf). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f210f6970d00

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b23f0b (6.63) and 73a3de (6.49) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm thickness 5.4 mm (was arm thickness 4.6 mm), rear sweep 35.4° (was rear sweep 39.2°), deck gap 27.5 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), arm width ×0.90 (was arm width ×0.88).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	35.4°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	27.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d07e9eb4efa0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b39589 (6.50) and b23f0b (6.63) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 36.8° (was rear sweep 43.7°), deck gap 35.8 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), front sweep 37.6° (was front sweep 33.3°), material 0.27 (was material 0.15).

resultINVALID -- arm tip deflection (pa12_cf). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	36.8°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f9975e637f95

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b547bb (6.53) and d54e04 (6.50) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 35.4° (was rear sweep 42.3°), plate width ×0.96 (was plate width ×0.99), battery wedge 0.7° (was battery wedge 0.1°), arm length ×1.02 (was arm length ×1.01).

resultINVALID -- plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	35.4°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c90e6c04d60b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and b3ee16 (6.48) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.00 (was plate width ×1.05), deck gap 27.3 mm (was deck gap 30.2 mm), battery wedge 1.5° (was battery wedge 0.0°).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.3 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3ee16482b7f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.478 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.993 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.971 Wh/km
frame mass	113.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisThis was the mirror cross of the same two parents (champion 6.412 and weak 6.582), betting that keeping the champion as primary parent while only lightly borrowing the weak parent's deck gap and plate thickness would preserve most of the champion's efficiency.

methodDeck gap widened marginally to 32.8 mm, plate thickness increased sharply by 44% versus the champion, and arm width/length nudged up a few percent.

resultScored 6.478 -- worse than the 6.412 champion but notably better than the 6.582 weak parent, showing the champion's genetic contribution dominated this cross even with a much heavier plate riding along. The large plate-thickness increase didn't pay for itself, though it also didn't break anything; a tighter version with plate thickness held near the champion's own value (rather than +44%) is the natural next probe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.420	145.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.114	174.8	38.2°
crosswind	3.982	169.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.648	155.0	27.3°
storm	4.971	211.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	32.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.44
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7d348b99940

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.483 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.996 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.974 Wh/km
frame mass	108.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via mutation

hypothesisComing off a solid 6.461 parent, this mutation probed whether opening up the deck gap substantially would relieve some structural margin and let material fraction rise for free stiffness.

methodDeck gap widened sharply from 30.1 mm to 38.3 mm, material fraction raised from 0.04 to 0.17, plate width trimmed slightly, and rear sweep shallowed to 34.0 degrees.

resultCame in at 6.483, slightly worse than the 6.461 parent and short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The big deck-gap opening likely added unneeded frontal height/mass without an offsetting benefit, since none of the per-scenario numbers improved meaningfully over the parent. Worth testing a much smaller deck-gap increase (32-33 mm) with the same material bump to see if a gentler version pays off.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.415	145.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.136	175.7	39.1°
crosswind	3.991	169.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.819	162.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.640	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.974	211.3	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 73a3de639945

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.491 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.001 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	109.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the 6.454 parent with itself was a low-risk probe into whether a slightly wider arm waist and shallower front sweep, isolated from any other change, could nudge the same design forward.

methodArm waist loosened from 0.55x to 0.65x and front sweep shallowed by about 1.5 degrees; every other gene stayed at the parent's values.

resultScored 6.491, a step backward from the 6.454 parent, meaning the waist/sweep tweak alone was a net negative rather than a refinement. This isolates the effect cleanly: the parent's original tighter waist was doing useful work, so future front-sweep experiments should keep arm waist locked at 0.55x.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.417	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.139	175.8	38.9°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.826	162.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.644	154.8	27.6°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b39589cfab1f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.495 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.003 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.984 Wh/km
frame mass	111.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack flyer with a weaker one (6.654) was a gamble that the weaker parent's wider plate geometry could be salvaged by borrowing the stronger parent's thinner arms and lower material fraction elsewhere.

methodPlate width expanded 9% beyond the fitter parent, material fraction jumped from 0.01 to 0.15, plate length trimmed slightly, and arm thickness thinned back to 4.0 mm.

resultScored 6.495, splitting the difference between its parents but not beating either outright and nowhere near the 6.412 champion. The wider, denser plate seems to have canceled out the thinner-arm savings. A cleaner test would isolate the arm-thickness change alone against the fitter parent, without also widening the plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.430	145.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.134	175.6	38.5°
crosswind	3.987	169.4	33.4°
gusty_light	3.828	162.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.656	155.3	27.4°
storm	4.984	211.7	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 86c66adc78ab

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.503 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.007 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.992 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched parents (6.484, 6.483) tested whether adding a slight battery wedge tilt plus a wider deck gap could improve stability in gusty/crosswind scenarios enough to justify the added structure.

methodDeck gap widened from 30.1 to 33.3 mm, battery wedge tilted to 1.0 degrees from near-flat, material fraction raised slightly, and rear sweep steepened marginally.

resultScored 6.503, worse than both parents and off the 6.412 best-so-far, with crosswind essentially flat (4.01) rather than improved -- so the battery wedge tilt bought nothing in the scenario it targeted. Given two parents this close still regressed, the deck-gap widen and wedge tilt together look like pure overhead; next worth testing the wedge tilt alone against an unmodified deck gap to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.413	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.157	176.6	39.3°
crosswind	4.008	170.3	34.3°
gusty_light	3.829	162.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.642	154.7	27.6°
storm	4.992	212.1	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d54e044418d8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.008 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.991 Wh/km
frame mass	112.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents clustered near 6.48-6.45, the bet was that a slightly longer, denser main plate (more material fraction) would add stiffness worth its weight, while deck gap and arm width stayed essentially untouched.

methodPlate length grown about 3% beyond the fitter parent, material fraction raised from 0.12 to 0.15, and deck gap nudged up half a millimeter; arm width left unchanged.

resultLanded at 6.504, worse than both parents and well off the 6.412 best-so-far, so no new winner. The extra plate material and length likely just added mass/drag without a matching aerodynamic payoff -- storm scenario (4.99) stayed the dominant cost, unmoved. Next worth trying: keep the material bump but pair it with a length cut back toward the fitter parent's baseline to isolate whether length or material fraction is the drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.425	145.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.144	176.0	38.8°
crosswind	4.004	170.1	33.9°
gusty_light	3.832	162.8	32.5°
hot_thin	3.653	155.2	27.5°
storm	4.991	212.0	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d41c5bf7fcb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.510 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.012 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.996 Wh/km
frame mass	113.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were competitive (6.491, 6.461), so this cross tried thickening the arms and widening them slightly while also boosting the rear sweep, betting that more arm robustness would pay off in the storm and crosswind scenarios.

methodArm width raised toward parity (0.99x), arm length grown 3%, material fraction raised slightly, and plate thickness held near the parents' level with rear sweep pushed toward 43 degrees.

resultFinished at 6.51, worse than both parents and the worst crosswind/storm combo of this batch (4.0 / 5.0). The added arm bulk seems to have cost more in drag than it returned in robustness. A more promising next step is isolating just the rear-sweep change without the arm-width increase, since the previous generation's champion already uses a similar sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.433	145.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.145	176.1	38.6°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.836	162.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.661	155.5	27.5°
storm	4.996	212.2	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b547bba47781

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.528 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.023 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.011 Wh/km
frame mass	113.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCombining a mid-pack flyer (6.491) with the champion (6.412) tested whether loosening the arm waist and thickening the plate could add robustness to the champion's already-efficient base without giving up much drag.

methodPlate width trimmed to near parity with the champion, arm waist loosened from 0.55x to 0.67x, plate thickness increased 6% beyond the non-champion parent, and arm width nudged up slightly.

resultCame in at 6.528, worse than both parents and well off the champion's 6.412. The looser arm waist plus thicker plate added drag across every scenario rather than the intended robustness gain, echoing candidate 73a3de639945's lesson that this champion lineage prefers the tighter 0.55x waist. Next worth testing the plate-thickness increase alone, with arm waist left at the champion's original 0.55x.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.158	176.6	38.7°
crosswind	4.008	170.3	33.5°
gusty_light	3.846	163.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.671	156.0	27.5°
storm	5.011	212.9	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b23f0b070efd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.630 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.086 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.089 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak parent (6.582) with the champion (6.412) bet that borrowing the champion's tighter plate proportions could rescue the weaker design's oversized plate footprint.

methodPlate length grown a further 8% beyond the weaker parent's already-large size, plate thickness increased 9%, and rear sweep steepened to 39.2 degrees while plate width trimmed slightly.

resultScored 6.63, worse than both parents and the weakest result of this generation -- every scenario cost rose, led by storm at 5.09. The extra plate length and thickness clearly compounded rather than offset the weak parent's mass penalty; this lineage (9d30a0e485e1's oversized plate) looks like a dead end unless plate length is cut, not grown, in future crosses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.485	148.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.236	180.0	39.4°
crosswind	4.083	173.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.903	165.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.717	157.9	27.6°
storm	5.089	216.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f47a31a3f356

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat just above 6.45, so this cross bet that stiffening the deck plate and tightening the whole airframe (shorter deck gap, shallower sweeps) would shave a bit more drag without touching the still-strong arm geometry.

methodPlate thickness increased about 23%, deck gap tightened from 30.1 mm to 24.2 mm, and both front and rear sweep angles pulled in by 1-2 degrees relative to the parents.

resultInvalid: the tightened deck gap brought the rotor disk into collision with the deck/battery stack. This is the second time this generation a deck-gap cut below ~26 mm has killed a candidate, so the safe floor for deck gap looks like it sits closer to 28-30 mm; worth testing a milder deck-gap trim (27-28 mm) paired with the thicker plate to see if the thermal/rigidity gain survives without the clearance violation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	24.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5598a12c0ccc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	148.3 g
material	petg
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent was itself invalid and the other only mid-pack (6.49), so this was an exploratory cross testing whether switching to PETG with thinner, waisted arms could unlock a lighter frame class distinct from the carbon-fiber lineage that has dominated so far.

methodArm thickness reduced from 8.9 mm to 7.5 mm, front sweep shallowed from 41.2 to 35.7 degrees, arm waist loosened slightly, and the whole frame switched material from carbon-fiber plate to PETG.

resultInvalid: the main plate's web came out at only 1.23 mm against a structural minimum of 1.90 mm -- PETG's lower stiffness needed a thicker plate to compensate, and this genome didn't carry one. This confirms the material switch can't be paired blindly with carbon-fiber-tuned plate thickness genes; next worth trying PETG again but with plate thickness scaled up by roughly 50% to hit the wall-thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.32
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	8.8°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	petg

parents

candidate a673d06cc9f2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSame two solid parents as candidate 7d41c5bf7fcb (6.491, 6.461) were recombined a second way, this time betting that shrinking the deck gap and softening both sweep angles together would trim drag.

methodPlate width trimmed back toward the weaker parent, deck gap cut from 30.1 mm to 25.7 mm, and rear sweep shallowed from 43.2 to 40.6 degrees while front sweep increased slightly.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as f47a31a3f356 earlier in this generation. Two independent crosses now confirm ~25-26 mm deck gap is inside the collision zone for this arm-length class; the safe experiment is to keep the sweep changes but leave deck gap at or above the 30 mm baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7e5fcb66d8d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisPairing a solid performer (6.461) with the generation's best-so-far champion (6.412) was a direct attempt to fold the champion's front-sweep and material choices into a slightly longer-armed frame.

methodFront sweep shallowed to 30.0 degrees, arm length grown 14% versus the champion's shorter arms, plate width trimmed slightly, and material fraction dropped to the champion's near-zero level.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The longer arms combined with the champion's shallow front sweep left insufficient clearance at the arm-to-plate joint, a geometric interaction neither parent alone exposed. This suggests arm length and front sweep are coupled genes here; next worth testing the champion's exact sweep with only a modest 5-6% arm-length increase to find where the collision threshold actually sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d39357c00a75

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	109.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the champion (6.412) with itself probed whether shallowing rear sweep and widening the plate slightly, isolated from any other change, could squeeze out a further gain from the best design so far.

methodRear sweep pulled in from 37.6 to 34.0 degrees, plate width widened 3%, and material fraction lowered slightly relative to the champion's baseline.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). This is the third clearance failure this generation and pinpoints a specific coupling: the champion's rear sweep of ~37-38 degrees is apparently close to the minimum needed for rotor tip clearance at this arm length, so shallowing it to 34 degrees pushes disks into contact. Next worth testing rear sweep at an intermediate 36 degrees to map exactly where the clearance boundary sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d60afe7b910enew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.461 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.982 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.957 Wh/km
frame mass	107.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisf9862e99b160 (6.528) and 71f9b10676b2 (6.595) were both mid-pack, but each carried one promising trait; the bet was that combining thinner arm stock with a lighter plate could finally undercut the plateaued 6.466 leader.

methodThinned the arm tubing (4.3mm→4.0mm), reduced plate thickness (×1.10→×0.96), grew plate length slightly (×1.07→×1.13), and nudged the material blend fraction slightly (still carbon-fiber plate).

result6.461 Wh/km — a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 6.466 and both parents. The combination of thinner arms and a lighter plate cut weight everywhere, with the biggest gain in storm (4.96), well below either parent's storm number. Worth testing: push arm thickness slightly below 4.0mm to see if structural margin still holds under storm loads.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.404	144.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.120	175.0	39.1°
crosswind	3.975	168.9	34.0°
gusty_light	3.807	161.7	32.7°
hot_thin	3.629	154.2	27.6°
storm	4.957	210.6	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 81d8723d6e5f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.483 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.995 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.975 Wh/km
frame mass	110.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisUsing the same parent pair as the sibling that failed on deck-gap clearance, this cross instead widens the deck gap moderately rather than tightening it, testing whether extra clearance margin combined with more composite material improves robustness without costing efficiency.

methodOpened deck gap slightly to 31.3mm (from 29.0mm), raised the material blend fraction to 0.12 (from 0.07), narrowed arm width marginally to 87%, and nudged front sweep up to 32.0°.

result6.483 Wh/km — a small, valid improvement over both parents (6.487, 6.528), still behind the 6.412 best-so-far but a clean incremental gain. Moderate deck-gap widening bought clearance margin without a real efficiency penalty, unlike its sibling's aggressive tightening which failed outright. Next: edge the material blend fraction a bit higher still, since this small bump seemed to help, before touching other genes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.414	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.130	175.5	38.8°
crosswind	3.990	169.5	33.9°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.5°
hot_thin	3.641	154.7	27.5°
storm	4.975	211.4	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1168a75cc018

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.484 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.995 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.978 Wh/km
frame mass	109.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sit near the top of the current elite cluster; this cross tests whether widening the arm slightly and stretching the plate further, while flattening front sweep, can push past them.

methodWidened arm to 94% (from 87%), flattened front sweep to 31.4° (from 33.2°), stretched plate length to 116% (from 113%), and shifted material fully to cf_plate.

result6.484 Wh/km — a small regression against both parents (6.461, 6.466) rather than a breakthrough, and still off the 6.412 best-so-far. The wider arm and longer plate likely added marginal mass the flatter sweep didn't offset. Teaches that this elite cluster's arm width and plate length are already close to a local optimum. Next: flatten front sweep alone against the unmodified parent genome to isolate whether sweep angle by itself is beneficial.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.407	144.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.141	175.9	39.2°
crosswind	3.991	169.5	34.2°
gusty_light	3.818	162.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.635	154.4	27.6°
storm	4.978	211.5	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3a014cf57ee0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.490 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.000 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents already near-identical high performers, this cross makes a minimal single-trait tweak — a whisper of battery tilt — to test whether fine-grained wedge adjustment offers a free efficiency gain on an otherwise-converged genome.

methodKept every gene at the shared parent baseline and introduced only a barely-perceptible 0.2° battery wedge, up from perfectly flat.

result6.49 Wh/km — essentially flat versus both parents (6.487, 6.466), landing in between with no meaningful change, and still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. Confirms the battery wedge is near-irrelevant at these small magnitudes on this frame — the genome is converging and micro-mutations here aren't moving the needle. Next: instead of micro-tweaking wedge angle, try a larger step on a less-explored gene in this cluster, like material blend or plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.135	175.7	39.0°
crosswind	3.997	169.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.646	154.9	27.5°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6efaa89a1475

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.491 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.000 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.982 Wh/km
frame mass	112.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat in the mid-6.5s with long arms and moderate rear sweep; this cross bets that pulling the arm back toward stock length while opening rear sweep and widening the plate can cut mass and drag together.

methodShortened arm length to near-stock (from the longer parent's 119%), opened rear sweep to 43° (from 36°), and widened the plate to 115% while trimming plate length back near stock.

result6.491 Wh/km — beats both parents (6.528, 6.539) but remains short of the 6.412 best-so-far, so no new winner. The shorter arm paired with more rear sweep likely cut mass without the drag penalty a longer arm carried. Worth testing: keep this shorter arm length but dial rear sweep back toward 36-38° to see if a less extreme angle captures more gain without any storm-scenario cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.425	145.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.131	175.5	38.4°
crosswind	3.985	169.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.652	155.2	27.4°
storm	4.982	211.6	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ab90f4d019fa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.537 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.028 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.017 Wh/km
frame mass	115.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were stuck in the mid-6.5s with slightly oversized plates; this cross probes whether stretching plate length further while narrowing plate width redistributes mass toward better aero balance.

methodLengthened the plate to 112% (from 107%) while trimming width back to stock (100%, from 103%), and nudged arm width marginally wider to 106%.

result6.537 Wh/km — essentially a wash between the two parents (6.528, 6.539) and nowhere near the 6.412 best-so-far. Stretching plate length while narrowing width appears to cancel out, netting no real gain. Teaches that plate aspect-ratio tweaks alone, without touching arm geometry, won't move this lineage off its plateau. Next: try shrinking overall plate length back toward stock instead of stretching it, since none of the frontrunners carry plates this long.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.165	176.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.023	170.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.851	163.6	32.6°
hot_thin	3.672	156.0	27.5°
storm	5.017	213.1	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d30a0e485e1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.582 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.056 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.052 Wh/km
frame mass	117.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were near the elite cluster of long, thin-armed frames; this cross tests whether nudging both sweep angles wider and thickening the arm slightly buys extra stiffness margin without hurting drag.

methodBumped front sweep to 36.3° and rear sweep to 37.8° (both wider than either parent), thickened the arm to 4.6mm, and shifted the material blend fully to cf_plate.

result6.582 Wh/km — worse than both parents (6.461, 6.487) and well off the 6.412 best-so-far, with every scenario degrading (storm rose to 5.05). This shows the elite cluster is already near a local optimum for arm thickness and sweep — widening both at once overshoots it. Next: vary only one of front/rear sweep at a time from the parent baseline to isolate which change actually hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.464	147.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.205	178.6	39.2°
crosswind	4.048	172.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.875	164.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.693	156.9	27.6°
storm	5.052	214.6	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	37.8°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d332c7c589b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.654 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.101 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.106 Wh/km
frame mass	118.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best-so-far frame with a weaker wide-plate lineage aims to test whether injecting some of the weaker parent's traits — shorter plate, wider deck gap — still preserves the champion's efficiency edge.

methodShrank plate length to 98% (from the champion parent's 107%), widened the deck gap notably to 33.5mm (from 29.4mm), relaxed the arm waist taper to 77% (from 70%), and shifted the material blend slightly.

result6.654 Wh/km — worse than both parents, including the 6.412 best-so-far it was crossed from, confirming the champion's tight 29.4mm deck gap and pinched arm waist are load-bearing traits, not incidental choices. Every scenario degraded (storm rose to 5.11). Next: recombine with the champion but vary only one trait at a time, starting with deck gap alone, to find which single change is most damaging.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.502	148.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.263	181.1	39.6°
crosswind	4.088	173.7	34.2°
gusty_light	3.915	166.3	33.0°
hot_thin	3.731	158.5	27.7°
storm	5.106	216.9	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	34.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.5 mm
battery wedge	4.6°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3177bdcfbc1f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.802 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.192 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.221 Wh/km
frame mass	132.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisA second attempt at crossing the champion with the weaker wide-arm parent, this time testing whether thickening the arm and widening the plate can offset the deck-gap widening that hurt the previous sibling cross.

methodWidened the plate to 113%, thickened the arm to 4.8mm (from the champion's 4.0mm), widened the deck gap to 32.3mm (again away from the champion's 29.4mm), and flattened front sweep slightly to 30.1°.

result6.802 Wh/km — the worst result of the generation, degrading further than its sibling cross and far worse than both parents, with every scenario worsening in lockstep (storm hit 5.22). This confirms that moving deck gap away from the champion's tight 29.4mm value is consistently costly, and thickening the arm on top compounds the loss. Next: stop perturbing deck gap in this lineage — hold it fixed near 29-30mm and vary only plate or arm dimensions.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.573	151.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.351	184.8	39.3°
crosswind	4.192	178.1	34.3°
gusty_light	4.003	170.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.810	161.9	27.7°
storm	5.221	221.8	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	30.1°
rear sweep	34.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	4.8°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 558b1a7ddb64

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	166.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population plateaued in the mid-6.4-6.5 range on thin, long cf_plate arms, this immigrant probes the opposite corner: a stubbier, much thicker-armed frame with wide sweep angles and a steep battery wedge, betting that extra arm mass and plate area might unlock a different efficiency regime.

methodFresh random genome: arm shortened to 87% length but thickened to 7.7mm with a pinched waist, front/rear sweep both pushed out to 45-46°, plate enlarged to 108-110%, deck gap opened to 41.9mm, and a steep 10.8° battery wedge, cast in carbon-fiber plate.

resultKilled before flight — the short, thick-arm combination sits directly on a 1P rotor resonance frequency. This shows that thickening arms while shortening them shifts the natural frequency straight into the rotor's forcing band, a hazard the current thin-arm elites avoid by construction. Next: try a similarly thick 7-8mm arm at a longer length or different waist taper to detune from 1P before pairing it with wide sweep angles.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×1.08
arm thickness	7.7 mm
front sweep	45.6°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b9cf335c58f1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisWith elite lineages clustered around 33° sweep and 4mm-thin arms, this immigrant tests whether a much thicker PETG arm at near-elite sweep angles trades some efficiency for durability margin.

methodNear-stock arm length with 34° sweep front and rear (matching the elite range), but arm width/waist trimmed while thickness roughly doubled to 7.6mm, printed in PETG instead of carbon fiber, with a 36.8mm deck gap.

resultKilled before flight — the thick 7.6mm arm at 34° sweep pushes the rotor disks close enough together to overlap, violating tip clearance. This shows sweep angle interacts with arm thickness and deck gap on prop clearance, not just arm length alone. Next: retry a similarly thick PETG arm with a wider deck gap or shallower sweep to restore clearance margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	7.6 mm
front sweep	34.1°
rear sweep	34.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	2.5°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 11501a421b71

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	144.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisTo counter the plateau around thin 4mm cf_plate arms, this immigrant tests an aggressively swept, short, thick-armed PETG frame with a tight deck gap, probing a structurally opposite region of the design space.

methodFresh random genome: arm shortened to 88% but thickened to 7.8mm and widened to 116%, both sweep angles pushed past 50°, plate shrunk in length but widened, deck gap tightened to 23.7mm, and a steep 9.9° battery wedge, all in PETG.

resultKilled before flight — the extreme sweep angles combined with the shortened, tightened geometry move the arm's mounting tongue clear of the main plate's bolt pattern, a manufacturing failure rather than a performance one. Teaches that sweep angles above roughly 45° need a compensating plate width or deck-gap adjustment to keep the bolt pattern aligned. Next: retry a similarly swept design but scale plate width in proportion to sweep angle so the tongue-bolt alignment survives.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	7.8 mm
front sweep	50.7°
rear sweep	53.7°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	23.7 mm
battery wedge	9.9°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b2a0e07f4c1e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid mid-6.5s performers; this cross tests whether tightening the deck gap further, past the champion's roughly 29.4mm baseline, can shave more mass and drag while widening the arm slightly for stiffness.

methodTightened deck gap to 27.7mm (from 30.1mm), widened arm width to 96% (from 87%), trimmed plate length to 104%, and nearly matched rear sweep at 35.8°.

resultKilled before flight — tightening the deck gap to 27.7mm brings the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack, violating clearance. This sets a lower bound on deck gap, showing the champion's roughly 29.4mm setting is already near the safe minimum rather than an arbitrary choice. Next: test deck gap values between 28-29mm to pin down exactly where the clearance boundary sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 91a0d5bb94ed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	170.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisProbing yet another far corner of the design space, this immigrant tests a long, very wide, thick-armed frame with a tightly pinched waist and steep battery wedge, betting that extra arm mass and width could buy stiffness margin the plateaued elites lack.

methodFresh random genome: arm lengthened to 116% and widened dramatically to 133% with a tight waist pinch and heavy 8.9mm thickness, both sweep angles near 41-43°, plate stretched in length but narrowed in width and nominally thickened, with a steep 8.9° battery wedge, all in PETG.

resultKilled before flight — despite the plate thickness gene being scaled up, the resulting load-bearing web measured only 1.24mm versus the 1.90mm stock minimum, showing the narrowed plate width and pinched arm waist interact with the thickness gene in a way that leaves the web too thin. Teaches that plate thickness can't be evaluated in isolation from plate width and waist geometry. Next: retest a similarly heavy-arm design with plate width closer to stock to confirm the web-thinning was driven by the width squeeze rather than the thickness gene itself.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×1.33
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	8.9 mm
front sweep	41.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	8.9°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 50e6dee87d3anew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.466 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.985 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.962 Wh/km
frame mass	109.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA champion-tier parent (6.552) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting there was still headroom left in the champion lineage for marginal thinning after a good run this generation.

methodThinned the arm walls slightly, narrowed arm width a touch, trimmed rear sweep marginally, and shortened arm length slightly.

resultScored 6.466 -- a NEW WINNER, beating every prior best-so-far this generation including the 6.528 mark. All six scenarios improved by a small uniform margin, suggesting the combined trims cut mass/drag broadly without hitting a structural floor. Worth continuing to thin arm thickness incrementally from 4.1 mm while watching for the point it becomes structurally invalid.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.406	144.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.122	175.1	38.9°
crosswind	3.976	168.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.809	161.8	32.6°
hot_thin	3.632	154.3	27.5°
storm	4.962	210.8	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b455cc0f748

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.997 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.980 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis89bafd954020 (6.547) was crossed with e69646c004a3, a candidate that had itself been invalid; the bet was that 89bafd954020's genes could still rescue a viable, competitive offspring from that pairing.

methodWidened the arm slightly (×0.87→×0.98), shortened the plate back toward parity (×1.07→×1.00), reduced plate thickness (×1.15→×1.05), and pulled front sweep back (31.7°→30.0°).

resultValid at 6.487, an improvement over parent 89bafd954020 but still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The rescue worked in the sense of producing a viable, mid-pack frame, showing 89bafd954020's genes dominate this cross. Worth testing: cross 89bafd954020 with the new 056184de8923 winner now that a stronger partner exists.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.410	144.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.142	176.0	39.2°
crosswind	3.991	169.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.638	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.980	211.5	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a1df3773912d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
scenario mean	3.998 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.979 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) and 89bafd954020 (6.547) were paired on the bet that a very small arm-width and deck-gap nudge from the weaker parent might still improve on the stronger parent alone.

methodWidened the arm marginally (×0.86→×0.89) and tightened the deck gap slightly (30.2mm→29.0mm), with arm thickness essentially unchanged.

result6.487, nearly identical to 0b455cc0f748 and worse than the 6.412 best-so-far. The tiny gene nudges barely moved fitness, suggesting this region of the search space is fairly flat around 50e6dee87d3a's configuration. Worth testing: a larger-magnitude mutation on arm width or deck gap from this same base, since micro-nudges aren't differentiating outcomes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.416	145.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.134	175.6	39.0°
crosswind	3.992	169.6	33.9°
gusty_light	3.822	162.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.644	154.8	27.5°
storm	4.979	211.5	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f9862e99b160new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.528 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.023 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	114.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisOne of the tied-best parents (6.547) was self-crossed, essentially a fine-tuning mutation, betting that a full switch to the lighter plate material plus small sweep and thickness tweaks could edge past the current best.

methodSwitched material fully to cf_plate, increased front sweep slightly, and thinned the plate a bit.

resultScored 6.528 -- a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.547. Every scenario improved by a small, uniform margin, suggesting the full material switch plus modest thinning cut mass/drag broadly rather than fixing one weather condition. Worth pushing plate thickness down and front sweep up further from this new baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.438	146.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.159	176.7	38.8°
crosswind	4.018	170.7	33.9°
gusty_light	3.846	163.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.666	155.8	27.5°
storm	5.009	212.8	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6d9a8f3e0bc1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.539 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.030 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.020 Wh/km
frame mass	114.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisf9862e99b160 (6.528) and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466, the pool's best) were close in fitness; the bet was that splitting the difference on arm geometry could land between them or edge past the leader.

methodWidened the arms slightly (×0.87→×1.04), shortened them a touch (×1.19→×1.11), and trimmed plate width (×1.06→×1.03).

resultCame in at 6.539, between the two parents but still short of the 6.466 best-so-far, so no new winner. Widening the arm while shortening it seems to have been a wash — extra frontal area offset the weight saved from the shorter arm. Worth testing: the shorter arm length paired with the original narrower arm width instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.171	177.2	39.1°
crosswind	4.020	170.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.852	163.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.672	156.0	27.6°
storm	5.020	213.2	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×1.04
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1ae7f66cd948

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.586 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.058 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.056 Wh/km
frame mass	120.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis71f9b10676b2 (6.595) and 89bafd954020 (6.547) hadn't yet tried a narrower arm width together; the bet was that combining the parents' shared thick-plate profile with a slimmer arm might claw back some efficiency.

methodNarrowed arm width (×0.85→×0.75), widened arm waist (×0.55→×0.64), and shaved plate length slightly (×0.97→×0.96) while nudging plate width up.

result6.586, between the two parents but well short of the fresh 6.412 best-so-far. The waist widening likely added back drag that the narrower arm width was supposed to save. Worth testing: keep the narrow arm width but leave arm waist untouched, to isolate whether waist or width drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.468	147.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.196	178.3	38.5°
crosswind	4.049	172.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.880	164.8	32.4°
hot_thin	3.700	157.2	27.4°
storm	5.056	214.8	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.13
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1bcf9c39a3df

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.631 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.088 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.087 Wh/km
frame mass	119.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisc9cf7c11f59f (6.547) and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466) were combined on the bet that adding battery wedge to the leader's proven geometry might rebalance weight and cut a scenario or two's losses.

methodAdded a battery wedge (0°→4.8°), thickened the plate (×1.05→×1.24), and pulled rear sweep back slightly (35.5°→34.0°).

result6.631, worse than either parent and the 6.412 best-so-far. The battery wedge plus thicker plate added mass without a clear payoff, with crosswind (4.08) and storm (5.09) both elevated. Worth testing: battery wedge in isolation, without the plate-thickness increase, since wedge alone hasn't been tested cleanly on this base geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.497	148.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.231	179.8	39.1°
crosswind	4.080	173.3	34.1°
gusty_light	3.905	165.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.725	158.3	27.6°
storm	5.087	216.1	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	4.8°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a94a56bc9f09

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.788 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.210 Wh/km
frame mass	132.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisParents d3770c40a877 (6.692) and f9862e99b160 (6.528) both carried extra plate margin; the bet was that combining the sturdier parent's mass distribution with the lighter parent's arm geometry might trim drag while keeping stiffness.

methodIncreased plate thickness further (×1.16→×1.44), added a slight battery wedge (0°→2.9°), swept the rear arms further back (36.6°→41.3°), and tightened the deck gap (35.2mm→31.1mm).

resultLanded at 6.788 Wh/km, worse than both parents and far off the 6.466 best-so-far — no new winner. The extra plate mass and steeper rear sweep likely added drag/weight across all six scenarios without a compensating benefit, worst in storm (5.21). Worth testing: isolate the rear-sweep change alone, without the plate-thickness increase, to find which gene is the actual culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.571	151.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.341	184.4	39.4°
crosswind	4.179	177.5	34.2°
gusty_light	3.994	169.7	32.9°
hot_thin	3.806	161.7	27.7°
storm	5.210	221.3	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×1.44
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 939d4b0bcd16

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.881 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.241 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.281 Wh/km
frame mass	137.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis412f5906d4ae (6.873) was a weaker parent but contributed thicker arms and wider plates; the bet was that pairing its structural mass with 89bafd954020's (6.547) better wedge/gap tuning could offset the weak parent's penalty.

methodWidened the deck gap (31.0mm→36.2mm), pulled back plate width slightly (×1.22→×1.15), increased battery wedge (1.5°→3.3°), and grew plate length (×1.15→×1.16).

result6.881, worse than both parents and the 6.466 best-so-far. The heavy-arm parent's penalty wasn't rescued by the gap/wedge tuning — storm (5.28) was hit hardest, suggesting the thicker arm stock simply adds too much mass. Worth testing: keep 89bafd954020's thinner arms and only borrow this cross's deck-gap/wedge values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.619	153.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.405	187.1	39.2°
crosswind	4.236	179.9	34.3°
gusty_light	4.048	172.0	32.9°
hot_thin	3.856	163.8	27.7°
storm	5.281	224.3	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	36.2 mm
battery wedge	3.3°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0744daafc6e2✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.943 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.277 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.332 Wh/km
frame mass	142.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisLearning from the two overly-heavy designer attempts already tried this generation, this bet moderated arm thickness while pushing sweep angles more aggressively, testing whether sweep geometry alone could unlock efficiency without full arm-thickness commitment.

methodBuilt from scratch with moderate arms (5.5mm), steep sweeps (front 38.0°, rear 43.0°), larger plates (×1.20 length, ×1.18 width), and no plate-thickness surplus (×1.00).

result6.943, better than the other two designer attempts this generation but still well behind the 6.412 best-so-far and every viable crossover. Moderating arm thickness helped, but the very steep 43° rear sweep likely still added drag, particularly visible in storm (5.33). Worth testing: the same plate/sweep profile but with arm thickness dropped to the ~4mm range crossovers have shown works best.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.640	154.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.456	189.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.271	181.4	34.5°
gusty_light	4.081	173.4	33.1°
hot_thin	3.883	164.9	27.8°
storm	5.332	226.5	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7b8317ed444b✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.262 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.471 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.581 Wh/km
frame mass	166.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisWith the population plateaued near 6.4-6.5, the designer proposed a deliberately heavier, stiffer frame betting that raw structural robustness might reduce storm-scenario losses enough to offset the weight penalty elsewhere.

methodBuilt from scratch with thick arms (6.0mm), enlarged plates (×1.15 length, ×1.13 width, ×1.20 thickness), and steep sweeps (front 36.5°, rear 41.0°).

result7.262, far worse than the 6.412 best-so-far and every crossover candidate this generation. The extra structural mass dominated every scenario, including storm (5.58), which was supposed to be its strength. Lesson: this problem is weight-limited, not strength-limited, at the fitness levels already reached. Worth testing: a designer proposal that keeps arms thin (~4mm) but explores an untried gene combination like an extreme sweep angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.800	161.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.669	198.3	40.0°
crosswind	4.463	189.6	34.7°
gusty_light	4.261	181.0	33.3°
hot_thin	4.054	172.2	27.9°
storm	5.581	237.1	35.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ed5a193d02ea✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.377 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.543 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.669 Wh/km
frame mass	173.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the same stiffness bet as the prior designer entry, this went even further on arm thickness plus added battery wedge, hypothesizing the wedge could compensate for weight via better distribution in headwind/storm.

methodBuilt from scratch with thick arms (6.5mm), moderate sweeps (34°/38°), and a 3.0° battery wedge.

result7.377, the worst result of the generation, well below the 6.412 best-so-far. Thicker arms than even the previous designer attempt made things worse, confirming the weight-limited hypothesis from 7b8317ed444b. Worth testing: designer proposals should start from the current best-so-far's arm thickness (~4mm) rather than exploring the heavy end of the range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.858	163.9	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.753	201.9	40.3°
crosswind	4.536	192.7	34.9°
gusty_light	4.327	183.8	33.4°
hot_thin	4.115	174.8	28.0°
storm	5.669	240.8	36.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bd9d3434a36d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) was self-paired to explore its own local neighborhood, betting that a steeper front sweep and tighter deck gap could squeeze out more efficiency from an already-strong design.

methodIncreased front sweep (31.5°→35.9°), shrank the deck gap substantially (30.2mm→25.7mm), and thickened the plate (×1.06→×1.21).

resultInvalid — rotor too close to deck/battery. Tightening the deck gap by 4.5mm crossed the rotor clearance constraint, so this design never flew. Lesson: deck gap has a hard floor near 26-28mm for this frame family and shouldn't be shrunk alongside a front-sweep increase. Worth testing: the front-sweep increase alone, without touching deck gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3151e8e8a36

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) and f9862e99b160 (6.528) were bred on the bet that a longer arm plus tighter deck gap could reduce drag while keeping the proven rear-sweep value.

methodShrank the deck gap sharply (30.2mm→22.2mm), lengthened the arm (×1.18→×1.21), and pulled rear sweep back (35.0°→34.0°).

resultInvalid — deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack. An 8mm deck-gap cut was too aggressive, echoing the same failure mode as bd9d3434a36d. Lesson: deck gap below roughly 26-28mm collides with onboard electronics regardless of arm-length changes. Worth testing: the arm-length and rear-sweep changes alone, holding deck gap at or above 30mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	22.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89bafd954020new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.547 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.034 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.025 Wh/km
frame mass	116.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed strong performer 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552) with solid a76a6566ac11 (6.705), betting that a small extra dose of plate thickness for stiffness margin, paired with slightly thinner and narrower-waisted arms, could trim mass without tripping the thin-plate constraint that was killing so many siblings this generation.

methodPlate thickness increased slightly from ×1.06 to ×1.15, arm thickness thinned marginally from 4.5 mm to 4.3 mm, arm width widened a touch, with rear sweep essentially unchanged.

result6.547 Wh/km is a NEW WINNER, edging out the prior best-so-far (held by c9cf7c11f59f, also ~6.547) and beating both parents outright. The win looks like fine-tuning rather than a leap: a slightly heavier plate paired with a slightly lighter, narrower arm nearly cancel in mass while easing local stress enough to dodge the plate-thinness trap that invalidated four other candidates this generation. Storm remains the weak point at 5.03 Wh/km, so worth testing next: push arm thickness down further from this exact base while holding plate thickness at ×1.15.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.444	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.171	177.2	38.8°
crosswind	4.033	171.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.858	163.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.675	156.1	27.5°
storm	5.025	213.5	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9cf7c11f59fnew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.547 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.036 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.023 Wh/km
frame mass	112.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe current best-so-far, 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), still ran with zero battery tilt and a loose arm waist; crossing it with the weak 15c422327b08 line bets that borrowing a modest battery wedge and a thinner arm wall can trim drag and mass further.

methodAdded a modest battery wedge (0°→4.7°), loosened the arm waist taper (×0.55→×0.71), thinned the arm wall from 4.5 mm to 4.0 mm, and nudged front sweep out (31.5°→32.5°).

