Announcement

**Eventorizon** · 13 April 2013, 08:35

I personally want to know of the mechanism used by Anarchy and Scuttle can be counted as a walker as it is one of the simpler mechanisms that can be easily built. Under the current rules it would count as a shuffle bot as the mechanism is driven by a single motor each side and basically operates on a series of cams. But it was allowed in Robotwars once so why not again?

**Max** · 13 April 2013, 09:22

I would say that the rules mean you must be able to make the legs move up bad down without moving forwards and backwards and then must do the opposite making them move forward and backwards. However I don't think you have to make each leg act independently- you can have motor to make all the legs move up and down at different times and then another motor for each side to control forward and backwards- you then just need some complicated electronic jiggerypokary to make the legs co-ordinate to move in the correct manner.
I personally feel that both of Craig's robots should be allowed (although I believe he has no desire fight with them?) and they clearly are walking and look very cool but I understand by allowing mechanisms like that it could be easy to take advantage of the rule and make something that is barely a walker to qualify for the weight advantage.

**Bacon Wizard** · 13 April 2013, 10:09

I agree that cam-based bots aught to be given a small weight advantage (I think you suggested 25%?)

ANY walker, even cam-driven, immediately suffers from half-speed compared with the same motion applied as wheels. (Because a foot must move back and forwards to produce one forward motion) not including other losses in efficiency from the mechanism. Anarchy has a top speed of 5mph.

The weight allowance is there to compensate walkers somewhat and encourage people to build them. So you don't immediately change the rules the second that someone manages to build one that isn't a complete waste of time.

I personally have no problem with the idea that full weight allowance requires separate motion in 2 axis (min) though.

**typhoon_driver** · 13 April 2013, 13:16

I consider walkers any machine that exhibits the following,

- The entire weight of the machine is supported at all time (no hoppers)
- The legs are made of more than a single piece of metal, ie a leg like you have yourself made up of two separate sections
- The upwards and forwards motions come from two separate mechanisms

I don't like the mechanisms in scuttle as if you take off the legs, it could still in theory run along the ground on the gears

**calumco** · 13 April 2013, 13:19

I think the rules on walkers are too strict, to the point where there isn't much point in making one for combat purposes. Personally I'd class anarchy how ever spelt from s6 as a walker, and think that it was silly for the rules to be changed and for it to become banned. As far as I can see its got legs and walks, its almost like turning up to a race with a reliant Robyn and saying its got 3 wheels so its not like a propper car. I think cam mechanisms are still technically a walker, but would be interested in finding out who changed the rules on it and why. And 1000th post wooo!!!

**Eventorizon** · 13 April 2013, 15:50

I had forgotten that scuttle finished its first event on its wheels after its legs disintegrated... Though the gears would be no where near the floor if you wanted a decent stride length so if they did get lopped off then you wouldn't be able drive on them.

**Max** · 13 April 2013, 16:13

Would it count as a walker if you could make the leg go in an pendulum motion and then independently can make the leg go up and down?

**Bacon Wizard** · 13 April 2013, 16:24

I hope so.. that's my current plan :-/

**typhoon_driver** · 13 April 2013, 17:23

And that differs from scuttle how?

**Bacon Wizard** · 13 April 2013, 17:53

Originally posted by typhoon_driver View Post

I consider walkers any machine that exhibits the following,

- The entire weight of the machine is supported at all time (no hoppers)
- The legs are made of more than a single piece of metal, ie a leg like you have yourself made up of two separate sections
- The upwards and forwards motions come from two separate mechanisms

I don't like the mechanisms in scuttle as if you take off the legs, it could still in theory run along the ground on the gears

In that case we would need a new category which is "runner", since running is a different gait performed by walking creatures for efficiency at higher speeds whereby the weight of the animal/bot is NOT supported at all times.

Walking is controlled falling. Running is controlled bursts of flying and landing.

I certainly think that if the running gear could perform as for wheels, then it's not a true walker.

I think we should bear in mind that the regs were not put in place to prevent people from building walkers. They were there, along with the weight concession, to ENCOURAGE it. But we do need to make sure people are not exploiting loopholes just to get the extra weight "advantage" certainly.

**Bacon Wizard** · 13 April 2013, 18:14

Originally posted by typhoon_driver View Post

And that differs from scuttle how?

By not being cam-driven at all, but with separate freedoms of motion.

**typhoon_driver** · 13 April 2013, 18:54

I'd need to see plans to make sense of it

I wouldn't have an issue with a 25% increase in weight for a shuffler/hopper/pure non rotary. But for a 100% increase in weight I want to see a full on walker. Not something that just skirts around the rules

Bear in mind that in a feather you are getting an additional 13.6kg. That is a huge weight increase and a good weight to allow you to build a rugged chassis and mechanism. Then you have the rest for a weapon!

**craig_colliass** · 13 April 2013, 19:11

Really good comments Guys,

Now I want your interpretation on the rules as written in the book.

My views so far.

1/ A walker must employ moveable legs to support its weight.

Dose this mean the only thing to touch the ground are the legs or feet? I would think so.

2/ Each leg must have at least 2 degrees of freedom.

There are 6 mechanical degrees of freedom available, how can you prove this on a robot? my test would be adjustment, the machine should have the capacity to, for instance adjust stride length or Height of any leg independent of each other.

3/ Robots with rolling or sliding mechanisms will not be classified as walkers.
4/ Walking such as linear actuator operated legs.

I have grouped these together as at first they seem to contradict each other! A "linear actuator" IS "a sliding mechanism" the only way I can make sense of this is to assume the rolling or sliding is referring to the bit that touches the ground you can't have 12 boots stuck on a wheel and call it a walker, or have a foot that doesn't ever leave the ground. the "such as a linear actuator" seems to be an example of what they mean. Or dose it mean you have to use linear actuators?
I can't think this is so for 2 reasons, Firstly if this is true this is the only time in the rules they dictate design. Secondly this rule would make combat robots too expensive for anyone to run in a combat environment. you would have to have a lot of spare linear actuators to make this work.

remember we are trying to find a path through the rules that are there to encourage walkers in the community so lets keep this positive.
Thanks

Craig

**Bacon Wizard** · 13 April 2013, 19:32

*nips off to go and check what it says for Number 4*

Announcement

What is a walker?

What is a walker?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment