Talk to the FRA

[Scorpionbuilder]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Any change to the weight ruling for shufflebots would have to go to the committee. What we're looking for here is clarification of the definition of a walker so that if anybody decides to build one they can do so & know it wont be classed as a shufflebot

I didn't start this topic with the aim of changing rules per se, I did so because I'd been approached by a team thinking about building a walker and they didn't want turn up to an event, have it classed as a shufflebot & then disqualified for being overweight

John

[grant_ploughbot]

Re: Talk to the FRA

What did robotwars rules say? It would be nice to see a walker be competing well, something like mechadon in a featherweight would look awesome

[Leonardomayo]

Re: Talk to the FRA

something like mechadon in a featherweight would look awesome

I think a baby snake would look better.

[woody]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Here's the RFL's definition.

Non-wheeled: non-wheeled robots have no rolling elements in contact with the floor and no continuous rolling or cam operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage. Motion is €œcontinuous€ if continuous operation of the drive motor(s) produces continuous motion of the robot. Linear-actuated legs and novel non-wheeled drive systems may qualify for this bonus.

[Scorpionbuilder]

Re: Talk to the FRA

As far as Robot Wars stood on the walker issue, I'm not totally sure but I will endeavour to find out. Maybe Jonno could enlighten us as to Derek Foxwell's definition, as he appeared to make the decisions for Mentorn

John

[beast]

Re: Talk to the FRA

What did robotwars rules say?

are we not playing by our rules now ? its RR or RL or RC want or need ?

and if we did we would have active weapons lol

[widow_twanky]

Re: Talk to the FRA

bearing in mind the issue of cost of building onlky to be disqualified etc which has been raised is it not sensible to put a proceedure in place where a mechanism design can be approved eg: three comitee members coming up with a unanamous decision or recommendations for modification or four out of five comitee members saying it's a walker.

[grant_ploughbot]

Re: Talk to the FRA

John L - It's worth looking at what Robot Wars had as a rule because they have probably had more time, and more people to come up with something that works - If we find the rule and it sounds sensible and simple then it's worth using, if not then it might be worth adapting, or as you say make a whole new one.

[woody]

Re: Talk to the FRA

http://members.toast.net/joerger/rules/RW7_rules.html

2.1.2 Legged Robots ('Walkers') can weigh up to 200kgs/441lbs in the Heavyweight class. Walkers that employ a rotary camshaft to actuate feet will not qualify for the weight advantage (shufflebots). No walker must employ any device other than moveable legs to support its weight. No type of rolling or sliding mechanism will be allowed

[beast]

Re: Talk to the FRA

If we find the rule and it sounds sensible and simple then it's worth using, if not then it might be worth adapting, or as you say make a whole new one.

i my book rules are for breaking

[geoff]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Ok, I have been giving this some thought and have read both the RFL and old RW rules on this subject. There are pros and cons with both sets, plus they have large gray areas in them as to what you may be able to get away with.
My personal view, for what it's worth, is any new build rule for walkers needs to be short, sweet and to the point. It should simply state the definition of the 'walking action' I.E how the leg / foot should move in order to propel the machine across the arena. How this action is achieved should be left totally up to the individual builder as anything else would a restriction of innovation.
May I suggest the following....
A walking action is defined as the lifting of one or more legs from the the floor, a forward (or backwards) movement of said leg(s) and a lowering back to the floor, during which time the machine must remain totally supported by it's remaining legs.
If a machine can achieve this action it should be classed as a 'walker' regardless of what mechanism is used to achieve it.

[banana_man]

Re: Talk to the FRA

I agree almost entirely with Geoff, although it should, in my opinion, be clarified that the foot may not move in a circle about a central axis, as without this, a wheel with its tread separated into feet, but otherwise left as normal, could be a walker, meaning that extra weight could be awarded for nothing more than putting notches into a wheel.

[woody]

Re: Talk to the FRA

I suggest a slight modification to define the leg/foot lift ...perhaps something along the lines of ... this action must not follow the arc of a circle.

[geoff]

Re: Talk to the FRA

this action must not follow the arc of a circle.

Nice one Alan, I like that little addition.

[james...venom]

Re: Talk to the FRA

Can it follow an elliptic circle?