resultValid at 6.547 — a NEW WINNER, edging out both the prior best-so-far (6.552) and both parents. The combination of a small battery tilt and a thinner arm wall likely cut drag and mass while the loosened waist taper kept enough stiffness to avoid failure. Worth testing: sweep battery wedge in the 3-6° band around this design to pin down the true optimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.450	146.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.181	177.6	39.3°
crosswind	4.029	171.2	34.1°
gusty_light	3.855	163.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.676	156.2	27.6°
storm	5.023	213.4	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	4.7°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a3d68fd906b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.568 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.048 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.041 Wh/km
frame mass	117.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same pair of champions was crossed the other direction, betting that going fully to the lighter plate material plus a slightly longer plate and less rear sweep would trim drag beyond either parent.

methodSwitched material fully to cf_plate, lengthened the main plate, and reduced rear sweep slightly.

resultCame in at 6.568, close to but not beating either parent or the 6.547 best-so-far. The plate lengthening likely added just enough mass or drag to erase the benefit of the sweep reduction. Worth retrying the material switch and sweep reduction without the plate lengthening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.457	146.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.188	177.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.045	171.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.869	164.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.687	156.6	27.5°
storm	5.041	214.1	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 71f9b10676b2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.595 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.064 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.063 Wh/km
frame mass	121.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same champion lineage (6.552) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that thicker plates combined with a shorter plate length could offset each other's mass and stiffness tradeoffs.

methodThickened the plate substantially, shortened plate length, shortened arm length slightly, and increased front sweep.

resultScored 6.595, worse than its parent and well off the new best of 6.466. The plate thickening added more mass/drag than the length reduction saved, showing this lineage is drag-limited by plate mass rather than helped by compensating length cuts. Worth trying further plate thinning from the new 6.466 champion instead of thickening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.471	147.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.204	178.6	38.6°
crosswind	4.054	172.2	33.5°
gusty_light	3.885	165.0	32.4°
hot_thin	3.704	157.4	27.4°
storm	5.063	215.1	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.13
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 203a5f646386

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.635 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.088 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.094 Wh/km
frame mass	122.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA champion-tier parent (6.552) was crossed with a mid-pack parent (6.654), betting that the champion's slender-arm design could absorb some of the mid-pack parent's wider, thicker plate traits.

methodWidened the plate, thickened it, opened the deck gap slightly, and trimmed rear sweep.

resultScored 6.635, landing between the two parents but worse than the top parent alone. The added plate width and thickness cost more than they gained, confirming this lineage prefers thin, narrow plates. Worth retrying with the champion's original plate dimensions but keeping just the reduced rear sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.486	148.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.234	179.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.087	173.6	34.0°
gusty_light	3.907	166.0	32.6°
hot_thin	3.720	158.0	27.5°
storm	5.094	216.4	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	34.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b324108bd3fb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.637 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.090 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.093 Wh/km
frame mass	122.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe top performer (6.547) was crossed again with the persistently weak 7.139 parent, betting its steeper battery wedge and narrower arms might still combine well with the champion's core.

methodIncreased battery wedge tilt, narrowed the arms, thickened the arm walls slightly, and lengthened the arms.

resultScored 6.637, worse than the champion parent and far from the generation's new best of 6.466. The weak parent's traits diluted the champion lineage's efficiency yet again, confirming that lineage underperforms in every cross this generation. Worth abandoning crosses with this weak parent and focusing recombination within the top-performing lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.491	148.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.235	179.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.090	173.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.909	166.1	32.6°
hot_thin	3.723	158.2	27.6°
storm	5.093	216.4	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3770c40a877

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.692 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.122 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.141 Wh/km
frame mass	124.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe top performer (6.547) was crossed with a lagging parent (6.8), betting the champion's core geometry could absorb the laggard's longer arms and wider deck gap without losing much efficiency.

methodLengthened the arms further, widened them slightly, opened the deck gap, and nudged front sweep up marginally.

resultScored 6.692, worse than the champion parent alone. Extending arm length and deck gap added enough mass/drag to erase the champion's edge, confirming its compact arm length was close to optimal already. Worth testing the laggard's front-sweep nudge alone on the champion's unmodified arm length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.298	182.6	39.6°
crosswind	4.118	175.0	34.4°
gusty_light	3.935	167.2	33.0°
hot_thin	3.737	158.8	27.8°
storm	5.141	218.4	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f193ade7d89

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.811 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.198 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.226 Wh/km
frame mass	132.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via mutation

hypothesisA lagging lineage (6.8) was mutated on the bet that opening up the gap between the deck and props was the limiting factor holding back its efficiency.

methodIncreased the deck gap by about 2.6 mm, leaving everything else unchanged.

resultScored 6.811, essentially flat versus the 6.8 parent. This confirms deck gap isn't the bottleneck for this lineage -- the heavier arm waist and thicker plates are the more likely drag/mass drivers. Worth mutating arm waist or plate thickness on this lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.586	152.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.360	185.2	39.2°
crosswind	4.189	178.0	34.3°
gusty_light	4.007	170.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.819	162.2	27.7°
storm	5.226	222.0	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.3 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 412f5906d4ae

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.873 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.236 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.274 Wh/km
frame mass	138.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same lagging lineage (6.8) was self-crossed, betting that a wider plate combined with a shallower battery wedge angle would cut drag.

methodWidened the main plate further, reduced battery wedge tilt, loosened the arm waist slightly, and tightened the deck gap.

resultScored 6.873, worse than the 6.8 parent. The wider plate likely added frontal area and mass that outweighed any benefit from the shallower wedge angle. Teaches this lineage doesn't tolerate a wider plate; worth testing a narrower plate paired with just the lower battery wedge angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.617	153.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.390	186.5	39.2°
crosswind	4.234	179.9	34.2°
gusty_light	4.045	171.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.855	163.8	27.7°
storm	5.274	224.1	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c59f94f5dd5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.126 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.388 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.475 Wh/km
frame mass	142.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent was tied for best-so-far while the other lagged badly at 7.139; the bet was that blending them would keep the strong parent's efficiency while nudging sweep and arm proportions further.

methodSlightly reduced rear sweep, tightened the arm waist, trimmed plate width a touch, and lengthened the arms, on a pa12_cf frame.

resultLanded at 7.126 -- almost exactly the weak parent's score and nowhere near the strong parent's 6.547, so no new record. The cross pulled toward the underperforming parent's material and geometry instead of inheriting the good parent's traits. Worth testing the same tweaks on a cf_plate frame instead of pa12_cf.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.697	157.0	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.654	197.7	41.2°
crosswind	4.392	186.6	35.8°
gusty_light	4.172	177.2	34.1°
hot_thin	3.941	167.4	28.4°
storm	5.475	232.6	40.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	7.6 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	33.9 mm
battery wedge	4.3°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5fdc8f9feb1b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	147.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe weak 7.139 parent was crossed with an untested candidate on the bet that thinner plates plus thicker, less-swept arms could shave weight without sacrificing stiffness.

methodThinned the plates, thickened the arms, reduced rear sweep, and tilted the battery wedge up a bit more.

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The reduced rear sweep combined with the arm changes pushed the tongue geometry into interference with the plate. Teaches that sweep reductions on this lineage need a matching plate footprint change; next worth widening plate length whenever rear sweep drops this much.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	5.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 78e246731fc8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	151.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA mid-pack performer (6.627) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that loosening the arm waist and thinning the arms could trim mass further on top of an already aggressive rear-sweep design.

methodWidened the arm waist, thinned the arm walls slightly, increased battery wedge tilt, and lengthened the arms a bit.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The extreme rear sweep (over 60 degrees) combined with the longer arms shifted the tongues past the plate's bolt pattern. Teaches this lineage's rear sweep is already near a geometric limit; next worth retrying the same waist/thickness change with rear sweep dialed back toward 45-50 degrees.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.9 mm
front sweep	40.5°
rear sweep	60.6°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	43.6 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate e69646c004a3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisTwo nearly tied champions (6.547 and 6.552) were crossed on the bet that shorter, stiffer arms with thicker plates could squeeze out further gains from an already strong design.

methodShortened the arms substantially, thickened the plates a lot, increased battery wedge tilt, and shifted the material blend.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Shortening the arms past a threshold left too little room between propellers. Teaches arm length has a hard floor set by rotor diameter for this frame; next worth keeping arm length shrink modest while still testing the thicker-plate and battery-wedge combination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f97426ea97fc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe weak 7.139 parent was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that aggressively widening the arms and thinning the plates would cut enough mass to overcome its poor baseline.

methodWidened the arms, loosened the arm waist, thinned the plates significantly, and adjusted plate length.

resultInvalid: plates fell below the minimum thickness allowed for pa12_cf material. The thinning combination landed right at the material's structural floor. Teaches pa12_cf has a strict minimum plate thickness that's easy to breach when stacking thinning mutations; worth rerunning the same geometry on cf_plate, which likely tolerates thinner plates.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	6.4 mm
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.1 mm
battery wedge	10.4°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1e1a58d2ae26new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.552 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.037 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.030 Wh/km
frame mass	115.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 8e06d4306a70 had solid proportions but relatively thick arms; the bet was that a self-cross exploring a much thinner arm wall could shed mass-driven power draw without failing structurally.

methodSelf-crossover cut arm thickness sharply to 4.5 mm from 6.0 mm, while widening the plate about 6% and lengthening it about 7% to compensate.

result6.552 Wh/km — a clear NEW WINNER and the best of the generation, a solid drop from the 6.719 record set earlier. The thinner arms cut power draw in every scenario without tripping a structural invalid, so there's likely still headroom to shed weight; worth pushing arm thickness even lower next, watching for the plate-web-too-thin failure seen elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.445	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	39.0°
crosswind	4.032	171.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.859	163.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.675	156.1	27.6°
storm	5.030	213.7	31.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 305d09e58ec7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.627 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.084 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.086 Wh/km
frame mass	108.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisParent cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) was solid but not exceptional; paired with a much weaker 09309f9a3ffc (7.79) mainly for diversity, the bet was that a sharply tighter arm waist plus a trimmed sweep/battery tilt could cut mass and drag beyond what either parent achieved alone.

methodArm waist tightened sharply (roughly ×0.81 to ×0.55) while arm width widened slightly, and both front sweep and battery wedge were trimmed a couple of degrees.

result6.627 Wh/km clearly beats both parents (6.719 and 7.79) but still trails the 6.547 best-so-far by about 0.08. The tighter waist likely cut mass without tripping the thin-plate limits that killed several other candidates this generation. Worth testing next: layer this waist-tightening onto the new champion's plate-thickness recipe to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.455	146.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.289	182.2	39.9°
crosswind	4.095	174.0	34.8°
gusty_light	3.895	165.5	33.3°
hot_thin	3.683	156.5	28.0°
storm	5.086	216.1	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	9.2°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 838da14e4706

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.654 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.101 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.106 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the incumbent champion c9cf7c11f59f (6.547) with mid-pack a76a6566ac11 (6.705), betting that easing the battery tilt and trimming plate width/arm length slightly would shed a bit more mass from the champion's frame.

methodBattery wedge reduced from 4.0° to 1.7°, plate width trimmed from ×1.12 to ×1.09, and arm length shortened from ×1.05 to ×1.02, with material shifting within cf_plate variants.

result6.654 Wh/km beats the weaker parent but is a clear step down from the champion (6.547), so the trims diluted rather than improved its recipe — reducing battery wedge in particular likely cost some aerodynamic benefit the champion relied on. Next: retry mixing with the champion but hold battery wedge fixed to isolate whether the wedge angle or the plate/arm trims caused the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.503	148.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.254	180.7	39.0°
crosswind	4.091	173.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.917	166.4	32.7°
hot_thin	3.733	158.6	27.6°
storm	5.106	216.9	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b135fda4746b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.800 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.191 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.217 Wh/km
frame mass	131.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two mid-pack performers (a76a6566ac11 6.705, 30f7b0f6b0b7 6.755), betting that thicker plates plus slightly longer arms and reduced rear sweep would combine their separate strengths.

methodPlate thickness increased from ×0.95 to ×1.08, rear sweep reduced from 43.0° to 40.7°, and arm length lengthened from ×1.05 to ×1.08, with material shifting within the cf_plate family.

result6.8 Wh/km is worse than either parent, so the cross compounded their shared mediocrity rather than their strengths — the extra plate mass likely outweighed any drag benefit from the reduced sweep. Next: test the reduced rear sweep alone against a stronger base genome rather than pairing two mid-pack parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.582	152.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.349	184.8	39.2°
crosswind	4.182	177.7	34.2°
gusty_light	4.001	170.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.815	162.1	27.7°
storm	5.217	221.6	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.3 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4217f90da111

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.855 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.221 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.268 Wh/km
frame mass	128.1 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisPaired weak 4ac6230067c7 (7.026) with strong 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), betting that trimming plate length, flattening the battery tilt, and thinning the arms would let a lighter pla_plus material compete despite its lower strength margin.

methodPlate length shortened slightly, battery wedge flattened from 2.0° to 0.0°, arm thickness thinned from 7.5 mm to 6.9 mm, plate width trimmed slightly, and material switched to pla_plus.

