Entanglement devices

[FatYucca]

Hi All,

Sorry to dig this subject up again, but after taking a devastating impact form a vertical spinner in Manchester on the 21st, I'd just like to clarify the rule surrounding entanglement devices:

12.2.1 EntanglementEntanglement devices such as nets, fishing line, cables, string, glues or tapes, which require the matchto be stopped and the robots separated. (If this occurs the ‘entangler’ forfeits the match)

It's the "which require the match to be stopped and the robots separated" bit that I'd like clarified. If I was able to deploy a device listed in the rule that did not require the match to be stopped and the robots separated, is that OK?

From the Build your own Robot manual from Haynes, Iron-Awe 6 is detailed as being equipped with pneumatically powered canon to launch entanglement devices. I'm curious if the principle of a deployable device/projectile that is defined as a entanglement device, that is not tethered (or has a method to sever the tether once deployed), is acceptable?

Or was this legalisation only applicable to the Robot Wars series?

Cheers

Alun

[Ocracoke]

I wouldn't have thought so, untethered devices (wherever or not they were entanglement devices) are specifically prohibited under 12.6:

12.6 Untethered Projectiles
Projectiles must have a tether capable of stopping the projectile at full speed and be no longer than 2.5m.

The Robot Wars Series 10 rules say this about entanglement:

14.2 Entanglement
Devices designed specifically to entangle other weapons are permitted under the follow conditions:

14.2.1 Separation
Entanglement devices must not cause two or more robots to be entangled together to the point where a battle requires intervention in order for it to continue.

...but even with that, they still have to have a tether if launched as a projectile under rule 13.5, which reads the same as 12.6 from the FRA ruleset.

[FatYucca]

Hi Ocracoke,

Is there an updated version of the build rules somewhere, I cant see section 13 or 14 in the 2017 edition that I have just down loaded.

I'm not intending of going down the projectile route necessarily, more of a very long 'sticky' fibre to feed into the spinner's axel and jam it up like a hair in a scalextic car axel.

[Maxamuslead]

IMG_20180422_174203.jpg

Tis but a scratch

entanglement devices are a slippy slop i feel. Considering people can already build bots which can tank and beat Spinners already it just something that will take time.

EDIT: Look at Whoops!

[Ocracoke]

Sections 13 and 14 are from the Robot Wars series 10 ruleset.

I'm not intending of going down the projectile route necessarily, more of a very long 'sticky' fibre to feed into the spinner's axel and jam it up like a hair in a scalextic car axel.

I can see where you are going with this. I suppose the question is "does something that is detached from the robot by the opponent rather than fired count as a untethered projectile?" If it does, then it would fall under the remit of 12.6 and thus would likely not be allowed. If it doesn't (and the crucial difference is that it is not fired, rather torn off) then this would be a grey area - there is nothing in the rules (as far as I can see) for weapons that are detached by control (i.e a switch to cause a quick release to unlock for example) or through design, such as a pre determined weak point.

I would possibly err on the side of the controlled release not being allowed in that context given the limited (but useful) use and the rest of the rules specifically prohibit untethered weaponry and I suppose entanglement devices do count in this context. However, those with a predetermined weak point (Donald Thump's or Milly Ann Bug's hair for example where the weak point is where the hair connects to the main body) I would say avoids this but it is definitely a one shot affair. Useful in competition maybe but in melees, potentially getting rid of one spinner won't stop the other four (in the case of Manchester).

Tis but a scratch

Haha, least yours is still in one piece (or near enough - how is it holding up?). Mine is being held together with nothing beyond hope at this point. Could have had use for an entanglement device from that first hit that ripped off the lid.

[FatYucca]

You've damaged your sticker! By the looks of things you got it in to the arena in the end.

[FatYucca]

It's a grey area for sure. Even a sacrificial cluster bot with a net has crossed my mind, but its a risky one shot afair that probably isn't worth the effort of developing.

A bigger spinner is the answer then!

[Maxamuslead]

Haha, least yours is still in one piece (or near enough - how is it holding up?). Mine is being held together with nothing beyond hope at this point. Could have had use for an entanglement device from that first hit that ripped off the lid.

If it had landed in the arena it would of drove out .

You do yourself a disservice you did a great job rebuilding, although i might your curse as both times i have been at the same event as you, your bot was trashed

You've damaged your sticker! By the looks of things you got it in to the arena in the end.

thats Rory's sticker (Aegis) and it was put on right at the start. lasted well. I need to try harder

[Shakey]

It's a grey area for sure. Even a sacrificial cluster bot with a net has crossed my mind, but its a risky one shot afair that probably isn't worth the effort of developing.

A bigger spinner is the answer then!

You rang?



Red was an unused series 3 minibot design using 2 steel cables suspended in the cross, probably wouldn't have really worked, aimed more at verts than horizontals.

[FatYucca]

Shakey, that's interesting.

From observation I got the impression that steel cable was not flexible enough, the tip speed of the spinners just cut it or pushed it away.

However, 2 cluster bots with a net pulled between them driven around either side of a spinner, which then is released once the spinner is ensnared.

[FatYucca]

Maxamuslead, That video is quite impressive!

[James Williams]

Hi Alun. Apart from the latest series of Robot Wars it has been generally accepted rule among the Combat Robot community that there is absolutely no entanglement. There was a controversy in the 2015 Battlebots when one team used a net in a fight because they had noticed that there wasn't a "no entanglement" rule but nobody else noticed (although that could have just been TV drama). So I'm afraid even if you found some way that passed through the rules the loophole would probably be closed pretty quickly.

Having said that however it has got me thinking. If you were to use something like a long HDPE rod with steel hooks attached & jammed it into a spinner's drive mechanism with the intention of either grabbing & stopping the chain/belt would that count as an entanglement device (assuming the chain didn't break)?

[maddox10]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSJr2tVUbdc

[daveimi]

I've moaned about this for years. People can build as big a spinner as they like, but you're not allowed to effectively defend against it. I think it's so the Event Organisers can put on a good show. "Come and see these robots get ripped limb from limb". All you'd have to do in reality is duct tape a bit of duvet cover or nylon rope to the front of your wedge and aim at a spinner. Rather than snag you need to bind the blade at the axle. They won't allow it because it's boring to watch.

[Flag Captured]

I dispute not being able to effectively defend against spinners, in my 5 years of building I’ve never taken substantial damage from a spinner, even having fought some of the most damaging ones in each class (barring heavyweights).

Defending against spinners really isn’t as difficult as a lot of people seem to make out. That said, I wouldn’t mind seeing more clever ways of entanglement, but nets etc would be painfully boring and quite unsporting to be honest.