Talk to the FRA

so just to be clear.. what advantage would a shuffle bot get... if any.

aka drillzilla / whyachi type mechanisms.

For one, the amount of actual traction on the floor. Drillzilla had such a large footprint on both sides, the gripping surface area on the 4 plates that are in contact with the ground at any one point would be like having 8 wheels worth (just as an example), and they can still have the effectiveness of a rotating wheel in terms of speed (look at how fast Drillzilla moves)

... i meant the weight advantage Dave

Currently, none. Although Craig and I were discussing that there could be a 25-50% weight increase for shuffler walkers and a full 100% for what would be defined as a 'true' walker (which, IMHO, is a walker that displays a walking ability comparible to an animal, insect or human)

Does the FRA have a proposal for the walker rules?

Hi James,

There is currently no proposed change to the existing rule.

2.2.
Legged Robots [Walkers] can weigh up to twice the specified weight in all classes. A
walker must employ moveable legs to support its weight. Robots with rolling or sliding
mechanisms will not be classified as walkers.

However we are more than open to suggestions on how the definition of a walker can be better defined.

I think that it should be that if the input to the system turns continuously it's a shuffler regardless of what mechanism you use to walk.

This was mentioned before and I agree with it aswell. It should not matter then if the leg moves in a ellipse, rectangle, moonwalk or whatever. But 2 linear motions should not be combined together to create a cam motion (for example the pistons in a car engine).
I have been wondering if a leg should always be operated by 2 mechanisms which are not a continuously rotating motion. As it seems most lickely to me that you would need atleast 2 linak's or cilinders to move leg in forward/backwards and sideways direction to prevent a tank style type of steering. I would concider a tank style way of steering a walking robot to be a shuffle bot aswell.

BTW, can I claim the name Johnnie for a legged robot, or is it already used?

I think that it should be that if the input to the system turns continuously it's a shuffler regardless of what mechanism you use to walk.

I would like to put this one to bed for good.

If you use this argument for walkers what motive force is left? The answer is some type of ram or cylinder,
There are 3 types pneumatic, Hydraulic or electric

1/ Pneumatic how much compressed air do you think it would take to run a robot round the arena fighting for 3 minutes? more than a double weight robot can take, that's for sure. EO's think of the cost!!!
2/ Hydraulic. How slow do you want this robot?
3/ Electric this one I like! I think that it should be that if the input to the system turns continuously what do you think the ram is powered by ......... a motor :crazy:
At what point do you think this continually rotating rule should come in to place???

The idea is daft, sorry! :shock:

It won't work, it won't promote diverse types of robots. For example in the last show at Kidderminster how many robots weren't flippers? how about making a rule flippers are only allowed 1kg of gas ( I'm not serious but you get the idea it is not practical)

The dirth of Walking Robots that meet the current criterion is proof positive that it's not practical to build to the current rule.

I believe that the rules should be changed to allow / encourage Roboteers to make a legged robot as opposed to a walking robot.

Perhaps a different legged category can be created.

Regards Woody


Edit ... Re :- The continually rotating rule .

It's fairly simple to negate the advantage of continious motor drives by adding this to the rules ...
The drive motor must reverse at least once during any complete leg cycle... as it would in an electric actuator / ram design.

I'm NOT advocating any such rule change .. just simply pointing out the answer.

I believe the current rule supports this quite well and is fairly open to interpretation.