result6.855 Wh/km beats the weak parent (7.026) but falls well short of the strong parent (6.552) and the 6.547 best-so-far, roughly 0.2-0.3 Wh/km worse across every scenario. The material swap likely forced conservative compensating dimensions that ate the mass savings from the trims. Next: repeat this exact trim recipe in pa12_cf to isolate whether pla_plus itself is the bottleneck.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.565	151.5	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.442	188.7	40.3°
crosswind	4.222	179.3	34.9°
gusty_light	4.023	170.9	33.5°
hot_thin	3.807	161.7	28.1°
storm	5.268	223.8	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 7d22b27cf9e4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.139 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.396 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.487 Wh/km
frame mass	142.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two below-average performers (edbeb4914449 6.977, a76a6566ac11 6.705), betting that substantially lengthening the arms while narrowing width and waist would trade mass for stiffness in a way neither parent had tried.

methodArm length increased sharply from ×1.05 to ×1.23, arm width narrowed slightly, and arm waist tightened slightly, with material held within pa12_cf.

result7.139 Wh/km is worse than both parents and well off the 6.547 best-so-far, roughly 0.2-0.3 Wh/km worse than a76a6566ac11 in every scenario. The long-arm bet backfired, likely adding both mass and drag without compensation. Next: this generation's data suggests arm length beyond roughly ×1.15 consistently hurts fitness — worth testing a length cap around there for future crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.699	157.1	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.668	198.3	41.2°
crosswind	4.397	186.8	35.8°
gusty_light	4.179	177.5	34.2°
hot_thin	3.945	167.6	28.4°
storm	5.487	233.1	40.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	7.6 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	4.2°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate aa4dfe645fa0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisBred from a previously non-viable parent (a634b4cbe897, fitness null) alongside solid performer d3bc126ea7b7 (6.687), betting that beefing up arm width/length and plate length while shrinking the deck gap would compound the viable parent's strengths.

methodArm width widened substantially (~×0.80 to ×1.09), plate length increased (~×0.94 to ×1.08), deck gap tightened to 26.3 mm from 30.3 mm, and arm length nudged slightly longer.

resultInvalid: pa12_cf plates came out too thin (1.4 mm vs the 1.6 mm minimum), because plate thickness stayed low while every other dimension grew rather than compensating. This confirms that breeding off a null-fitness parent carries real geometric risk when its thin-plate trait isn't explicitly corrected. Next: pair any low plate-thickness genome with a forced thickness floor before crossover.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	26.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 137d29b15ab2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisAgain drew on the null-fitness a634b4cbe897 alongside strong performer 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), betting that thickening the arms would let the plates stay thin without breaching the pa12_cf minimum.

methodArm thickness increased from 6.1 mm to 7.0 mm, arm width widened, and plate width/thickness were both nudged up slightly (thickness ×0.70 to ×0.75).

resultStill invalid: plate thickness only reached 1.5 mm, just under the 1.6 mm pa12_cf floor. The correction was too small to clear a hard constraint carried by this parent's genome. Next: for offspring inheriting from this parent, clamp plate thickness explicitly to ≥1.6 mm rather than letting crossover nudge it incrementally.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 945c4e9c8052

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed mediocre 30f7b0f6b0b7 (6.755) with the incumbent champion c9cf7c11f59f (6.547), betting that shaving the champion's plate mass while sweeping the arms further forward would push fitness even lower.

methodPlate thickness cut sharply from full (×1.00) to ×0.75 and front sweep increased from 34.4° to 38.6°, with arm waist and thickness left almost unchanged.

resultInvalid: the aggressive plate cut dropped straight through the 1.6 mm pa12_cf floor (1.5 mm). This shows the champion's frame has little spare mass in its plates, so further weight savings need to come from arm taper or sweep, not direct plate thinning. Next: retry the sweep increase alone, leaving plate thickness untouched, to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	9.3°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f40d394738b2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossed decent performer cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) as a mutation probe, testing whether pushing sweep and arm length further while tightening the deck gap could squeeze more mass/drag savings out of an already-good frame.

methodFront sweep increased from 34.4° to 39.4°, deck gap tightened from 31.2 mm to 28.0 mm, arm thickness thinned from 6.9 mm to 6.3 mm, and arm length lengthened from ×1.09 to ×1.15.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. The tighter deck gap combined with longer, more-swept arms pushed a rotor into the restricted envelope. This is the second failure this generation tied to a tight deck gap, suggesting ~28 mm is unsafe once arm sweep/length are also pushed. Next: tighten deck gap alone, without increasing sweep or length, to find the real clearance floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 33f73a334e76

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	156.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant injected for diversity, exploring an extreme rear-sweep layout far outside the population's current cluster.

methodRandom genome with rear sweep swept back to 60.9° (roughly double the population norm), a wide 43.6 mm deck gap, moderate arm length and waist, built in pet_cf.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The extreme rear sweep moved the arm root tongues far enough that their bolt holes no longer land on the plate at all — a pure geometry mismatch rather than a strength/mass failure. This marks ~60° rear sweep as outside the buildable envelope for this plate layout. Next: cap rear sweep mutations below roughly 45-50° for future immigrants to keep them geometrically viable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	8.9 mm
front sweep	40.1°
rear sweep	60.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	43.6 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 65a40445a59f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing the ASA material family, wagering its different stiffness profile might open a favorable mass/strength tradeoff not explored by the pa12_cf/cf_plate-dominated population.

methodFresh random genome with a loosely tapered arm waist (×1.25) and thick plates (×1.31 multiplier) built in ASA, with shorter, narrower arms than the population norm.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.37 mm vs the 1.90 mm ASA requires). Despite the ×1.31 thickness multiplier, ASA's much higher minimum-gauge requirement than pa12_cf's 1.6 mm still wasn't met. Next: if testing ASA again, bias the plate-thickness gene higher specifically for that material to clear its stricter floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	6.4 mm
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	61.4°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fc1469ad1abe

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	128.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossed decent performer d3bc126ea7b7 (6.687) as a mutation probe, testing whether tightening the deck gap slightly further could squeeze out more mass savings.

methodDeck gap tightened from 30.2 mm to 28.0 mm, arm waist loosened marginally from ×0.55 to ×0.63, with arm width essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as f40d394738b2. Two independent lineages hitting this constraint at a deck gap around 28 mm strongly suggests that's close to the hard clearance floor for this rotor/deck layout regardless of arm geometry. Next: treat ~28 mm as a lower bound and avoid mutating deck gap below roughly 29-30 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.7 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43a8c3b07b39

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the same two strong parents that produced this generation's winner (1e1a58d2ae26, a76a6566ac11), this time betting that widening the deck gap for extra rotor clearance would allow thicker, wider arms without penalty.

methodDeck gap widened from 30.2 mm to 34.7 mm, arm thickness increased from 4.5 mm to 5.2 mm, arm width widened from ×0.84 to ×0.92, with plate width trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Widening the deck gap didn't help because the failure was at the arm root/plate junction, not rotor clearance — the thicker, wider arm roots simply ran out of room on the plate footprint. This is the opposite failure mode from the deck-gap-too-tight cases, showing arm root sizing has its own independent packing limit. Next: if thickening arm roots this much again, pair it with increased plate length/width rather than deck gap to give the tongues more room.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3bc126ea7b7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.687 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.122 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.129 Wh/km
frame mass	126.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via mutation

hypothesis8e06d4306a70 (6.828) was underperforming, likely dragged down by overly long arms; this mutation bets that reeling arm length back in while adding sweep and plate length can recover efficiency.

methodPulled arm length back in (×1.19→×1.06), increased front sweep (31.5°→34.5°), lengthened the plate further (×1.05→×1.10), and slimmed arm width (×0.84→×0.80).

resultValid at 6.687, about 2% better than its parent (6.828), but still short of the best-so-far (6.552). The shorter, more swept arms and longer plate likely trimmed both mass and drag versus the parent's overlong-arm design. Worth testing: apply this same arm-length pullback and sweep bump to a plate-width-optimized parent to see if it can beat 6.552.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.529	149.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.258	180.9	38.7°
crosswind	4.118	175.0	33.7°
gusty_light	3.940	167.4	32.5°
hot_thin	3.760	159.7	27.5°
storm	5.129	217.9	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.7 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a76a6566ac11✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.705 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.132 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.145 Wh/km
frame mass	123.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisGiven the leaders favor light, tapered arms, the designer bets an even more aggressive slim-and-sweep design with enlarged plates can push past the current best by minimizing arm mass while managing sweep-induced drag.

methodHand-designed a slim, swept frame: arms 5% longer but 20% narrower than stock with a slim 5.2 mm wall and tight waist taper, aggressive 37°/43° front/rear sweep, and enlarged plates, in cf_plate.

resultValid at 6.705, the best of the three designer entries and close to the mid-pack crossover results, though still short of the best-so-far. This validates the population's general direction toward slim, tapered arms even with steep sweep. Worth testing: keep this sweep and plate footprint but pull the arm wall down toward the winning line's ~4 mm to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.527	149.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.294	182.4	39.2°
crosswind	4.123	175.2	34.1°
gusty_light	3.945	167.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.758	159.7	27.7°
storm	5.145	218.6	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cb6b6c5540f9new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.719 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.140 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.157 Wh/km
frame mass	113.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were strong but plateaued near the old best; the bet was that leaning harder into a carbon-fiber-rich material blend while stretching arm and plate length slightly could cut both mass and flex losses at once.

methodCrossover shifted the material mix toward more carbon fiber, lengthened the arms about 9% and the plate about 7%, and thickened the arms slightly to 6.9 mm.

resultLanded at 6.719 Wh/km, beating both parents and becoming a NEW WINNER over the prior best-so-far of 6.807. The extra stiffness from more material and longer arms likely paid off across the gustier scenarios; worth testing an even richer material fraction or slightly longer arms to see if the trend keeps paying.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.354	185.0	40.2°
crosswind	4.151	176.3	35.1°
gusty_light	3.946	167.7	33.5°
hot_thin	3.731	158.5	28.1°
storm	5.157	219.1	36.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 30f7b0f6b0b7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.755 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.162 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.186 Wh/km
frame mass	116.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via mutation

hypothesiscb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) had middling performance; this mutation bets that a longer plate and a slightly eased battery wedge can improve the mass/aerodynamic balance.

methodLengthened the plate substantially (×1.07→×1.20), eased the battery wedge back a touch (10.5°→9.3°), and nudged the material blend slightly lighter within pa12_cf.

resultValid at 6.755, worse than both its parent (6.719) and the best-so-far. The extra plate length likely added mass without an aerodynamic payoff. Worth testing: revert plate length toward the parent's ×1.07 and instead mutate arm geometry, which is where recent wins have come from.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.517	149.4	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.379	186.0	40.3°
crosswind	4.175	177.4	35.3°
gusty_light	3.967	168.5	33.6°
hot_thin	3.749	159.3	28.1°
storm	5.186	220.3	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	9.3°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate edbeb4914449✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.977 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.298 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.359 Wh/km
frame mass	132.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging around slender, swept-arm designs scoring 6.55-6.8, the designer bets a contrasting stout, thick-walled frame in pa12_cf can test whether raw structural margin beats aerodynamic slimming.

methodHand-designed a stout frame: arms 5% longer and 5% wider than stock with a thick 7.5 mm wall, 33°/38° front/rear sweep, a 34 mm deck gap, 5° battery wedge, in pa12_cf.

resultValid at 6.977, well behind the leaders. The thick walls and wide deck gap add mass the mission profile doesn't reward, confirming the population's bias toward lighter arms is well-founded. Worth testing: keep this sweep/deck-gap layout but shave arm thickness toward 6 mm to isolate how much the extra wall mass is costing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.633	154.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.532	192.5	40.6°
crosswind	4.300	182.7	35.3°
gusty_light	4.092	173.8	33.8°
hot_thin	3.872	164.5	28.2°
storm	5.359	227.6	38.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4ac6230067c7✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.026 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.327 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.397 Wh/km
frame mass	139.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisTo probe whether a cheaper, lighter print material can compensate for a heavier, thicker-walled frame, the designer pairs long thick arms with pla_plus, testing if reduced material density offsets structural bulk.

methodHand-designed a heavy-duty frame: arms 15% longer than stock with a thick 7.5 mm wall, 33.5°/39° front/rear sweep, and enlarged plates, in pla_plus.

resultValid at 7.026, the weakest of the three designer entries. pla_plus's lower stiffness likely forced compensating mass elsewhere (thick walls, big plates) that erased any material savings, rather than offsetting the bulk as hoped. Worth testing: rebuild the same geometry in cf_plate or pa12_cf to isolate whether material choice or arm geometry is the bigger drag on this design.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.656	155.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.555	193.5	40.5°
crosswind	4.336	184.2	35.3°
gusty_light	4.122	175.1	33.7°
hot_thin	3.900	165.7	28.2°
storm	5.397	229.3	37.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 09309f9a3ffc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.790 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.992 Wh/km
frame mass	187.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis15c422327b08 (7.622) was the weakest scored parent in the pool; self-crossing it explores whether widening arms and thickening plates in a different material can pull it toward the pack, though doubling down on a weak lineage is a long shot.

methodPulled rear sweep in (39.6°→34.0°), thickened plates further (×1.43→×1.60), widened arms (×1.10→×1.21), and shifted the material blend from pet_cf toward a lighter variant.

resultValid but worse than its own weak parent, at 7.79 versus 7.622. Piling more plate mass and arm width onto an already-weak design only added weight without an offsetting benefit, and the material swap didn't help either. This teaches that this lineage isn't worth further investment. Worth testing: retire this branch and instead cross a fresh design against one of the top-3 parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.040	171.6	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.122	217.6	41.7°
crosswind	4.774	202.8	36.4°
gusty_light	4.542	192.9	34.6°
hot_thin	4.296	182.5	28.7°
storm	5.992	254.6	42.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	44.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 3edb9219bf87

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	130.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe cb6b6c5540f9 line (6.719) was solid but still heavier than the leaders; crossing it with an unscored sibling bets that shorter arms and a leveled battery mount can shave mass without giving up stiffness.

methodShortened arm length by about 19% versus the cb6b6c5540f9 parent, zeroed the battery wedge, pushed rear sweep out from 36.6° to 39.4°, and returned the arm waist to full width (untapered).

resultInvalid: the plate web came out at 0.97 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Untapering the arm waist while also trimming length pulled material away from the plate junction faster than expected. Worth testing: keep plate thickness bumped up whenever the arm waist is returned toward full width.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c5f9522e79bb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesiscb6b6c5540f9's arm/plate balance still trailed the leaders; blending it with an unscored sibling and pushing battery tilt further bets on finding a tighter arm-waist taper that stays stiff enough.

methodRaised battery wedge from 10.5° to 14.2°, pulled arm length back in (×1.09→×0.97), tightened the arm waist taper (×0.81→×0.72), and trimmed plate width slightly.

resultInvalid: plate web measured 1.44 mm versus the 1.90 mm minimum. Even a moderate waist tightening combined with wedge changes was enough to breach the floor. Worth testing: couple plate thickness upward automatically whenever waist taper drops below roughly ×0.75.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7233d53a3e8b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	133.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis567a47539bb8 (6.807) was underperforming the leaders, likely from mass concentrated in its plates; this cross bets that trimming plate thickness and narrowing arms further can close the gap.

methodReduced plate thickness less aggressively than the other parent (×0.70→×0.85), narrowed arm width further (×0.86→×0.79), pulled front sweep in slightly (31.5°→30.0°), and shortened arm length a touch (×1.35→×1.31).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Narrower arms combined with a tighter front sweep crowded the four root attachment points. Worth testing: only narrow arm width when sweep stays wide (above ~32°) to preserve root clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.1 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb0eed2bdfef

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	141.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis1e1a58d2ae26 is the current best-so-far (6.552); this cross makes only small tweaks to its winning recipe, betting that minor plate and battery refinements can eke out further gains without disturbing what already works.

methodTrimmed plate width slightly (×0.94→×0.93), thickened the arm wall marginally (6.2→6.3 mm), and left plate length and battery wedge essentially unchanged from the champion parent.

resultInvalid: plate web dropped to 0.73 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. This shows the champion line is already sitting close to its structural floor, so even a small plate-width trim breaks it. Worth testing: leave plate width untouched on this lineage and vary only arm geometry instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7df2893e710

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	146.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis15c422327b08 (7.622) is the weakest scored parent in the pool; crossing it in while thickening the arms bets that added arm robustness can rescue some of its traits, though shrinking the plates is a risk.

methodRaised battery wedge from 3.1° to 5.1°, shrank plate length and width (×1.00→×0.94, ×0.94→×0.89), and thickened the arm wall from 6.2 mm to 6.7 mm.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Shrinking the plate footprint while thickening arms left no room for the root attachments even with the weak parent's genetics folded in. Worth testing: hold plate footprint fixed whenever arm thickness increases.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.7 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	5.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bf2e6f93d302

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe leader 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552) still used a relatively heavy arm wall; crossing it with 4743fc24d9d8 (6.79) and switching to lighter pa12_cf bets that a thinner-walled, lighter-material arm can cut mass further, at the risk of insufficient stiffness.

methodSwitched material from cf_plate to pa12_cf, thinned the arm wall to 4.0 mm, pulled rear sweep in (35.6°→34.0°), and widened the plate slightly (×1.06→×1.08).

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure in pa12_cf. A 4.0 mm wall was fine in stiffer cf_plate (as in the winning c9cf7c11f59f) but too flexible once the softer pa12_cf material was substituted in. Worth testing: raise the minimum arm wall thickness whenever material is set to pa12_cf, or restrict thin walls to cf_plate only.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a634b4cbe897

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis4743fc24d9d8 (6.79) and cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) were both mid-pack; crossing them and shifting to pa12_cf bets that a lighter material with narrower arms can undercut both parents, at the risk of insufficient plate thickness for the softer material.

methodSwitched material toward pa12_cf, narrowed arm width (×0.88→×0.80), trimmed plate width slightly (×1.00→×0.97), and tightened the arm waist taper marginally.

resultInvalid: plates measured 1.4 mm against pa12_cf's 1.6 mm minimum. The ×0.70 plate thickness multiplier, inherited from a cf_plate-tuned parent, wasn't compensated for the material's stricter minimum. Worth testing: auto-floor the plate thickness multiplier near ×0.85+ whenever a cross switches material to pa12_cf.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.1 mm
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4743fc24d9d8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.790 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.214 Wh/km
frame mass	130.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisWith 567a47539bb8 sitting at the old best-so-far, the bet was that trimming its arm length slightly and cross-pollinating with a slightly weaker parent could nudge the champion lineage even lower.

methodArm length was pulled back to about 1.28x from the champion's 1.35x, with width, waist, and plate thickness left nearly unchanged.

resultCame in at 6.79 Wh/km — better than the original 6.807 best-so-far but not a new record, since cb6b6c5540f9 had already claimed 6.719 earlier this generation. Trimming arm length under-shot the champion's sweet spot; worth re-testing this exact recipe against the newer, thinner-armed leader instead of the original champion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.554	151.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.363	185.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.180	177.6	34.3°
gusty_light	3.993	169.6	33.1°
hot_thin	3.793	161.1	27.8°
storm	5.214	221.5	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 567a47539bb8new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.807 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.193 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.227 Wh/km
frame mass	132.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisThe reigning best frame 7792e42599f3 (6.886) was efficient but plate-heavy, while fb21f27a5a37 (7.288) ran leaner overall; the bet was that borrowing fb21's lighter proportions plus a lighter layup could shave mass without losing stiffness.

methodThinned the plate by 30%, shortened plate length by 6%, stretched the arms 35% longer, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber weave.

resultA clear win at 6.807 Wh/km — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.886 and both parents outright. The combined mass savings paid off across every scenario, notably storm (5.23), without costing stability. Worth testing next: push plate thickness further toward the structural floor to see if more savings remain before the web-thickness limit bites.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.561	151.3	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.373	185.8	39.7°
crosswind	4.196	178.2	34.4°
gusty_light	4.003	170.0	33.1°
hot_thin	3.801	161.5	27.8°
storm	5.227	222.0	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8e06d4306a70

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.828 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.208 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.241 Wh/km
frame mass	137.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisSame pairing logic as sibling 567a47539bb8 — lend fb21f27a5a37's leaner arm proportions to champion 7792e42599f3 — but this variant kept the plate slightly thicker instead of shedding mass there.

methodShortened arms by 19% (versus 24% in the sibling), thickened the plate by 6% instead of thinning it, and trimmed the arm waist a bit further.

resultValid at 6.828 Wh/km, a modest gain over both parents but not the new best-so-far — sibling 567a47539bb8 already claimed that spot at 6.807 this same generation. The extra plate mass likely cost it the edge. Worth testing: retry this arm-length trim paired with the sibling's thinner plate to see if the two changes stack additively.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.588	152.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.363	185.4	39.0°
crosswind	4.208	178.8	34.1°
gusty_light	4.019	170.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.827	162.6	27.7°
storm	5.241	222.6	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f7529dac5308

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.868 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.232 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.273 Wh/km
frame mass	140.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 155527aa42e6 and 7792e42599f3 bet that flattening the battery wedge closer to level and trimming plate length slightly could cut trim drag in headwind scenarios.

methodBattery wedge reduced to about 1.0° from 3.2°, plate length trimmed to about 98%, and arm waist tightened slightly to 91%.

result6.868 Wh/km — valid but worse than both parents and well off the generation's new best of 6.552. Flattening the wedge cost more in balance/trim than it saved in drag, most visible in cold_headwind and storm; worth testing an intermediate wedge angle rather than swinging all the way to level.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.612	153.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.383	186.2	39.0°
crosswind	4.226	179.5	33.9°
gusty_light	4.042	171.7	32.7°
hot_thin	3.854	163.7	27.6°
storm	5.273	224.0	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 15c422327b08

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.622 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.862 Wh/km
frame mass	174.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 147c162c7115 was a weak performer, so this self-cross was a long-shot bet that a lighter alternative material and a steeper battery wedge could rescue it into contention.

methodSelf-crossover shifted the material blend toward pet_cf (45%, up from 0%) and steepened the battery wedge to 15° from 13.4°, leaving the rest of the geometry unchanged.

result7.622 Wh/km — an improvement over the 7.97 parent but still far off the field, let alone the new 6.552 best-so-far. The underlying arm/plate proportions were the real liability, not the material or wedge; this lineage probably isn't worth further crossing unless paired with a genuinely more competitive geometry parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.953	167.9	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.006	212.7	41.5°
crosswind	4.674	198.5	36.2°
gusty_light	4.448	189.0	34.4°
hot_thin	4.205	178.6	28.6°
storm	5.862	249.0	41.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.98
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 5ed287457f78

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	167.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA from-scratch immigrant probing a chunkier, pinched-waist arm with a much bigger deck gap, betting that a heavier-duty arm root could survive worse gusts even without inherited genes.

methodRandom genome: arms 6% shorter and 6% wider with the waist pinched to 65%, thickened to 8.3 mm, paired with a stiffer CF plate and a wide deck gap.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, a mismatch between arm-root width and the plate's bolt pattern. This defect recurs elsewhere this generation, suggesting arm width and plate width/length need to be sampled jointly for immigrants rather than independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	42.2°
rear sweep	57.4°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	42.8 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 525912aa347b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	150.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 567a47539bb8 (near the old champion) with 7792e42599f3 bet that beefing up the arms with extra material margin could pay for itself in robustness.

methodArm thickness increased to 7.0 mm from 6.0 mm, plate width trimmed about 7%, material blend nudged up, and plate thickness increased slightly.

resultInvalid — the plate web ended up too thin (0.78 mm vs. the 1.90 mm stock minimum), a byproduct of narrowing plate width without compensating thickness enough. This exact failure recurs multiple times this generation; future crosses of these parents should hold plate width fixed whenever thickness is also reduced.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 18764ba12399

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	168.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 155527aa42e6 had decent form; this self-cross bet on a much beefier arm and shorter overall arm length to shift mass inward and cut drag.

methodSelf-crossover thickened the arms to 8.6 mm from 6.2 mm, shortened arm length to about 83%, and widened the plate slightly with a tighter deck gap.

resultInvalid — shortening the arms while props stayed fixed caused the rotor disks to overlap, violating tip clearance. This marks a hard floor on arm-length reduction that's set by prop diameter; any future shrink needs a joint check against rotor clearance before committing to simulation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	8.6 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b24c2b7ec3dc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	201.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the weak 147c162c7115 with the stronger 9f8cb660ef38 bet that widening the arms while narrowing the plate could rescue the weaker parent's contribution.

methodArm width increased to about 1.30x from 1.10x, plate width and length both trimmed roughly 5-6%, and arm thickness reduced to 6.3 mm.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin again (0.85 mm vs. 1.90 mm stock), the same failure mode as 525912aa347b. Narrowing the plate footprint while bumping the thickness multiplier isn't enough to protect the web when arm-root cutouts eat into it; plate width and thickness likely need a coupled constraint check before simulation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×0.99
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	38.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	44.8 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.46
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3acb6f67aff0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant testing a compact deck layout with wide, pinched-waist arms and a lightweight ASA plate, betting a tighter, lighter frame could undercut the leaders on mass alone.

methodRandom genome: arms 7% longer and 30% wider with the waist pinched to 92%, thickened to 5.3 mm, with the deck gap shrunk to 21.6 mm and material switched to ASA.

resultInvalid — deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack, a packaging constraint rather than an aerodynamic one. Deck gap needs a hard floor tied to electronics stack height regardless of how promising the aero genes look; future immigrants should sample it from a range respecting that floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	5.3 mm
front sweep	46.2°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	21.6 mm
battery wedge	11.9°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 13deecb4fddf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	138.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unevaluated/invalid parent with the solid performer 7792e42599f3 was an attempt to salvage useful genes — wider arms and more pet_cf — from a discarded lineage.

methodArm width increased to 1.40x from 1.25x, waist loosened slightly, material blend nudged toward more pet_cf, and rear sweep eased slightly to 46.5°.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure as immigrant 5ed287457f78. Two independent invalids on this exact defect this generation point to wide arm width combined with certain plate proportions as the culprit; that combination should be flagged before simulation rather than discovered after.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	46.5°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 018cf7cf45d5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	139.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack performers, 155527aa42e6 and 9f8cb660ef38, bet that a narrower plate and slightly steeper front sweep could trim drag without disturbing much else.

methodPlate width trimmed to about 94%, front sweep increased slightly to 32.1° from 31.5°, and deck gap opened marginally to 30.3 mm.

resultInvalid — plate web too thin (0.84 mm vs. 1.90 mm stock), the third occurrence of this exact failure this generation. Narrowing plate width appears to be the common thread across all three plate-web invalids; reductions below roughly 95% should be flagged unless plate thickness increases in tandem.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0969790bc7ed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of 8e06d4306a70 bet that a shallower front sweep angle could shave frontal drag while keeping the rest of the proven geometry intact.

methodFront sweep reduced to 30.0° from 31.5° with arm length trimmed marginally to about 1.17x.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a new failure mode distinct from the tongue-miss-bolt issue seen elsewhere. Even a small sweep change rotated the arm roots into collision on this already-tight plate footprint, showing this lineage sits close to a geometric boundary; future tweaks should widen the plate or deck gap before touching sweep angle again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c9aba1081db

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant testing a lightweight pet_cf build with a pinched, thin arm profile, betting that shaving material broadly across arms and plate could undercut the field on power draw.

methodRandom genome: arms roughly unchanged in length but narrowed to 81% width and 79% waist, thickened to 8.4 mm, with thinner plates (0.77x) in pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 mm vs. the 1.6 mm minimum for that material). This is a material-specific constraint: pet_cf needs a higher minimum plate thickness than cf_plate, so future immigrants sampling pet_cf need a higher thickness floor baked into the sampler.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	8.4 mm
front sweep	40.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	4.3°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7792e42599f3new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.886 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.243 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.287 Wh/km
frame mass	139.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisReacting to the failure of scaling everything up, the designer's next bet is the opposite: keep the long arm for prop clearance but slim its width and waist while leaving plate, deck gap, and thickness at safe stock values to avoid any structural violation.

methodArm lengthened 25% like the previous designer try, but width cut to 85% and waist slimmed sharply to 60%, thickness left at stock 6.0mm; sweep, deck gap, and plate thickness all held at stock values, battery wedge flattened to 0°, plate length up a modest 5%, in carbon-fiber plate.

resultNEW WINNER at 6.886 Wh/km, edging out the previous best (6.936) in every single scenario, including storm (5.29 vs 5.32). The long arm evidently helps stability/efficiency while the slimmer width and waist cut mass without breaching any minimum-material constraint - the first sign that 'lean, not scaled' is the right direction. Next idea: push the waist or width slimming a bit further still, watching closely for the plate-web-too-thin failure mode seen in several seeds.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.610	153.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.411	187.4	39.4°
crosswind	4.245	180.3	34.3°
gusty_light	4.051	172.1	32.9°
hot_thin	3.852	163.7	27.7°
storm	5.287	224.6	33.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 155527aa42e6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.901 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.252 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.299 Wh/km
frame mass	142.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisbaac55fb3837 (6.936) needed a small refinement; paired with an unevaluated candidate to explore whether a narrower arm width and slight battery wedge tweak could trim a bit more drag.

methodNarrowed the arm width by 11%, tightened the arm waist by 7%, added a small battery wedge, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber material.

resultValid at 6.901 Wh/km, a small improvement over its known parent baac55fb3837 (6.936) but well short of the generation's new best-so-far of 6.807. The arm-width trim helped modestly across every scenario without a standout win anywhere. Worth testing: apply the same arm-width and waist trim to the new champion lineage (567a47539bb8) rather than the older baac55fb3837 line.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.627	154.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.409	187.3	39.1°
crosswind	4.248	180.5	34.0°
gusty_light	4.061	172.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.869	164.4	27.6°
storm	5.299	225.1	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f8cb660ef38✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.908 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.257 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.301 Wh/km
frame mass	138.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the winning slim-arm insight, the designer asks whether the width/waist slimming alone (without lengthening the arm) captures most of the benefit.

methodArm length left at stock, width and waist both trimmed to 80%, thickness at 6.5mm; sweep held at 34.0°/39.0°, plate and deck gap left at stock, battery wedge steepened to 10°, carbon-fiber plate kept.

resultValid at 6.908 Wh/km - better than the original stock baseline (6.936) in every scenario, but just short of the reigning best-so-far (6.886), so it does not take the lead. This confirms width/waist slimming is the dominant efficiency lever, though the current champion's added arm length still edges it out slightly, suggesting length and slimming compound rather than substitute. Next idea: combine this candidate's width/waist trim with the champion's longer arm to see if the two effects stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.631	154.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.425	188.0	39.1°
crosswind	4.254	180.7	34.0°
gusty_light	4.064	172.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.869	164.4	27.7°
storm	5.301	225.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 74b3739c8c62

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.727 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.752 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.950 Wh/km
frame mass	182.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were weak (89ffb906b148 at 8.479, 9be55419299a at 7.598) but each carried heavy-duty structural traits; the bet was that a lighter material swap could recover efficiency from their combined bulk.

methodThinned the plate slightly, trimmed plate length by 2%, and switched to a lighter pa12_cf material while keeping the arms fairly thick at 9mm.

resultValid at 7.727 Wh/km, a solid improvement over both parents but nowhere near the 6.807 best-so-far. The material swap clearly helped, but the still-thick arms and oversized plate width kept overall mass too high. Worth testing: keep the material swap but shrink arm thickness toward 6-7mm to see how much further this lineage can improve.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.974	168.8	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.098	216.6	42.0°
crosswind	4.741	201.4	36.4°
gusty_light	4.504	191.3	34.7°
hot_thin	4.242	180.2	28.7°
storm	5.950	252.8	42.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.24
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	9.0 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0e87bd2659ae

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.765 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.780 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.970 Wh/km
frame mass	197.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisac6152897717 (7.761) was underperforming broadly; paired with an unevaluated candidate to test whether a wider plate and steeper battery wedge could offset its weaknesses.

methodWidened the plate by 11%, increased the battery wedge to 13.3 degrees, swept the rear arms back further, and shifted toward a heavier material blend.

resultValid at 7.765 Wh/km, essentially unchanged from its weak parent (7.761) and far off the 6.807 best-so-far. None of the changes moved the needle — the frame still carries too much structural mass from the wide plate and thick arms. Worth testing: abandon this heavy-plate direction and instead cross ac6152897717 with the new champion lineage for a bigger structural shake-up.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.050	172.0	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.035	213.9	40.5°
crosswind	4.764	202.4	35.3°
gusty_light	4.544	193.0	33.7°
hot_thin	4.316	183.3	28.2°
storm	5.970	253.6	37.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.9 mm
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 147c162c7115

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.970 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.128 Wh/km
frame mass	211.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (ac6152897717 at 7.761, fb21f27a5a37 at 7.288) were already underperformers; the bet was that combining ac6152897717's stouter arms with fb21's proportions might uncover a hidden sweet spot.

methodWidened the arm waist toward round, increased the battery wedge slightly, thickened the arms marginally, and widened the plate a touch.

resultValid but worse at 7.97 Wh/km, underperforming both parents and far off the best-so-far. Combining two already-weak designs compounded their weaknesses instead of cancelling them, especially visible in storm (6.13) and cold headwind (5.18). Worth testing: stop breeding from ac6152897717 unless paired with a much stronger second parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.162	176.8	26.0°
cold_headwind	5.178	220.0	40.9°
crosswind	4.882	207.4	35.6°
gusty_light	4.657	197.9	34.0°
hot_thin	4.429	188.2	28.4°
storm	6.128	260.3	39.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.98
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c7930fc5ffc6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	150.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisParent fb21f27a5a37 (7.288) ran a wide, draggy arm waist while baac55fb3837 (6.936) was leaner and more compact; the bet was that combining baac's tighter waist with fb21's rear sweep would cut drag further still.

methodSlimmed the arm waist well beyond either parent, swept the rear arms back further, trimmed plate length slightly, and opened the deck gap by a few millimeters.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts no longer land on the main plate, a bolt-pattern miss caused by combining the aggressive waist thinning with the increased rear sweep. This is one of two candidates this generation to hit the exact same failure, pointing to a real design-space wall. Worth testing: cap rear sweep near 45° whenever arm waist drops below about 0.65x to keep the bolt pattern on the plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	50.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 3aa7d17fe4ff

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesis7792e42599f3 (6.886) had margin in its deck clearance, while 59b9a52c15fa (7.127) ran a tighter deck stack; the bet was that pulling the deck gap down would shrink frontal area and drag.

methodShrank the deck gap by roughly 5.5mm, shortened the arms slightly, and nudged arm waist and material blend a touch thinner.

resultInvalid — the tighter deck gap pushed the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack. This is the generation's second clearance-driven failure, suggesting a deck gap below about 25mm isn't survivable at this arm length. Worth testing: pair any deck-gap reduction with a compensating arm-length increase to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	24.5 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8647cb40064a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesis9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) performed well on a lighter material blend, while ac6152897717 (7.761) had struggled; the bet was that a heavier composite plus wider battery wedge might buy stability margin in gusty conditions.

methodShifted the material blend much heavier, thinned the arm from 6.5mm to 5.2mm, widened the front sweep, and opened the arm waist toward round.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin (1.25mm vs a 1.75mm stock minimum), a structural failure from thinning the arm while also shortening the plate. This shows arm-thickness and plate-length changes need a coupled constraint check. Worth testing: hold plate length near parity whenever arm thickness drops below 6mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	38.5°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate be7ac6212cf7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	143.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) probing its own neighborhood, testing whether trimming plate length and lightening the battery wedge could squeeze more efficiency from an already-strong design.

methodShortened the plate by 15%, reduced battery wedge from 10 to 5.8 degrees, lengthened the arms 16%, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber weave.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.11mm against a 1.47mm stock minimum, another structural miss driven by shortening the plate while lengthening the arms. Together with candidate 8647cb40064a's failure, plate-length reduction looks like the common thread behind this generation's web-thickness violations. Worth testing: hold plate length fixed and vary only arm length or material to isolate which change actually drives the efficiency gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate debe542fc520

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of baac55fb3837 (6.936) testing whether shortening the arms and opening the deck gap could cut frontal drag from an already solid mid-pack frame.

methodShortened the arms by 20%, thinned them from 6mm to 4.9mm, opened the deck gap by roughly 4.4mm, and tightened the arm waist slightly.

resultInvalid — the shorter, thinner arms caused the rotor disks to overlap in tip clearance. This is the fourth invalid candidate this generation and the second driven by arm shortening, suggesting arm length below about 0.85x needs a paired widening of plate width to keep rotor centers apart. Worth testing: shorten arms only alongside a wider plate to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.4 mm
battery wedge	3.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c7d45f84f4ce

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected to keep genetic diversity up, exploring a fresh region of the design space unrelated to the current champion lineage.

methodSet arm proportions from scratch with a wider arm width and waist, a steeply swept rear arm, and a lighter pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same bolt-alignment failure seen in candidate c7930fc5ffc6. Two independent lineages (a crossover and a fresh immigrant) hitting this exact constraint suggests wide waist plus aggressive rear sweep is a structural dead end regardless of ancestry. Worth testing: add an explicit bolt-pattern-vs-sweep check to the pre-flight validator so future immigrants don't burn slots on it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×1.25
arm waist	×1.06
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	47.1°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4775089f5490

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	162.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisPairing two of the generation's strongest parents — 9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) and reigning champion 7792e42599f3 (6.886) — betting that thicker arms would add stiffness headroom for a longer, more efficient plate.

methodThickened the arms from 6.5mm to 8.3mm, lengthened the plate by 11%, and shortened the arms by 6%.

resultInvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P, a vibration failure from the thicker, shorter arm shifting its natural frequency into the rotor's first-harmonic band. This shows arm thickness and length are coupled through resonance, not just mass, even when otherwise structurally sound. Worth testing: check arm natural frequency against 1P before increasing thickness further on shortened arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	9.8°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate adb2a0016661

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	154.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 59b9a52c15fa (7.127) probing whether widening the plate and reducing front sweep could recover some of its lost efficiency.

methodWidened the plate by 16%, lengthened it by 9%, reduced front sweep from 34 to 30 degrees, and nearly zeroed out the battery wedge.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap in tip clearance, the same failure mode as candidate debe542fc520. The wider plate didn't compensate enough for the reduced front sweep pulling rotor centers closer together. Worth testing: when reducing front sweep, widen plate width more aggressively or hold arm length steady to preserve rotor spacing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×1.20
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

parents

candidate baac55fb3837new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	6.936 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.274 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.325 Wh/km
frame mass	144.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisAs the very first frame in the study, this candidate has no history to react to; its role is simply to fly the unmodified Source One V6 geometry and establish the reference point every later mutation will be judged against.

methodEvery gene left at its stock value: default arm length, width, waist, and 6.0mm thickness, stock 31.4°/36.0° sweep, stock plate footprint and 30mm deck gap, a mild 2.0° battery wedge, and the stock carbon-fiber plate material.

resultWith nothing to compare it to yet, it trivially becomes the first best-so-far at 6.936 Wh/km, with storm predictably the worst scenario at 5.32. It's a solid, unremarkable control build. Worth testing next: nudge single genes (thickness, width) off this baseline one at a time to map which levers actually move the needle before committing to compound mutations.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.652	155.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.423	187.9	39.3°
crosswind	4.267	181.3	34.1°
gusty_light	4.083	173.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.895	165.5	27.6°
storm	5.325	226.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 59b9a52c15fa✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.127 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.390 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.474 Wh/km
frame mass	149.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tries the opposite length bet from its winning sibling, wondering if a shorter but wider, thicker arm on a low-cost PETG frame could also trim energy use.

methodArm shortened to 90% of stock length but width up 20% and waist widened 10%, thickness raised to 8.0mm; sweep nudged to 34.0°/39.0°, deck gap widened slightly to 32mm, plate thickness up 10%, switched to PETG.

resultValid at 7.127 Wh/km, worse than both the stock baseline and the new best-so-far in every scenario. Shortening the arm didn't pay off once paired with a wider, thicker cross-section and a heavier PETG build - the mass increase dominates any drag savings from the shorter length. Next idea: retest a shortened arm but paired with the slim width/waist recipe from the current winner instead of thickening it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.728	158.4	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.595	195.2	40.1°
crosswind	4.386	186.3	34.8°
gusty_light	4.184	177.7	33.4°
hot_thin	3.975	168.9	28.0°
storm	5.474	232.6	36.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×1.20
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.0 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fb21f27a5a37

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.288 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.486 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.604 Wh/km
frame mass	158.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets on a moderately scaled-up frame with a wider plate and heavier plate stock, hoping the extra structure pays for itself without breaking any constraints.

methodArms lengthened 23% and thickened to 6.5mm, width up 13% with waist trimmed to 80%; sweep raised to 34.8°/44.2°; plate stretched 7% longer and 23% wider, deck gap widened to 31.5mm, battery wedge nearly flat at 0.2°, plate thickness up 36%, in PET-CF.

resultIt came in valid at 7.288 Wh/km, worse than the stock baseline across every scenario (storm 5.60 vs 5.32). The wider, thicker build again added more mass/drag than it saved, landing well short of best-so-far. Next idea: try the same sweep and deck-gap changes but without the 23% plate-width and 36% thickness increases, to isolate whether sweep alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.781	160.6	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.747	201.7	41.0°
crosswind	4.481	190.3	35.5°
gusty_light	4.266	181.2	34.0°
hot_thin	4.035	171.4	28.3°
storm	5.604	238.1	39.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×1.13
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9be55419299a✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.598 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.672 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.851 Wh/km
frame mass	173.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisAs a final check on the opposite extreme, the designer bets that maximizing width, waist, and thickness together for a very stiff ASA build might reduce vibration-driven losses enough to offset the added mass.

methodArm length up 10%, width up 30% (the widest tried), waist widened 20%, thickness raised to 9.0mm (the thickest); plate grew 10%/5% and thickened 40%, deck gap widened to 35mm, battery wedge flattened to 0°, switched to ASA.

resultValid at 7.598 Wh/km, the worst of the designer's candidates and well behind best-so-far in every scenario (storm 5.85). This closes out the generation confirming that mass dominates the energy budget - no over-built, thickened variant has beaten the lean, slim-waisted design. Next idea: focus the next generation's mutations tightly around the current champion's genome (long arm, slim width/waist, stock thickness) rather than exploring more mass-adding variants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.903	165.8	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.997	212.3	41.8°
crosswind	4.679	198.8	36.5°
gusty_light	4.435	188.4	34.5°
hot_thin	4.171	177.2	28.6°
storm	5.851	248.6	42.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	9.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ac6152897717

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	7.761 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.778 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.966 Wh/km
frame mass	196.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisWith no prior generation to learn from, this seed bets that a longer, heavier-duty arm and a much stiffer plate will buy enough stability margin to be worth the extra mass.

methodArms stretched 26% longer and thickened to 6.8mm, width up 10% but the waist pinched 18% slimmer; both sweep angles pushed out to roughly 40°; the plate grew 5% in each dimension and was thickened 42%, sitting on a steeper 10.5° battery wedge.

resultIt landed at 7.761 Wh/km, worse than the stock baseline in every single scenario, worst in storm at 5.97. The added length and heavily reinforced plate clearly cost more in power draw than they returned in robustness, so it stays well behind best-so-far. Next idea: try the longer arm alone, without the 42% plate thickening, to see how much of the penalty came from the plate versus the arm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.050	172.1	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.033	213.8	40.6°
crosswind	4.762	202.3	35.3°
gusty_light	4.541	192.9	33.8°
hot_thin	4.314	183.3	28.3°
storm	5.966	253.4	38.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.82
arm thickness	6.8 mm
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.42
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 89ffb906b148✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.479 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.216 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.527 Wh/km
frame mass	255.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisAs the designer's opening move, it plays it safe on sweep and deck gap (keeping them at stock) while betting that scaling every structural dimension up uniformly would buy stability without tripping any constraint.

methodArm length, width, and waist all scaled up 10-25%, thickness raised to 8.5mm; sweep and deck gap left at stock; plate grew 10% in each dimension and thickened 40%, on a modest 5° battery wedge, in carbon-fiber plate.

resultValid but the worst-performing candidate in the generation at 8.479 Wh/km, trailing baseline in every scenario (storm 6.53). Playing it safe on sweep/deck-gap avoided invalidation, but uniformly overscaling every structural gene piled on mass that the fitness metric punishes directly. Next idea: the designer should treat 'scale everything up' as a dead end and instead try scaling dimensions in different directions (some up, some down) as the next candidate does.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.416	187.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.475	232.6	40.8°
crosswind	5.207	221.2	35.5°
gusty_light	4.955	210.5	33.8°
hot_thin	4.715	200.3	28.2°
storm	6.527	277.3	38.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×1.25
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.5 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8ecbc7aa7d42

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed explores the aggressive end of the drag-reduction space, betting that a sharply swept-back rear arm and a slender arm waist could cut weight and frontal area.

methodWidth grew 18% while the waist was slimmed sharply to 56% of stock and thickness dropped to 4.5mm; rear sweep was pushed way out to 60.2°, plate thickness bumped 21%, and the frame switched to PETG.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue's mounting bolts miss the main plate entirely. The extreme rear sweep combined with the slim waist moved the arm root far enough that it no longer lines up with the fixed bolt pattern. Lesson: rear sweep and waist ratio need to be co-constrained so the tongue geometry stays registered to the plate. Worth testing next: cap rear sweep well below 60° whenever waist ratio drops much under 0.8.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.18
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	60.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6d3cc3001311

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	161.3 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed chases a heavily reinforced, oversized frame, betting that thicker arms and a tougher ASA plate would improve durability margins even at some weight cost.

methodArms lengthened 31% and thickened to 8.5mm, width up 23%; front sweep pushed to 40°; plate footprint shrank slightly (×0.92/×0.87) while deck gap tightened to 21.7mm and plate thickness rose 52%, in ASA.

resultInvalid: the 21.7mm deck gap leaves no room for the FC/ESC stack. Shrinking the plate footprint while thickening the plate itself squeezed the internal deck space below what the electronics need. Lesson: deck gap has a hard floor that must be checked independently of plate size/thickness trade-offs. Next idea: keep deck gap pinned above ~28mm whenever plate footprint is shrunk below stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	8.5 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	34.7°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	21.7 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bed953f57acd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.7 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed tests a compact, high-sweep frame, betting that shorter/narrower arms and pronounced fore-and-aft sweep would cut mass and drag.

methodArms shortened to 78% of stock length and narrowed to 81% width, but waist widened 21%, with sweep pushed to 51.3° front and 45.0° rear; plate grew modestly (×1.04/×1.13), deck gap tightened to 21.5mm, and material switched to ASA.

resultInvalid: same failure mode as the previous candidate — deck gap of 21.5mm is too small for the FC/ESC stack. The combination of compact arms with an enlarged plate again ate into the internal deck clearance. This reinforces that deck gap needs its own explicit floor in the mutation rules. Next idea: treat deck gap as a protected gene that mutation operators can't push below a safe minimum regardless of other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×1.21
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	51.3°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	21.5 mm
battery wedge	5.2°
plate thickness	×1.38
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7cbc2d5ef0dc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets that a shorter, wider arm paired with a lightweight PA12-CF material could shave weight while a thickened plate covers the structural risk.

methodArm length trimmed to 87%, width up 28%, waist widened 20%, thickness reduced to 5.2mm; sweep raised to 33.3°/44.8°; plate width trimmed 7%, plate thickness nominally raised 33%, material switched to PA12-CF.

resultInvalid: the resulting plate web is only 0.66mm, far under the 1.90mm stock minimum. Even though the thickness multiplier looks like an increase, the narrower plate footprint combined with the softer PA12-CF baseline left too little material once mounting cutouts were accounted for. Lesson: a positive plate-thickness multiplier alone doesn't guarantee a safe web — footprint shrinkage can undercut it. Next idea: check computed web thickness directly against the material's minimum rather than trusting the multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×1.28
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	44.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	34.2 mm
battery wedge	6.7°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c49a7137ae88

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.3 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed pushes toward an aggressively lightweight frame, betting that a longer sweep-heavy arm on a thinned ASA plate would still hold together.

methodWidth up 29%, waist widened 13%, thickness cut to 4.6mm; both sweep angles raised toward 48-50°; plate lengthened 17% but plate thickness actually cut to 81% of stock, in ASA.

resultInvalid: plate web comes out at just 0.59mm against the 1.90mm stock requirement. Cutting plate thickness below stock while also stretching the plate's length was always going to starve the web. Lesson: any plate-thickness multiplier under 1.0 is high-risk and should be flagged before simulation. Next idea: exclude sub-1.0 plate-thickness multipliers from future seeds unless paired with a footprint shrink, not a stretch.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.29
arm waist	×1.13
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	48.5°
rear sweep	50.3°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8b125eb28127

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	153.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed tests a near-stock plate thickness combined with a thick, stubby-waisted arm, betting the arm reinforcement alone would be enough margin.

methodArm length and width left close to stock, waist narrowed to 76%, thickness boosted to 8.9mm; sweep raised to 38.6°/41.9°; plate kept close to stock size with thickness nudged just 2% above stock, in PET-CF.

resultInvalid: plate web measures 1.06mm, still well under the 1.90mm minimum despite the thickness multiplier being barely above 1.0. This shows the margin needed is larger than a 2% bump can cover once the waist and sweep changes are factored in. Lesson: plate web sensitivity to waist/sweep combinations is stronger than expected, even when plate genes are almost untouched. Next idea: run a quick web-thickness estimate before committing a seed whenever waist ratio drops under ~0.8.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.76
arm thickness	8.9 mm
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c34eb7329dd8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed explores a long, narrow-plate frame with high sweep, betting that shrinking plate width while keeping decent plate thickness would be safe.

methodArm lengthened 27% but width cut to 78%, waist widened 7%, thickness 5.4mm; sweep pushed to 42.9°/52.1°; plate width cut to 86% of stock while thickness rose 30%, in ASA.

resultInvalid: plate web still only 1.48mm versus the 1.90mm floor, despite a 30% thickness increase. The 14% narrower plate footprint ate more margin than the thickness gain provided. Lesson: narrowing plate width is a bigger risk to web integrity than plate-thickness multipliers can offset. Next idea: keep plate width multiplier close to or above 1.0 whenever plate thickness is also being pushed up, rather than trading one against the other.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	42.9°
rear sweep	52.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	33.6 mm
battery wedge	8.5°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 14d6fcbb04f9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets on the most extreme sweep-and-waist combination yet, hoping a lighter-weight PA12-CF build with only mild plate thickening would still clear constraints.

methodArm length up 12%, width up 26%, waist widened 14%, thickness 6.6mm; sweep pushed hardest of all seeds to 44.2°/54.3°; deck gap widened to 43.4mm, plate thickness raised just 6%, in PA12-CF.

resultInvalid: plate web collapses to just 0.32mm, the thinnest of all the failures, against the 1.90mm requirement. The combination of high sweep, widened waist, and only a token 6% plate-thickness bump left almost no material margin. Lesson: extreme sweep angles compound with waist widening to demand much larger plate-thickness margins than a small percentage increase provides. Next idea: whenever sweep exceeds ~45°, require plate thickness multiplier well above 1.2 as a baseline safety margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.12
arm width	×1.26
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	6.6 mm
front sweep	44.2°
rear sweep	54.3°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	43.4 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

drag to rotate · ⌘-drag pans · scroll to zoom · double-click resets · esc closes

only the evolved parts (deck + arms) are shown · fixed kit hidden

oldest ancestor

this candidate

evolved parts only · the two models rotate and zoom in sync

net change solid color = this candidate · gray ghost = oldest ancestor · fixed kit hidden

only the parts evolution changes are shown, superimposed

lineage trail solid color = this candidate · gray ghosts = every ancestor, fainter = older

the whole lineage superimposed · evolved parts only

solid = current step · gray ghost = next in line · click a thumbnail to morph there · ←/→ step · evolved parts only

the actual scored flight, replayed from simulation telemetry · attitude = thrust vector · rotors at telemetry rpm · drag to orbit

Airloom — run run_20260714_015948

the game board

bolted down — the fixed kit

hard constraints (fitness = ∞, no flight)

the levers — 12 genes

the weather — every candidate flies all of it

the process

the loop

the physics

the audit

generation 21

generation 20

generation 19

generation 18

generation 17

generation 16

generation 15

generation 14

generation 13

generation 12

generation 11

generation 10

generation 9

generation 8

generation 7

generation 6

generation 5

generation 4

generation 3

generation 2

generation 1

generation 0

candidate details & parentage

Airloom — run `run_20260714_015948`